Keskustelujen arkisto

Hey I just HAVE TO write this reply, cause I THINK that
John Lustig is way out of line on this one. Even I see
the things very differently and have first person experiment
how weasel the 'weasel' really is. I must also include little
quotes:

Lustig wrotes:
> I won't deny that I was very angry about some of the things I read in the
> archives. I was angry about the things written about me. And I was especially
> angry about the things written about people who are my friends and whom I
> respect--among them Bill Grandey, William Van Horn and Carl Barks.

Written by who? Rosa?

Don has written 'bad things' about Grandey. (And my opinion
is that he has had a real reason for this.)

I don't recall Don saying anything negative against WVH or CB.
Why are you bringing those two to this. The two persons
involved are Grandey and Rosa.

Rosa has always praised WVH's stories, his ability to draw, his use
of brush (instead of pen), his ability to have more traditional
approach to the stories, and whatever.

And as for CB. I think everybody on this list knows what Barks
means to Rosa. We know about his feelings after CB rejected to
meet Rosa, but he has never written 'bad things' about Barks.

I think, John Lustig, you have misunderstood.

> The things that were said about Barks particularly horrified me.

Who said what? Rosa? I get an expression from this that Rosa
has said things about Barks that horrify you.
1) What are those things?
2) If you mean somebody other that Rosa, why you bring
it up with Grandey-Rosa lawsuit?

> Most of the
> members of this list have never met Barks--and yet various people expressed
> very forceful and elaborate opinions about what kind of person Barks is and
> came up with some very sinister and far-fetched theories about his behavior.

What are these theories? I don't recall. You MUST have misunderstood.
If you have found those theories from the archives post those here
again, and THEN we can have a discussion.

> To some extent I can understand this. For the most part, you folks have only
> heard one side of this entire controversy. What else were you to think?

Hey, this list is not the only basis of our information.

Basicly it went like this:

Grandey attacked against Rosa in PUBLIC, and then Rosa
defended (because WE ASKED HIM what the hell was going on)
himself here.

And, oh yeah, Grandey REALLY attacked Rosa in public, and
also HERE IN FINLAND.

> So, I thought about writing into the list and giving the other side. The
> problem, though, was that many of the most inflammatory statements were made
> almost two years before I joined the list. To object now and deal with them
> in detail would only stir things up again and bring more attention to them.
> So I decided to say nothing--for the time at least.

Bullshit. You have just here wroted a big article claiming about
the things you have read from the archives without mentioning
what those things are. What kind of objective approach is that?

> And I think it's probably best not to get into the specifics of those past
> missives now.

I disagree, cause I think you have misunderstood something in
a BIG way. I think it's better to clear it up. It's better
for all of us.

> Saying that you dislike someone's story is fine. But to say horrible things
> about someone--purely on the basis of hearsay--that is unfair. Attacking
> someone who is not on this list to defend himself is even worse.

What are those 'horrible things'?
Who has attacked? Maybe there is a reason for an attack?
What about attacking someone in Scandinavia in Finnish language,
when the target is in America. I guess Grandey didn't understand
the power of internet. He thought he could say anything about
anybody here in scandinavia.

> I find it particularly contemptible to go after Barks. This man who has given
> us decades of wonderful characters and comics surely deserves an honored
> place here. From all accounts--except the ones posted on this list--Barks has
> gone out of his way over the years not to unnecessarily offend people. He is
> reclusive, but whenever he's been prodded out of his shell he's usually been
> gracious to fans and both helpful and encouraging to other professionals.

That is axactly what Don Rosa has said in past. He didn't do the
'Grandey thing'.

Remember when I told you that Grandey attacked Rosa here in Finland?
I try to explain the situation here also:

Barks gave an interview to one Finnish magazine. I'm not
sure but I think both Grandey and Kathy Bates were present
during the interview. The interviewer asked about things
about Rosa. Barks didn't want to talk about it. BUT, after
the interview, the interviewer got lots of 'material' from
Grandey. The pre-written material was then added to the interview.
Altought Barks didn't want to say anything about Rosa he kinda
said because of Garndey. What kind of manager is that?
Well, I call him 'weasel'.

> The fact that Barks and one other professional do not like each other and are
> feuding should not be the concern of fans. And even if it is there's no
> reason that you have to take sides.

What. Are. You. Saying? This. Isn't. The. U..S..S..R.

I guess we have some freedoms...

> The lawsuits and the controversies that surround them have already caused
> Barks and others a great deal of anxiety and pain. I think it's a damn shame
> that a man in his 90's has to spend his last years dealing with something
> like this.

So why did Grandey start all this? Maybe he gets Barks money after
Barks is gone? I think, basicly, Grandey uses Barks OR if Barks
is aware of what Grandey is doing, then he ain't the kind of
guy he wants to show us.

If you are over 90 that doesn't mean that you can attack the other
people without experimenting some defense. And my opinion is:
The real attacker was (is?) Grandey not Barks.

And certainly NOT Mr. Don Rosa.

