Don Rosa video interview

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

Postby Rockerduck » Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:55 pm

pasoleati wrote:Just one question: has there been a sudden emergence of mind reading capable people as so many of you seem to know exactly what went on in Barks´s head when did his stuff?

No, we just look at what Barks says in interviews, how he reacts to questions about family trees and relations. The fact that he provided Rosa with a family tree sketch, "so what", was because Rosa asked for it. Rosa could have gone through his own copy of the Carl Barks Library to find out, but he rather let Barks do the work. Barks did it to *help* Rosa, not because he was so into it.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Jimbo » Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:16 am

Pasoleati, you are absolutely right, people are trying to read minds and find things outside facts.

Rockerduck wrote:Rosa could have gone through his own copy of the Carl Barks Library to find out, but he rather let Barks do the work. Barks did it to *help* Rosa, not because he was so into it.

Buddy, you obviously don't know a squat about the whole thing. You just think you do.

When Rosa was asked by Egmont to do that family tree, it was Barks who wanted to make sure it was true to HIS vision. Barks made two NEW trees for that project - and without anyone asking him to. He also made photocopies of "Race to the South Sea" to explain Rosa error he made in that story.

Rosa was well aware of original Barks family tree and had it years before his career. He didn't slack by making Barks do his work. Barks WANTED to collaborate.


Rockerduck, you are not Rosa or Barks, I sincerely doubt you know either of them and you most obviously have no knowledge about the correspondece about the family tree. So, do us a favor and try not to get in their minds. Do you realize that this forum is read by comic professionals and people who actually knew Barks? Keep that in mind next time you think you can make those guesses of yours.
Jimbo
 

Postby Rockerduck » Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:58 pm

Jimbo, you are just a Rosa-fanboy who is brainwashed into believing it was all Barks' wish, so that puts Rosa's efforts into a better light. You see that a lot with Rosa-fanboys. They'll believe all the fairy-tales circulating over the Internet about how Barks and Rosa were on one line about the Ducks. Wake up and smell the coffee: they weren't. Barks said about Rosa's work on revealing the Ducks' history: "I wish he hadn't done it."

It wasn't Barks' wish to have a Rosa-family tree that reflected his vision. There have been many Duck family trees published, both as illustrations and parts of actual comic stories long before Rosa began working on his tree. None of them had Barks involved in it. (Only Mark Worden's family tree was based on Barks' 1950s sketch.) It's an illusion to think all of a sudden, when *Rosa* is involved, Barks suddenly also wanted to be. Rosa wrote Barks to ask to help him, not the other way around.

Barks made a new tree, then Rosa send him a copy of Barks' first tree, which Barks had lost, and then Barks combined the two of them and made a third one. Rosa keeps this third tree to himself, nobody has seen it. Why is he being so secretive about it? Maybe Rosa's tree doesn't reflect Barks' ideas too much after all?

Also note that, when looking at Bark's second tree (the first one he drew for Rosa), you can see that Barks had a different idea about how Donald was related to Gus Goose. Also, Rosa had to include Fethry Duck. Those two things alone make that Rosa's tree is *not* Barks' vision. And then Rosa said he wanted to include Ludwig von Drake as Mathilda's husband, but he was veto-ed from everybody, including Carl Barks. Another example of Rosa's vision not matching Barks'.

But in the end, it is clear Barks was not into analyzing his work to pieces, like Rosa, or making family trees. That sketch he made in the 1950's was only for his own reference, and he carelessly gave it away to a fan, and his 1990 trees were made at the request of Rosa. Barks *helped* Rosa out.
http://goofy313g.free.fr/calisota_onlin ... ks.html#v1

And your last lines, Jimbo, made me laugh very hard. The sheer arrogance and pretending you know everything better than me, and pretending I know nothing about this subject is just laughable. Here comes a Rosa-fanboy telling me that I don't know nothing, while I'm certainly very much closer to the truth than you are. Check my link for a fact, or try to disproove my information, instead of complain and act like professionals would value your nonsense more tha my knowledge.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:21 pm

Jimbo wrote:When Rosa was asked by Egmont to do that family tree, it was Barks who wanted to make sure it was true to HIS vision.

Then why is Rosa's Family Tree a fiasco in being true to Barks? Despite the help of Barks? Even the name of Scrooge's father is different.

