Keskustelujen arkisto

This whole universe debate is quickly becoming a very personal argument
between two men, and I would like to see it brought back into the realm of
fan/quasi-intellectual/friendly debate. It's funny; in my earlier e-mail, I
said that the ducks affect my daily life little, but I find that that's not
quite true. I do feel some emotional involvement in where the ducks are
heading and going. Perhaps we all suffer from some mental deficiency that
leads us to spending a substantial amount of time debating and speculating
about ducks on the web. At any rate though, I send this e-mail in the hopes
of fostering discussion and not contentious argument.

I'm happy with the thoughtful comments posted by Kai Saarto, Katie Sullivan
(I'm so sorry about your grandmother), Chris Hilbig, and others. Still, I
am personally troubled by the idea of different duck universes. Chris
Hilbig brings up the various "universes" present in Marvel comics and uses
it to argue that one character can exist on several planes. I would argue
that the Marvel characters (who I liked in earlier incarnations) have lost
all of their meaning because of a lack of consistency of vision. Part of my
concern is that if Rosa, Van Horn, Lustig, the Blocks, etc. all decided to
do their own thing the ducks and their world would become as meaningless as
the Marvel characters are presently.

Additionally, Daniel has an excellent point that all of these characters are
DISNEY characters first and foremost. Various creators can bring their own
visions in, but it's unreasonable for them to significantly alter the
universe many artists and fans are sharing. Consider how pissed off many of
us feel about alterations in DuckTales. Consider how the Disney company
urinates on our beloved characters in House of Mouse. Why aren't we taking
a hearts and flowers, "all universes are swell" attitude here? Mr. Rosa,
you like to think of DuckTales as an unauthorized version of the duck world.
How does your discontent here fit with your assertion that you can have your
own universe?

I want to try to pen down what my main contention with Rosa's work is, and
let me emphasize that I am quite fond of most of his work. I don't like how
rule-bound Rosa's work has become, though. I hate the idea that every event
in Scrooge's life happened during a specific, real year. I'm willing to
accept that the ducks never aged beyond the age they were when they made
their first appearance; it's a ridiculous, absurd notion, but it follows
very precedented cartoon logic. This business about all of the stories
taking place in the fifties drives me bonkers, though. Why didn't Huey,
Dewey, and Louie noticeably age between 'Pirate Gold" and "The Doom Diamond"
? The idea that Scrooge died in 1967 gives me shivers! The fact is that
Barks wanted his characters to age and to engage in the current social
scene. The Barks' ducks felt WWII angst and Cold War paranoia. They dealt
with fifties beatniks and sixties hippies. Donald had a victory garden AND
visited war torn Southeast Asia without aging a bit. Staying in one brief
time period for eternity is stagnation.

Concerning Katie's comments about Goldie: even if he had intended to reveal
more, I'm glad that Barks was limited by his editors. "Back to the
Klondike" is fascinating for how many questions it leaves unanswered and
for how much Barks implies but doesn't say directly. I initially enjoyed
"Hearts of the Yukon" and Rosa's more recent references to Goldie in "The
Coin and "The Beagle Boys Vs. the Money Bin," but I think these revisionist
approaches to Barks' work have an ultimate, cumulative demystifying effect.
The Goldie plot becomes a lot more ordinary and familiar. This pretty much
captures how I feel about several of Rosa's sequels.

I do believe Rosa is a top-notch writer. "The Empire-Builder from Calisota"
is one of the best Disney comics ever created. The story isn't great
because of the references to Barks, though. What makes it great is the
characterization: Hortense and Matilda's reaction to the moral collapse of
their brother, Scrooge's own complex reaction to his wrongdoing. I love the
drama and palate of emotions Rosa brings to this story and several others.
"Gyro's First Invention," on the other hand, strings together a complex web
of Barks references and is almost completely lacking in heart or substance.
I guess part of what I feel is that if Rosa is going to tamper with the
universe that we all share, I want him to make me laugh and cry.

Honestly, I feel more frustration at the fanatical faction of Rosa's fans
than I do at him, though. I think Daniel is very accurate in likening some
Rosa fans to some religious fundamentalists. I feel greatly for Daniel
right now because I think this forum is often a place where it is very
difficult to say anything about Rosa besides "Isn't 'Letter from Home'
great? What are the scientific principles behind glorping?" Additionally,
while Rosa is often self-deprecating about his work, he can be quite biting
and caustic in his postings. For goodness sake, Mr. Rosa! Chris Hilbig was
arguing that you are a great writer! Did you have to correct his spelling
and definition of prima donna (which the American Heritage Dictionary only
defines as "a temperamental, conceited person")?

