DON ROSA to HARRY FLUKS, 01-04-2004:
> As for the Stone being "yellow"... I just think it looks better as a
> contrasting stone-color if it is turning other stuff *into* gold. So
> I always instruct the colorists to make it gray.
In one of Barks's paintings based on 'The Fabulous Philosopher's Stone'
(US 10-02), the Stone looks like an average stone.
See: http://www.seriesam.com/barks/dp_stone_metal.jpg
In Barks's story, Scrooge even throws the Stone away as being just a
chunk of rubble.
And in the end of the story, after realizing the Stone's power, Scrooge
has to give up his wonderful Philosopher's Stone. Has Scrooge ever seen
the Stone again? Not to my mind. I think he went on, to NEW adventures
and NEW situations.
So, 'Letter From Home' is not a story to look forward to, for me. I'm
afraid this story will be yet another Barks revisit. I prefer reading
the original story, and brand-new stories which are inspired with new,
FRESH subjects.
--- Dani?l
Author
Topic: 200404
(317 messages)
Daniel Van Eijmeren
The Stone That Turns All Metals Gold
Message 31 -
2004-04-03 at 04:10:24
Theresa Wiegert
The Stone That Turns All Metals Gold
Message 32 -
2004-04-03 at 04:24:58
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Daniel van Eijmeren wrote:
> So, 'Letter From Home' is not a story to look forward to, for me. I'm
> afraid this story will be yet another Barks revisit. I prefer reading
> the original story, and brand-new stories which are inspired with new,
> FRESH subjects.
ohoh! I sense negativism here (correct me if I'm wrong!). But. If you
haven't read it yet, you're now prejudging it, which I never think is
fair. Perhaps I'm biased because of my love for old castles and everything
involved in that, but I loved it... There's definitely a new subject (or
way of describing something) in it, which surprised me at first, but now I
just think it is very cool...
Although - it's sometimes better to have low expectations of something, so
stick to that if you like, because then you like it all the more when it
turns out to be so much better.
I like the discussion of universes btw (i.e. the notion of creating your
own). And I like the way Rosa is making an own Universe, I felt it
strongly in 'a letter from home', it's far from the Barks Universe, which
to me is good (don't misinterpret me, I love the Barks Universe, but yes,
Rosa's is definitely a separate one)
/Theresa
> So, 'Letter From Home' is not a story to look forward to, for me. I'm
> afraid this story will be yet another Barks revisit. I prefer reading
> the original story, and brand-new stories which are inspired with new,
> FRESH subjects.
ohoh! I sense negativism here (correct me if I'm wrong!). But. If you
haven't read it yet, you're now prejudging it, which I never think is
fair. Perhaps I'm biased because of my love for old castles and everything
involved in that, but I loved it... There's definitely a new subject (or
way of describing something) in it, which surprised me at first, but now I
just think it is very cool...
Although - it's sometimes better to have low expectations of something, so
stick to that if you like, because then you like it all the more when it
turns out to be so much better.
I like the discussion of universes btw (i.e. the notion of creating your
own). And I like the way Rosa is making an own Universe, I felt it
strongly in 'a letter from home', it's far from the Barks Universe, which
to me is good (don't misinterpret me, I love the Barks Universe, but yes,
Rosa's is definitely a separate one)
/Theresa
Chris Hilbig
Rosa's own li'l Universe
Message 33 -
2004-04-03 at 04:28:56
In the first paragraph of my post, I meant to second Kai Saarto and not
Daniel van Eijmeren. Sorry for the confusion. :P
Daniel van Eijmeren. Sorry for the confusion. :P
Katie Sullivan
Universes
Message 34 -
2004-04-03 at 04:49:54
Hi again, everyone! I haven't posted to the list in ages.
Partly because I haven't had anything useful to say, and partly
because I've been distracted with other matters--including my
grandmother passing away last month. :(
> From: "Matthew Williams"
> A couple of days ago,
> I was
> checking out the "Jump the Shark" webpage. If you're not
> familiar with the
> site, it's a place where readers can post their own opinions
> about when
> television shows "jumped the shark" (or went off course from a
> quality
> standpoint). On the DuckTales page, someone wrote:
>
> "For those interested,Scrooge McDuck immigrated from Scotland
> with his two
> sisters,Hortense and Matidla,in the early 20th Century.While
> he was going
> all over the world building an empire his sisters stayed in
> Duckburg.Matilda
> married Ludwig Von Drake.Hortense married Quackmore,son of
> Dabney and Elvira
> Duck-farmers.They had twins,Donald and Della.Della later
> married a duck
> named Daniel and they had triplets,Huey,Dewey and Louie.
Forget the unofficial tie to Ludvig--where in the world did
"Daniel" come from???
> Rosa wrote Scrooge's biography (one of the most popular and
> acclaimed series
> of Disney stories ever). He filled in details about what
> Scrooge and Goldie
> 's relationship that Barks didn't touch.
Didn't or couldn't, given the time period and the editors? ;)
> From: Kai Saarto <ksaarto at mbnet.fi>
> I for one would love to see other people
> using Glittering Goldie [...] in their stores.
I second that. (Shocking surprise, I know.) ;)
> From: "Klartekst" <info at klartekst.no>
> I believe there are as many duck universes as there are
> READERS. The duck universes are inside our heads and we each
> choose what we put into them. Although I don't accept all
> Don's premises, most of his stories adds a little bit to my
> own version of Duckburg, making it richer and more detailed.
I agree with that. Everyone takes bits and pieces from
different authors and adds them to their own personal version of
the duck universe. That's what so nice about it! That freedom
for creativity and different interpretations is part of what
makes the comics so appealing to such a wide variety of people
around the world, I think.
>> From: "Daniel van Eijmeren" <dve at kabelfoon.nl>
> If artists want to
> have their own
> universe, they have to fully invent one themselves. From
> scratch. But if
> an artist writes a Disney story, then it's destinied to be
> part of the
> Disney universe.