Don Rosa, mid-1990s, about his Life of $crooge:
"At the same time, this version of $crooge's life is not the "official" version... there's no particular reason why I or anyone else should expect other Duck writers to adhere to my vision of $crooge's history, as carefully and authentically as I sought to construct it... it was never intended to be anything but my personal telling of the Life of $crooge McDuck."
http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/a/danshane/scroopage/Intro.htm

Why would Barks bother such a fan at all? Rosa proudly wants it the Rosa-way. Despite Barks. The portions of Barks correspondence that got published, give the impression that Barks was communicating with a wall. Rosa wanted to do it in his own personal way, despite the help and advices of Barks. And you can just see it in the results, both with Rosa's Life of $crooge and with the Rosa Family Tree.

Jimbo wrote:Barks made two NEW trees for that project - and without anyone asking him to. He also made photocopies of "Race to the South Sea" to explain Rosa error he made in that story.

So if Barks voluntary helped Rosa with his projects, this can now be used to make Barks part of the Rosa success-story? Without any proof or sources? Just because our buddy Jimbo says so?
I've also tried to help Rosa with Barks references, on DCML, even though I stronlgy dislike Rosa's work methods. Does this mean that my voluntary help can be misused as if I was agreeing?

Jimbo wrote:Rockerduck, you are not Rosa or Barks, I sincerely doubt you know either of them and you most obviously have no knowledge about the correspondece about the family tree.

The correspondence about the family tree is only partly known because Don Rosa keeps it as private correspondence. Other artists share their Barks sources with the public. 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.

Interestingly, in 1993, mindreader Rosa has complained about the correspondence. This was around the time of creating his Rosa Family Tree.

Don Rosa on DCML, 16 June 1993, refering to the Atlanta incident:
"My whole incognito idea is based on the fact that Barks does NOT like f~?~?~?~?~?~?~?~?~?o me. For whatever his reason, he has always treated me VERY coldly in our correspondence, and (I've discovered) told everyone that he is very angry with what I do to his characters, how I don't treat them even remotely accurately, and many other remarks which it would be very easy to characterize as malicious lies. I can't figure him out, but I've gotten used to it after 6 years and I accept it."

I guess Jimbo himself is trying to read Barks's and Rosa's minds for us, without mentioning any sources at all. And the already available sources show that Barks and Rosa are worlds apart.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Jimbo » Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:31 pm

Buddy, its your sheer arrogance that is receiveing the reply it deserves. Your habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with your vision as a "Rosa-fanboys" and how they behave like some special group just shows that you are truly ignorant person. There are loads and loads of people who like most artists. I personally like many artists including Rosa and Barks and that surely as heck does not make a fanboy of anyone. You seem to think you are above everyone that likes Rosa, and while basking in this newfound glory you succeed in making Barks to look like an idiot as well. Congratulations.

What you are really doing here is taking some unconnected quotes from Barks and try to build a theory based on them. You are like those conspiracy-theorists who think Jesus has a bloodline in French aristocracy or that UFOs are capturing our cattle. Sure, its fun to come up things but in your search to achieve a certain conclusion you just ignore everything that speaks against you.

You say you are closer to truth than I am. What is this truth? I am not biased toward Rosa anymore than I am for Barks. You just want to say that whatever Rosa did or does is against how Barks did or intended. That is your opinion and it will never become more than that. Have the decency to honor other people´s opinions as well, lumping them all as "Rosa-fanboys" is really immature and hardly makes you look like acknowledgeable.

I am sure that Barks did not approve everything Rosa did, but he surely could appreciate a great deal of it. You and Daniel should both see that its not as black and white as you made to be. I would not go as far as to say that Barks was friends with any later artists, but certainly he knew many of them for years and during those times relationship can vary from warm and friendly to less friendly depending on many factors. You just want to pick up the most unfortunate time of their relationship to meet your ends. I can see them as humans who can get along with some ups and downs. You just don´t like Rosa´s methods and therefore try to find things to bolster that. Is it that hard to just say "I don´t like the guy"? Its all very acceptable, more power to you. What gets to people, is the way you belittle everyone whose opionions differs from yours by lumping them to a group of inferior people... "Rosa-fanboys" who "typically do this and that". Use the words "I personally think" instead of "Barks obviously thought" and you´ll get much nicer replies.