I will stop running my mouth here. Thank you for trudging with me this far!
I hope I haven't alienated anyone, and I look forward to hearing more of
this fascinating debate.

Matt

Daniel van Eijmeren wrote:

>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.
>
>
[...]

>*Hundreds* of authors re-using Barks elements like Rosa does?
>I want to hear names.
>
>
Everyone uses characters made by Barks and many recycle basic plot ideas
(Donald as a master in some field, etc.). In your opinion, Don obviously
crosses some invisible line somewhere when compared to everyone else.
Are the dates and references to earlier stories what bug you? Those are
probably some of the very reasons why Don is so popular and has more
fans than probably any living duck-artist/writer. I can't say that you
are wrong, because you are of course granted to have a different opinion.

>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.
>
>
Okay, I think now you said clearly what you think: "Rosa is raping the
Barks universe". I'm sorry, but that does sound resentful to me. Its
quite a nasty thing to say to someone of their life's work. I'm in fact
a bit shocked. Obviously you have frighteningly strong opinions on this
subject. Maybe you should be more careful about them? You'll get no
sympathy to your cause by making such comments.

>People who think that Rosa is a bad writer and/or bad artist have "mental
>problems" by default? Is that the point?
>
>
Of course not. You could just say that you don't like Rosa's style of
giving dates or whatnot because it doesn't fit your vision of duckiverse
[I just came up with that word, you are all free to use it :-)]. But why
on earth do you have to state your opinions in such a rude way? Can't
you just ignore messages and stories that don't fit to your personal views?

>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?
>
>
If they became fanatic about it, I might call them nuts. I haven't seen
anyone else besides you accusing Don of raping Barks universe.

>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.)
>
>
I'd call anyone who's a fanatic of any kind crazy. I haven't heard that
finger pointing thing before, thanks for that. In this case all my
fingers were pointing on my monitor, not to you or me.

KAI SAARTO to me, 03-04-2004:

> In your opinion, Don obviously crosses some invisible line somewhere
> when compared to everyone else. Are the dates and references to earlier
> stories what bug you?

I don't like continuous structures of dates and references to earlier
stories. Even less if they're made to Barks stories. Don Rosa happens
to be an artist who's doing that. It's nothing personal. I don't know
the man himself. And he doesn't know me. I'm just interested in Disney
comics, and in this mailing list. That's all.

>> 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.

> Okay, I think now you said clearly what you think: "Rosa is raping the
> Barks universe". I'm sorry, but that does sound resentful to me.

I didn't say that. I was *reporting* that opinion, as I made clear. It
was mentioned to me in an off-record discussion of Disney comics, in
real life. And it's nothing really special, using this word in an
opinion on art. At least not in The Netherlands.

"Dit is een verkrachting van..." ("This is a rape of..."), is a common
expression here in The Netherlands. I only translated it, as part of a
report.

> Its quite a nasty thing to say to someone of their life's work.

I look at the comment as being just a strong opinion. Nothing more.

> Obviously you have frighteningly strong opinions on this subject. Maybe
> you should be more careful about them? You'll get no sympathy to your
> cause by making such comments.

I certainly won't get *everybody's* sympathy when I get so critical. But
I'm not subscribed to get everybody's sympathy, even though it would be
very nice.

If people decide to carry a grudge against me, because of my opinion on
Disney comics and artists, then I'll have to live with that. There are
much worser things in life.

> But why on earth do you have to state your opinions in such a rude way?
> Can't you just ignore messages and stories that don't fit to your
> personal views?

I'm not subscribed to a mailing list to intentionally ignore messages.
And maybe also some of my own words sounded a bit rude. But then, look
at all the *compliments* and *praising* in those very same messages!
They were written by me, too!

> I'd call anyone who's a fanatic of any kind crazy.

If people would want to call me crazy about Barks, then I guess I take
that as a compliment.

It's my own fault. I should have listened to my parents when they told
me to finally throw away those childish comics. But I didn't. I secretly
kept them in a hollow tree in the garden. And since then, everything went
berserk. I got sleepless nights because of all those adventures I wanted
to read. I didn't do my homework. All my sane friends turned me down when
they heard about my fascination for ducks without pants. My once promising
future had detoriated. And since then I'm destinied to rant about my
interests, on a virtual public forum...

Which is to say: Always listen to your old folks. They know what's best
for you. :-)

--- Dani?l

Dan S. wrote:
> 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.

