I did not enjoy "The Reluctant Dragon" or "Morris the Midget Moose" in
WDC&S #621. I would much rather have some Duck and/or Mouse stories from
Europe. *IMHO* These stories cannot carry themselves in their own titles,
so why put so much in WDC&S? Anybody from Gladstone still reading the list?
Don Rosa wrote:
>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...
ouch!
-Mike
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Author
Topic: 199801
(513 messages)
Mike Casillas
WDC&S
Message 271 -
1998-01-18 at 07:59:59
David B. Fenske
The Artist and His Critics.
Message 272 -
1998-01-18 at 09:03:57
Archontis Pantsios wrote an elegant letter entitled "On Criticism and Don
Rosa," which just about says it all. I have just a few things to add:
Quotations are by Daniel van Eijmeren, regarding Rosa's "failure" to
comment on some negative comments concerning his work:
>Not everyone is the same,
>but if someone criticizes *my* work, I'd surely like to comment on it!
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe you've heard the same criticism 100 times, and
you're tired of it, have answered it before, and have nothing else to say.
Maybe he's busy, or would like a day off, or would like to catch up on his
movies. Maybe it's a general comment like "I don't like Donalds
character... I don't like the way you draw facial expressions..." that
can't be answered. What do you expect the artist to do? Change his methods?
But the point is this: the artist is under no obligation to answer for his
work. He creates, we read. We either like it or don't. Either way, we're
free to send the artist our comments, but we really don't have a right to
expect an answer. Artists are people, they have things to do, they have to
balance their check books, buy groceries, have a life. Personally, I find
it amazing that Don Rosa spends so much time answering mail. It says
something about his dedication.
>Also, when someone forwarded a message on Donald being out-of-character
>at the end of August, Don said something like not wanting to reply to a
>letter without a name. Of course there's something valid in it, but I also
>got the idea Don didn't have ears for comments like that. Couldn't he have
>said at least a little more on it? I didn't get the idea he took it very
>serious.
Why should he? I gather that he *does* take all comments sent to him very
seriously, but he doesn't have to. It's a statistical fact that a certain
percentage of readers aren't going to like something. There's nothing an
artist can do about that. There's a good chance that he couldn't do
anything about many of the comments sent to him without sacrificing his
vision of the Ducks. If I were in his position (which of course I'm not),
I would take note of negative comments, as they might be helpful, but not
feel any obligation to do anything about them other than say "interesting."
But why do you think he is required to answer every comment sent in by his
reading public? He doesn't have to justify his work.
> DR> I don't try to impose my view of these characters on anyone... even
> DR> though I will also never change my personal view of these characters
> DR> or be at all unsure of it.
>
>This didn't (and still doesn't) sound to me as an artist being open to
>critique at all.
I can't see your point. In order to create an effective, consistent, and
believable story, you need to know your characters. Don has his own view
of the Ducks, and *has* to hold to his own view in order to write. He
can't go changing the essential character of his characters every time a
fan doesn't agree with something.
Being open to criticism means listening to your fans comments honestly and
with an open mind. If any of them have a point of view you think is valid,
or haven't thought of before, you may act on it. Or you may not. But it
doesn't mean you change your convictions.
About this being a Rosa fan club, well, you might have a point there, in
that the majority of list members enjoy his work. In which case, you're
not going to get a lot of negative comments. But I'm sure that if you
don't like a Rosa story, and have good reasons that you can explain without
attacking the character of the author, that you'll get a fair hearing here.
I do have one question for the group that does touch on this whole issue,
if only slightly. This is the question of discussing story plot-lines.
OK, I'm clear on this for new stories, but for older ones, I'd like to know
what the list has historically done. I have the impression that even in
discussing an older Rosa story, say, that people are careful about giving
away the plot. Now, this is a comic list, whose purpose is to discuss
comics, and that includes story lines, so what is the consensus here? Is a
1 or 2 year old story fair game? Should one always just put in *spoiler*
for those who haven't read the story? Does this caution extend to old
Barks stories too?
Finally, a word to Don. I don't think you need to feel obligated to answer
every letter you get. It's not rude to tell people that you are too busy
to answer them now, when that is the truth. Clearly you're swamped, and
the last thing any fan wants is for correspondence to contribute to
creative burnout. Maybe you could skim over all the questions on a new
story, write a quick FAQ note, and e-mail that out to whoever writes.
Impersonal, but perhaps it would save some time.
All for now.
Dave F.
Rosa," which just about says it all. I have just a few things to add:
Quotations are by Daniel van Eijmeren, regarding Rosa's "failure" to
comment on some negative comments concerning his work:
>Not everyone is the same,
>but if someone criticizes *my* work, I'd surely like to comment on it!
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe you've heard the same criticism 100 times, and
you're tired of it, have answered it before, and have nothing else to say.
Maybe he's busy, or would like a day off, or would like to catch up on his
movies. Maybe it's a general comment like "I don't like Donalds
character... I don't like the way you draw facial expressions..." that
can't be answered. What do you expect the artist to do? Change his methods?
But the point is this: the artist is under no obligation to answer for his
work. He creates, we read. We either like it or don't. Either way, we're
free to send the artist our comments, but we really don't have a right to
expect an answer. Artists are people, they have things to do, they have to
balance their check books, buy groceries, have a life. Personally, I find
it amazing that Don Rosa spends so much time answering mail. It says
something about his dedication.
>Also, when someone forwarded a message on Donald being out-of-character
>at the end of August, Don said something like not wanting to reply to a
>letter without a name. Of course there's something valid in it, but I also
>got the idea Don didn't have ears for comments like that. Couldn't he have
>said at least a little more on it? I didn't get the idea he took it very
>serious.
Why should he? I gather that he *does* take all comments sent to him very
seriously, but he doesn't have to. It's a statistical fact that a certain
percentage of readers aren't going to like something. There's nothing an
artist can do about that. There's a good chance that he couldn't do
anything about many of the comments sent to him without sacrificing his
vision of the Ducks. If I were in his position (which of course I'm not),
I would take note of negative comments, as they might be helpful, but not
feel any obligation to do anything about them other than say "interesting."
But why do you think he is required to answer every comment sent in by his
reading public? He doesn't have to justify his work.
> DR> I don't try to impose my view of these characters on anyone... even
> DR> though I will also never change my personal view of these characters
> DR> or be at all unsure of it.
>
>This didn't (and still doesn't) sound to me as an artist being open to
>critique at all.
I can't see your point. In order to create an effective, consistent, and
believable story, you need to know your characters. Don has his own view
of the Ducks, and *has* to hold to his own view in order to write. He
can't go changing the essential character of his characters every time a
fan doesn't agree with something.
Being open to criticism means listening to your fans comments honestly and
with an open mind. If any of them have a point of view you think is valid,
or haven't thought of before, you may act on it. Or you may not. But it
doesn't mean you change your convictions.
About this being a Rosa fan club, well, you might have a point there, in
that the majority of list members enjoy his work. In which case, you're
not going to get a lot of negative comments. But I'm sure that if you
don't like a Rosa story, and have good reasons that you can explain without
attacking the character of the author, that you'll get a fair hearing here.
I do have one question for the group that does touch on this whole issue,
if only slightly. This is the question of discussing story plot-lines.
OK, I'm clear on this for new stories, but for older ones, I'd like to know
what the list has historically done. I have the impression that even in
discussing an older Rosa story, say, that people are careful about giving
away the plot. Now, this is a comic list, whose purpose is to discuss
comics, and that includes story lines, so what is the consensus here? Is a
1 or 2 year old story fair game? Should one always just put in *spoiler*
for those who haven't read the story? Does this caution extend to old
Barks stories too?
Finally, a word to Don. I don't think you need to feel obligated to answer
every letter you get. It's not rude to tell people that you are too busy
to answer them now, when that is the truth. Clearly you're swamped, and
the last thing any fan wants is for correspondence to contribute to
creative burnout. Maybe you could skim over all the questions on a new
story, write a quick FAQ note, and e-mail that out to whoever writes.