"Rosa could have gone through his own copy of the Carl Barks Library to find out, but he rather let Barks do the work." --- just sheesh! Well, your trolling attempt surely was a huge success. Shame on me.
Jimbo
 

Postby Jimbo » Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:43 pm

Daniel73 wrote:I guess Jimbo himself is trying to read Barks's and Rosa's minds for us, without mentioning any sources at all. And the already available sources show that Barks and Rosa are worlds apart.

So, you found a quote where Rosa criticizes Barks. You want me to come up with quote where Rosa praises Barks? Do I really have to? Do you have any idea how many I could dig up compared to this one? Well, I can see both sides of both persons, I can see that situations and opinions change during years. You just cling to this one idea. Whose OPINIONS are closer to reality is up to the readers of this thread.
Jimbo
 

Postby Rockerduck » Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:02 pm

Jimbo wrote:Buddy, its your sheer arrogance that is receiveing the reply it deserves. Your habit of lumping together everyone who disagrees with your vision as a "Rosa-fanboys" and how they behave like some special group just shows that you are truly ignorant person.

Am I an ignorant person? I have seen Barks' famly tree sketches, I've read Rosa's DCML-rantings about his correspondance with Barks. I know the third Barks sketch is hidden from the public by Rosa. I have read for a fact that it was Rosa who asked Barks to help him out. Barks made his 1990's sketches *at request* from Rosa.

So am I an 'ignorant' person? Or are you ignorant, for not only dismissing all this information, that can be found on the Internet (I provided links, so did Daniel), but also not replying to my arguments. Rather, you choose to attack me personally, in a very long rant. You could've adressed the points I made, but you rather demonise me as someone who "makes Barks look stupid". I think the only persons who make Barks look stupid, are the ones who believe in the fairy-tale that Barks himself actively started the whole familytree thingy. Despite all the facts me and Daniel have brought up.

And yes, I'm sorry to say so, but I've seen that kind of behaviour from so many Rosa-fans that I cannot say anything else but: this is typically for Rosa-fanboys.

Jimbo wrote:"Rosa could have gone through his own copy of the Carl Barks Library to find out, but he rather let Barks do the work." --- just sheesh! Well, your trolling attempt surely was a huge success. Shame on me.

Before you go on insulting me personally, try to disproove this statement of mine. Is that statement false? I don't think so.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:05 pm

Jimbo wrote:
Daniel73 wrote:I guess Jimbo himself is trying to read Barks's and Rosa's minds for us, without mentioning any sources at all. And the already available sources show that Barks and Rosa are worlds apart.

So, you found a quote where Rosa criticizes Barks. You want me to come up with quote where Rosa praises Barks? Do I really have to? Do you have any idea how many I could dig up compared to this one? Well, I can see both sides of both persons, I can see that situations and opinions change during years. You just cling to this one idea. Whose OPINIONS are closer to reality is up to the readers of this thread.

I've read many, many more e-mails in which Rosa slanders Barks. And how does an e-mail where Rosa praises Barks make up for one single e-mail in which he smears the Master?
Notice also, that most of the praises came *after* Rosa got his way and was allowed to visit Barks in 1997.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:50 pm

Jimbo wrote:What you are really doing here is taking some unconnected quotes from Barks and try to build a theory based on them. You are like those conspiracy-theorists who think Jesus has a bloodline in French aristocracy or that UFOs are capturing our cattle. Sure, its fun to come up things but in your search to achieve a certain conclusion you just ignore everything that speaks against you.

At least Rockerduck and I do use sources and quotes. Jimbo, you just build up a story on your emotions and opinion. Is that a good way of researching?
I agree that quotes and sources should be seen in perspective. People can investigate the quotes and sources themselves. And I welcome them to investigate.

Jimbo wrote:Have the decency to honor other people´s opinions as well, lumping them all as "Rosa-fanboys" is really immature and hardly makes you look like acknowledgeable.

There are a lot of fanboys who just believe whatever Rosa claims about Barks. Just take a look around on the internet. I have a hard time in taking people serious who just copy someone else's opinion, as happens in such cases. And when Rosa is bragging about how Barkish he is, people should at least think of the possibility that it's self-promotion.
There are Rosa-fanboys who just take Rosa's words for the holy truth. How can I show respect to such people if they belittle their own intelligence, by just following a pied piper blowing his whistle?

