Don Rosa-bashing

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

Postby Stephan » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:22 pm

So, on the advice of Egg, I've opened a topic special on Don Rosa-bashing. That doesn't mean this is the place to bash Don Rosa, this topic is a place where all the prejudices and insultments towards Don Rosa can be discussed.

Egg wrote:Don't be such a cry-baby.

Sob sob sob.

Pluizer wrote:Do you know so very little about Rosa that the only power you have is getting personal and off-topic?

What are you talking about? If you don't want to get personal you shouldn't go to an internet-forum to share your vision with other people. How personal do you get with Don Rosa?
And I'm not getting off-topic. I only compare my fandom of Disney-artist Don Rosa with your fandom of Nijgh.

Egg wrote:You may criticize. Are you blind? Didn't you read my have-a-go?

I just gave an example, 'What if'. I didn't say I really wanted to criticize Nijgh, I don't even know that guy.

Egg wrote:Bla bla bla. Is this topic about Egg? Anyway, I just love to defend Barks when some Rosafans are bashing Barks because they're too stupid to understand Barks.

'Too stupid to understand Barks.'. You talk about Barks as if he was some kind of hard to understand creature.

Egg wrote:Rosa makes himself look extremely bad and evil. There's no need to blame others for that. Rosa does that to himself.

Rubbish. Even the most innocent and normal Don Rosa-quotes are evil destructive messages, according to Egg.

Egg wrote:There are so many good artists. So why should I care about a bad artist?

Weird that you've written hundreds of posts about Don Rosa, and then say you don't care about him.
Stephan
Stephan
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:52 pm
Location: Stephan

Postby Egg » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:38 pm

Stephan wrote:So, on the advice of Egg,

Speak for yourself, baby boy.

Stephan wrote:I've opened a topic special on Don Rosa-bashing. That doesn't mean this is the place to bash Don Rosa, this topic is a place where all the prejudices and insultments towards Don Rosa can be discussed.

Stephan says: topic special on Don Rosa-bashing... doesn't mean this is the place to bash Don Rosa...

I don't get it. Why not just call it 'Rosa vs Barks', or 'Rosa vs Disney'?

Stephan wrote:
Pluizer wrote:Do you know so very little about Rosa that the only power you have is getting personal and off-topic?

What are you talking about? If you don't want to get personal you shouldn't go to an internet-forum to share your vision with other people. How personal do you get with Don Rosa?

And again Stephan gets personal, only trying to lure Egg into the discussion. Afterwards, Stephan will complain and cry with regrets again, leaving Egg the blame.

Stephan wrote:And I'm not getting off-topic. I only compare my fandom of Disney-artist Don Rosa with your fandom of Nijgh.

What do you know about Egg's fandom of a Dutch poet? Aren't you getting a bit outside of your borders, Stephan?

Stephan wrote:I didn't say I really wanted to criticize Nijgh, I don't even know that guy.

That says a lot about your little tiny knowledge of culture and art.

Stephan wrote:'Too stupid to understand Barks.'. You talk about Barks as if he was some kind of hard to understand creature.

For Rosa and the Rosaïsts it's very hard to understand Barks, yes.

Stephan wrote:
Egg wrote:Rosa makes himself look extremely bad and evil. There's no need to blame others for that. Rosa does that to himself.

Rubbish. Even the most innocent and normal Don Rosa-quotes are evil destructive messages, according to Egg.

No, Egg didn't say that at all. Really, you'd better just talk for yourself.

Stephan wrote:
Egg wrote:There are so many good artists. So why should I care about a bad artist?

Weird that you've written hundreds of posts about Don Rosa, and then say you don't care about him.

The topic interests me. Not Rosa. Rosa doesn't care about Barks, trying to bash Barks, dividing Barks's world just to honour Rosa himself. That's very interesting, if a so-called heir makes such a very big fool out of himself, by acting like a parasite.
Barks is too strong for Rosa.
Egg
Member
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:19 am

Postby Doctor Witchie Britchie » Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:56 pm

OK--nice safe thread for Rosa CRITICISMS (not bashing--that's too crude a term). Rosa can stand criticism as well as anyone, and he gets very little of it, so it's only fair to point out some problems with his work. One of my many big problems with him is the "question and answer" format he feels obliged to pigeonhole the Duck world into. In Rosa's Duck-world-view, there is only one answer to the question "does the Number One Dime supply Scrooge with luck?" There is only one answer to the question "was Scrooge really the King of the Klondike during his days in the Yukon?" There is only one answer to the question "Does Scrooge love Glittering Goldie?" and so forth.

