Keskustelujen arkisto

Hi everybody!

After I read The Prisoner of White Agony Creek, and after I read again Back to the Klondike, I noticed, in this two boxes, a difference in the Scrooge's expressions. In the first (Barks), he seems distrustful, and in the second (Rosa), he smiles.

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3286/barksrosafusionbisbf4.jpg

Why has Rosa changed this detail?
What were really the Scrooge's intentions?
Treat oneself to a free chocolate or spend a while with Goldie?

Thanks for your answers.

:)

Rosa ALWAYS tries to copy Barks, Roger, but tries to add his own views of the character to the Barks original at the same time. I hate to be always criticizing the man, but this seems to be a typical example of Rosa's wish to "retcon" the Scrooge/Goldie relationship as shown by Barks to make it fit his own interpretation. In Barks' story Scrooge is a hilariously super-cranky prospector and obviously thinks of nothing but gold--there's no inkling of ANY romantic feelings towards Goldie on his part in the entire flashback sequence, so Rosa has to subtly tinker with the past as shown by Barks to make it fit his own conception. He does the same thing in "The Coin," recreating two panels from "Klondike" but adding two panels of his own in order to make them "fit."

This is a big difference between Rosa and Barks actually. In Barks' story, the young Scrooge's skeptical attitude and his mistrust toward Goldie goes together with romantic feelings, but the later is only suggested, and the former makes it much more ambiguous. For Barks, Scrooge would never really trust Goldie (independantly of his love relationship with her).

Preliminary remark:
I have not read "The Prisoner of White Agony Creek", since it has only be printed (in English, ie) in the "Companion" book and has still not appeared in Uncle Scrooge.

The difference in coffee level between Rosa and Barks' cups is so little I'm not sure Scrooge could have changed so radically within a few seconds.

In any case, Barks clearly implied that Scrooge does admire Goldie in many ways.
Scrooge was highly distrustful, but he did get drugged and robed by Goldie.

An important aspect of Barks' narrative, which makes different interpretations possible, is that we only have Scrooge's recollection of the events-- and it's only thanks to a medicine for his bad memory Scrooge recalls such events; given the importance of this period and of Goldie, this seems more like his unconscious rather than age burying this memory.

My point is, Scrooge tells his nephews what he wants; he does not tell them everything, and plays amnesiac at the end to cover up his soft-hearted moment of genorisity toward "The Light of the North", whose memory had his eyes sparkle.

Most of Scrooge's recollections throughout Barks' stories are of the tall-tale kind: gross exaggerations, with funny details (selling wind in Holland and all that). The saloon brawl is one of them; Scrooge can be fierce, but do you think even young Scrooge could do all that?

There is thus plenty of room for interpretation, even to the point of tweaking a panel as is the case here. The important thing is to do it right, ie, not transform everything completely.
(Having not read Rosa's story, I cannot go any further, unfortunately.)

No wonder I didn't remember why Rosa had Scrooge smiling. I didn't even read it one time! Nevertheless, I have no problem with Rosa giving Scrooge a memory of the same meeting, (clearly at a slightly different time than Barks showed), which shows Scrooge with a different emotion.
Barks showed Scrooge having a soft spot in his heart for Goldie, and showing Scrooge smiling while talking to her only shows his emotions at one point in the conversation. It doesn't refute Barks' having Scrooge mistrust Goldie. Haven't you ever sat at a meeting with an enemy and smiled at one point or another?

Quote from user: Roger NorthMaybe Scrooge didn't know Goldie's true intentions until after she drugged and rolled him.
I'm sure he DIDN'T KNOW her true intentions before that. He was just skeptical, and mistrusted her, based on her reputation (and his general instinct to protect himself from people of ill will).

Quote from user: Lars JensenQuote from user: Robb_KWhat does "retcon" mean?
"Retcon" is short for "retroactive continuity". "Retconning" an old story simply means you refer to that story, while revealing what *actually* went on in the story, sometimes by changing a few details.
To expand on Lars' explanation a bit, retcon became a common phrase amongst comic afficianados when DC Comics did this for their entire line in the 1980's with "Crisis On Infinite Earths" which basically rebooted their entire continuity and settings after they'd wound up making an incredibly convoluted mess of it - turning the multiverse into one cohesive universe. (It is often argued that thier fix only wound up making certain things worse). Fast forward to now and "Infinite Crisis" which was just done to commemorate the anniversary of the event "retconned the retcon" so to speak a year or so back.

What Rosa did would be considered a very mild retcon - something that adds more information to the initial story without changing or defacing the original story. Lars' Glomgold example - or Magica's involvement with the ditchdigger in "Of Ducks, Dimes, and Destinies" is actually perfect description of this.

For the most part though, Disney Comics are designed and written so that continuity has NEVER been a big deal. Rosa's attempts of continuity are nothing compared to the *many* asinine stunts seen print in many mainstream comics. For that part I am very appreciative. I don't see anything wrong with adding to a previous story, but I am glad that there are editors who prevent such things as rendering entire Barks or Gottfredson or even a few Murry stories entirely moot.

Everything in moderation and use of common sense.