Jimbo wrote:I am sure that Barks did not approve everything Rosa did, but he surely could appreciate a great deal of it. You and Daniel should both see that its not as black and white as you made to be.

Rockerduck and I mention facts as reply to already existant black and white stories. Especially Rosa himself already has told black versions and white versions. Barks was an "evil genius", and then Barks suddenly was great again after letting Rosa in. Don't blame the audience for getting confused by such contradicting tunnel-vision accounts.

Jimbo wrote:You just want to pick up the most unfortunate time of their relationship to meet your ends.

For years it was the only story circulating, and still Rosa-fanboys ask about it. One could say that it's Rosa himself who picked up the most unfortunate time of Barks to meet his ends.

Rosa himself should have known that Barks was being exploited. Rosa himself pointed at it. Then why bother Barks about some misunderstanding caused by Hamilton? Why destroy other people's fun in meeting Barks in Europe, by suggesting that Barks is jealous of Rosa?
This has made quite an impression on people, and it still does. It's both historical and hysterical. Rosa the fanboy demanding attention from his idol Barks. The fact that Barks later invited Rosa, only fuels the thought that fortune favours the bold. Or, as we say in The Netherlands: a bold person has half the world.

Jimbo wrote:I can see them as humans who can get along with some ups and downs. You just don´t like Rosa´s methods and therefore try to find things to bolster that. Is it that hard to just say "I don´t like the guy"?

It's not a matter of disliking a guy. I think Rosa is a smart man in getting his way through. Maybe Barks himself could take an example of that. If an editor does something Rosa dislikes, they get punished. Rosa is the first to have some commercial succes himself as Disney free-lancer, by getting his name onto publications and being payed for that. Rosa can be quite a manager himself. And Rosa's spare-time marketing has resulted in getting more attention than Barks, on internet. That's quite an effort. Somehow I feel respect for that, commercially speaking.

Jimbo wrote:Its all very acceptable, more power to you. What gets to people, is the way you belittle everyone whose opionions differs from yours by lumping them to a group of inferior people... "Rosa-fanboys" who "typically do this and that".

Have you seen Rosa's replies to Barks-fanboys? It's Rosa himself who got polemic about Barks and Rosa, and about Disney in general.

Jimbo wrote:"Rosa could have gone through his own copy of the Carl Barks Library to find out, but he rather let Barks do the work." --- just sheesh!

Considering Rosa's lack of knowlegde on Barks, it's hard to imagine that Rosa himself has done much research. People had to remind Rosa of missing facts. And on DCML. Rosa has asked readers to list Barks-references for some stories. That raises the question how much Rosa investigated himself, and how much is in fact other people's work.

As far as I know, 'Life of $crooge' is based on an already existant biography, by Jack Chalker. That biography lists Scrooge-facts from the 'Uncle Scrooge' comics. That must have been easy researching, with such a book. Maybe it's a reason why Rosa didn't use Penny Wise, as she appeared in a 'Walt Disney Comics and Stories'.

Don Rosa, mid-1990s, about his Life of $crooge, in the 'IntroDUCKtion to The Life and Times of $crooge McDuck':
"The why of it all? Jack Chalkers, a science-fiction writer, once devised his own version of $crooge's life based on facts found in the first 70 issues of UNCLE $CROOGE comics in a pamphlet titled AN INFORMAL BIOGRAPHY OF $CROOGE MCDUCK. I'd read that piece and thought it was a great bit of storytelling and a loving tribute to the Old Master's characters. Yet I never intended to undertake such a project myself until mid 1991 when certain Disney-licensee "politics" compelled my publisher (Egmont) to ask me to write and draw a series of stories about the Life of $crooge McDuck. Why me? $crooge isn't my character, no matter how much I might love him. *I* have no right to decide what his early life may have been like. So, the first thing I did was list all those obscure "Barksian facts" about $crooge which all we Duck fans have long been aware of. Next I assembled these facts into a timeline, then broke that timeline down into 12 logical segments, each dealing with one period of $crooge's life as already described by Mr.Barks. And since, as I said, $crooge is no more my property than that of any other Duck fan, I sent copies of this chart to noted Duck fans around the world for their comments and help."
http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/a/danshane/scroopage/Intro.htm
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:24 pm

Jimbo wrote:So, you found a quote where Rosa criticizes Barks. You want me to come up with quote where Rosa praises Barks? Do I really have to? Do you have any idea how many I could dig up compared to this one?