Yes, obviously. But within the larger Disney universe, there
can be sub-universes. ;) There's the Barks universe, the Rosa
one, the Scarpa one, the Van Horn one...etc etc etc.
> I still like a lot of your jokes and twists, but for me the
> quality of the
> overall stories themselves has been going downhill for a long
> time. And I
> have no enjoyment or satisfaction at all in saying that,
> because I find it
> one of greatest losses in Disney comics history.
That's a rather dramatic way of putting it. Yes, there are some
Rosa stories I like better than others. Some I practically have
memorized, and others I rarely re-read. But I certainly haven't
recognized any pattern like the one you're talking about. Maybe
it's just me?
My favorite stories, whether by Barks, Rosa, Rota, Scarpa, or
whomever, are the adventures in faraway lands. The more
"domestic" stories can be funny and entertaining, too, but
generally speaking I prefer the "Indiana Jones" style tales.
What I love about Barks and Rosa stories is that I feel like I
*am* in those places, at those times. Lesser creators may send
characters to some random, fictional jungle that could be
anywhere from Africa to Mexico to the Disney backlot in Burbank.
There's just this generic, "fake" feel to it. Barks and Rosa
don't do that, and that's what makes them my favorite comic book
creators. They thread authentic visual and linguistic detail
into the stories to make the places seem real. They don't
insult my intelligence by creating silly, cheesy settings that
have no context. They even *gasp* do research!
I like reading about real places, even seen through the lens of
a world with talking ducks! Things like that help me connect
with the story and the characters.
There's also something nice about following the characters
through one writer's eyes over an extended period of time. When
you read stories by a different creator every month they can
still be fun, but there's no sense of progression. I enjoy
Rosa's stories because, although the characters are still very
much the ones I love and recognize in other Disney comic books,
they also develop uniquely under the pen of a specific writer.
Moments, conversations, exchanges...things that are only a panel
or two of any given comic story and don't seem that significant
at the time...they all add up after years of reading Rosa
stories, and eventually you come to a fuller understanding of
the characters by putting all those little pieces together.
Themes emerge from the cumulative effect of all those stories,
over time.
Um...did that make any sense at all? It sounded clearer in my
head than it looks on the screen. >_<
I guess all that can be distilled to read, "I like Rosa's
writing, and the continuity." ;)
> I'm wondering if I'm really the only one here, on this mailing
> list, who
> thinks that you are at your best when you make original
> stories of your
> own, with *new* elements, without leaning on recycled Barks
> elements.
I don't see the Barks-based Rosa stories as "leaning" on the
previous work. I see them as building on established lore that
we already know and love, refreshing it and adding a new angle
to it.
> From: Chris Hilbig <chilbig1 at satx.rr.com>
> As far as Don Rosa's temperament is concern, I realize he
> may come
> off as a pre-madonna to many fans
LOL! I'm sorry, I really shouldn't tease like this when English
isn't the first language of the majority of the list members,
but...
pre-madonna = coming before the virgin Mary (Or something like
that--it's not a term I've ever seen used in English)
primadonna = the word you were looking for ;)
Heehee...
Anyway, I could not disagree more with that statement, garbled
language or not. If anything, Mr. Rosa seems humble to a fault,
in my opinion! He's always saying he doesn't consider himself a
good artist, that he doesn't like the way his art looks, and he
doesn't even necessarily LIKE drawing! It's fine that he feels
that way, but considering his popularity he would be justified
in occasionally tooting his own horn a little. He doesn't, at
least that I've ever seen.
> A great
> number of creators are extremely passionate about their work,
> and put
> their heart and soul into what they do.
It's the creators who make that emotional investment who create
the best stories, IMO.
Well, there's my $00.02. ;)
Katie Sullivan
http://www.sullivanet.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
Partly because I haven't had anything useful to say, and partly
because I've been distracted with other matters--including my
grandmother passing away last month. :(
> From: "Matthew Williams"
> A couple of days ago,
> I was
> checking out the "Jump the Shark" webpage. If you're not
> familiar with the
> site, it's a place where readers can post their own opinions
> about when
> television shows "jumped the shark" (or went off course from a
> quality
> standpoint). On the DuckTales page, someone wrote:
>
> "For those interested,Scrooge McDuck immigrated from Scotland
> with his two
> sisters,Hortense and Matidla,in the early 20th Century.While
> he was going
> all over the world building an empire his sisters stayed in
> Duckburg.Matilda
> married Ludwig Von Drake.Hortense married Quackmore,son of
> Dabney and Elvira
> Duck-farmers.They had twins,Donald and Della.Della later
> married a duck
> named Daniel and they had triplets,Huey,Dewey and Louie.
Forget the unofficial tie to Ludvig--where in the world did
"Daniel" come from???
> Rosa wrote Scrooge's biography (one of the most popular and
> acclaimed series
> of Disney stories ever). He filled in details about what
> Scrooge and Goldie
> 's relationship that Barks didn't touch.
Didn't or couldn't, given the time period and the editors? ;)
> From: Kai Saarto <ksaarto at mbnet.fi>
> I for one would love to see other people
> using Glittering Goldie [...] in their stores.
I second that. (Shocking surprise, I know.) ;)
> From: "Klartekst" <info at klartekst.no>
> I believe there are as many duck universes as there are
> READERS. The duck universes are inside our heads and we each
> choose what we put into them. Although I don't accept all
> Don's premises, most of his stories adds a little bit to my
> own version of Duckburg, making it richer and more detailed.
I agree with that. Everyone takes bits and pieces from
different authors and adds them to their own personal version of
the duck universe. That's what so nice about it! That freedom
for creativity and different interpretations is part of what
makes the comics so appealing to such a wide variety of people
around the world, I think.
>> From: "Daniel van Eijmeren" <dve at kabelfoon.nl>
> If artists want to
> have their own
> universe, they have to fully invent one themselves. From
> scratch. But if
> an artist writes a Disney story, then it's destinied to be
> part of the
> Disney universe.