In Barks' tales, these questions were answered, if they were answered at all, in an ambiguous fashion that allows the readers to draw his own conclusions. Rosa posits HIS own conclusions as unescapeable fact. In the many Barskian Magica DeSpell stories and in Lost Beneath the Sea there are moments where Scrooge seems to believe in the magical power of his dime, and others when he does not (add Lost Beneath the Sea to the list of classic tales regarded as "imaginary" by Rosa-ists). And Barks never tells us for certain whether the Dime is lucky or not, leaving it mysterious.

Similarly, in the Golden Nugget Boat, Barks implies that Scrooge's tales of his exploits in the Yukon might be somewhat exagerrated, as when he tells the judges of the sourdough contest that he "made the strike that built this town" and is told in response "Really? You're the eleventh old-timer to claim that today." (quoting from memory). Whereas in Rosa's world, the Dawson city fathers have erected a monument to Scrooge.

In Back to the Klondike, Barks never actually says that Scrooge was sweet on Goldie--he's embarassed at his first meeting with her, and takes pity on her at the end when he lets her find his gold, but that's all (the faraway look in his eye when he thinks of her on the boat is caused by his thoughts of the money she owes him). There's never a hint that Scrooge and she showed the slightest affection towards each other fifty years ago in the Klondike (quite the opposite, in fact). Barks leaves any possible romance up to the readers' imaginations. Rosa, on the other hand, has done so much to establish Goldie as Scrooge's "girlfriend" that many Duck-fans would say (wrongly) that it's a violation of Barks to ever have Scrooge show interest in another girl-duck.

Rosa wants to pigeon-hole everything concerning the Ducks into a nice, smooth, workable FAQ webpage, while Barks showed more respect for his readers by not filling in corners and defining everything about his characters. Just my opinion.
Doctor Witchie Britchie
Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:51 pm

Postby Egg » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:06 pm

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:Similarly, in the Golden Nugget Boat, Barks implies that Scrooge's tales of his exploits in the Yukon might be somewhat exagerrated, as when he tells the judges of the sourdough contest that he "made the strike that built this town" and is told in response "Really? You're the eleventh old-timer to claim that today." (quoting from memory).

And there's 'Looney Lunar Gold Rush', of which the first pages could easily act like a parody on Rosa's 'Life of $crooge'.

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:hereas in Rosa's world, the Dawson city fathers have erected a monument to Scrooge.

Ridiculous. One-dimensional and flat. Pulp.
Egg
Member
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:19 am

Postby Egg » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:14 pm

Don Rosa on DCML, 13-01-1998, subject "History is unpredictable? Wha...?":

I can appreciate your not liking certain aspects of my vision of the Ducks.
It doesn't bother me in the least -- thank you for the comments.

But as long as I have no intention of forcing my view onto the other
umpteen-zillion Duck comics that are turned out every year all over the
world, why worry about it? As Dwight said, no one at Egmont or
anywhere else ever asks other writers to pay the least bit of attention to
my stories, and well they should not. I am producing stories based solely on
my personal views and preferences of Barks' work. It might not even be the
view that Barks ever thought he was giving... but it's the view I got,
nonetheless, and one I personally enjoy and firmly believe in. But it's so
wonderful that these comics allow so MANY other visions of this
"universe"... so you should not make yourself unhappy, and just don't read
my
"Life of $crooge" stories if they disturb you. I don't want to make anyone
unhappy. Well, I can think of two, but they are rather insignificant in the
cosmic scheme or any other scheme. Anyway, I produce such a teeny, tiny
percentage of the Duck-product of any year that it should be so easy to
ignore that bit, eh?
But still.... your subject-line. "History is unpredictable"? This is meant
as irony or what? History is set... I am an amatuer historian, I worship
history, perhaps that's one reason I choose to give the characters I work on
a definite history. I don't enjoy the idea of writing stories of characters
who have no solid background. That would make them seem insignificant.
Phony. Empty. History is SET... events are unpredictable. I tell of the
unpredictable events of characters with histories. To me, that combination
is fascinating and exciting. But, yes, agreed, that's just me.

Anyway, I also wanted to say something about the interesting concept of WHO
$crooge would will his money to... and again, this is only *my* view... but
it's, again, one that in my own mind is irrefutable. $crooge would not will
his money to ANYONE. He would puzzle as to why anyone should desire to gain
one red cent that they did not earn with their own two hands. I don't think
the idea to leave his $ to someone who did not earn that money would even
occur to him. But then, what would he do with it? He might not see any
reason to make any plans for it at all... it would not enter his mind. Or he
might be like how I regard my vast funnybook collection -- its true value is
ONLY as a collection. It can never be sold even if I needed $ because it
would then be broken up into tens of thousands of individual comics again,
*totally* negating it's true value. The monetary value that old "used"
comics have gained in the past 30 years is a completely false one (though I
guess nonetheless "real" to those who have no other interest in such
things). The true value is in the efforts and adventures I put into
assembling that collection as a single unit. It has no value if again
liquidated. This is how I know $crooge views his Money Bin.
I'd hafta think about what he might do with the rest of his holdings... but
I think that in his will, $crooge would order that his Bin, being the sum of
his life, be sunk into the deepest part of the ocean just so it would
remain intact.
Egg
Member
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:19 am

Postby Doctor Witchie Britchie » Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:30 pm

There's another Rosa "set in stone" "answer" in that last message of yours, Egg. Barks' Scrooge is greedy, stingy, and aggressive, but has many softer moments and a sentimental, whimsical side. He can be heroic or cowardly. He can be friendly or nasty. We really don't know whether his money is valuable to him because he loves money, or because he loves the adventures the money symbolizes. Rosa's Scrooge is a cuddly old teddy bear of a duck, who only seems like a miser since he happens to treasure money as the symbol of his adventurous life--he could just as easily treasure comic books or old stamps or something. Rosa's Scrooge is a much less complex character than Barks', because Rosa attempts to explain and pigeonhole Scrooge's personality in exact detail. To paraphrase a line from Shakespeare, Rosa would "pluck out the heart of the Ducks' mystery."
Doctor Witchie Britchie
Member
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:51 pm

Postby Egg » Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:04 pm

Rosa's Scrooge behaves like a collector.
Egg
Member
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:19 am

Postby Egg » Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:06 pm

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:Rosa attempts to explain and pigeonhole Scrooge's personality in exact detail. To paraphrase a line from Shakespeare, Rosa would "pluck out the heart of the Ducks' mystery."

100% agreed.
Egg
Member
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:19 am

Postby Stephan » Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:06 pm

Egg wrote:Speak for yourself, baby boy.

* crying * Mama!

Egg wrote:Stephan says: topic special on Don Rosa-bashing... doesn't mean this is the place to bash Don Rosa...

I don't get it. Why not just call it 'Rosa vs Barks', or 'Rosa vs Disney'?

Because I don't want this topic to sound negative towards Don Rosa. It's not an invitation to make Don Rosa look bad, it's a place were fans of Barks and Rosa can discuss 'Rosa-bashing'.

Egg wrote:And again Stephan gets personal, only trying to lure Egg into the discussion. Afterwards, Stephan will complain and cry with regrets again, leaving Egg the blame.

Of course I get personal. We're in the middle of an discussion, which means interaction.
(btw, is it an or a discussion? I never really understanded the difference.)

Egg wrote:What do you know about Egg's fandom of a Dutch poet? Aren't you getting a bit outside of your borders, Stephan?

I heard you saying Nijgh was really important to you, on the offtopic-forum. And I just checked his site by vEijmeren.

Egg wrote:That says a lot about your little tiny knowledge of culture and art.

It says alot about where my intrests lie, not about about my knowledge of culture and art.

Egg wrote:For Rosa and the Rosaïsts it's very hard to understand Barks, yes.

It's obvisiously harder for an egg to understand Barks.
What do you mean with 'understanding Barks' anyway? Sounds like some kind of weird religion. I think I understand Barks when I like reading his work.

Egg wrote:Really, you'd better just talk for yourself.

You keep talking for Don Rosa, Egg. You 'explain' all his posts to us. And now you're complaining when I treat you in that way?

Egg wrote:That's very interesting, if a so-called heir makes such a very big fool out of himself, by acting like a parasite.

I think Egg seems more like a parasite. You keep talking about Don Rosa and how bad he is. Why don't you leave him alone, if you don't like his work, to spend more time talking about Barks?
I don't like i.e. Britney Spears' music. But that's not a reason to make up all kinds of things to make her look like some kind of evil witch who's out for worlddomination, or whatever.

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:One of my many big problems with him is the "question and answer" format he feels obliged to pigeonhole the Duck world into. In Rosa's Duck-world-view, there is only one answer to the question "does the Number One Dime supply Scrooge with luck?" There is only one answer to the question "was Scrooge really the King of the Klondike during his days in the Yukon?" There is only one answer to the question "Does Scrooge love Glittering Goldie?" and so forth.

Mmm, that's true. But of course Don Rosa lets everyone free to answer these questions for themselves.

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:Rosa posits HIS own conclusions as unescapeable fact.

I'm not sure about this. I never felt obliged to believe everything Don Rosa says. For example, I really like the story 'The Magic Hourglass' while Don Rosa regards this story as 'fictional fiction'. I don't care. To me, all Barks-stories are part of the Duck-universe.

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:Rosa wants to pigeon-hole everything concerning the Ducks into a nice, smooth, workable FAQ webpage, while Barks showed more respect for his readers by not filling in corners and defining everything about his characters. Just my opinion.

Well, it makes sense. I understand that people don't like Don Rosa for sorting everything out where Barks left open spaces on purpose, each to his own.
What I don't understand is that some people often take this a reason to bash Don Rosa. They keep insulting Don Rosa and socalled 'Rosaïsts' from being stupid, evil, egocentric or whatever.
Stephan
Stephan
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:52 pm
Location: Stephan

Postby Egg » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:33 pm

Stephan wrote:(btw, is it an or a discussion? I never really understanded the difference.)

a discussion

Stephan wrote:I heard you saying Nijgh was really important to you, on the offtopic-forum. And I just checked his site by vEijmeren.

I think creators like Barks and Nijgh are good enough to stand the bashing.

Stephan wrote:
Egg wrote:For Rosa and the Rosaïsts it's very hard to understand Barks, yes.

It's obvisiously harder for an egg to understand Barks.

What about mammal ducks then?

Stephan wrote:What do you mean with 'understanding Barks' anyway? Sounds like some kind of weird religion. I think I understand Barks when I like reading his work.

Understanding Barks means that I enjoy Barks's work as a whole.

Stephan wrote:You keep talking for Don Rosa, Egg. You 'explain' all his posts to us. And now you're complaining when I treat you in that way?

Is Egg as interesting as Don Rosa then? :D

Stephan wrote:I think Egg seems more like a parasite. You keep talking about Don Rosa and how bad he is. Why don't you leave him alone, if you don't like his work, to spend more time talking about Barks?

I would miss you.

Stephan wrote:I don't like i.e. Britney Spears' music. But that's not a reason to make up all kinds of things to make her look like some kind of evil witch who's out for worlddomination, or whatever.

Does Britney Spears twist Barks? No.

Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:But of course Don Rosa lets everyone free to answer these questions for themselves.

Let's be thankful for that. How kind! We're free!

Stephan wrote:
Doctor Witchie Britchie wrote:Rosa posits HIS own conclusions as unescapeable fact.

I'm not sure about this. I never felt obliged to believe everything Don Rosa says. For example, I really like the story 'The Magic Hourglass' while Don Rosa regards this story as 'fictional fiction'. I don't care. To me, all Barks-stories are part of the Duck-universe.

Then you'll get a headache understanding Rosa.

Stephan wrote:I understand that people don't like Don Rosa for sorting everything out where Barks left open spaces on purpose, each to his own.

I feel understood by Stephan. At last!

Stephan wrote:What I don't understand is that some people often take this a reason to bash Don Rosa. They keep insulting Don Rosa and socalled 'Rosaïsts' from being stupid, evil, egocentric or whatever.

That's what happens when trying to manipulate the Ducks into a nasty limited underground world, systematically trying to make us Barks-fans look stupid.
Egg
Member
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:19 am

Postby Rockerduck » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:38 pm

Too bad a great forum already has to be spoiled by new fighting over Don Rosa.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Egg » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:38 pm

Rockerduck wrote:Too bad a great forum already has to be spoiled by new fighting over Don Rosa.

Another moralist has entered the building!
Egg
Member
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:19 am

Postby Rockerduck » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:54 pm

Egg wrote:Ridiculous. One-dimensional and flat. Pulp.

I really get tired of this kind of comments. When Vicar of Branca paints their own versions of Scrooge's past, and they've done that MANY times, it's ok. But when Rosa does the same, he's this kind of evil person and his work is pulp. Rosa simply has his own view of Barks' world and ifg you don't like the view: fine. Nobody's forcing you to like it. Just point out why you don't liek it and then treat him like you would treat any other artist, and then leave his work alone and ignore it. This obsession really is unnecessary.
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:56 pm

Don Rosa wrote:I am producing stories based solely on
my personal views and preferences of Barks' work. It might not even be the
view that Barks ever thought he was giving...

You see? This is exactly what I mean.

Don Rosa wrote:but it's the view I got,
nonetheless, and one I personally enjoy and firmly believe in. But it's so
wonderful that these comics allow so MANY other visions of this
"universe"... so you should not make yourself unhappy, and just don't read
my "Life of $crooge" stories if they disturb you.

Good advice to Egg!
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby Rockerduck » Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:59 am

What do you think of this, Egg? :lol:

Don Rosa's Scrooge is a caricature of Barks's original and much more frequently shows anger, malice and violence in response to situations rather than shrewdness and sheer dogged determination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrooge_McDuck
Rockerduck
Member
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 6:40 pm

Next

Return to Other creators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron