Keskustelujen arkisto

I'm starting to work on the long-promised WWW pages about censored Disney
comics. Take a look at

http://marcobar.cce.unifi.it/Comics/Censored/

The first contribution is by Daniel van Eijmeren. He gave me the original
dialogue of Don Rosa's War of the Wendigo, and now he sent me scans of Carl
Barks' <Donald Duck's Atom Bomb>.
THE FULL STORY!!!
You'll find it at

http://marcobar.cce.unifi.it/Comics/Censored/AtomBomb/

More to come... But I await everybody's contributions!

Marco

Hoi!

RICH BELLACERA:
> Possible HEIRS to the McDuck Fortune (Continued)...

Well, with Goldie and Scrooge being so old already,
I think they're a little too late for children, so I guess the only
solution for Scrooge is to clone himself. That way, when he dies,
his clone will be old enough to take his place! Ofcourse, that is no
assurance that Scrooge v2.0 will be such a hard worker as the
original version, but it's the best choice he has!

If they can do it with sheep, I bet ducks won't be a problem!
At least it won't be illegal! ;-)

Bye!

Arthur

JOHN GARVIN:
<<I have to disagree. Histroy is not set at all. History is really
nothing more than our contemporary "story" of what happened in the past,
a story constructed from such fallable sources as subjective first
person accounts, inaccurate reportings, biased re-tellings, or bad
memory (don't forget to take that medicine!).>>

Quite true -- and "Duck history" is nothing more than a particular
creator's vision of what life in Duckburg must be like. That's why
I'm looking with some puzzlement at the latest tussles over the
worthiness or lack thereof of Don Rosa's take on the Ducks. IT
REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. Barks, Rosa, Van Horn, Block, Gerstein,
Scarpa, DUCKTALES -- each has something unique and useful to say
about the world in which the Ducks live. Arguing over what is or
is not the "correct" approach to take is rather foolish.

DWIGHT DECKER (re Rosa as a writer-artist in the Barksian tradition):
<<But maybe you only get one of those per generation, and Don's ours.>>

I believe that Van Horn and Block are also fully
in "the Barksian tradition." They simply notice different things in
the Ducks' world, as if they were viewing it through a different
pair of "lenses." All three creators have sharpness of vision for
certain things, and all three creators have blind spots. OK, I've gone
this far, so here is my personal opinion of what these "lenses" reveal to
them:

ROSA: Microscopic detail. Hitherto unexplored "corners" of the
Ducks' past, especially Scrooge's. Visual gags (signs on the money
bin, strange looking characters/objects in the background). Some
clear insights into Scrooge's character that Barks himself may not
have had.
VAN HORN: Quirkiness. Bizarre supporting characters. An
understanding that Don is often at his funniest when he is a
frustrated "Duck against the world," rather than a dispenser of snappy
one-liners during a treasure hunt.
BLOCK: The "classic" Barks period of the early 50's, when the Ducks
may have looked at their all-time best. Unexpected guests (Goofy,
the "Trick or Treat" witch). Silent drama (as when the nephew
wordlessly rescued Donald from drowning during "Widow's Gap").

And this is what they sometimes FAIL to see:

ROSA: That too much "machinery" and exposition can reduce the
Ducks to pawns and give the Ducks' world too much of a "cold and
clinical" feel.
VAN HORN: That quirkiness can be found in high adventure, as well
as domestic comedies that can sometimes get repetitive.
BLOCK: That it's imperative to develop one's own "lenses," rather
than rely on an older pair that may have worked in the past.

<<Imagine if there had been an active comics fandom back in the
'40s (and that this kind of information was known)...
"Who does this 'Carl Barks' upstart think he is? Donald Duck isn't
an adventure character -- he's a comedy character! He should be
playing pranks that backfire on him, not having adventures in
places like Egypt! Barks is ruining the wonderful world that
Al Taliaferro created!">>

Exactly my point. If you insist on seeing the Ducks' world
through only one pair of "lenses," then at some point you'll be
guaranteed to have fuzzy vision. That's true regardless of
the owner of said "lenses" -- Barks, Rosa, etc.

KATIE SULLIVAN:
<<And as for
Donald in DuckTales, don't even get me started. The only conceivable
reason I don't burn Launchpad in effigy for replacing him is because I'm
also a fan of Darkwing Duck.>>

I think Katie needs to try viewing the Ducks' world through a
different set of "lenses." Rather than looking at what Launchpad took
away from the Ducks' world, try to visualize what he ADDED. The Egmont
group's use of LP as a character along with the other Ducks indicates
that they recognize that LP is something worth preserving -- a character
whose attitude, motivations, and attributes are quite different from
any "Barksian" character's. This is one of the reasons why DUCKTALES should
be considered another "vision" of the Ducks' world, rather than a
distortion of same.

<<Since everyone else seems to be dancing around this, I'll just come
right out and say it. Isn't it at least *slightly* possible that Goldie
and Scrooge *might* *theoretically* have had a child together?>>

Of course -- though Barks' version of their relationship makes it harder
to visualize when said child might have been conceived. It's more likely
to have happened in Rosa's version of the Klondike events, and even MORE
likely in the DUCKTALES version of "Back to the Klondike."

DAVID FENSKE:
<<It seems to me that another thing Don is doing is creating a body of work
that will be much more impressive as a whole because of the consistency and
connections between the stories. Other writers who just re-create Duckburg
in every story will not have the same long-term impact. Their individual
stories may be as good, but the cumulative effect won't be there. And Don
gets extra mileage by grounding his stories in the pre-existing Barks
Universe... the connections go deeper.>>

True, the detail involved in Don's conception of the Ducks' world is most
impressive. I just hope that the tail doesn't start wagging the dog, and
that we ultimately see "Chapter 7 15/26" of "Life of Scrooge" or something
like that. When Don has a meaningful story to add to the "Life," then by all
means
he should do so... but I think he has just as much to say when he does
those self-contained epics.

-- Christopher E. Barat
(Email removed)
http://members.aol.com/cebarat/home.htm

To... Daniel...
Why is it necessary for you to have brought this all up in public rather
than in the private mail we exchange? I've been sitting here staring at the
friggin' computer for about 15 minutes wondering if I shouldn't just give
up. This volume of e-mail is absolutely killing me.
Your main frustration is that I am not responding to your criticisms, I
guess. How am I supposed to respond to people who don't like what I do
without seeming to argue with them about something that I don't think is my
right to decide one way or the other. Since I got on this list about 4 years
ago I have tried hard (probably failed) to never argue with a critic so I
don't squelch criticism and so I don't seem arrogant or like some kinduva
big shot. The amount of attention I get worldwide makes me very unsure how
to handle criticism! I think that if I were just one of the writers or
artists who don't get so much attention (and who *should*, another thing
that makes me uneasy in this position I'm thrust into) I could freely
respond to people's criticism. But when I see myself being held in the
position I seem to be, I fear that ANY reaction to criticism will lead
someone to think "OH! Mr. BIGshot. Who does he think HE is?" So it has
always been my (attempted) goal on this list to only respond to direct
questions. If someone posts a remark like "I didn't like the way Don Rosa
depicted so-and-so" or "I don't like his version of such-and-such", I won't
respond... but if they say "Don, I didn't like that. WHY did you choose to
do it that way?", then I answer them as best I can. No matter how I respond
to criticism, or the fact I decide NOT to respond to it, someone is going to
not like it.
But as for your long message of comments about my "Lo$". I ASKED you for
those comments, did I not? You said so. Why would I ask you for them if I
didn't care about them? And if I didn't respond yet, why o why o why do you
call me to task for it in public rather than ask me in private???? You, who
say you are so afraid of offending me or hurting my feelings? You've done a
grand job of the latter.
I don't think much of my art, I don't claim I'm a genius at writing, I don't
claim that my version of the Ducks should be accepted as "official"... but I
think I'm a world-class HERO when it comes to answering my mail and e-mail.
ALL of it. For the past few years I have gotten so much regular mail that I
have to quit my paying job for about a week every 2 months just to stop and
answer mail. And I was spending 2-3 hours per day answering e-mail. And
now, since these last European tours, my e-mail has increased to the point
that I now sit here up to FIVE HOURS per day answering it all. I don't know
any other way around it. If I am on the Internet, and people take the time
to send me a message, I MUST reply or it is damn rude. I don't send huge
replies, usually one or two paragraphs, but I send a reply to every single
piece of mail I get. Haven't you noticed how LITTLE time I've spent writing
to this Digest since October compared to the way I used to have a long
message in each one? Man, I'm swamped with e-mail here!
Now, sometimes some people send me HUGE lists of questions or comments.
There is NO earthly way I can answer these in the time I normally have. I
usually set these aside and use up my only free day of the week, Sunday, to
reply to those. My Sundays have been filled with other work lately, and I've
fallen behind. Right now in my in-box are long messages of questions and
comments from Tarjei Olsen, Jakob Soederbaum, Mathias Eischtetter, Nils Lid
Hjort, Andrea Carta, Satu Tams, Katie Sullivan, and the latest, longest one
from Daniel van Eijmeren. The earliest of these messages has been awaiting
my reply since last October... yours is only just over one week old. And it
was 12 kb long. (Aside from those long messages, I have 27 others that have
come arrived in just the past two days that I'll try to answer tonight after
I type this.) I normally tell such correspondents that I intend to reply
to these long messages if they can please wait... those folks on the list
above will atest to that, I trust. If I failed to tell YOU this in the
course of our friendly private conversations, it was an oversight, I'm
sorry. But I just don't have the time to respond to such massive messages so
quickly as you wish. Yes, I could have easilly told you "Please don't send
me your comments -- I'm not interested." ... but I AM interested. I just
don't have time to respond. As it is, my life consists of eating, sleeping,
doing Duck comics 9 hours per day, and answering e-mail... and that's ALL.
And it's a cycle I don't know how to break right now.
I think you can see by the messages that have appeared on here for the past
week (ALL of which I have carefully read) that no matter what I do in these
comics, one person will think it's perfect, and another will despise it. Not
simply dislike it or ignore it, as with all the other thousands of pages of
Duck comics that are churned out each year... they love it or despise it. I
am unwillingly thrust into this position where people put too much hope in
what I'm going to do, and I'm expected to be all things to all people. I
don't want that position -- I can't handle it. All I can do is the best I
know how. Since the opinions on my work are absolutely 180 degrees apart (I
mean, I went slack-jawed at the comments last week of how one person thought
my Duck's facial expressions were infinitely expressive and the other person
thinks they are totally empty), so how can I possibly know how to react? Who
do I obey? All I can do is listen, pay attention, NOT argue, answer direct
questions, and do the best I can, as FAST as I can. Believe me, it's not so
easy being put in this position. You might think it's all a
little-bit-of-heaven-right-here-on-earth. But people expect too much from me
and they get sour when I don't live up to their expectations.
It's like how strange it is to be in a country like Italy or Finland, and
see that people are in absolute awe of me... and will just reach out and
touch my hand and say "I just wanted to touch you... thanks". I don't know
how to react to that! I feel like saying "what do you expect from me? I'm
just a normal person here! What can I do when you treat me like that?"
Okay... reading your comments on this list of the past week, I was almost
thinking that I see that my presence here is having the VERY effect that I
never wanted it to. You say people are NOT speaking freely. I had begun to
decide (as someone you know will tell you) that I think I should just become
a "lurker", because no matter HOW I respond (or not respond) to comments,
someone will not like it. But instead, I leave it up to you -- what should I
do on here that I don't already do? How can I be all things to everyone? How
can I live up to the expectations of people who want me to follow Barks and
become the next "greatest storyteller of the 20th century"? I'm not up to
it. I didn't ask for the job. I can't meet the requirements. Tell me how to
act here so that I make everyone happy. And find me the time in my day to do
it.
And the next time I don't respond to one of your private messages, send me
another private message and ask me what's going on?, did I even *receive*
the other message?, when will I reply?.... please don't go into a public
forum and accuse me of being arrogant and cavalier in my treatment of people
who send me e-mail. I don't think I deserve that.
And now.... I am a lurker. It will save me that much more time to answer
these loads of e-mail. And I'll no longer be an influence on what is said
here...

Oh, no, wait -- one last message. Pay NO attention to that slanderous public
accusation against Michael Naiman that appeared on the last Digest-- Per,
you should stop such things from appearing (if possible)...why do people not
know how to handle matters in proper, private channels!?!? Michael is one of
the most honest and decent and helpful people I've met in my 30 years in
this hobby.
.

Fellow Quacks:

If not for anything else, Daniel's now "infamous" posting on Rosa should be
credited for provoking an avalanche of comments on Rosa's Ducks--certainly a
welcome spark to this List.

However, I still have my misgivings as to what some people mean by the word
"criticism". There have been people recently clamoring that this List
doesn't allow criticism on Rosa and that it only welcomes praise; and Daniel
himself recently expressed his seeming frustration at what he at least
perceives to be the mood of this List and of Don himself, by implying that
Don shunnes criticism.

I remember that when I wrote my first letter to Don back in 1993, after
telling him that I greatly enjoy his stuff, I followed with "criticism". And
in a series of letters since then, I continued to "criticize" his work,
almost story by story. And Don kept telling me how much he APPRECIATES my
doing that because "if people tell me only nice things, how can I improve?".

So why the heck didn't I perceive Daniel's posting as simply criticism? He
might have intended it as such, but in *MY* ears it sounded as if Daniel was
clearly irritated at Don for something even himself couldn't clearly put his
fingers on. Keep in mind that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Let's face it: Don Rosa is not just another Disney comic-book artist. If he
were, nobody would have cared to hotly debate his Duck-output. And deep
inside me (and I'm probably wrong on this), I don't think that there are
those who like and those who dislike Rosa's stories. Everyone enjoys them,
but a few among those resent them!

Don Rosa entered the Disney comics field with a BANG! His "The Son of the
Sun" was hailed as "the best U$ story since Barks had retired"! That was
heavy stuff! And slowly we started to learn that the unquestionable master
of the comic-book medium, the great Carl Barks, did NOT like Rosa's version
of the Ducks. He made that plain-clear a number of times in various
interviews. Hey, what was going on here? *I* was one who greatly enjoyed
BOTH of them! Did I have to take sides now?

I clearly don't have all the angles on this one, but the Carl Barks Studio
has been doing its best to discredit Don's work. In every chance they get,
they try to persuade us that Rosa's Ducks are foreign to the Barks
tradition, that they are heavily influenced by Hollywood, that they are
superhero-like, etc. etc ad nauseum... Who cares? Heck, if they spend so
much time and effort to discredit Don's Ducks, then someone out there feels
pretty threatened and insecure. Therefore, when I read Daniel's posting, the
overall TONE of his comments reminded me of the "Barks-purists'" resentment
of Rosa. Who's is this Rosa upstart who threatens the established order of
things? Before Rosa, Barks was undeniable KING. Now, many people have been
saying something that would have clearly sounded heretical and crazy a few
years back: that they like Rosa better than Barks!!! Tar and feather them,
and burn them on the stake!

I've said before that "DES GUSTIBUS NON EST DISPUTANDUM". I can't impose my
preferences on anyone else. Among Ducks artists I like Rosa, Barks, Scarpa,
Rota, Branca, van Horn (in that order, and there are more), and I'd be
equally keen at criticizing any of them. But I don't see why I should accuse
Scarpa, for example, for creating the amorous Brigitta that always chases
poor Scrooge. I can enjoy the various (inconsistent) universes because each
may offer something unique.

I truly believe that we Duck fans should feel really lucky that Don works
with the Ducks and not with Spawn. Yes, criticize, but don't question his
RIGHT to be Don Rosa. Don't discard the entire "The Treasury of Croesus" or
the entire "A Little Something Special" simply because we may not like or
"agree" with the endings, or because in panel 4, of page 15, of "that story"
he's not 100% accurate in depicting something. Here in Greece a saying goes
like this: "We sometimes disect the mosquito but we devour the camel".

But even if we may not agree with many things, Don (or anyone else) is not
obliged to alter his style to suit us perfectly. Carl Barks once reacted
vehemetely to a criticism by a mother who wrote to his publishers and
complained about the conflictual elements in his stories, especially between
Donald and the kids. When Barks mellowed down, his stories started losing
their caustic edge. Therefore, to some degree, Don Rosa, and any other
author for that matter, should mostly trust his own instincts. If a genius
is hiding, it will certainly be unleashed. And I think that this is the case
with Rosa. Don should listen to his readers but at the end he should follow
his own artistic genius. So far, it has produced all in all amazing results.

It's great to know that we have someone like Rosa (or Rota, or...) who is
churning up NEW material every couple of months of above average quality.
It's great to have this wonderful sense of anticipation for a NEW story to
appear on the stands. I'm 36 years old and I sometimes feel like a kid
again. To a large extend I owe that to Don Rosa. I may criticize his stuff
from time to time, but I try to never lose sight of the big picture: this
guy is bringing happiness to my life. I owe him a big, heart-felt THANK YOU.

Archontis

--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #19
*****************************************

well, I guess it was too good to be true.

people wonder why comics pros and other professionals have such a
negative view of the internet... why over the last few years I've seen
just about every comic writer/artist who has dared to venture into the
major Marvel/DC usenet groups eventually leave after puting up with the
demands and criticisms of so called "fans".

Don has had the moxie to stick it out on this mailing list for as long
as i've been subscribing, and now it seems like he just doesnt want to
put up with it anymore... and who can blame him?

We've been hearing a lot of criticism of Don lately. Not only his work
(which like any artistic endeavor is completely subjective... no problem
with that...) but NOW we seem to be getting personal criticisms as well.

Hey, if someone doesnt like a certain story or whatever on this list, so
be it! Give us a list of what you liked/didn't like about it, and maybe
it will lead to some interesting discussions. but EXPECTING, and then
almost DEMANDING, that the artist is going to personally address your
criticisms is not very realistic. I don't know how things work in the
world for some of these "fans", but arent you mature enough to realize
that celebrities ARENT going to have the time to personally respond to
your hurt feelings? And even if they DID have the time, why should they
have to? Creators have their own lives to live, and do the best job on
their work as they can... I'm sure that they want to get feedback on
what they do, but they will weigh thouse suggestions and use them or
ignore then as they see fit. To expect any more borders on the
obsessive.

and before i'm blasted as being an apologist for don, or one of the
people who is biased towards don, or what ever other little things you
want to come up with... Yeah, I like his stuff, most of the time.
Sometimes I don't like it, or don't like certain things about it, or
whatever. I'm also going to realize that people and creators arent
perfect... While you may love a story, i may hate it, and so on.

The problem lately seems to be that a certain individual believes his
opinions to be "the right ones", and has been posing questions that
really have no room for discussion (i.e. "who does he think he is making
the ducks the way HE wants them to?" etc etc.). Add to that the airign
of private beefs in the public forum, too.

so now Don's gonna be a lurker instead of a participant. Instead of
hearing about his work or about what he's doing, or getting some insight
into the publishing world for disney comics around the world, we get
nothing.

And to that certain individual who started this whole mess-- THANK YOU.
Was it worth it?

-matt-

DON:
>Oh, no, wait -- one last message. Pay NO attention to that slanderous public
>accusation against Michael Naiman that appeared on the last Digest-- Per,
>you should stop such things from appearing (if possible)...why do people not
>know how to handle matters in proper, private channels!?!? Michael is one of
>the most honest and decent and helpful people I've met in my 30 years in
>this hobby.

Agreed!

--Jonathan Markoff (an occasional patron of Michael)

"Golly! Golly! Maybe I've been selected to fly a load of go-go girls to Fiji!"
--Carl Barks, "Pawns of the Loup Garou" (a story reprinted in an issue I
bought from Michael!)