/Mikko

> ======================================================================
> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 19:42:00 -0400
> From: JALustig at aol.com
> Subject: Rosa-Grandey Settlement Statement
>
> As I mentioned in another posting, I'm placing this on the mailing list at
> the request of Bill Grandey of the Carl Barks Studio:
>
> JOINT STATEMENT OF SETTLEMENT
>
> JULY 6, 1995
>
> This joint statement of settlement is made by and between Don Rosa ("Rosa")
> and William R. Grandey ("Grandey") (collectively the "Parties") as of the
> above date, and is being made and issued to inform all interested persons
> that they have resolved their differences.
>------
> 3. The Parties also acknowledge and agree that Rosa's "Scrooge History"
> is his own work and was done neither in collaboration with nor with the
> endorsement of Mr. Carl Barks.

So...first you give your approval for the series and then you
start a campaign against it? Rosa gave a clear chance for Barks
to object to the contents of this series. Barks objected and Rosa
made the changes. Then after Rosa has made a series and was not
able to change it anymore - already published - then Grandey
started a campaign against the series...
And that campaign was also going on here in Finland.

Yep, call him weasel.

/Mikko

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

Someone (sorry) asked who Patrick Bloch is. He's a new American
Disney artist who draws much in the style of Barks. The current
Donald Duck Adventures is by him and a very nice job. He even used
the Alex Raymond style for "human" characters in that story.

I've also met him and his wife (who colors for him) at a signing at
Dreaming City in Arlington VA (which should still have some signed
copies of his first book - the DDA from last fall with Donald on a
burro cover). Very nice guy. Acknowledges that Barks is his major
influence. Since last fall I saw the pencils for the story that came
out yesterday, I think he's getting yanked around a bit in his
publishing schedule. In conclusion, I think he's an up and coming
talent and you could do worse than begin following him now.

Mike Rhode

LUCKY:
>written by Taliaferro in the early 1930's. Can someone tell me when did
>Carl Barks start drawing DD? And when he stopoped? The strip was unfinnished;

Of course it was unfinnished! The magazine was after all, in English!-)

Carl Barks begun drawing Donald Duck comics at 1942. Before that he had
been working as an animator and his first known picture of Donald was a scetch
of a movie poster: "Desert Prospectors", a film that was never published. His
first Donald comic was "Gold of the Pirates" (or something like that). His
last Disney comic was made in 1967 though I'm not exactly certain what it was.
Before (?) he started drawing for Disney, he had made some nice cartoons with
Barney the Bear and Benny the Donkey.

--

Mike - The Finnish Trekkie

BOB:

> I thought the story was quite humorous when it was first printed in
> '66, especially the line about "watches from the workers' paradise".

Are you referring to panel 7 on page 9? That would mean this line is
also censored, in the CBl the line is "Shows you can't trust these
cheap watches made by McDuck enterprises!"

Humourous or not, I still think this story is a very political one
for a Disney publication. (But that sure *doesn't* mean I that I don't
like it!)

Greetings,

--- Daniel

Hi everyone,

There're some things I'd like to know. I'm currently collecting six
bimonthly comics by Gladstone. They're called:

Walt Disney's Comics and Stories
Donald Duck
Donald Duck Adventures
Uncle Scrooge
Uncle Scrooge Adventures
Donald and Mickey

As I'm reading the messages on this newsgroup, I'm getting the feeling
that there're going to be some serious changes at Gladstone.
First of all, I got #1 issue if Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse last time.
So that would mean that the Donald and Mickey comic has stopped!

Yesterday, I got Donald Duck Adventures #34. It was printed on this
'recycled looking' paper (like DD&MM). Why is this? I haven't got any
new issues of the other four comics, but are they going to change too?

It's not only the paper that has changed. I also noticed that there
isn't a 'letters page' (like the MAIL BIN and the ADVENTURE'S LOG)
anymore. Also the price sunk from $1.95/$2.50 to $1.50/$2.10

Why are all these changes going on? And what about the other comics.
Are there any new comics being published by Gladstone?

What about this "Walt Disney Giant", that you're all talking about?
Is it a new serie, that is being published every 2 months?

I heard that it's not going very well with Gladstone, because Disney
comics aren't very popular in the States anymore. I don't know if this
is true, but does it have anything to do with all of the things
I mentioned here?

I'm from Holland, you know. And I'm not quite aware of all these
things happening in the States, so I hope someone can tell me
more about it.

--Art.

Please Unsubscribe me.

>When will Don be back on the club?
>
>
I'm going to try to get his modem working properly this weekend. This was a
very bad time for Don to be cut off from the outside world.

DANIEL:

I'll be addressing some of your concerns in my reply to Mikko below. I did
want to acknowledge your message first, however, and thank you for being
polite in the way you broached your questions. I regret I can't answer those
questions more fully, but--as you'll see below--I have my reasons.

MIKKO:

When I mentioned that negative things were said about Barks, Van Horn, myself
and others you didn't seem to believe me. In particular you refused to
believe than anything negative was said on the list about Barks. You insisted
that Rosa certainly hadn't said anything bad about Barks. And you demanded
that I repeat all those awful things--if they really existed--and tell
everyone exactly who said them.