Impersonal, but perhaps it would save some time.
All for now.
Dave F.
Jgarvin
Barks vs. Rosa, emails, etc.
Message 273 -
1998-01-18 at 11:01:59
The electronic age will truly transform us all. I can't help but wonder
what would have happened to Barks work if he had had access to a mailing
list such as this one. The sheer weight of fandom can be enough to
crush anyone.
One topic that came up more than once in my visits with the Barks, was
the incredible number of demands that fans put on Carl. Phone calls,
letters, requests, questions, etc. etc. He would show me a stack of
lettes, a box full really, that had just arrived, and he would shrug.
"What am I supposed to do with these?" Early on, through the
mid-seventies, he would answer them himself, and fans through the
sixties might even get a sketch, but it really got to the point where he
could not deal directly with fans at all. By the early eighties, when I
met him, he was having Gare' send out photocopied form letters saying
"Thanks for your interest, but sorry." Personally, I can't imagine why
Don answers fan mail at all. The _only_ responsibility an artist has to
his fans is to give them the best product he is capable of. That's it.
It is not rude to ignore ciriticism. It is not rude to ignore mail. It
is not rude to ignore phone calls. It _is_ rude to make demands on
people who have precious little time to create as it is.
I don't know Don, but I know Carl is a regular kind of guy who likes
big breakfasts, zipping around corners in 4-wheel drives, feeding birds,
and conversation. He hates fans who nitpick his stories to death. He
hates the idea that stories he wrote 40 years ago, assuming that they
were disposable entertainment for kids, are preserved and scrutinized to
the tiniest detail. He hates talking about the same things over and
over again: there isn't a single topic concerning the duck universe he
hasn't heard, been questioned on, or interviewed on. But he does enjoy,
like all of us, talking about things that interest him. I broke through
Barks' barrier not because I was a duck fan, but because I was a
painter and we could talk about his paintings To this day I am a Barks
painting fan more than a duck fan: I have more of his non-Disney
lithographs than Disney, and I think Carl said once that I was the only
person who thought he was important for the painting style he "invented"
and not just for his Disney comics work. The point is, _no one_ has
time to do all the things they enjoy, let alone get all their work done,
let alone continue correspondence with hundreds or even dozens of fans.
I'm glad Carl stopped trying, because otherwise we might have one less
painting from him.
On the topic of Barks hating Rosa's work: I don't know the details, but
I can give you some insight that I have gleaned from Barks character.
Carl comes from a generation that values hard work almost above
everything and in some ways, I think he feels that creators who build on
his work are being lazy. I have a letter from him, where, talking
about one of my paintings, he compliments the technique and so forth,
but goes on to suggest that I should develop my own themes, gimmicks,
etc. and not lean so heavily on his. and I have to remember, Barks felt
guilty for copying plot ideas from his _own_ stories. Nothing makes him
angrier than thinking that someone is trying to take advantage of him or
get a free ride. He want's people to do their own work, not build on
his. In many ways, I think it's too bad that he feels this way. I
enjoy revisiting familiar fictional worlds and characters through the
eyes of new authors and there are many instances in comics, fantasy and
SF fiction, and television, and film, where this is done. Rosa doesn't
have to feel bad for wanting to live in Barks' universe, anymore that
James Cameron had to feel bad about wanting to tell another Ripley
story in "Aliens." On the other hand, every new story that trots out
Glittering Goldie is one less story that will have a "new" engaging
character that has flown forth from the pen of a new creator to hold us
all enraptured.
And BTW, I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I know that every
posting to this list is the OPINION of the person posting it, you don't
need to remind me with a continual barrage of IMHOs between every
phrase.
John
what would have happened to Barks work if he had had access to a mailing
list such as this one. The sheer weight of fandom can be enough to
crush anyone.
One topic that came up more than once in my visits with the Barks, was
the incredible number of demands that fans put on Carl. Phone calls,
letters, requests, questions, etc. etc. He would show me a stack of
lettes, a box full really, that had just arrived, and he would shrug.
"What am I supposed to do with these?" Early on, through the
mid-seventies, he would answer them himself, and fans through the
sixties might even get a sketch, but it really got to the point where he
could not deal directly with fans at all. By the early eighties, when I
met him, he was having Gare' send out photocopied form letters saying
"Thanks for your interest, but sorry." Personally, I can't imagine why
Don answers fan mail at all. The _only_ responsibility an artist has to
his fans is to give them the best product he is capable of. That's it.
It is not rude to ignore ciriticism. It is not rude to ignore mail. It
is not rude to ignore phone calls. It _is_ rude to make demands on
people who have precious little time to create as it is.
I don't know Don, but I know Carl is a regular kind of guy who likes
big breakfasts, zipping around corners in 4-wheel drives, feeding birds,
and conversation. He hates fans who nitpick his stories to death. He
hates the idea that stories he wrote 40 years ago, assuming that they
were disposable entertainment for kids, are preserved and scrutinized to
the tiniest detail. He hates talking about the same things over and
over again: there isn't a single topic concerning the duck universe he
hasn't heard, been questioned on, or interviewed on. But he does enjoy,
like all of us, talking about things that interest him. I broke through
Barks' barrier not because I was a duck fan, but because I was a
painter and we could talk about his paintings To this day I am a Barks
painting fan more than a duck fan: I have more of his non-Disney
lithographs than Disney, and I think Carl said once that I was the only
person who thought he was important for the painting style he "invented"
and not just for his Disney comics work. The point is, _no one_ has
time to do all the things they enjoy, let alone get all their work done,
let alone continue correspondence with hundreds or even dozens of fans.
I'm glad Carl stopped trying, because otherwise we might have one less
painting from him.
On the topic of Barks hating Rosa's work: I don't know the details, but
I can give you some insight that I have gleaned from Barks character.
Carl comes from a generation that values hard work almost above
everything and in some ways, I think he feels that creators who build on
his work are being lazy. I have a letter from him, where, talking
about one of my paintings, he compliments the technique and so forth,
but goes on to suggest that I should develop my own themes, gimmicks,
etc. and not lean so heavily on his. and I have to remember, Barks felt
guilty for copying plot ideas from his _own_ stories. Nothing makes him
angrier than thinking that someone is trying to take advantage of him or
get a free ride. He want's people to do their own work, not build on
his. In many ways, I think it's too bad that he feels this way. I
enjoy revisiting familiar fictional worlds and characters through the
eyes of new authors and there are many instances in comics, fantasy and
SF fiction, and television, and film, where this is done. Rosa doesn't
have to feel bad for wanting to live in Barks' universe, anymore that
James Cameron had to feel bad about wanting to tell another Ripley
story in "Aliens." On the other hand, every new story that trots out
Glittering Goldie is one less story that will have a "new" engaging
character that has flown forth from the pen of a new creator to hold us
all enraptured.
And BTW, I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I know that every
posting to this list is the OPINION of the person posting it, you don't
need to remind me with a continual barrage of IMHOs between every
phrase.
John
Soeren Krarup Olesen
Censorship
Message 274 -
1998-01-18 at 14:42:43
MARCO:
In Scarpa's "Zio Paperone e la battaglia dei colossi", #I-TL-565-A
from 1966 there is a perculiar example of censorship. It can be
found at
http://www.kom.auc.dk/~sko/jumbo/noshot.gif
In the bottom panel it's like a canon shot is fired from one of
the money bins, but it has been carefully erased, except that
the colouring is still intact (?!) The (Danish) text doesn't say
anything
about any canons, but I suppose the original Italian version does.
I am not sure, if it is this kind of material you are interested in,
Marco, or if you are looking for *complete* stories only?
S=F8ren
In Scarpa's "Zio Paperone e la battaglia dei colossi", #I-TL-565-A
from 1966 there is a perculiar example of censorship. It can be
found at
http://www.kom.auc.dk/~sko/jumbo/noshot.gif
In the bottom panel it's like a canon shot is fired from one of
the money bins, but it has been carefully erased, except that
the colouring is still intact (?!) The (Danish) text doesn't say
anything
about any canons, but I suppose the original Italian version does.
I am not sure, if it is this kind of material you are interested in,
Marco, or if you are looking for *complete* stories only?
S=F8ren
Gerstein, David DK - ECN
Disney comics Digest V98 #19
Message 275 -
1998-01-18 at 15:44:33
RICH (and others who may be interested):
"You [Europeans] will find that [the version of Fethry in
"Donald's Buzzin' Cousin," 1965, is] indeed VISUALLY not the Fethry you
are accustomed to seeing."
But... but... the Fethry model in this and the other Strobl
story ("Ducky Date") is actually identical to the original 1963 Al
Hubbard version. It's just that by 1965 Hubbard had changed his model on
the character, whereas Strobl used the original. So European readers
with some background ;-) ought to be familiar with Fethry's Stroblian
appearance.
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
"You [Europeans] will find that [the version of Fethry in
"Donald's Buzzin' Cousin," 1965, is] indeed VISUALLY not the Fethry you
are accustomed to seeing."
But... but... the Fethry model in this and the other Strobl
story ("Ducky Date") is actually identical to the original 1963 Al
Hubbard version. It's just that by 1965 Hubbard had changed his model on
the character, whereas Strobl used the original. So European readers
with some background ;-) ought to be familiar with Fethry's Stroblian
appearance.
David Gerstein
<(Email removed)>
Cebarat
Digest V98 #17-19
Message 276 -
1998-01-18 at 17:35:51
JANNE LAVIA:
<<For me, Don's stories are not ensyclopedic and epic ;-) in a way Barks'
stories are. Just read, say, DD in Old
California... how glorious, how beautiful!>>
Rosa's stories not "encyclopedic and epic"? If anything, they are TOO
MUCH SO at times. The giant canvases that Don habitually uses can sometimes
reduce the Ducks to "distant" characters that "lack warmth", despite the
attempts at sentiment. This is not due to an inherent difficulty
in characterizing the Ducks; Don does a good job of that. It simply
reflects the dangers involved in doing stories in which a whole lot of things
are going on. The story frequently drives the characters, rather than the
other way around.
The strength of Barks' peak-period stories like "In Old California" is that
they balance exposition, adventure, humor, and sentiment with the precision
of a gymnast. Some of Don's "Life of Scrooge" chapters, as well as several
of his "stand-alone" stories, achieve a similar balance, but in others
(e.g. "The Universal Solvent"), the stage dwarfs the Ducks, reducing our
sympathy for them as characters.
RICH BELLACERA's list of potential inheritors of Scrooge's fortune:
<<Gladstone Gander (nephew/cousin, just lucky that way)>>
Luck wouldn't be involved in Scrooge writing the will. Is his hand
accidentally going to write Gladstone's name, or something? I can foresee
S. mentioning Gladstone's name in the will, but that's about it.
<<Launchpad McQuack (needs to pay medical expenses and plane damages)>>
Not to mention his assistance on adventures...
<<Fenton Crackshell / Gizmoduck (for equipment maintenance & upgrade?)>>
Gizmoduck would get this money, no doubt; Fenton would be charged with
assisting the other recipients to manage their money.
<<Beagle Boys (feels sorry for them always bungling their robbery attempts)>>
Not bloody likely! :-O
<<Magica de Spell (she cast a spell on him to make her heir to "Old No. 1")>>
And that's the ONLY way she could possibly get a piece of the pie.
<<Mrs. Crackshell, the TV-holic ($crooge has always had a *thing* for her)>>
Perhaps Scrooge would figure Mrs. Crackshell would be happy to settle for
a cable-ready wide-screen TV set, rather than "mere" cash. :-)
BTW: Why would Glomgold and Rockerduck have any chance at contesting a will in
which they would not appear? Perhaps Glomgold (to take a for instance) is
trying to claim a piece of the fortune based on previous informal agreements
with Scrooge, such as the bet in the DUCKTALES episode "The Uncrashable
Hindentanic"?
B. MARTIN:
<<I personally find Rosa's presentation of Donald superior to Barks'. Donald
as a hot-tempered, ill-mannered lout is so tiresome. I have never had any
interest in the temper-tantrums of Donald in comics or cartoons.>>
??? Didn't Barks EXPAND upon this limited persona?
-- Christopher E. Barat
(Email removed)
http://members.aol.com/cebarat/home.htm
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #20
*****************************************
<<For me, Don's stories are not ensyclopedic and epic ;-) in a way Barks'
stories are. Just read, say, DD in Old
California... how glorious, how beautiful!>>
Rosa's stories not "encyclopedic and epic"? If anything, they are TOO
MUCH SO at times. The giant canvases that Don habitually uses can sometimes
reduce the Ducks to "distant" characters that "lack warmth", despite the
attempts at sentiment. This is not due to an inherent difficulty
in characterizing the Ducks; Don does a good job of that. It simply
reflects the dangers involved in doing stories in which a whole lot of things
are going on. The story frequently drives the characters, rather than the
other way around.
The strength of Barks' peak-period stories like "In Old California" is that
they balance exposition, adventure, humor, and sentiment with the precision
of a gymnast. Some of Don's "Life of Scrooge" chapters, as well as several
of his "stand-alone" stories, achieve a similar balance, but in others
(e.g. "The Universal Solvent"), the stage dwarfs the Ducks, reducing our
sympathy for them as characters.
RICH BELLACERA's list of potential inheritors of Scrooge's fortune:
<<Gladstone Gander (nephew/cousin, just lucky that way)>>
Luck wouldn't be involved in Scrooge writing the will. Is his hand
accidentally going to write Gladstone's name, or something? I can foresee
S. mentioning Gladstone's name in the will, but that's about it.
<<Launchpad McQuack (needs to pay medical expenses and plane damages)>>
Not to mention his assistance on adventures...
<<Fenton Crackshell / Gizmoduck (for equipment maintenance & upgrade?)>>
Gizmoduck would get this money, no doubt; Fenton would be charged with
assisting the other recipients to manage their money.
<<Beagle Boys (feels sorry for them always bungling their robbery attempts)>>
Not bloody likely! :-O
<<Magica de Spell (she cast a spell on him to make her heir to "Old No. 1")>>
And that's the ONLY way she could possibly get a piece of the pie.
<<Mrs. Crackshell, the TV-holic ($crooge has always had a *thing* for her)>>
Perhaps Scrooge would figure Mrs. Crackshell would be happy to settle for
a cable-ready wide-screen TV set, rather than "mere" cash. :-)
BTW: Why would Glomgold and Rockerduck have any chance at contesting a will in
which they would not appear? Perhaps Glomgold (to take a for instance) is
trying to claim a piece of the fortune based on previous informal agreements
with Scrooge, such as the bet in the DUCKTALES episode "The Uncrashable
Hindentanic"?
B. MARTIN:
<<I personally find Rosa's presentation of Donald superior to Barks'. Donald
as a hot-tempered, ill-mannered lout is so tiresome. I have never had any
interest in the temper-tantrums of Donald in comics or cartoons.>>
??? Didn't Barks EXPAND upon this limited persona?
-- Christopher E. Barat
(Email removed)
http://members.aol.com/cebarat/home.htm
--------------------------------
End of Disney comics Digest V98 Issue #20
*****************************************
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Looong reply to Don
Message 277 -
1998-01-18 at 19:53:40
DON ROSA:
> 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.
The same for me, I really didn't expect that so many people would give
their opinions of what they think are pros and cons on your work. There
were quite a lot of mails I want to respond to and now my draft-box is full
of attempts to answer them without being repetitive and saying things I
already said in another one. Still, I think it has been a very interesting
week because I don't think there has ever been such an open conversation
here of what people like and don't like on your stories or on other
artists' stories.
The question on why you are so silent this week in my last letter, was
not an expectation to see you answer every letter or to come up with a
statement on how your view on the ducks has changed or not changed. I was
just curious of what you thought of the discussion *itself*.
> 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?"
For me this thought has grown from a combination of your writings saying
that you don't change your personal view and the general tone of the people
who praise you for this, even though some of them have silent objections
which they don't speak about.
> But as for your long message of comments about my "Lo$". I ASKED you for
> those comments, did I not? You said so. Why would I ask you for them if
> I didn't care about them?
You asked me about the Lo$, while I more or less replied with an opinion
on your work in general. I wasn't quite sure if that was what you wanted
to get as an answer to this more specific question.
I get the feeling that the summary of my intentions in criticizing your
work in public is now that I did it as some kind of *revenge* to your
silence on a letter I wrote. This is not the case, as I've tried to make
clear in my last letter "Answer to Joakim Gunnarsson". The bitter tone in
my recent letters was against the general Rosa-positive-only feeling on
this list lately. It was not against you, even though I *did* think you
agreed with it.
> You, who say you are so afraid of offending me or hurting my feelings?
> You've done a grand job of the latter.
My knowlegde in English is far too limited to express all the apologies
I want to say now, as it has never been my intention to hurt you in any
way.
> I don't think much of my art,
I think it's good when an artist has this opinion on his work, since this
gives a stimulation to improve. However, if this gives you a feeling of
not being content with the work you've already made in general, I think
you can't be more wrong. Even though you seem to use a lot of tools in
drawing instead of using freely drawn lines, I think you do a great job
with it (I've always wondered if this method doesn't give you more
limitations instead of possibilities, but that's only a sidenote). My
opinion is that you make great art doing it your own way and as you can
see, I'm surely not the only one on this.
> I don't claim I'm a genius at writing,
Apart from my objections to your attempts to give the duck-universe a
history and a rather tight frame, I want to claim you *are* a genius in
story-telling and all the gags and the great dialogue you put into it.
> I don't claim that my version of the Ducks should be accepted as
> "official"...
But what do you do if it's clear that quite a lot people seem to do
exactly this? Instead of using their own imagination, people seem to
think *you* are the one who will sooner or later come up with the big
revelations of the things they've been wondering about for years.
I for myself always had big fun in trying to come up with possible
explanations for the things going on in the duck-universe without ever
getting this confirmed as a fact. For this reason I've always enjoyed
all the discussions here about for example the exact amount of money in
Scrooge's bin or who his heir might be. One will never know for sure,
but it's nice to think up possible solutions.
You say it's not your intention to settle things for the duck-comics in
general and that it's only a personal expression. It would really have
been great if it could stay that way and I really wish it could because
I think your revelations are often very interesting. As stated here many
times it would of course be easy to put your stories aside if they
contradict the reader's personal imagination, but it gets more and more
difficult if it won't be limited to your stories because other people
start to follow your IMO rather tight visions. People here have already
been afraid "Qauckpack" (sp?) would change the duck-universe, so why
couldn't your powerful stories be the ones who'll do this?
In your previous letter to me on this list, you ask me if it is your
popularity which threatens me. In this way it is, yes. There have been
a lot more people who attempted to write history or facts into the
duckworld and their stories have mostly been put aside as what they
were: individual opinions. Your stories are too strong for that,
because of their plots and because of the people who see them as the
long-awaited truth.
The (traditional) duck-universe is one of the few things I enjoy of life,
which I think sucks - not (nescessarily) personally, but by simply one
look at the daily news or the things I see around me. For this reason, it's
hard for me to see the duck-universe threatened the way it is now. *That*
was exactly the one reason for me to write the letters, anything beside
it was only a stimulation or a confirmation to do it.
> but I think I'm a world-class HERO when it comes to answering my mail
> and e-mail.
I would not even *dare* to state otherwise! Talking about facts... I don't
think anyone can disagree if I state here that the mailing-list would have
been a lot emptier if you didn't subscribe to it years ago.
> 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.
Why don't you make some standard replies, possible accompanied with xerox
of a fan-drawing? If I would write you (as a non-member) a letter by post,
it would be an honor in itself to learn that the artist himself did indeed
see it, instead of ending on the desk of a publc relations officer or
worser: in the dustbin.
I think your personal replies will be more of a surprise to fan than
something that meets his/hers expectations. Besides this, a personal
reply will give a fan a reason to write even *more* letters!
> 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.
I don't know if it's the case with all the private-messages you get, but
whenever I write you a private-message I make damn sure for myself I have
a good reason for it - and even then I mostly doubt it.
There's no sense in asking you questions in private that can easily be
answered here on the list. I'm not saying it's intended, but I think it's
rather selfish to expect to get an answer in private which is of interest
to far more people. Besides that, you'll get the same question more than
once, while a question-and-answer on the list might be remembered by
others any time a question is asked twice. I think a lot of people here
have already saved you a lot of replying-time by filling in some answers
for you.
So, maybe you can give yourself a lot more free time if you would comment
every private-message containing general questions with a standard-reply to
ask it on the list? The way things go now, I think you'll *never* be able
to reasonably answer all the messages sent to you.
> 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?
No-one. I think the only way to handle it is to see if you see something
valid in it, which you can possibly take into your future work.
> 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.
Indeed you never asked for this directly, but how can you expect people not
to react this way as your stories *do* give reasons to compare you with
Barks, since they're so heavily based on this works? Yes, it is your
opinion you give, not that of Barks, but how can people to see the Barks-
and Rosa-universe as something different when they're melted together the
way they are now? I have refrained from trying not to think of "Return to
Plain Awful" whenever I saw "Lost in the Andes" - which now makes me skip
them both because I didn't like the return-version.
I would never have objected if your stories only contained open references
to Barks' work. Yes, I might have disagreed but that is something I do
with other artists as well. Only their stories can be put aside easily as
if nothing happened, simply because they don't do it in the establishing
way you write yours - intended or not.
> 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.
This was not my purpose! I think you refer to my reply to Joakim here,
and that letter was an open question on your opinion how you look at
critique and how I personally felt you did it in the past (which explained
the tone in my letters earlier this week). Believe me, I'd rather see you
say the opposite (as you do now), but how can I know if I don't ask you?
The examples I gave were only to show how I *felt* about it up to then
and I really hope that it's clear to the people who read it.
> 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...
I can only hope that you change your mind on this.
Greetings,
--- 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.
The same for me, I really didn't expect that so many people would give
their opinions of what they think are pros and cons on your work. There
were quite a lot of mails I want to respond to and now my draft-box is full
of attempts to answer them without being repetitive and saying things I
already said in another one. Still, I think it has been a very interesting
week because I don't think there has ever been such an open conversation
here of what people like and don't like on your stories or on other
artists' stories.
The question on why you are so silent this week in my last letter, was
not an expectation to see you answer every letter or to come up with a
statement on how your view on the ducks has changed or not changed. I was
just curious of what you thought of the discussion *itself*.
> 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?"
For me this thought has grown from a combination of your writings saying
that you don't change your personal view and the general tone of the people
who praise you for this, even though some of them have silent objections
which they don't speak about.
> But as for your long message of comments about my "Lo$". I ASKED you for
> those comments, did I not? You said so. Why would I ask you for them if
> I didn't care about them?
You asked me about the Lo$, while I more or less replied with an opinion
on your work in general. I wasn't quite sure if that was what you wanted
to get as an answer to this more specific question.
I get the feeling that the summary of my intentions in criticizing your
work in public is now that I did it as some kind of *revenge* to your
silence on a letter I wrote. This is not the case, as I've tried to make
clear in my last letter "Answer to Joakim Gunnarsson". The bitter tone in
my recent letters was against the general Rosa-positive-only feeling on
this list lately. It was not against you, even though I *did* think you
agreed with it.
> You, who say you are so afraid of offending me or hurting my feelings?
> You've done a grand job of the latter.
My knowlegde in English is far too limited to express all the apologies
I want to say now, as it has never been my intention to hurt you in any
way.
> I don't think much of my art,
I think it's good when an artist has this opinion on his work, since this
gives a stimulation to improve. However, if this gives you a feeling of
not being content with the work you've already made in general, I think
you can't be more wrong. Even though you seem to use a lot of tools in
drawing instead of using freely drawn lines, I think you do a great job
with it (I've always wondered if this method doesn't give you more
limitations instead of possibilities, but that's only a sidenote). My
opinion is that you make great art doing it your own way and as you can
see, I'm surely not the only one on this.
> I don't claim I'm a genius at writing,
Apart from my objections to your attempts to give the duck-universe a
history and a rather tight frame, I want to claim you *are* a genius in
story-telling and all the gags and the great dialogue you put into it.
> I don't claim that my version of the Ducks should be accepted as
> "official"...
But what do you do if it's clear that quite a lot people seem to do
exactly this? Instead of using their own imagination, people seem to
think *you* are the one who will sooner or later come up with the big
revelations of the things they've been wondering about for years.
I for myself always had big fun in trying to come up with possible
explanations for the things going on in the duck-universe without ever
getting this confirmed as a fact. For this reason I've always enjoyed
all the discussions here about for example the exact amount of money in
Scrooge's bin or who his heir might be. One will never know for sure,
but it's nice to think up possible solutions.
You say it's not your intention to settle things for the duck-comics in
general and that it's only a personal expression. It would really have
been great if it could stay that way and I really wish it could because
I think your revelations are often very interesting. As stated here many
times it would of course be easy to put your stories aside if they
contradict the reader's personal imagination, but it gets more and more
difficult if it won't be limited to your stories because other people
start to follow your IMO rather tight visions. People here have already
been afraid "Qauckpack" (sp?) would change the duck-universe, so why
couldn't your powerful stories be the ones who'll do this?
In your previous letter to me on this list, you ask me if it is your
popularity which threatens me. In this way it is, yes. There have been
a lot more people who attempted to write history or facts into the
duckworld and their stories have mostly been put aside as what they
were: individual opinions. Your stories are too strong for that,
because of their plots and because of the people who see them as the
long-awaited truth.
The (traditional) duck-universe is one of the few things I enjoy of life,
which I think sucks - not (nescessarily) personally, but by simply one
look at the daily news or the things I see around me. For this reason, it's
hard for me to see the duck-universe threatened the way it is now. *That*
was exactly the one reason for me to write the letters, anything beside
it was only a stimulation or a confirmation to do it.
> but I think I'm a world-class HERO when it comes to answering my mail
> and e-mail.
I would not even *dare* to state otherwise! Talking about facts... I don't
think anyone can disagree if I state here that the mailing-list would have
been a lot emptier if you didn't subscribe to it years ago.
> 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.
Why don't you make some standard replies, possible accompanied with xerox
of a fan-drawing? If I would write you (as a non-member) a letter by post,
it would be an honor in itself to learn that the artist himself did indeed
see it, instead of ending on the desk of a publc relations officer or
worser: in the dustbin.
I think your personal replies will be more of a surprise to fan than
something that meets his/hers expectations. Besides this, a personal
reply will give a fan a reason to write even *more* letters!
> 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.
I don't know if it's the case with all the private-messages you get, but
whenever I write you a private-message I make damn sure for myself I have
a good reason for it - and even then I mostly doubt it.
There's no sense in asking you questions in private that can easily be
answered here on the list. I'm not saying it's intended, but I think it's
rather selfish to expect to get an answer in private which is of interest
to far more people. Besides that, you'll get the same question more than
once, while a question-and-answer on the list might be remembered by
others any time a question is asked twice. I think a lot of people here
have already saved you a lot of replying-time by filling in some answers
for you.
So, maybe you can give yourself a lot more free time if you would comment
every private-message containing general questions with a standard-reply to
ask it on the list? The way things go now, I think you'll *never* be able
to reasonably answer all the messages sent to you.
> 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?
No-one. I think the only way to handle it is to see if you see something
valid in it, which you can possibly take into your future work.
> 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.
Indeed you never asked for this directly, but how can you expect people not
to react this way as your stories *do* give reasons to compare you with
Barks, since they're so heavily based on this works? Yes, it is your
opinion you give, not that of Barks, but how can people to see the Barks-
and Rosa-universe as something different when they're melted together the
way they are now? I have refrained from trying not to think of "Return to
Plain Awful" whenever I saw "Lost in the Andes" - which now makes me skip
them both because I didn't like the return-version.
I would never have objected if your stories only contained open references
to Barks' work. Yes, I might have disagreed but that is something I do
with other artists as well. Only their stories can be put aside easily as
if nothing happened, simply because they don't do it in the establishing
way you write yours - intended or not.
> 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.
This was not my purpose! I think you refer to my reply to Joakim here,
and that letter was an open question on your opinion how you look at
critique and how I personally felt you did it in the past (which explained
the tone in my letters earlier this week). Believe me, I'd rather see you
say the opposite (as you do now), but how can I know if I don't ask you?
The examples I gave were only to show how I *felt* about it up to then
and I really hope that it's clear to the people who read it.
> 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...
I can only hope that you change your mind on this.
Greetings,
--- Daniel
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Don's Lurker status
Message 278 -
1998-01-18 at 20:40:01
MATTHEW SOMMER:
> 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?
The way Don Rosa faithfully answered the digests, it was not at all clear
that he got so many mail besides it.
> And even if they DID have the time, why should they have to?
They're indeed not obliged to do it, but if an artist gets the image of
faithfully answering each question, fans will indeed expect their letters
get answered as well.
> 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.).
If you mean me, I've never tried to imply that my opinion is the only
right one.
> 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?
Again, do you mean me with "that certain individual"? If so, just *say*
you mean me. Okay?
May I remind you that it's *Don's* descision, *not* mine?
Greetings,
--- Daniel
> 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?
The way Don Rosa faithfully answered the digests, it was not at all clear
that he got so many mail besides it.
> And even if they DID have the time, why should they have to?
They're indeed not obliged to do it, but if an artist gets the image of
faithfully answering each question, fans will indeed expect their letters
get answered as well.
> 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.).
If you mean me, I've never tried to imply that my opinion is the only
right one.
> 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?
Again, do you mean me with "that certain individual"? If so, just *say*
you mean me. Okay?
May I remind you that it's *Don's* descision, *not* mine?
Greetings,
--- Daniel
Luca Boschi
Dickie Duck and the "poor" Goldie
Message 279 -
1998-01-18 at 20:56:46
Hi, Katie!
I read...
=20
> Moving on before I end up putting my foot in my mouth again, thanks a
> million to Luca for this great information regarding non-American Gol=
die
> stories!=20
> > According with the Scarpa's version, if I well remember, from the
> > Klondike, Goldie went to Middle West, in a city (founded by Scrooge=
)
> > named Dollar City, into a sort of hotel-hospital for poor people,
>
> Poor? In Back to the Klondike, Scrooge gave her a whole cache of gol=
d!
> She doesn't need to go to a place like that! And after staying in th=
e
> Klondike all those years, I can't imagine her wanting to leave.
Yes, but how we can guess what happened later? Indeed, evey author has=20
his own vision of the Disney facts. For ex.: two days ago,
hit the italian newsstands the #100 of ZIO PAPERONE (the mag devoted to
U$ which publishes all the Don Rosa's stories, joined with the old
Barks' ones, and also with stories coming from Holland -Daan Jippes,=20
Fred Milton and so on- from Egmont). This very issue publishes an old=20
story drawn by Vicar 17 years ago, which stars Glittering Goldie too,=20
but in a different clue. With the money gotten by $crooge, she bought a=
=20
new wooden house in Klondike and a new saloon in Dawson City. According=
=20
with Vicar, she's rich, as proudly declares to his old lover. If you=20
like to have more news about this story, which in Italy is retitled "ZP=
=20
e l'oleodotto del Klondike", you can look for it in the Uppsala's=20
Newsgroup (maybe it's included in the Vicar list). Its code
number is D 5199 and it was drawn in 1980.
> > where she is scolded by a very masculine woman who humiliates her,
> > ordering her to do some very hard jobs. When Scrooge discovers this
> > fact, he buys the institution and nominates Goldie as director.
>
> Good for him! She's certainly got a strong personality suited for th=
e
> task.
Maybe it sounds strange for you, but when Scarpa conceived the story=20
"Arriva Paperetta Y=E8 Y=E8", it was the year 1966. "Back to the Klondi=
ke"=20
was out of print from 1958, in Italy. A lot of young readers had no ide=
a=20
of who Goldie were, and maybe also the editors of "Topolino". To put=20
Goldie in a story of $crooge, for the same Scarpa was a "product of=20
love", a signal hidden to very few people able to catch it, not exactly=
=20
a philological target to hit. Only around three years later some=20
hard-core comics italian fans should have been able to associate Barks'=
=20
name to his wonderful stories.
Now, thanks to Don Rosa (hi, Don!), everyone has seen Goldie in more=20
than a story.=20
> > More info: the same Paperetta comes from Middle West, she has no
> > parents and attended school in a sort of college. Goldie asks openl=
y
> > to Scrooge to bring her to Duckburg with him.
>
> Gee, I wonder why...? ;-)
=20
So, you mean Dickye might be his - er...- their "figlia"?
> Despite all my griping... Would somebody PLEASE send me a scan of th=
ese
> two ladies meeting? Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease!!!!
Well, alas, I don't have it to show you. Maybe Marco Barlotti, who
bought a new scanner (Hi, Marco! You find a picture of it also in an ol=
d=20
ZP article some months ago, maybe to comment "Last Sled to Dawson").=20
Bye to everyone!
Luca
I read...
=20
> Moving on before I end up putting my foot in my mouth again, thanks a
> million to Luca for this great information regarding non-American Gol=
die
> stories!=20
> > According with the Scarpa's version, if I well remember, from the
> > Klondike, Goldie went to Middle West, in a city (founded by Scrooge=
)
> > named Dollar City, into a sort of hotel-hospital for poor people,
>
> Poor? In Back to the Klondike, Scrooge gave her a whole cache of gol=
d!
> She doesn't need to go to a place like that! And after staying in th=
e
> Klondike all those years, I can't imagine her wanting to leave.
Yes, but how we can guess what happened later? Indeed, evey author has=20
his own vision of the Disney facts. For ex.: two days ago,
hit the italian newsstands the #100 of ZIO PAPERONE (the mag devoted to
U$ which publishes all the Don Rosa's stories, joined with the old
Barks' ones, and also with stories coming from Holland -Daan Jippes,=20
Fred Milton and so on- from Egmont). This very issue publishes an old=20
story drawn by Vicar 17 years ago, which stars Glittering Goldie too,=20
but in a different clue. With the money gotten by $crooge, she bought a=
=20
new wooden house in Klondike and a new saloon in Dawson City. According=
=20
with Vicar, she's rich, as proudly declares to his old lover. If you=20
like to have more news about this story, which in Italy is retitled "ZP=
=20
e l'oleodotto del Klondike", you can look for it in the Uppsala's=20
Newsgroup (maybe it's included in the Vicar list). Its code
number is D 5199 and it was drawn in 1980.
> > where she is scolded by a very masculine woman who humiliates her,
> > ordering her to do some very hard jobs. When Scrooge discovers this
> > fact, he buys the institution and nominates Goldie as director.
>
> Good for him! She's certainly got a strong personality suited for th=
e
> task.
Maybe it sounds strange for you, but when Scarpa conceived the story=20
"Arriva Paperetta Y=E8 Y=E8", it was the year 1966. "Back to the Klondi=
ke"=20
was out of print from 1958, in Italy. A lot of young readers had no ide=
a=20
of who Goldie were, and maybe also the editors of "Topolino". To put=20
Goldie in a story of $crooge, for the same Scarpa was a "product of=20
love", a signal hidden to very few people able to catch it, not exactly=
=20
a philological target to hit. Only around three years later some=20
hard-core comics italian fans should have been able to associate Barks'=
=20
name to his wonderful stories.
Now, thanks to Don Rosa (hi, Don!), everyone has seen Goldie in more=20
than a story.=20
> > More info: the same Paperetta comes from Middle West, she has no
> > parents and attended school in a sort of college. Goldie asks openl=
y
> > to Scrooge to bring her to Duckburg with him.
>
> Gee, I wonder why...? ;-)
=20
So, you mean Dickye might be his - er...- their "figlia"?
> Despite all my griping... Would somebody PLEASE send me a scan of th=
ese
> two ladies meeting? Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease!!!!
Well, alas, I don't have it to show you. Maybe Marco Barlotti, who
bought a new scanner (Hi, Marco! You find a picture of it also in an ol=
d=20
ZP article some months ago, maybe to comment "Last Sled to Dawson").=20
Bye to everyone!
Luca
Daniel Van Eijmeren
The Artist and His Critics.
Message 280 -
1998-01-18 at 21:10:31
DAVID FENSKE:
> Quotations are by Daniel van Eijmeren, regarding Rosa's "failure" to
> comment on some negative comments concerning his work:
>> Not everyone is the same, but if someone criticizes *my* work, I'd
>> surely like to comment on it!
> Maybe, maybe not. [...] What do you expect the artist to do? Change his
> methods?
Not nescessarily, although it would of course be fine if the artist agrees
with your opinion.
> But why do you think he is required to answer every comment sent in by
> his reading public? He doesn't have to justify his work.
Indeed, he doesn't have to. The only thing I can do is write what I think,
of course Don doesn't have justify the things he does. BUT... when an
artist uses someone else's work (which is Barks in Don's case) - which
already has its own devoted audience - I think it gets more complicated.
Then it's not only a case of only his work anymore, but also what he does
to the other artist's work.
Instead of what has been said here before, I *do* think older stories are
changed whenever a sequel or a construction is made on them. The original
story itself will indeed always remain the same, but *not* the experience
of reading it.
> It's a statistical fact that a certain percentage of readers aren't
> going to like something. There's nothing an artist can do about that.
Of course, but doesn't the percentage of complaints get higher if an
artists' stories have an effect on the work of another artist with its
own audience?
Greetings,
--- Daniel
> Quotations are by Daniel van Eijmeren, regarding Rosa's "failure" to
> comment on some negative comments concerning his work:
>> Not everyone is the same, but if someone criticizes *my* work, I'd
>> surely like to comment on it!
> Maybe, maybe not. [...] What do you expect the artist to do? Change his
> methods?
Not nescessarily, although it would of course be fine if the artist agrees
with your opinion.
> But why do you think he is required to answer every comment sent in by
> his reading public? He doesn't have to justify his work.
Indeed, he doesn't have to. The only thing I can do is write what I think,
of course Don doesn't have justify the things he does. BUT... when an
artist uses someone else's work (which is Barks in Don's case) - which
already has its own devoted audience - I think it gets more complicated.
Then it's not only a case of only his work anymore, but also what he does
to the other artist's work.
Instead of what has been said here before, I *do* think older stories are
changed whenever a sequel or a construction is made on them. The original
story itself will indeed always remain the same, but *not* the experience
of reading it.
> It's a statistical fact that a certain percentage of readers aren't
> going to like something. There's nothing an artist can do about that.
Of course, but doesn't the percentage of complaints get higher if an
artists' stories have an effect on the work of another artist with its
own audience?
Greetings,
--- Daniel
Luna Storta
Many replies
Message 281 -
1998-01-18 at 22:33:35
Hello,
Some replies from past digests... hey, there are arriving a lot of
digests... it's GREAT!
ABOUT EDITORIAL POLICIES OF ITALIAN DISNEY:
Marco, I agree 100% with you about the too high number of comics
published in Italy, and BTW even the "high target" publications
sometimes lack in quality: I'm referring to "Le Grandi Parodie", a
publication that costs 12.000 lire (6-7 dollars) and that sometimes has
additional panels drawn by some unknown artist, chopped panels, etc.
ABOUT TALIAFERRO STRIPES:
Someone said that he liked Taliaferro stripes used as filler material,
but I don't think it's a good idea, their interest is, IMHO, in their
filological (sp?) value, that can't be mantained if the stripes are
presented irregulary.
ABOUT FETHRY:
About the nationality of Fethry, David Gerstein reported that in WDG#5
he is presented as coming from Europe, but PLEASE, don't consider at
all that story: it has been presented in the USA in a shamefull way and
so it isn't of any relevance what is said in it!
RICH:
What is making you think that in Europe Donald and Mickey live in the
same city???? At least in Italy (and then in all the stories produced
in Italy) there is a clear distinction between Duckburg and Topolinia
(the name of Topolinia has been introduced for the first time from
Romano Scarpa). And as long as I can remember the first time I saw a
meeting between Donald and Mickey (excluding Donald's appearances in
Gottfredson's work) was in a stroy from Paul Murry, then from USA.
LUCA BOSCHI:
>(talking about Donald and Fethry):In the same story, for the first
>time is introduced also Tabby the cat, and uncle Ludwig Von Drake
>appears.
UNCLE Ludwig Von Drake????? I always considered LVD not as a relative
to the ducks... many times I saw Donald or HD&L calling him just
"Pico", and not "Zio Pico"...
RICH MORRISEY:
About the european artists who gave Scrooge a brother, I suppose we
have to think about the best brother Scrooge ever had with Gideone
de'Paperoni in "Paperino e i gamberi in salmi'" from Scarpa!
About the Duckburg mayor I agree with you in recalling him as a
PIGface, and this way to present him has been repeated by many italian
authors (it seems to me that expecially Luciano Gatto did it).
ABOUT DICKIE AS GOLDIE GRANDNIECE OR GRANDDAUGHTER:
Well, I already said it some digests ago, and I like to repeat it now:
IMHO Goldie had a son (or a daughter) BEFORE going to Klondyke, and
left him in an institute in order to don't make him afford Klondyke's
restrictions. This would explain her diffidence toward other ones when
she has been presented for the first time!
KATHY:
I can surely scan for you the meeting between Goldie and Brigitta,
but... I don't remember at all in which publication this story can be
found, I surely own it, but don't remember where... Maybe someone can
help?
MARCO:
Off topic: Fiorentina - Lazio 1-3 ;-)
Ciao,
Paolo Castagno alias Luna Storta
---------------------------------
visit the Disney Comics Market at
http://www.confor.it:2222/disney
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Some replies from past digests... hey, there are arriving a lot of
digests... it's GREAT!
ABOUT EDITORIAL POLICIES OF ITALIAN DISNEY:
Marco, I agree 100% with you about the too high number of comics
published in Italy, and BTW even the "high target" publications
sometimes lack in quality: I'm referring to "Le Grandi Parodie", a
publication that costs 12.000 lire (6-7 dollars) and that sometimes has
additional panels drawn by some unknown artist, chopped panels, etc.
ABOUT TALIAFERRO STRIPES:
Someone said that he liked Taliaferro stripes used as filler material,
but I don't think it's a good idea, their interest is, IMHO, in their
filological (sp?) value, that can't be mantained if the stripes are
presented irregulary.
ABOUT FETHRY:
About the nationality of Fethry, David Gerstein reported that in WDG#5
he is presented as coming from Europe, but PLEASE, don't consider at
all that story: it has been presented in the USA in a shamefull way and
so it isn't of any relevance what is said in it!
RICH:
What is making you think that in Europe Donald and Mickey live in the
same city???? At least in Italy (and then in all the stories produced
in Italy) there is a clear distinction between Duckburg and Topolinia
(the name of Topolinia has been introduced for the first time from
Romano Scarpa). And as long as I can remember the first time I saw a
meeting between Donald and Mickey (excluding Donald's appearances in
Gottfredson's work) was in a stroy from Paul Murry, then from USA.
LUCA BOSCHI:
>(talking about Donald and Fethry):In the same story, for the first
>time is introduced also Tabby the cat, and uncle Ludwig Von Drake
>appears.
UNCLE Ludwig Von Drake????? I always considered LVD not as a relative
to the ducks... many times I saw Donald or HD&L calling him just
"Pico", and not "Zio Pico"...
RICH MORRISEY:
About the european artists who gave Scrooge a brother, I suppose we
have to think about the best brother Scrooge ever had with Gideone
de'Paperoni in "Paperino e i gamberi in salmi'" from Scarpa!
About the Duckburg mayor I agree with you in recalling him as a
PIGface, and this way to present him has been repeated by many italian
authors (it seems to me that expecially Luciano Gatto did it).
ABOUT DICKIE AS GOLDIE GRANDNIECE OR GRANDDAUGHTER:
Well, I already said it some digests ago, and I like to repeat it now:
IMHO Goldie had a son (or a daughter) BEFORE going to Klondyke, and
left him in an institute in order to don't make him afford Klondyke's
restrictions. This would explain her diffidence toward other ones when
she has been presented for the first time!
KATHY:
I can surely scan for you the meeting between Goldie and Brigitta,
but... I don't remember at all in which publication this story can be
found, I surely own it, but don't remember where... Maybe someone can
help?
MARCO:
Off topic: Fiorentina - Lazio 1-3 ;-)
Ciao,
Paolo Castagno alias Luna Storta
---------------------------------
visit the Disney Comics Market at
http://www.confor.it:2222/disney
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Dominik Altevogt
Don's Lurker status
Message 282 -
1998-01-18 at 23:11:49
Oh no!! :-(
Can't imagen this happend. I think nobody wanted this to happen! Therefore
I won't make anybody responsible for this disaster. But we all should start
thinking about what we are writing to this public list or what should
better be sent by privat mail. In the last issues there was some stuff
which IMHO wasn't any critisism anymore but more seemed to be an
accusation. Please stop this before this outstanding list becomes like most
mailing-lists, a place of intollerance. Thank You
Dominik Altevogt ,,,,,
(Email removed) (+ +)
----------------oOO--(_)--OOo-----------------
Can't imagen this happend. I think nobody wanted this to happen! Therefore
I won't make anybody responsible for this disaster. But we all should start
thinking about what we are writing to this public list or what should
better be sent by privat mail. In the last issues there was some stuff
which IMHO wasn't any critisism anymore but more seemed to be an
accusation. Please stop this before this outstanding list becomes like most
mailing-lists, a place of intollerance. Thank You
Dominik Altevogt ,,,,,
(Email removed) (+ +)
----------------oOO--(_)--OOo-----------------
Katie Sullivan
Post that will sound angrier than I mean it to
Message 283 -
1998-01-19 at 00:27:06
> KATIE SULLIVAN --
> I'm sorry to see how thoroughly devoted you are to the
> idea of Ducks And Nothing Else. It reminds me of the way most
> U.S. comics fans sneer at anything that doesn't concern muscle-
> bound, spandex-clad morons committing violence on one another
> for obscure reasons.
Geez, I *HATE* those kinds of comics.
> It's sad to see such a narrow focus -- not
> only because it leads you to push for the exclusion of other
> good material from what is SUPPOSED to be an ANTHOLOGY title,
> which was strongest back when it contained the most VARIETY --
> but also because, as I used to tell my kids when they were
> younger, the more things you like, the happier you'll be.
Ouch. I never meant to insult anyone who *does* like other comics.
More power to them.As for me, don't even start to suggest I have a
limited range of interests. I'm interested and involved in Disney
comics, Darkwing Duck, Tale Spin, Sailor Moon, Animaniacs, Rugrats, etc,
and that's just in the world of comics and animation. Add to that list
meteorology, astronomy, computers, hockey, Broadway music, piano,
National Honor Society, Spanish Club, maintaining a 5000+hit website
plus two other, smaller ones, Redwall books, Mark Twain, Shakespeare,
history, cartooning, sketching, reading, poetry, and writing, the last
of which has led me to produce 3.5 novel manuscripts. I graduate from
high school in the spring. So don't tell me I don't have a full plate.
I'm lucky I have time to read the parts of WDC&S that DO interest me.
You'll have to forgive me if I skip over the likes of Morris the Midget
Moose. I only have time for what truly interests me.
If I sound b**chy, sorry. It was never my intention to irritate people
with different interests. More power to them. Read. Enjoy. Discuss.
But forgive me if I don't share that interest.
> You know, we discussed this topic on the List last year
> or the year before -- the fact that most Disney comics fans like
> the Ducks best, sometimes (VERY unfortunately, for them) to the
> exclusion of everything else.
I don't consider myself unfortunate to enjoy the fantastic world of Duck
comics.
> I did not enjoy "The Reluctant Dragon" or "Morris the Midget Moose" in
>
> WDC&S #621. I would much rather have some Duck and/or Mouse stories
> from
> Europe. *IMHO* These stories cannot carry themselves in their own
> titles,
> so why put so much in WDC&S? Anybody from Gladstone still reading the
> list?
And I'm not alone.
> On the other hand, every new story that trots out Glittering Goldie
> is one less story that will have a "new" engaging character that has
> flown forth from the pen of a new creator to hold us
> all enraptured.
Taking this to the extreme, do you imply we shouldn't have any recurring
characters? Is "trotting out" Grandma Duck or Gyro tiresome? No. If
you've got a good character, no matter WHO they are, use them! Why let
good story opportunites get dusty?
Well, now that I've probably thoroughly p***ed off the whole mailing
list, I'll be moving on to the rest of my e-mail.
Katie
> I'm sorry to see how thoroughly devoted you are to the
> idea of Ducks And Nothing Else. It reminds me of the way most
> U.S. comics fans sneer at anything that doesn't concern muscle-
> bound, spandex-clad morons committing violence on one another
> for obscure reasons.
Geez, I *HATE* those kinds of comics.
> It's sad to see such a narrow focus -- not
> only because it leads you to push for the exclusion of other
> good material from what is SUPPOSED to be an ANTHOLOGY title,
> which was strongest back when it contained the most VARIETY --
> but also because, as I used to tell my kids when they were
> younger, the more things you like, the happier you'll be.
Ouch. I never meant to insult anyone who *does* like other comics.
More power to them.As for me, don't even start to suggest I have a
limited range of interests. I'm interested and involved in Disney
comics, Darkwing Duck, Tale Spin, Sailor Moon, Animaniacs, Rugrats, etc,
and that's just in the world of comics and animation. Add to that list
meteorology, astronomy, computers, hockey, Broadway music, piano,
National Honor Society, Spanish Club, maintaining a 5000+hit website
plus two other, smaller ones, Redwall books, Mark Twain, Shakespeare,
history, cartooning, sketching, reading, poetry, and writing, the last
of which has led me to produce 3.5 novel manuscripts. I graduate from
high school in the spring. So don't tell me I don't have a full plate.
I'm lucky I have time to read the parts of WDC&S that DO interest me.
You'll have to forgive me if I skip over the likes of Morris the Midget
Moose. I only have time for what truly interests me.
If I sound b**chy, sorry. It was never my intention to irritate people
with different interests. More power to them. Read. Enjoy. Discuss.
But forgive me if I don't share that interest.
> You know, we discussed this topic on the List last year
> or the year before -- the fact that most Disney comics fans like
> the Ducks best, sometimes (VERY unfortunately, for them) to the
> exclusion of everything else.
I don't consider myself unfortunate to enjoy the fantastic world of Duck
comics.
> I did not enjoy "The Reluctant Dragon" or "Morris the Midget Moose" in
>
> WDC&S #621. I would much rather have some Duck and/or Mouse stories
> from
> Europe. *IMHO* These stories cannot carry themselves in their own
> titles,
> so why put so much in WDC&S? Anybody from Gladstone still reading the
> list?
And I'm not alone.
> On the other hand, every new story that trots out Glittering Goldie
> is one less story that will have a "new" engaging character that has
> flown forth from the pen of a new creator to hold us
> all enraptured.
Taking this to the extreme, do you imply we shouldn't have any recurring
characters? Is "trotting out" Grandma Duck or Gyro tiresome? No. If
you've got a good character, no matter WHO they are, use them! Why let
good story opportunites get dusty?
Well, now that I've probably thoroughly p***ed off the whole mailing
list, I'll be moving on to the rest of my e-mail.
Katie
Marco Barlotti
WDCS #621
Message 284 -
1998-01-19 at 01:24:28
KATIE:
> WDC&S #621:
>I just got my copy yesterday.
>I'll address each story in order of appearance:
>
[...]
>JW in Life Savers...another nice Woodchucks tale with thick Barkensian
>influences.
Just "influences"? Isn't this Barks' script with the very same title that
appeared first in
HUEY, DEWEY AND LOUIE JUNIOR WOODCHUCKS #6 of July 1970 ?
>
>Gyro in The Pied Piper of Duckburg
WOW! That's the only Barks story I've never read! (Only started by Barks,
all right, but carried on by Rosa which is the TOP to me...) I must
ABSOLUTELY have this!
Who's willing to swap a copy of this issue of WDCS against anything we might
agree upon? Or even a scanning of the story? Or xerox copies? Please contact
me PRIVATELY about this at
(Email removed)
Thanks!
Marco
> WDC&S #621:
>I just got my copy yesterday.
>I'll address each story in order of appearance:
>
[...]
>JW in Life Savers...another nice Woodchucks tale with thick Barkensian
>influences.
Just "influences"? Isn't this Barks' script with the very same title that
appeared first in
HUEY, DEWEY AND LOUIE JUNIOR WOODCHUCKS #6 of July 1970 ?
>
>Gyro in The Pied Piper of Duckburg
WOW! That's the only Barks story I've never read! (Only started by Barks,
all right, but carried on by Rosa which is the TOP to me...) I must
ABSOLUTELY have this!
Who's willing to swap a copy of this issue of WDCS against anything we might
agree upon? Or even a scanning of the story? Or xerox copies? Please contact
me PRIVATELY about this at
(Email removed)
Thanks!
Marco
Marco Barlotti
Censorship
Message 285 -
1998-01-19 at 01:24:30
SOEREN:
>
>In Scarpa's "Zio Paperone e la battaglia dei colossi", #I-TL-565-A
>from 1966 there is a perculiar example of censorship. [...]
>The (Danish) text doesn't say anything
>about any canons, but I suppose the original Italian version does.
>
Interesting! The italian story is FULL of cannon shots, three of which are
very clearly drawn. So maybe full panels are missing from your version?
BTW, I could not see the panel on your WebSite. Netscape gave me the
message: <Document contains no data>, while Internet Explorer said
<Unexpected Error - Restart program and retry> but no matter how many times
I restarted the program nothing changed!
>I am not sure, if it is this kind of material you are interested in,
>Marco, or if you are looking for *complete* stories only?
Yes, THIS is the kind of material I'm looking for. Keep on searching!
Marco
http://marcobar.ce.unifi.it/Comics/Censored
>
>In Scarpa's "Zio Paperone e la battaglia dei colossi", #I-TL-565-A
>from 1966 there is a perculiar example of censorship. [...]
>The (Danish) text doesn't say anything
>about any canons, but I suppose the original Italian version does.
>
Interesting! The italian story is FULL of cannon shots, three of which are
very clearly drawn. So maybe full panels are missing from your version?
BTW, I could not see the panel on your WebSite. Netscape gave me the
message: <Document contains no data>, while Internet Explorer said
<Unexpected Error - Restart program and retry> but no matter how many times
I restarted the program nothing changed!
>I am not sure, if it is this kind of material you are interested in,
>Marco, or if you are looking for *complete* stories only?
Yes, THIS is the kind of material I'm looking for. Keep on searching!
Marco
http://marcobar.ce.unifi.it/Comics/Censored