So I can just say that someone is an "evil genius", as long as I write many praising emails?

And what is praising? I recall many Rosa emails that praised Barks, but which were in fact just about Rosa, Rosa and Rosa himself. Worse examples are the ones in which Rosa plays spokesman for Barks, telling that Barks must have had a bad day when Rosa disagrees about stuffed ducks. Is that praising?
Rosa made many changes and holes when using Barks-references. Rosa rejected a lot of Barks work. Apparently, Barks needed a lot of improvement before getting praised by Rosa.

Jimbo wrote:Well, I can see both sides of both persons, I can see that situations and opinions change during years. You just cling to this one idea. Whose OPINIONS are closer to reality is up to the readers of this thread.

Situations and opinions change, yes. A good biographer should pay attention to both present and past. Furthermore, the positive/negative way Rosa wrote about Barks, tells a lot about fan behaviour and heirship. I think it's interesting as a social matter on itself.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Daniel73 » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:27 pm

Rockerduck wrote:Notice also, that most of the praises came *after* Rosa got his way and was allowed to visit Barks in 1997.

August 12, 1998. According to 'Uncle Scrooge' 317.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Jimbo » Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:01 pm

Daniel73 wrote:Then why is Rosa's Family Tree a fiasco in being true to Barks? Despite the help of Barks? Even the name of Scrooge's father is different.

You say it yourself. It was 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.

Daniel73 wrote:Don Rosa, mid-1990s, about his Life of $crooge:
"At the same time, this version of $crooge's life is not the "official" version... there's no particular reason why I or anyone else should expect other Duck writers to adhere to my vision of $crooge's history, as carefully and authentically as I sought to construct it... it was never intended to be anything but my personal telling of the Life of $crooge McDuck."

There it is again. It says basically "this my vision, you use yours".


Daniel73 wrote:Rosa proudly wants it the Rosa-way. Despite Barks. The portions of Barks correspondence that got published, give the impression that Barks was communicating with a wall. Rosa wanted to do it in his own personal way, despite the help and advices of Barks. And you can just see it in the results, both with Rosa's Life of $crooge and with the Rosa Family Tree.

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. 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.



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.

It was Rockerduck's original comment that Rosa let Barks do his work instead of looking into it himself that originated my reply. 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.


Daniel73 wrote:I've also tried to help Rosa with Barks references, on DCML, even though I stronlgy dislike Rosa's work methods. Does this mean that my voluntary help can be misused as if I was agreeing?

Why would it mean a thing? If you provide someone else's quote that hardly tells anything about you, its just pointing to a readily available information.

What is this misuse anyway? Is it like say... someone posting for years someone else's quotes in every possible disney-list, taking them out of their context and using them to make that someone look bad?



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.


Daniel73 wrote:I guess Jimbo himself is trying to read Barks's and Rosa's minds for us, without mentioning any sources at all. And the already available sources show that Barks and Rosa are worlds apart.

You just interpret sources. There are loads of sources to backup any view one chooses to. I prove it to you, lets play a game. I pick up some public quotes by DCML show how they prove anything I wish them to:

DCML 11. May 1994: "I'm a devoted fan of Carl Barks and Don Rosa. I'm very pleased with the fact that Rosa is a member of this list."

Writer clearly likes Rosa being on the list. Being devoted means he worships Rosa and all he does.

Same message: "It's a pity that Barks is so negative about your duck-stories, I could only think of two reasons why he is. 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. 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. 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."

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.

"For me, the only thing I can say is: Keep up doing your stories like you want to do them."

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.


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.

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.

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? 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.
Jimbo
 

Postby Rockerduck » Sat Aug 26, 2006 8:08 pm

You could search for old quotes from me too, Jimbo. You'll find plenty of quotes where I hail Don Rosa and I dismiss any criticism about his work. But I've grown. I've learned the truth about Rosa and his stories. I read all those dcml-remarks in which Rosa insults everybody, from Barks to Van Horn to Rota and Disney and even threatens readers. I discovered Rosa's Goldie-stories have nothing to do with Barks' original "Back to the Klondike". I discovered Rosa said "to hell with" Miss Penny Wise and 'The magic hourglass', two fabulous Barks-stories. And I learned some of his tories were based on giant plot-holes and unlogic and impossible elements, like 'Letter from home' or 'Lost charts of Columbus'. His 'Life of Scrooge' is far from complete, but Rosa keeps insisting it is.