So true! I enjoy Shakespeare. He's dead. Most of his
characters die within the plays themselves! LOL!

> From: "Matthew Williams" <kingofduckburg at apptechnc.net>
> Perhaps we all suffer from some mental
> deficiency that
> leads us to spending a substantial amount of time debating and
> speculating
> about ducks on the web.

LOL! Clearly, we do.
But wait...unless some duck lost his legs in a horrific accident
aren't all ducks "on the web"? ;)

> I'm happy with the thoughtful comments posted by Kai Saarto,
> Katie Sullivan
> (I'm so sorry about your grandmother), Chris Hilbig, and
> others.

Thank you!

> Concerning Katie's comments about Goldie: even if he had
> intended to reveal
> more, I'm glad that Barks was limited by his editors. "Back
> to the
> Klondike" is fascinating for how many questions it leaves
> unanswered and
> for how much Barks implies but doesn't say directly.

I actually agree with you there. The open room for
interpretation is what makes "BttK" a great story. Or, at
least, one of the many factors.

> I initially enjoyed
> "Hearts of the Yukon" and Rosa's more recent references to
> Goldie in "The
> Coin and "The Beagle Boys Vs. the Money Bin," but I think
> these revisionist
> approaches to Barks' work have an ultimate, cumulative
> demystifying effect.
> The Goldie plot becomes a lot more ordinary and familiar.

And there we disagree, but that's okay. ;)

> I do believe Rosa is a top-notch writer. "The Empire-Builder
> from Calisota"
> is one of the best Disney comics ever created. The story
> isn't great
> because of the references to Barks, though. What makes it
> great is the
> characterization: Hortense and Matilda's reaction to the moral
> collapse of
> their brother, Scrooge's own complex reaction to his
> wrongdoing. I love the
> drama and palate of emotions Rosa brings to this story and
> several others.

Yes, absolutely. It's that depth of character emotion and
development that I was referring to (a bit awkwardly) in my last
post.

> I think this forum is often a place where it
> is very
> difficult to say anything about Rosa besides "Isn't 'Letter
> from Home'
> great? What are the scientific principles behind glorping?"

LOL! Darn, there goes my next thesis paper... I had a great
theory about the metaphysical subspace aspects of glorping, too!
Heehee...

> Did you have to correct
> his spelling
> and definition of prima donna

I pointed it out, too, simply because it amused me so much. ;)

Steven R. wrote:
> a couple weeks ago, i emailed Gemstone complaining about those
> sword and
> sorcery fantasy Mickey Mouse stories. I dislike them
> intensely - and I dont read
> them.

I rarely read Mickey stories at all. I simply have never found
him as interesting as my ducks. ("Gasp! Heretic!") ;)

Katie Sullivan
http://www.sullivanet.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

DANIEL NEYER to me, 03-04-2004:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Daniel expressed his approval
> of Geoffrey Blum's new Duck stories?

Why do you think that? I've NEVER "approved" any Blum stories.

I've read only about two Blum stories so far. One about witches and
one based on Barks's dime synopsis. I didn't like them. And my main
reason for that, is that I found these two stories long-winded and
confusing.

--- Dani?l

"Now EVERYONE'S mad at me! What'll I do? What'll I do?"
(Which Barks story?) ;-)

Daniel, I apologize for making a mistake about you and the Blum stories.
I was recalling an old message of yours, but now I check back I find you
were only defending the idea of using computers in Barks stories, not
Blum's stories themselves. I do agree with you on Blum's work so
far--boring and confusing, particularly with that excessively surreal
artwork.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

S?REN OLESEN to me, 03-04-2004:

> However, you are not completely right, since ['A Letter From Home']
> isn't a "revisit". The story itself does not have much Barks in it,
> except for one (special) character and the effect(s) of a certain
> stone.

According to Inducks, Rosa's 'A Letter From Home' has the alternate
title 'The Old Castle's OTHER Secret'.

So, that's why I expect the story to be yet another revisit, this time
to Barks's 'The Old Castle's Secret' (OS 189), with some connection to
'The Fabulous Philosopher's Stone' (US 10). And I've seen too much of
this same old Barks recycling continuation gimmick, to look forward to
such a story. But that's just my opinion.

> but in fact (again IMHO as always) Barks has much more in common with
> the classic American Disney comics story telling and "modern" Egmont
> stories than Don has. Haven't made up my mind whether this has to do
> with the drawings or the plots...perhaps both...

I think it's both.

--- Dani?l

"Now EVERYBODY'S mad at me! What'll I do? What'll I do?"
(Which Barks story) :-)