Hi Mr. Van Horn! I must say yet again that I love your work.
I hope the previous insult by Egg doesnt drive you away. It's always nice IMO to see creators give input on thier work and being stateside with the Disney material I've discovered that its not often to find a place to discuss the comic books I've grown up with since childhood where the language isnt all something I don't really know. ^^;;
Having said that, I will probably regret this buuuut...
A topic about Van Horn? Does Van Horn serve that?
I think he does, yes - and other people have differing opinions too. No one has to always agree with the other person, and maybe I probably read it the wrong way as I'm just a newbie (maybe lost in translation?) but your phrasing of this comes off as more than just a wee bit rude.
After screwing-up Barks's classic 'The Magic Hourglass' by framing it like a lousy pulp story, just to please some silly brainless feelingless readers and editors, because Rosa made one of his famous mistakes?A) How in the world did he screw up anything? To say that makes little or no sense. He did not change or rewrite the fundamental aspects of the story. He did not write any of the characters out of character, and he did not take the story (which is known as far as I've seen by people to be the only really apocryphal story that Barks has done in terms of continuity) and poo-poo on it.
Having read the story both with (recent Gemstone reprint) and without (old Gemstone reprint)his framing sequence, I kinda have to say that the framing sequence made it make sense (at least in my perspective) before Rosa's non-inception of it in Life and Times had even come to play. the way I see it, the framing sequence neither makes the story any more valid or invalid than it standing own its own or chosen to be left out of LaT. Its like one of those tall tales that can be interpreted any way you want it and IMO thats a creative way to go about it.
And just cause its Barks doesn't make it the be all/end all of comic books.
Who's responsible?
The anonimousity is to project you guys against ME.
Especially when holy Barks is sacrileged, I'll break out of my shell.
What do you mean by that? Cause the way it reads it seems like you're saying that if anyone talks ill of anything Barks that isn't anything but "pure like" then you'll flame them. (Not to mention it makes you come off a wee bit obsessed)
Again - maybe I'm wrong and your statement is probably lost in translation a bit, but if that is indeed true (at the risk of coming off a bit strong) I think you're being somewhat way too extreme.
Let that be a warning to you all.
I'm not scared.
In my professional years with Sonic I've dealt with crazy bonkers fans and tons of weird furries during my career that would make anybody all kinds of crazy. I've seen faaaaaaar worse. ^__^
Does Van Horn deserve that?
My answer is of course NO.
On what ground? He's pretty much assumed the mantle of successor of the Donald Duck 10 pager in many people's eyes and many people's opinion brings something to the table that has never been there before. But like I said earlier, your mileage may vary.
Van Horn should be sent outside the Barksian city walls forever. There he can go treading the desert sand and think about what he was thinking at the time. Andif Doctor Witchie Britchie not like that, he can join him!
Sometimes when you end up "expelling everybody outside the city walls", you end up finding that you're the only one left, both alone and unwanted, inside the city.
just to please some silly brainless feelingless readers and editors,
This one statement shows me that you don't seem to know much of anything about the comic book process and how it works.
See - your editors give you a job. They ask you to do something. You do it. You don't do your own thing, defy them vehemently, or raise a stink about it. You have every right to disagree and present your own case and if you can convince the editor that this way isnt the best way to go then better for all parties. Sometimes you hit creative stumbling blocks but in the end its all about learning to work with people and doing your job.
Those brainless readers as you refer to them are many and ALL of them have differing opinions. Some of them valid, some of them just plain bonkers but never is one person just plain right without fail. Theres a valid difference between a critique and a tirade and if every creator took every fans tirade to heart
then you would REALLY know the meaning of a creative quagmire and the duck books would probably (heaven forbid) look like every other superhero comic and/or every other superhero comic wannabe that turns into a convoluted soap opera and/or kiddie pap that talks down to its reader. Thankfully the duck and mouse books have very VERY **VERY** rarely ever ventured into any of that madness before retrieving its common sense.
So those editors that you call brainless do what they do for a reason. That does not mean that they are always right (I've worked with editors before that make something as simple as "okaying a framing sequence" seem like quantum physics) but I'm certain that even the oft revered Barks has had to deal with changes that were both GOOD (let's say the rewrite of Delivery Dillema, a story thats been said he didnt originally write that he made changes too)
and BAD (the incredibly asinine and stupid idea of square block lettering by Gold Key/Whitman around the time of late 60's/70's)
I'm not trying to be condescending - excuse that if it looks that way - but understand the creative process of both sides past and present before you mock it, and learn how to lighten up a bit and not take everything so mad seriously.
Just my opinion mind you.