Now, am I also a "fan who didn't get his way"? Are all people who dislike Rosa's behaviour and stories people who "didn't get their way"? Do you really think it's that simple? You think you can dismiss all criticism just by that? Why shoot down the messenger, instead of the message? Concentrate on what someone wrote, and not who wrote it. So Daniel used to be a Rosa-fan, so what? Does that mean all his criticism is unjust? People gow, Jimbo, and opinions change when you get more knowledge and insight.

You just gave the most important reason for me to dislike Rosa: he just picks from Barks' stories whatever he wants. But what does he do? He brags his 'Life of Scrooge' contains *all* Barksian facts about Scrooge (except for some contradictory data). Only if you bring up Penny Wise of the Hourglass yourself, Don Rosa will admit to have scrapped them. And why did he scrap them? He never comes with a good answer. In the case of Penny Wise, he just says Barks was having a bad day or the story doesn't ring true and the editor changed something (which isn't true). In the case of the Hourglass, Rosa says Scrooge's character wasn't fully developed so he had to ognore that story. But Rosa did use much earlier stories like 'Christmas on Bear Mountain' and 'Voodoo Hoodoo'. So all he does is shooting down Barks classics that are way better than anything he ever wrote, but still pretend to be the Barks-fan number 1 who knows everything best.

But Rosa says it's all his personal view and opinion and he forces nobody to accept it. Yet in every article that is printed about the Rosa-stories, he's named as the one and only Barks-heir, his fans parrot that all alike and put it on thwir numerous websites. People start talking about the 'Barks-Rosa universe' or 'Rosa-Barks universe'. Artists like Rob Klein who want to make a story about Scrooge's youth are forbidden to do so by their editors, because it might conflict with Rosa. 'The magic hourglass' is turned into a firecamp-story by publisher Gladstone and Bill van Horn, because they don't want to upset their Rosa-fans. And what does Rosa do with his 'personal opinion' to stop it? Nothing! While he has made it very clear on dcml that he can be very active and verbal when there's something going on he doesn't like, he never does anything to prevent the above mentioned things to happen.

And then there are these Rosa e-mails from dcml in which he smears Barks. He calls him an "evil genius"! And that's not the only thing. Rosa constantly bashes Barks stories and even his paintings, even when nobody asked his opinion!

Don Rosa, 3 september 1993, on DCML:
Had I told you that I was visiting Norway again late this month?
Well, I'm not so sure now. They are two weeks overdue in calling me about their plans. I have a suspicion that when they heard Barks wanted to visit, they decided they wouldn't need me any longer, or Barks may have even told them that he didn't want me to get any more publicity if they didn't want to make him mad. Anyway, it now seems that I won't be coming to Scandanavia again. See if you can find out if this is another result of my "evil genius" at work.

Don Rosa on DCML, 6 augustus 1993, about a CBG magazine:
The painting mentioned can only be the one that Barks is doing for Geppi, and which may NOT be being marketed by Hamilton. It would be a shame if Barks is snubbing Hamilton now -- Hamilton may have exploited him but he also made him RICH and, though Barks created all his body of work, it was HAMILTON that made it popular with others than just poor Duck fans -- thereby creating about 90% of Barks' American popularity.
The other thing mentioned - the comic story being drawn by Van Horn - is a disturbing bit also cooked up, I assume, by Grandy, as he is BOTH Barks' and Van Horn's agent. Barks is simply supplying a story idea and demanding umpteen thousand $$$ from Egmont for its use -- a project that is NOT approved of as yet, nor should it be in the form that Grandy wishes. Besides, the conflict of interests that is self-evident here is disturbing. We should at least TRY not to make it seem as if the entire point behind everything we do is unadulterated GREED, but maybe I'm living in the past.

Don Rosa on DCML, 31 augustus 1993, about 'Horsing Around with History':
In the meantime, folks can help me not be paranoid. You recall how Barks snubbed me in Atlanta. There's something afoot now that he has some "agents" managing his affairs now that his wife is no longer around to control him. You saw how he's decided to write a new story and have Van Horn draw it. Now, a few weeks after a large article appeared in CBG which told, in part, of my popularity in Scandanavia, his agent has contacted Egmont and told them that Barks wants to visit Scandanavia for a tour (and wants to be paid, etc.). This on top of the things he's said about me to foreign magazines.
All I've ever tried to do is honor the guy, and here he's becoming the "evil genius" of my life. Why's he got it in for me of all people?
I guess it's time to remove the "D.U.C.K." dedication from my stories and covers, eh?

Don Rosa on DCML, 17 august 1993, about *every Barks-fan* on this planet, and about the holes in Life of $crooge:
But I'll tell ya, I tried for over two years to clear ALL my ideas with every Barks fan on the planet, and if one of them wanted me to hear their ideas they can only "blame" themselves for not being in touch with me. I view these as Barks' characters and I am ENORMOUSLY reluctant to screw them up too much! No one will ever imagine the trouble and effort I've put into two years of trying to tell this story and fit all of Barks material into a sensible SINGLE storyline. The VOODOO HOODOO story alone with all its historical inaccuracies and censored characters was a major headache -- but I think I did a splendid job of it, if I do say so. And like I said, I HAD to ignore certain things... YES, like the Magic Hourglass! What respectable $crooge fan is going to tell me that he believes that every cent $crooge ever earned is because of a magic spell on an old hourglass and NOT due to his OWN HARD WORK and YEARS OF IT! What an insulting thought! If you don't want to ignore the existance of the Hourglass story itself, we can just say that it was all a "big misunderstanding". But still, $crooge KNOWS damn well that his money was not earned FOR him by no Hourglass or no dang Dime either. No, I flatly reject that whole "Magic Hourglass" tale as pure fiction -- it never took place.
Just think of the headache I have coming next week when I start trying to make a shred of sense outta "Christmas on Bear Mountain"!!!

Don Rosa op DCML, in de email van 3 september 1993, over Barks en Atlanta:
The most profound facts you mentioned,among many, was the idea that Barks resents people who are devoted fans of his work but loves people who want to help him make money from it. I noticed that many years ago! Barks seemed to have hated the Ducks and dislikes anyone who seems to like them too much. But... I can't really say too much about all the wisdom you dolled out... again, for me to comment too much on it all would be tactless and in bad taste... I'll leave it go at saying that you're correct in your conclusion that the guy is 93 years old and whatever he does, good or bad, cruel or kind, we should give him a break and not attack him. I know he's broken my heart, but he's done it slowly by revealing himself to me over about 7 years, so it was never too brutal (not until Atlanta -- THAT was a brutality I can't forgive).
-----------------------
Look at how Rosa smears Barks by portraying him like a greedy old devil, who likes to give Rosa a hard time. That's completely contrary to all those other people who met Barks in all those years. Rosa also insults various Barks-classics, like 'Christmas on Bear Mountain' and 'Island in the sky'. Rosa even says the way Barks treated him in Atlanta was *unforgiveabe*!

I guess unforgiveable until Barks invited Rosa to come over with his team of reporters, to write a fairy-tale for an Uncle $crooge magazine. After that, Rosa was all happy, but he never took his words about Barks back. Instead, he tried to blame 'the Dark years' on others. Like other people were writing these dcml-messages. In fact, Rosa knew what he was doing was wrong, as he asked to have his negative comments to be deleted. But the damage had already been done: who knows how many Rosa-fans nowadays believe Barks was indeed an evil man, or Rosa's messages were somebody else's fault?

Can't you see the enormous difference between these e-mails and Daniel once being a fan? Daniel changed his mind, but Rosa didn't. Rosa still blamed other people for his Barks-smearing, he's still ignoring Barks-classics and he is still insulting everybody who doesn't like his work:

Here, he insults a whole nation and he even mentions a critic's name to a 'fan':

From: "Don Rosa"
To: I. Bomer
Subject: re: Worries over "Barksfront"
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 13:36:53 -0500

Sorry for the slow reply! I just returned from 10 days in France where I was
a Guest-of-Honor at the Anglouleme Comics Festival...

>>>>>I email you because I am a little worried about what's going on in
especially the Dutch Don Rosa Fansite "McDuck"
People are discussing your stories there in an incredibly nasty way; they
are analyzing your beautiful stories and they find a lot of weak points in
them, it's really so low to the ground.
More and more people find the stories not as good anymore as they once were
and even the better stories appear to have a lot of doubtful things, they
say. It's horrible to read, Don, all this criticizing, and it really affects
a lot of people's views upon your great work. Some of them also say that you
really screwed up C.Barks's world, but what are they talking about, he's a
nice artist but is not the God they think he is, especially compared to you.
You really made his rather common fairy-tale world into a realistic one.
And now a lot of people are in doubt, your albums don't sell as good anymore
they say. Why are they so much against you, WHY? It's terrible Don, it's
terrible! What can we do about those people, WHAT CAN WE DO?


There's not a single reason to worry about it.
My stories are still the most popular Disney comics currently being produced
by a VAST margin. But even if the few mean-spirited Barksfans you refer to
could make any difference (which they can't), it still doesn't matter
because I don't get paid on the basis of how well my comics sell in Holland
or anywhere else. The Dutch publishers take my work without paying a penny
to me, and are the only Disney publisher on earth too cheap to even send me
complimentary copies... not even of their all-Rosa album series where they
use my name and likeness without my permission. No, there's nothing here to
be concerned about at all.
What *does* make me wonder is not why someone would dislike my work (I'm not
that crazy about it myself... especially my art), but rather why, in all the
world, it's only DUTCH comics fans that are so nasty as to act this way?
It's fine to not care for somebody's work. One man's meat is another man's
poison, we say. And there are surely people in all countries who dislike my
stories. But for 15 years it has been *strictly* a few Dutch fans who are so
vocally negative about it in the most vicious manner. It begins to seem to
indicate that the Dutch have a national trait of being the nastiest and
pettiest people in the world. But why would that be? Do you find the Dutch
to be this nasty and vindictive in everything they say or write? It's very
sad!
It seems to be some form of resentment, but again, why is it only the Dutch
who suffer from it? You might notice that they are *very* vicious to an
unreasonable extreme. This suggests that it is not my stories that they
dislike so much as that they *hate* how my work enjoys virtually unanimous
popularity all over the world. They have this warped idea that this
popularity "threatens" the popularity of Barks' stories, which is nonsense.
Barks is the greatest storyteller of the 20th Century -- nothing can ever
change that. Another proof of this is how they constantly say that I am
"ruining" Barks' world -- how do they figure anything I do is affecting
stories that Barks created 50 years ago? Are those stories changing? Of
course not! It's a silly comment for them to make. But they can't think of
any other criticism.
Another proof is that you'll notice that, as much as they claim they hate
the stories, they seem to *always rush out and buy them and read them*. Why
are they bothering to read comics they don't like? No, there's a "hidden
agenda" with them that I think you can understand if you just observe their
antics.
I keep referring to "them" but I have never seen any evidence of this nasty
resentment except on a few occasions in the past 18 years, notably one Dutch
kid who used to write similarly nasty messages to the "Disney Comics Mailing
List" named something like "Daniel Van Eiden" (just going by memory). I am
only assuming the message writers you refer to are similar? Perhaps he's one
of the contributors?
At any rate, these are just a few very unhappy, very lonely, very nasty
little boys and you can be comfortable to just ignore them. All they want to
do is stir up trouble, to make you angry, so the most insulting thing you
can do to them is simply IGNORE them. They just don't matter. Don't let them
bother you!

>>>>>Don't bother about these stupid idiots who are criticizing you on the
Internet, we'll deal with them!

Ah! Well, then we agree! I wasn't even aware of whatever message group you
refer to since I can't read Dutch. But you should ignore them as well.
But I'm sorry that you can't be enjoying Duckcomics in any other country in
Europe or North or South America where there are not these "fans" who are so
resentful and pointlessly nasty as they seem to be in the Netherlands. Well,
as I said, sad, sad, sad.........
Thanks for the nice message!!!!!!!!!

------------------------

So can't it be true that people who don't like Rosa have a reason for not liking Rosa? And maybe there are plenty of reasons why Rosa shouldn't act like he's the specialist on Barks?
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Daniel73 » Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:55 am

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
Last edited by Daniel73 on Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daniel73
Member
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Ridder ter Geit » Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:56 am

Barks seems like an old man you just did his craft and later does not know what all the fuss is aout. Carl Barks just did his job. Rosa seems about the opposite of him.
Ridder ter Geit
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:25 pm

Previous

Return to Other creators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron