Keskustelujen arkisto

Christopher E. Barat wrote:

>I most definitely DO have opinions on this subject, but don't wish to air
>them until a consensus is reached as to what aspects may or may not be
>discussed here.
>
>Let's hear from more of you out there.

I have an opinion, but I feel it would be an uninformed opinion. I pick up
little bits of information here and there on this ML but it seems to be a
"taboo" subject. Where does Don Rosa stand on this? I did not understand
his last posting. If nobody wants to talk about it on the ML how about
private e-mail anyone?

Harry wrote:

>What makes you think that discussing this is "taboo" on the List?
>If a discussion about Barks isn't allowed, then what is?
>It's not about the bible or metric systems...

I agree with Harry! It is okay with me if people want to discuss things
other than Disney comics on the list, I know how to use the arrow down
button (been using it a lot lately). However subjects that have to do with
Disney comics and the artists should not be shut out!

-Mike

MITCHELL MARMEL to MICHAEL NAIMAN, 15-02-1998:

MN> This is Carl we're talking about..a human, living breathing real
MN> person..who has brought us years of pleasure and enjoyment.....
MN> not some four color character who exists on some cheap pulp paper.

MM> I'm with Michael on this. While I understand that discussing this
MM> subject is taboo on this list, I really think that, given the
MM> circumstances, the taboo ought to be lifted,

As far as I know (and I'm virtually a member since the beginning of this
list in 1992) there's no taboo at all here when it comes to discussing
law-suits related to Disney comics/artists.

However, I read here that it might not be wise to do this, since that
might have an effect on the things going on in court. Is that true?
Can someone here tell more about the American justice on this?

Greetings,

--- Daniel

> ----------
> "Brown" can also be a reference to people of African ascent (and

> "Black" is also a symbol of Anarchy)... Let us try something like The

> Chartreuse Avenger, Super Fuchsia or Captain Turquoise. :-)

I like the sound of that... :-) It almost sounds better than "Captain
Kentucky"... :-)

Mike:
>I have an opinion, but I feel it would be an uninformed opinion. I pick up
>little bits of information here and there on this ML but it seems to be a
>"taboo" subject. Where does Don Rosa stand on this? I did not understand
>his last posting.

Now I understand the "taboo" you all are talking about!
Apart from the excellent summary Daniel gave about law suits, there are
some other facts:

The Carl Barks studio has gathered everything Don Rosa wrote on this
mailing list, and printed it in a booklet with an accompanying index.
They especially emphasised on the *negative* remarks that Don made.
"Supporting" (to the negativity, that is) mails by other people (like
me) are also included. The index is an easy way to find these negative
remarks. This booklet has been sent to all relations of the Carl Barks
Studio.
The booklet also contains articles in Danish and Italian newspapers,
where people write very negative things about Don Rosa.

When Carl Barks was visiting Europe in 1994, the Carl Barks Studio
explicitly demanded from every hosting editor that Don Rosa would be
nowhere nearby.

There may be more things going on, but I won't write them down now
because I don't know the details for 100%, and I don't want to post
inexact information.

--Harry.

ETA BETA:
>MICHAEL NAIMAN [on Barks' legal troubles]
>>The last time there were legal docs filed it seems as the
>>only thing people cared about was whether Fethry or
>>who-knows-who was properly indexed in the appropriate charts.
>
>As one of the main "culpables" of the Fethry/Tabby discussion,
>I feel compelled to reply to this remark, which I find totally
>gratuitous.

Thank you Eta! You said that much better than I would have!

I care about what happens to Mr. Barks, but I would think that
"Fethry" is a completely APPROPRIATE topic of discussion
on this List.

HARRY FLUKS:
>I wonder *how* it sounds... how do the English (or the American)
>pronounce the word "Turquoise"?

We typically say it like this: "tur-koyz" (rhymes with "Lurk Boys")
though it is more properly pronounced "tur-kwoyz"

-Rich (xephyr)
http://www.jps.net/xephyr/rich/disney.html

Eta Beta wrote:

>MARTIN LOEBMANN
>
>>A long time ago (probably 20 years or more), I saw in our local
>>newspapers (Sao Paulo - BRAZIL) a report about
>>Disney Comics beeing published in LATIN, probably in Europe.
>
>Apart from the Italian "Topolino Piu`" editions PAOLO quoted,
>there was a German publisher doing a series of Disney comics
>in Latin. I read about it somewhere recently, and obviously
>will let you know if I find out more.

You're probably thinking of German publisher Ehapa. They published (or
better: distributed in Germany, Austria, Switzerland) a series called
"Lingua Latina". Editor was a "European Language Institute" somewhere in
Italy (northern Italy, I think, but can't look it up now.) I myself have
the first volume in the series, Marco Rota's "Donaldus Anas atque nox
Saraceni", which was published in 1984 by Ehapa-Verlag in Stutgardiae, has
XXXVI pages and the ISBN 3-7704-0031-3; price was then DM 13.80. (I looked
this up just now in a bibliographical database, in case you wonder.) I have
seen other volumes in the series dealing with Scrooge (Scrugulus) and
Mickey (Micael Musculus? Don't know for sure), but didn't buy them, since
the stories were some non-appealing (at least to me) standard Italian ones
(as opposed to Marco Rota's beautiful story and artwork.)
I don't think any of the volumes are still in print today. Perhaps at
antiquarian book dealers.