Yes, obviously. But within the larger Disney universe, there
can be sub-universes. ;) There's the Barks universe, the Rosa
one, the Scarpa one, the Van Horn one...etc etc etc.
> I still like a lot of your jokes and twists, but for me the
> quality of the
> overall stories themselves has been going downhill for a long
> time. And I
> have no enjoyment or satisfaction at all in saying that,
> because I find it
> one of greatest losses in Disney comics history.
That's a rather dramatic way of putting it. Yes, there are some
Rosa stories I like better than others. Some I practically have
memorized, and others I rarely re-read. But I certainly haven't
recognized any pattern like the one you're talking about. Maybe
it's just me?
My favorite stories, whether by Barks, Rosa, Rota, Scarpa, or
whomever, are the adventures in faraway lands. The more
"domestic" stories can be funny and entertaining, too, but
generally speaking I prefer the "Indiana Jones" style tales.
What I love about Barks and Rosa stories is that I feel like I
*am* in those places, at those times. Lesser creators may send
characters to some random, fictional jungle that could be
anywhere from Africa to Mexico to the Disney backlot in Burbank.
There's just this generic, "fake" feel to it. Barks and Rosa
don't do that, and that's what makes them my favorite comic book
creators. They thread authentic visual and linguistic detail
into the stories to make the places seem real. They don't
insult my intelligence by creating silly, cheesy settings that
have no context. They even *gasp* do research!
I like reading about real places, even seen through the lens of
a world with talking ducks! Things like that help me connect
with the story and the characters.
There's also something nice about following the characters
through one writer's eyes over an extended period of time. When
you read stories by a different creator every month they can
still be fun, but there's no sense of progression. I enjoy
Rosa's stories because, although the characters are still very
much the ones I love and recognize in other Disney comic books,
they also develop uniquely under the pen of a specific writer.
Moments, conversations, exchanges...things that are only a panel
or two of any given comic story and don't seem that significant
at the time...they all add up after years of reading Rosa
stories, and eventually you come to a fuller understanding of
the characters by putting all those little pieces together.
Themes emerge from the cumulative effect of all those stories,
over time.
Um...did that make any sense at all? It sounded clearer in my
head than it looks on the screen. >_<
I guess all that can be distilled to read, "I like Rosa's
writing, and the continuity." ;)
> I'm wondering if I'm really the only one here, on this mailing
> list, who
> thinks that you are at your best when you make original
> stories of your
> own, with *new* elements, without leaning on recycled Barks
> elements.
I don't see the Barks-based Rosa stories as "leaning" on the
previous work. I see them as building on established lore that
we already know and love, refreshing it and adding a new angle
to it.
> From: Chris Hilbig <chilbig1 at satx.rr.com>
> As far as Don Rosa's temperament is concern, I realize he
> may come
> off as a pre-madonna to many fans
LOL! I'm sorry, I really shouldn't tease like this when English
isn't the first language of the majority of the list members,
but...
pre-madonna = coming before the virgin Mary (Or something like
that--it's not a term I've ever seen used in English)
primadonna = the word you were looking for ;)
Heehee...
Anyway, I could not disagree more with that statement, garbled
language or not. If anything, Mr. Rosa seems humble to a fault,
in my opinion! He's always saying he doesn't consider himself a
good artist, that he doesn't like the way his art looks, and he
doesn't even necessarily LIKE drawing! It's fine that he feels
that way, but considering his popularity he would be justified
in occasionally tooting his own horn a little. He doesn't, at
least that I've ever seen.
> A great
> number of creators are extremely passionate about their work,
> and put
> their heart and soul into what they do.
It's the creators who make that emotional investment who create
the best stories, IMO.
Well, there's my $00.02. ;)
Katie Sullivan
http://www.sullivanet.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
Daniel Van Eijmeren
A Letter From Home
Message 35 -
2004-04-03 at 06:01:45
THERESA WIEGERT to me, 03-04-2004:
>> So, 'Letter From Home' is not a story to look forward to, for me. I'm
>> afraid this story will be yet another Barks revisit. I prefer reading
>> the original story, and brand-new stories which are inspired with new,
>> FRESH subjects.
> ohoh! I sense negativism here (correct me if I'm wrong!).
No, I don't think I have to correct you. Recently, it's just dawning on me
that I have been self-censoring myself too much when it comes to simply
expressing what I dislike. As if I only should limit myself to the things
I enjoy about Disney comics. Amongst other things, I'm very critical to
certain developments in the Disney universe, and I've decided to just let
that be heard, too.
> But. If you haven't read it yet, you're now prejudging it, which I never
> think is fair.
Knowing that 'A Letter From Home' is yet another Barks revisit is already
enough for me. I'm fed up with those stories. I simply can't stand them any
longer. That's why I don't look forward to such stories. That's a judgement,
no prejudgement.
> Perhaps I'm biased because of my love for old castles and everything
> involved in that, but I loved it...
Well, and *I'm* biased because of my love for Barks and everything involved
with him. :-)
And in general, I hate sequels. It's like chewing the cud to me. I look at
it as running around in the same old circle. I'd rather see new situations,
instead of variations of old subjects.
--- Dani?l
>> So, 'Letter From Home' is not a story to look forward to, for me. I'm
>> afraid this story will be yet another Barks revisit. I prefer reading
>> the original story, and brand-new stories which are inspired with new,
>> FRESH subjects.
> ohoh! I sense negativism here (correct me if I'm wrong!).
No, I don't think I have to correct you. Recently, it's just dawning on me
that I have been self-censoring myself too much when it comes to simply
expressing what I dislike. As if I only should limit myself to the things
I enjoy about Disney comics. Amongst other things, I'm very critical to
certain developments in the Disney universe, and I've decided to just let
that be heard, too.
> But. If you haven't read it yet, you're now prejudging it, which I never
> think is fair.
Knowing that 'A Letter From Home' is yet another Barks revisit is already
enough for me. I'm fed up with those stories. I simply can't stand them any
longer. That's why I don't look forward to such stories. That's a judgement,
no prejudgement.
> Perhaps I'm biased because of my love for old castles and everything
> involved in that, but I loved it...
Well, and *I'm* biased because of my love for Barks and everything involved
with him. :-)
And in general, I hate sequels. It's like chewing the cud to me. I look at
it as running around in the same old circle. I'd rather see new situations,
instead of variations of old subjects.
--- Dani?l
Daniel Van Eijmeren
And now finally... the father of Huey, Dewey, and Louie!
Message 36 -
2004-04-03 at 06:16:56
KATIE SULLIVAN to MATTHEW WILLIAMS, 03-04-2004:
> On the DuckTales page, someone wrote:
> "For those interested,Scrooge McDuck immigrated from Scotland with his
> two sisters,Hortense and Matidla,in the early 20th Century.While he was
> going all over the world building an empire his sisters stayed in
> Duckburg.Matilda married Ludwig Von Drake.Hortense married Quackmore,son
> of Dabney and Elvira Duck-farmers.They had twins,Donald and Della.Della
> later married a duck named Daniel and they had triplets,Huey,Dewey and
> Louie.
> Forget the unofficial tie to Ludvig--where in the world did "Daniel"
> come from???
Well, I think it's time to finally confirm that *I* am the long-lost father
of Huey, Dewey, and Louie.
Where did I come from? Well, it took me quite a while to get back from the
point where I got blown away with their firecrackers, or whatever it was
that hit me. But I'm feeling fine now, even though I'm remarkably old
according to some people. :-)
--- Daniel
> On the DuckTales page, someone wrote:
> "For those interested,Scrooge McDuck immigrated from Scotland with his
> two sisters,Hortense and Matidla,in the early 20th Century.While he was
> going all over the world building an empire his sisters stayed in
> Duckburg.Matilda married Ludwig Von Drake.Hortense married Quackmore,son
> of Dabney and Elvira Duck-farmers.They had twins,Donald and Della.Della
> later married a duck named Daniel and they had triplets,Huey,Dewey and
> Louie.
> Forget the unofficial tie to Ludvig--where in the world did "Daniel"
> come from???
Well, I think it's time to finally confirm that *I* am the long-lost father
of Huey, Dewey, and Louie.
Where did I come from? Well, it took me quite a while to get back from the
point where I got blown away with their firecrackers, or whatever it was
that hit me. But I'm feeling fine now, even though I'm remarkably old
according to some people. :-)
--- Daniel
Don Rosa
DCML Digest Issue 4
Message 37 -
2004-04-03 at 07:59:43
> From: "Lunnan & Hjort" <brit.lunnan at chello.no>
> Subject: the Hall of Fame watch
> On this occasion I'm NOT drawing your attention to
> the excellently informative preface by Xystein Sxrensen
> (professor of history at the University of Oslo) nor to the
> Don Rosa bigsized poster of the Money Bin and the Beagle
> Boys
But *I'll* draw your attention to that poster (which, as you might recall,
is the work of ML member Dan Shane with my kibitzing). They produced this
item without our knowledge -- if they had let us know about it, we would
have supplied them with the proper single sheet blueprint of the Bin plans
which is shaped more like an actual "landscape"-shaped blueprint page, but
which also contains several additional diagrams such as the office trapdoor,
the money shower and others. Too bad......
> (and not even to the DR stories themselves). No,
> I'm not. But, rather, to the accompanying free watch,
> with Donald Duck etc.,
> My question is: From where, precisely, is this Donald
> drawing? Is it "direct from an original drawing", or has
> it been doctored a little?
I haven't yet received my own "Don Rosa Donald Duck" watch... but are you
saying that the promo ads don't explain the uniqueness of that Duck on the
watch face? When I first saw the ads, even I was puzzled as to why they
chose such a BAD drawing of Donald to put on the watch (this was another
item that was produced without my knowledge), but then I realized what it
was, though they've wasted their effort if their promo ads don't explain
it...
The Rosa "Hall of Fame" volume is apparently a bit different from the future
HoF books which will, so I am told, produce the best work of various
artists. The Rosa HoF is the first volume in a chronological collection of
every Duck story I've done, like the Barks Library on a small scale. So, in
that spirit, the Donald on that watch is the *first* Donald I ever drew
(professionally) -- it's the Donald lifted off the first panel of my first
story "The Son of the Sun". But without telling anyone this "secret",
instead of buyers of the book thinking "ah, this is cute -- they sent a
watch with Don Rosa's very first Donald Duck on it", they will think "Why
did they send me this watch with this really weird looking Donald Duck on
it?"
I haven't compared the watch to the story, but you can do so now that you
know it's source and see if it's been doctored a little (though to make it
look less weird would sorta defeat its "historical significance", for what
that's worth).
> Subject: the Hall of Fame watch
> On this occasion I'm NOT drawing your attention to
> the excellently informative preface by Xystein Sxrensen
> (professor of history at the University of Oslo) nor to the
> Don Rosa bigsized poster of the Money Bin and the Beagle
> Boys
But *I'll* draw your attention to that poster (which, as you might recall,
is the work of ML member Dan Shane with my kibitzing). They produced this
item without our knowledge -- if they had let us know about it, we would
have supplied them with the proper single sheet blueprint of the Bin plans
which is shaped more like an actual "landscape"-shaped blueprint page, but
which also contains several additional diagrams such as the office trapdoor,
the money shower and others. Too bad......
> (and not even to the DR stories themselves). No,
> I'm not. But, rather, to the accompanying free watch,
> with Donald Duck etc.,
> My question is: From where, precisely, is this Donald
> drawing? Is it "direct from an original drawing", or has
> it been doctored a little?
I haven't yet received my own "Don Rosa Donald Duck" watch... but are you
saying that the promo ads don't explain the uniqueness of that Duck on the
watch face? When I first saw the ads, even I was puzzled as to why they
chose such a BAD drawing of Donald to put on the watch (this was another
item that was produced without my knowledge), but then I realized what it
was, though they've wasted their effort if their promo ads don't explain
it...
The Rosa "Hall of Fame" volume is apparently a bit different from the future
HoF books which will, so I am told, produce the best work of various
artists. The Rosa HoF is the first volume in a chronological collection of
every Duck story I've done, like the Barks Library on a small scale. So, in
that spirit, the Donald on that watch is the *first* Donald I ever drew
(professionally) -- it's the Donald lifted off the first panel of my first
story "The Son of the Sun". But without telling anyone this "secret",
instead of buyers of the book thinking "ah, this is cute -- they sent a
watch with Don Rosa's very first Donald Duck on it", they will think "Why
did they send me this watch with this really weird looking Donald Duck on
it?"
I haven't compared the watch to the story, but you can do so now that you
know it's source and see if it's been doctored a little (though to make it
look less weird would sorta defeat its "historical significance", for what
that's worth).
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Big artists and plain nuts (Rosa's own li'l Universe)
Message 38 -
2004-04-03 at 08:38:50
KAI SAARTO to me, 03-04-2004:
> [Rosa's] work is based on characters created by others and with
> elements used by Barks in his stories, but that's it. That's hardly
> unheard of in comic business - and everyone who does mouse or duck
> stories is doing it the same way - basing it to the work of others.
Just name three Disney artists who do that so heavily and structurally
as Don Rosa, complete with interpolated dates and facts. I can't think
of any.
> Additionally, to blame *one author* of re-using Barks's story elements
> when there are hundreds is plain crazy or very ignorant.
*Hundreds* of authors re-using Barks elements like Rosa does?
I want to hear names.
> Sometimes its fun to argue about things you like. I've been to many
> mailing lists and all the active ones have heated conversations from
> time to time. Still, it never ceases to amaze me how resentful some
> people seem to be. And some are just plain nuts, like the Barks fans
> ones you were quoting above.. :-)
Why does a person need to be "resentful" or full of "envy" if he thinks
that Rosa is raping the Barks universe? I really don't get that point.
People who think that Rosa is a bad writer and/or bad artist have "mental
problems" by default? Is that the point?
Well, I know at least two popular Disney Duck artists who have very strong
feelings about Rosa's attitude to the Disney universe and Barks's in
particular. I've personally witnessed them saying that. Are these artists
plain nuts? Why? Because they dislike Rosa's work?
But however crazy these artists might be, I'm sure they are not envious
about Rosa's work. That would be quite a laugh, because they have quite a
talent and reputation themselves, being very passionate about Disney comics.
One artist almost choked when I told him that Scrooge died in 1967. And it
didn't get any better when I told him about the Disney Ducks suddenly being
"mammal ducks". He was *very* upset about that.
BTW. I think that anyone who calls someone else crazy, should know that if
you point at someone else, three of your fingers point back at you. (Except
when you're a Disney character, then only two of your fingers point back.)
CHRIS HILBIG, 02-03-2004:
> In fact people even create universes within universes, just look at
> Marvel comics.
I don't like Marvel comics. I like Disney comics. If the Disney comics
would become like Marvel comics, I would stop reading them.
> Now does that mean we shouldn't have spirited debate on this list, of
> course not. I think it's good thing and make the list more interesting.
I second that. Even now I know that you were not really seconding me! :-)
--- Dani?l
> [Rosa's] work is based on characters created by others and with
> elements used by Barks in his stories, but that's it. That's hardly
> unheard of in comic business - and everyone who does mouse or duck
> stories is doing it the same way - basing it to the work of others.
Just name three Disney artists who do that so heavily and structurally
as Don Rosa, complete with interpolated dates and facts. I can't think
of any.
> Additionally, to blame *one author* of re-using Barks's story elements
> when there are hundreds is plain crazy or very ignorant.
*Hundreds* of authors re-using Barks elements like Rosa does?
I want to hear names.
> Sometimes its fun to argue about things you like. I've been to many
> mailing lists and all the active ones have heated conversations from
> time to time. Still, it never ceases to amaze me how resentful some
> people seem to be. And some are just plain nuts, like the Barks fans
> ones you were quoting above.. :-)
Why does a person need to be "resentful" or full of "envy" if he thinks
that Rosa is raping the Barks universe? I really don't get that point.
People who think that Rosa is a bad writer and/or bad artist have "mental
problems" by default? Is that the point?
Well, I know at least two popular Disney Duck artists who have very strong
feelings about Rosa's attitude to the Disney universe and Barks's in
particular. I've personally witnessed them saying that. Are these artists
plain nuts? Why? Because they dislike Rosa's work?
But however crazy these artists might be, I'm sure they are not envious
about Rosa's work. That would be quite a laugh, because they have quite a
talent and reputation themselves, being very passionate about Disney comics.
One artist almost choked when I told him that Scrooge died in 1967. And it
didn't get any better when I told him about the Disney Ducks suddenly being
"mammal ducks". He was *very* upset about that.
BTW. I think that anyone who calls someone else crazy, should know that if
you point at someone else, three of your fingers point back at you. (Except
when you're a Disney character, then only two of your fingers point back.)
CHRIS HILBIG, 02-03-2004:
> In fact people even create universes within universes, just look at
> Marvel comics.
I don't like Marvel comics. I like Disney comics. If the Disney comics
would become like Marvel comics, I would stop reading them.
> Now does that mean we shouldn't have spirited debate on this list, of
> course not. I think it's good thing and make the list more interesting.
I second that. Even now I know that you were not really seconding me! :-)
--- Dani?l
Don Rosa
DCML Digest Issue 5
Message 39 -
2004-04-03 at 09:45:27
> That's a wrong and *very* negative summary of what I said.
> And you know it.
Sorry, then I sure don't understand anything you've said because you seemed
to be clearly saying *precisely* that I had no right to tamper with the
Barks Universe, you did plainly say, word for word, that I "do not have the
ability to create a universe", and your whole direction seemed to be nothing
if not negative.
But I already knew that I can't understand this rare attitude. If someone
wrote "Don Rosa draws really lousy!", I could easily see that (and usually
agree). If someone said "Rosa's stories bore me silly!", I can easily
understand that as well, they sure seem boring when I'm working on 'em for 4
months! But when that rare individual starts on this idea that anytime I
have $crooge revisit a favorite old Barks adventure or when I tell an
"Untold Tale" for a special issue (which, by the way, is always at the
special request of a publisher in response to readers, never my own idea,
though I have plenty of fun obliging them!), then I am leaning too much on
Barks. This perplexes me and I've really given up trying to understand it,
and since I don't wish to make anyone unhappy, quite the opposite, I just
hope those few will simply skip my stories and move on to reading some story
they enjoy more.
What's puzzling, of course, is the notion that all other writers/artists can
tell stories about a rich Duck who wears a cane and top hat and spats and
has a giant Bin with 3 cubic acres of money and is menaced by a pack of
prison parolees and a sorceress and has local friends who are an inventor, a
lucky goose, a nephew, three grand-nephews, etc., etc., etc. ... in other
words, base stories 100% on Barks' creations and ideas ... and that's just
fine. But if this one certain writer/artist creates a 30 page story of
totally new events and gags and research and all else by basing it on a
single line in an old $crooge story such as "I once was a cowboy in
Montana"... or if he simply takes a (yellow?) Stone that was once in a Barks
story and reuses it as an incidental prop in another totally new 36 page
adventure, then *I* am leaning too heavily on Barks and the individual
doesn't even want to *look* at the story. What's more, in fact, my recent
"Life of $crooge" stories which are specifically objected to actually have
*nothing* to do with any old "Barksian facts" -- I used all those up in the
original 12 chapters, but I continue to create new chapters just because
publishers request them and readers (according to virtually every e-mail
I've ever received)(which is *lots*, I spend about 2-3 hours each day
answering them) don't merely like those stories, they say they adore them
over anything else (though I'm naturally hearing only from the choir). These
new "Lo$" stories don't even use the top hat and spats or any Duckburg
element; as a matter of fact, Egmont at one point worried that they should
not have me do more such stories, *not* because they were too derivative,
but *specifically because* I was being *too* original, using a character
that had no bearing on any copyrighted entity that they were allowed to
handle, and that I had created something *too* unique for their license. (Of
course, they still used the story when I created a "Lo$" at the request of
the French publisher, so they bowed to their readers' preference.)
So, no, I really don't follow those arguments and I have long ago decided
that there's something else going on there, some unknown psychological
agenda, that is beyond my ken. But it doesn't matter, so I lose a reader --
the beauty of it is that I produce only about .001% of the annual contents
of these comics and digests, so there's plenty there for all tastes. As to
how the popularity of my work affects such a person's sensitivities by being
an influence he can't tolerate on the readers all around him, that's not
something I control. I'm sorry for him, but he'll need to learn how to deal
with that by himself.
And therefore that's all I'll say on that subject. Back to Donald Duck
watches.
> And you know it.
Sorry, then I sure don't understand anything you've said because you seemed
to be clearly saying *precisely* that I had no right to tamper with the
Barks Universe, you did plainly say, word for word, that I "do not have the
ability to create a universe", and your whole direction seemed to be nothing
if not negative.
But I already knew that I can't understand this rare attitude. If someone
wrote "Don Rosa draws really lousy!", I could easily see that (and usually
agree). If someone said "Rosa's stories bore me silly!", I can easily
understand that as well, they sure seem boring when I'm working on 'em for 4
months! But when that rare individual starts on this idea that anytime I
have $crooge revisit a favorite old Barks adventure or when I tell an
"Untold Tale" for a special issue (which, by the way, is always at the
special request of a publisher in response to readers, never my own idea,
though I have plenty of fun obliging them!), then I am leaning too much on
Barks. This perplexes me and I've really given up trying to understand it,
and since I don't wish to make anyone unhappy, quite the opposite, I just
hope those few will simply skip my stories and move on to reading some story
they enjoy more.
What's puzzling, of course, is the notion that all other writers/artists can
tell stories about a rich Duck who wears a cane and top hat and spats and
has a giant Bin with 3 cubic acres of money and is menaced by a pack of
prison parolees and a sorceress and has local friends who are an inventor, a
lucky goose, a nephew, three grand-nephews, etc., etc., etc. ... in other
words, base stories 100% on Barks' creations and ideas ... and that's just
fine. But if this one certain writer/artist creates a 30 page story of
totally new events and gags and research and all else by basing it on a
single line in an old $crooge story such as "I once was a cowboy in
Montana"... or if he simply takes a (yellow?) Stone that was once in a Barks
story and reuses it as an incidental prop in another totally new 36 page
adventure, then *I* am leaning too heavily on Barks and the individual
doesn't even want to *look* at the story. What's more, in fact, my recent
"Life of $crooge" stories which are specifically objected to actually have
*nothing* to do with any old "Barksian facts" -- I used all those up in the
original 12 chapters, but I continue to create new chapters just because
publishers request them and readers (according to virtually every e-mail
I've ever received)(which is *lots*, I spend about 2-3 hours each day
answering them) don't merely like those stories, they say they adore them
over anything else (though I'm naturally hearing only from the choir). These
new "Lo$" stories don't even use the top hat and spats or any Duckburg
element; as a matter of fact, Egmont at one point worried that they should
not have me do more such stories, *not* because they were too derivative,
but *specifically because* I was being *too* original, using a character
that had no bearing on any copyrighted entity that they were allowed to
handle, and that I had created something *too* unique for their license. (Of
course, they still used the story when I created a "Lo$" at the request of
the French publisher, so they bowed to their readers' preference.)
So, no, I really don't follow those arguments and I have long ago decided
that there's something else going on there, some unknown psychological
agenda, that is beyond my ken. But it doesn't matter, so I lose a reader --
the beauty of it is that I produce only about .001% of the annual contents
of these comics and digests, so there's plenty there for all tastes. As to
how the popularity of my work affects such a person's sensitivities by being
an influence he can't tolerate on the readers all around him, that's not
something I control. I'm sorry for him, but he'll need to learn how to deal
with that by himself.
And therefore that's all I'll say on that subject. Back to Donald Duck
watches.
Anders Christian Sivebæk
Universes
Message 40 -
2004-04-03 at 11:43:33
Hi all
The dcml-digest was downright interesting today. It reminds me of
something we discussed the other day in a lesson at the college I study
at. (We've had our last lessons btw - there are only exams left now - and
then I'm an educated teacher with a bachelor-degree!)
Exactly as another contributor here said, every reader has his/her own
duck universe. A reader reads the book with a background, a set of
interpretations, a set of opinions. If the reader, as is the case on this
mailing list, has contact with the author, things can change - in the way
that you might take some interpretation from the author (not that this
happened to me). An example: some kids in a class write to an author and
ask a questiion about how to interpret this or that thing in a books he
wrote - he writes back that they've misunderstood something there.... -
well, that's not correct - each of these kids are readers too, and have a
right to their own interpretation - the author has one wiev of his story -
after a book or story is published, you give your "child" to be
interpreted/read by everyone. I experinenced this with a class in a
paractise once - they'd seen the first harry Potter movie and were
thinking about their own wievs inside their heads before they saw the
movie... - I felt I had to tell them that the wiev of eg. hermione that
they had in their head is exactly as good as the wiev the caster of the
movie had...
I don't know if Egmont has officially said no to a story because it didn't
follow the storylines from Rosas story. If they have done so, this would
be against what Don has told here - his stories are just his version. I
would be very sorry if this had happened. I've juust heard of authors not
following an idea, because it would differ with a Rosa-story - I find that
very annoying... and who is to blame? the author himself, that he doesn't
want to finish the idea, or the loose idea they all maybe have that Egmont
would actually turn such an idea down or? For one IMO Don is not to blame
for it.
Dani?l, you wrote: So, you can't just ask people to ignore you. If people
would want to ignore you, they would have to skip a lot of issues with
Rosa
in them. And what if these issues with Rosa, also contain interesting
material by other Disney artists? What then?
You don't have to skip an issue to avoid reading a certain story, of which
you recognize the lines - you can just jump over it - that's what i did
with certain Mickey artists for many years of my youth. I just did it
thinking: oh, that's the boring Mickey-story... - There are many stories
there i haven't read and don't intend to read - people can do exactly the
same with Rosa, it's a choice. But many can't - the stories does awake
something in them, that they have to get out - that tells something about
quality (?) that you can't avoid them even if you want to. - But in the
end, it's all a matter of choice.
BTW I bought 300 Duck issues today, for ? a dollar each - which is quite
cheap knowing that at least 140 of them are in mint shape with the gifts
and so intact. I'll switch them with my double and have a lot of good
stuff for fellow donaldists on our next meeting.
Seeya - and Happy easter holidays!
Hilsen/Yours
Anders Christian Siveb?k
Donaldist
The dcml-digest was downright interesting today. It reminds me of
something we discussed the other day in a lesson at the college I study
at. (We've had our last lessons btw - there are only exams left now - and
then I'm an educated teacher with a bachelor-degree!)
Exactly as another contributor here said, every reader has his/her own
duck universe. A reader reads the book with a background, a set of
interpretations, a set of opinions. If the reader, as is the case on this
mailing list, has contact with the author, things can change - in the way
that you might take some interpretation from the author (not that this
happened to me). An example: some kids in a class write to an author and
ask a questiion about how to interpret this or that thing in a books he
wrote - he writes back that they've misunderstood something there.... -
well, that's not correct - each of these kids are readers too, and have a
right to their own interpretation - the author has one wiev of his story -
after a book or story is published, you give your "child" to be
interpreted/read by everyone. I experinenced this with a class in a
paractise once - they'd seen the first harry Potter movie and were
thinking about their own wievs inside their heads before they saw the
movie... - I felt I had to tell them that the wiev of eg. hermione that
they had in their head is exactly as good as the wiev the caster of the
movie had...
I don't know if Egmont has officially said no to a story because it didn't
follow the storylines from Rosas story. If they have done so, this would
be against what Don has told here - his stories are just his version. I
would be very sorry if this had happened. I've juust heard of authors not
following an idea, because it would differ with a Rosa-story - I find that
very annoying... and who is to blame? the author himself, that he doesn't
want to finish the idea, or the loose idea they all maybe have that Egmont
would actually turn such an idea down or? For one IMO Don is not to blame
for it.
Dani?l, you wrote: So, you can't just ask people to ignore you. If people
would want to ignore you, they would have to skip a lot of issues with
Rosa
in them. And what if these issues with Rosa, also contain interesting
material by other Disney artists? What then?
You don't have to skip an issue to avoid reading a certain story, of which
you recognize the lines - you can just jump over it - that's what i did
with certain Mickey artists for many years of my youth. I just did it
thinking: oh, that's the boring Mickey-story... - There are many stories
there i haven't read and don't intend to read - people can do exactly the
same with Rosa, it's a choice. But many can't - the stories does awake
something in them, that they have to get out - that tells something about
quality (?) that you can't avoid them even if you want to. - But in the
end, it's all a matter of choice.
BTW I bought 300 Duck issues today, for ? a dollar each - which is quite
cheap knowing that at least 140 of them are in mint shape with the gifts
and so intact. I'll switch them with my double and have a lot of good
stuff for fellow donaldists on our next meeting.
Seeya - and Happy easter holidays!
Hilsen/Yours
Anders Christian Siveb?k
Donaldist
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Rosa's wrong summary of my comments
Message 41 -
2004-04-03 at 13:39:52
DON ROSA to me, 04-03-2004:
>> That's a wrong and *very* negative summary of what I said.