Well, here's my answer: No!

I am not going to repeat and rehash all the awful things that were ever said
on this list. If you really want to know what was said you can go through the
archives and find them yourself.

As far as my original message goes--yes, I was deliberately vague as to
exactly what was said and who said it. I figured that anyone who was familiar
with the controversy would probably know what I was talking about--and anyone
who didn't know didn't really need to know.

My goals in posting that message were simple:

1) Let everyone know the lawsuit was settled and that both sides had come to
an agreement.

2) Issue a plea that we put this nastiness behind us. (Based on your letter,
Mikko, I've apparently failed on this one.)

3) Remind everyone that there are two sides to every argument.

4) Express a small part of the anguish this whole controversy has caused me.
(I did this partially to get this off my chest and partially because I wanted
to remind everyone that these war of words do have consequences. People get
hurt.)

5) Lastly, I tried to make a case that the attacks on the mailing list
against Barks in particular were unfair.

If you really must have proof of these attacks then take a look at the "Joint
Statement of Settlement" that both Rosa and Grandey signed: "Rosa
specifically regrets having made reference to Mr. Carl Barks as an 'evil
genius.'

There were other things said about Barks by Rosa and other people on this
list, but why go into all that?

When I wrote my message I tried to get across the idea that both Grandey and
Rosa had made some unfortunate statements and mistakes. The Joint Statement
seems to bear this out: "Rosa specifically regrets...any negative
connotations or references he may have made to or against Grandey including
references to Grandey as the 'weasel.' Grandey likewise specifically regrets
any inference that Rosa was drunk or engaged in any criminal activity while
attending the comic book convention in Atlanta in June of 1993."

I know that after all the vitriol of the last two years it's hard to just
accept that this matter is over. But it is over. If Don himself "regrets"
calling Grandey a "weasel" then maybe you should too, Mikko. In any event, I
think you should respect the wishes of both parties and let this end.

Mikko, I must say I find your behavior some of your comments curious. You
state:

"So why did Grandey start all this? Maybe he gets Barks money after Barks is
gone?"

Look, I could argue with you about who really started all this and why it
started--but that's a matter of opinion. On the other hand, speculating
(about Carl's will) seems...well, at the very least odd. First of all, you
don't appear to have any facts to base this on. And second, even if Bill were
getting some money in Carl's will--which I have no reason to believe is the
case and is none of our business anyway--what the heck does that have to do
with the Rosa-Grandey feud?

I'm also puzzled, Mikko, by your comments about Section 3 of the Joint
Statement. The Statement--signed by both Rosa and Grandey, remember?--seems
to be saying the exact opposite of what you've concluded. The statement says
that "Rosa's 'Scrooge History' is his own work and was done neither in
collaboration with nor with the endorsement of Mr. Carl Barks."

How can you read that and conclude that Barks gave his "approval" to the
series?

Mikko, you end your message with this:

"...then Grandey started a campaign against (Rosa's) series...and that
campaign was also going on here in Finland.

"Yep, call him weasel."

After I read this I went back through the archives and tried to track down
exactly what Grandey supposedly said in print when he and Barks were in
Finland. Perhaps I missed something, but the only instance I could find was a
brief report by you. Excuse me if, at this point, I doubt your objectivity.
Even assuming you've translated what Grandey said correctly and presented it
correctly--well, yes, it is somewhat critical of Rosa's work. Of course, any
writer or artist has to be prepared for a certain amount of criticism of his
work. Still, it seems particularly unfortunate and unwise in this particular
case. At least, though, it's not an attack on Rosa himself.

Grandey himself, on the other hand, has been attacked repeatedly and in very
personal ways on this mailing list. A great many assumptions have been made
about him--with very few facts to base them on.

Here then are a few facts: Contrary to what some people have speculated here
Bill Grandey and Kathy Morby did not suddenly appear on Carl Barks' doorstep
shortly after Barks' wife died and somehow trick him into letting them be his
business managers. Carl and his wife, Gare', were close friends with Bill and
Kathy for many years. The agreement to have Bill and Kathy take over Carl's
business affairs and help care for the ailing Gare' was worked out well in
advance of Gare's death. However, by the time Bill and Kathy were able to
sell their house, wrap up their own business affairs and move to Oregon,
Gare's health had worsened. Gare' died about two days after Bill and Kathy
arrived.

Those facts probably aren't as exciting as some of the theories that have
been floating around this mailing list. But at least--for once--somebody is
saying something about Bill Grandey who actually knows Bill Grandey. I
thought it might make an interesting change of pace.

At the end of my original posting about this topic I concluded with "That is
all I have to say about this subject." Clearly some people--Mikko being the
most obvious example--didn't believe me. The sense of disbelief and anger
that was expressed did succeed in drawing me out this once. In retrospect, I
suspect it's better to never say "never." Still, I can't foresee any
circumstance in which I will allow myself to drawn into the discussion again.

I truly think we should all put this behind us as quickly as possible. You
folks are all welcome to say whatever you want, but this stuff does tend to
feed on itself and it obviously can get out of hand. For me, at least, this
is the end.

----John Lustig