Best regards, Frank

HARRY FLUKS to MIKE:

>> on this ML but it seems to be a "taboo" subject. Where does Don Rosa
>> stand on this? I did not understand his last posting.

> Now I understand the "taboo" you all are talking about!

I still don't. This is the idea I have on it: When Don Rosa decided to sue
the Barks Studio, he talked about the matter openly on this list (thinking
it was a private club instead of a public one) and this had an effect on
the case because the Barks Studio could then say that Don was telling bad
stories in public, too. This was why it became a settlement. (Again: I'm
writing this from memory, so please correct any mistakes in this!)

Is this the reason why some people said talking about law-suits here on
the list can have an effect on court?

> Apart from the excellent summary Daniel gave about law suits,

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm now a bit unsure if the Hamilton lawsuit
was only because of the Barks Studio's press-release on the "Unexpurgated
Barks" book. Weren't there also some financial/contractual reasons?

This is still going on, maybe there's someone who has a public document on
this lawsuit which fills in the details?

> The Carl Barks studio has gathered everything Don Rosa wrote on this
> mailing list, and printed it in a booklet with an accompanying index.
> They especially emphasised on the *negative* remarks that Don made.

What I still don't know fully is *why* they did this. Maybe the answer
lies somewhere in the archives, but didn't it start as a personal matter
on a party in Atlanta which Don Rosa and Carl Barks once both attended?
I think the fax was about this situation, saying that Don Rosa was drunk
and made Barks frightened by stalking him on that party. Most likely this
was the reason why Barks (and/or the Barks Studio) didn't want Don around
during his visits to Europe.

Don Rosa told a different story on this, saying he wasn't drunk at all
and didn't stalk Barks. Again, this is from memory, but wasn't the
circulation of this stalk-story exactly the reason why Don Rosa sued
the Barks Studio? It's likely that this is where the thought began that
some people are eager to get Don out of his job, since the editor
apparently was Egmont (but I'm guessing here).

And maybe he/she/they *are*, because the blue booklet Harry is talking
about was spread to people up to at least half December 1997. As Harry
described it's indeed with the emphasis on negativity (mainly because of
the index) and I can think of no other reason than that's its purpose is
to put Rosa in a bad light. And to be frankly, Don's mails aren't of much
help because he *did* write a lot of heated comments at the time (no matter
if one agrees with it or not).

These are the facts (as I know them). My opinion on this is that's it's
rather childish to quote message from your opponent instead of writing one
*yourself*. Everyone is free is express his opinion, but pleeeease... let
it be your *own* opinion then! Whoever compiled the booklet, his/her
opinion and the *motive* for the booklet can't be found anywhere in the
booklet. For this reason alone, I already heavily frowned on it.

The only person(s) who got in a bad light for me was the sender of the
booklet and that was very confusing to say the least, because the rest of
the package was a beautiful huge collection of promotional material on
Barks.

Opening the package I was blessing and praising the sender, but then
suddenly the blue booklet turned up. Very confusing. The only thing
I thought about it was: "Why do you do this??? Don't you know that by
sending such material to people you're destroying it for *yourself*???"

Always inclined to believe in the good intentions of people, this was
very puzzling: The rest of the package, including the personal note,
was really so kind and helpful!

I feel stupid. I should have had the guts to ask this, but I'm afraid
it's too late now for that.

> The booklet also contains articles in Danish and Italian newspapers,
> where people write very negative things about Don Rosa.

The articles are the Danish "Krig I Andeby" (War in Duckburg) and the
Italian "No, caro Paperino tu non hai mamma e papa" (No, my dear Donald
Duck, you have no father and mother), English translations are included.

The Italian article (published in "La Repubblica" on 14 November 1995)
is the only one I've seen which quotes Barks on his opinion on Don Rosa
by using his name. It is quite negative (if the translation is right),
but Barks *only* criticizes Don's *work* here (saying that he doesn't
agree with it and that Don is not his heir). The writer of the article
(Luca Raffaelli), however, goes further than that and (according to the
translation) uses some offensive wording to describe Don's work and
his person.

> There may be more things going on, but I won't write them down now
> because I don't know the details for 100%, and I don't want to post
> inexact information.

Me neither, so please correct me if there are mistakes in this letter.
I've told what I know about the matter, giving my opinion here and there.
However, I can't give my opinion on the main story (the three lawsuits,
etc.) since I simply *don't know* the main story. All we have here on
the list are some loose bits and missing or unclear motives. For me a
person is only guilty for if he's/she's *proved* guilty.

As for the missing main story... I have the feeling that some people here
know *a lot more* than what I just told here, but for some reason don't
want (or dare!) to write about it. Maybe it's about time the curtains are
heaved up and that people tell what they know? This is the only way to get
opinions from people, because what we have now are only a few loose bits
and quite a lot of rumours.

Anyway, this was *my* story. Please notice that, besides giving my opinion
at some pionts, that the general tone of the message is *neutral*. As an
outsider on the matter, I refuse to give my opinion on anyone before I know
what really is/was happening!

Greetings,

--- Daniel