>> And you know it.
> Sorry, then I sure don't understand anything you've said because
> you seemed to be clearly saying *precisely* that I had no right
> to tamper with the Barks Universe, you did plainly say, word for
> word, that I "do not have the ability to create a universe",
I HAVEN'T WRITTEN THAT!
Just QUOTE me if you want to comment to what I'm saying.
--- Dani?l
>> That's a wrong and *very* negative summary of what I said.
>> And you know it.
> Sorry, then I sure don't understand anything you've said because
> you seemed to be clearly saying *precisely* that I had no right
> to tamper with the Barks Universe, you did plainly say, word for
> word, that I "do not have the ability to create a universe",
I HAVEN'T WRITTEN THAT!
Just QUOTE me if you want to comment to what I'm saying.
--- Dani?l
Daniel Van Eijmeren
Rosa's agenda
Message 42 -
2004-04-03 at 14:09:07
DON ROSA to me, 03-04-2003
> So, no, I really don't follow those arguments and I have long ago
> decided that there's something else going on there, some unknown
> psychological agenda, that is beyond my ken.
A Disney comics reader is criticizing your work on an internet forum,
and you smell a "unknown psychological agenda"??? You must be kidding!
But don't try to isolate me as some kind of "rare individual"!
You sound as if people need to have some hidden motives, in order to
criticize your work and views. That's simply too much honor for a just
a few critical emails.
--- Dani?l
> So, no, I really don't follow those arguments and I have long ago
> decided that there's something else going on there, some unknown
> psychological agenda, that is beyond my ken.
A Disney comics reader is criticizing your work on an internet forum,
and you smell a "unknown psychological agenda"??? You must be kidding!
But don't try to isolate me as some kind of "rare individual"!
You sound as if people need to have some hidden motives, in order to
criticize your work and views. That's simply too much honor for a just
a few critical emails.
--- Dani?l
Daniel Van Eijmeren
P.S. (Rosa's agenda)
Message 43 -
2004-04-03 at 14:16:20
In my previous email I wrote the dates "04-03-2004" and "03-04-2003".
Those dates should of course be "03-04-2004" instead.
--- Dani?l
Those dates should of course be "03-04-2004" instead.
--- Dani?l
SRoweCanoe
Adding folks to my killfile from the disney comics list
Message 44 -
2004-04-03 at 14:32:46
Just a note that I am adding more folks from the Disney Comics list to my
killfile
while i personally dont care if folks like a writer or an artist or not,
I am deeply and morally offended by your use of words.
I dont mind debate, but I dont care to have my mornings tainted by trash.
sr
killfile
while i personally dont care if folks like a writer or an artist or not,
I am deeply and morally offended by your use of words.
I dont mind debate, but I dont care to have my mornings tainted by trash.
sr
Danshane
How to read about dead Ducks...
Message 45 -
2004-04-03 at 16:22:27
THE OTHER DANIEL WRITES:
> This is what I'm worried about. There are indeed Rosa fans who will use
> just about every chance to preach about him in a way that reminds me of
> some fundamentalistic religions.
AND I RESPOND:
And there are Rosa non-fans who will not be satisfied to simply read the stories they like and let everyone else make their own choices. Sounds like the American religious right who are not happy believing their interpretation of scripture, or even teaching others with a hearing ear, but insist on legislating their beliefs so that everybody has to live life their way whether they believe it or not.
> "This is the truth. The holy truth. And everyone who disagrees should be
> assassinated, because they are not worthwhile enough to be part of this
> kingdown of truth." I find it scary. What if their mission succeeds, one
> day?
That would be truly scary, I agree. But so far I have only seen evidence of that in the fertile mind of the paranoid Rosa non-fan, not in actual practice.
> I'm afraid that day would get known as "The Day the Ducks Died". We're
> living in the year 2004. So, at least according to this holy truth, most
> of our cherished Disney characters are as DEAD as a door-nail by now.
>
> Grandma is dead. Scrooge is dead. Donald is dead or almost-dead. The
> nephews have grown up...
>
> What an awful, horrible future to look forward to.
Guess what? Davy Crockett is dead. Robin Hood is dead. King Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot have all passed off this mortal coil. And somehow I still manage to enjoy reading stories about them. There must be something wrong with me that I can read a story and imagine myself in a literal past instead of existing in a worm-hole where nobody ever succumbs to the effect of the passage of time.
Dan (the gullible, I guess)
> This is what I'm worried about. There are indeed Rosa fans who will use
> just about every chance to preach about him in a way that reminds me of
> some fundamentalistic religions.
AND I RESPOND:
And there are Rosa non-fans who will not be satisfied to simply read the stories they like and let everyone else make their own choices. Sounds like the American religious right who are not happy believing their interpretation of scripture, or even teaching others with a hearing ear, but insist on legislating their beliefs so that everybody has to live life their way whether they believe it or not.
> "This is the truth. The holy truth. And everyone who disagrees should be
> assassinated, because they are not worthwhile enough to be part of this
> kingdown of truth." I find it scary. What if their mission succeeds, one
> day?
That would be truly scary, I agree. But so far I have only seen evidence of that in the fertile mind of the paranoid Rosa non-fan, not in actual practice.
> I'm afraid that day would get known as "The Day the Ducks Died". We're
> living in the year 2004. So, at least according to this holy truth, most
> of our cherished Disney characters are as DEAD as a door-nail by now.
>
> Grandma is dead. Scrooge is dead. Donald is dead or almost-dead. The
> nephews have grown up...
>
> What an awful, horrible future to look forward to.
Guess what? Davy Crockett is dead. Robin Hood is dead. King Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot have all passed off this mortal coil. And somehow I still manage to enjoy reading stories about them. There must be something wrong with me that I can read a story and imagine myself in a literal past instead of existing in a worm-hole where nobody ever succumbs to the effect of the passage of time.
Dan (the gullible, I guess)