Keskustelujen arkisto

Yes, I know that the title of this topic sounds provocative, and i also am aware that many readers will start by asking "Who is this guy? Does he have one tenth of Rosa's skills and fame?" To answer the first question, i am just an avid reader of Disney Comics and not exactly ignorant of who has done what and when, nothing more, but nothing less. To answer the second question, I don't compete with Rosa, I read him, as I do read other authors. And what has always struck me with him, and in comparison to his great model Barks, is the stiffness of his drawing. It always looks uneasy, just like a parody or a pastiche would, as opposed to the real thing. Cavazzano has introduced a hysteria and over-mobility in the disneyan drawing style that is the other extreme of the dynamic range. Scarpa or Massimo de Vita, in their best epochs, held just about the right middle - not as stiff and posed, or composed, as Rosa, and not as manic as the later, and influential, Cavazzano. Which brings me to the second point on which I dislike Rosa. Influence. Many artists were inspired by Barks, and naturally so, but Rosa has submitted himself slavishly to his influence, in an almost talibanesque way. Everything Barks has invented is valid, everything he has not invented is invalid. Thus Rosa not only invents no new characters, he endlessly revisits Barks' stories, giving one unnecessary sequel after another. No, there was no point in returning to Plain Awful or to Tralla-La! Especially when redrawing the same characters in the stiff, semi-parodical way i mentioned first. When you slavishly stick to Bark's world, if your style is more reminiscent of Robert Crumb or Art Spiegelman (great artists in their own way), you do not only deface it graphically, you falsify something essential which is the element of serenity. Rosa has reminded me for a long time now of those artists who continue making Blake and Mortimer comics long after Edgar P. Jacobs is dead - none of these new comics is meant as a parody, but they all look and read wrong. The feeling of authenticity cannot be reproduced. But why do I call Rosa smug, you'll say? First, because he said he wasn't interested in doing Mickey Mouse comics, because he found it uninteresting to draw circles all the time. I know that Barks hasn't done any Mickeys and that it had to be a giant no-no for Rosa for that reason, but, again, how talibanesque can one get? Mr. Rosa, think of those great artists who've done Mickey comics without finding themselves humiliated and insulted by the task: Gottfredson. Scarpa. Murry. Bottaro. Strobl. Carpi. Chierchini. Many others. Then - I call him smug, and self-conscious, remember? - I've got just enough of all his explaining of why he does this and how he found that... the same approach to writing as Milan Kundera's. The work comes with instructions on how to read it and explanations about what it is meant to express. In other words: intelligence that does not conceal intelligence. I find this kind of unbearable. To sum my rant up: Rosa, in my opinion - and why should it be humble, by the way? - is an artist with merits (intelligent storytelling, recognisable style, narrative coherence) but with a narrow range and mind. Scrapa - I always come back to Scarpa - had proved that one can do fantastic Mouse *and* Duck stories (http://coa.inducks.org/recommend.php?top100=1). But I am quite sure that if Rosa is so admired, it is because of that narrow range, the fact that he doesn't sprawl voraciously - and it looks to me like a bad reason.

Cheers
Dia-Dia

Dia Dia Don Rosa is not a ripoff of Carl Barks. He has done quite a few original stories. He has written The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck. That is something no other Disney Comics Artist would be allowed to do. He gave the stories a good sense of continuity Yeah He is a fan of Carl Barks but he did some stories that are not Barks ripoffs. He wrote two stories with The Three Caballeros. Carl Barks never did that. I think Don Rosa had a great respect for Carl Barks.

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Rosa is a member of this forum.

If I'm reading this correctly, Dia-Dia, the biggest bone you have to pick with Don Rosa seems to be that he simply doesn't like to draw Mickey Mouse. It's his personal preference as a creator, and he's entitled to his opinion.
Now, I'm probably going to come under fire here, but... I don't disagree with him.
Don't misunderstand me, there have been some *excellent* comic stories told with Mickey Mouse over the years. But honestly, my feeling is that many of those stories could have substituted any character for Mickey Mouse without hurting the story much at all. Scarpa was a phenomenal storyteller, and still would have been had he used Mickey Mouse or not. He just wouldn't have been as famous. ;)
Let me elaborate a bit...
As a character, Mickey Mouse is like... chicken. Chicken by itself is pretty bland, but you can come up with some truly *wonderful* recipes if you use the right ingredients to bring out its flavor.
Mickey Mouse stories generally aren't character driven... they're driven by events *happening to* an otherwise generic everyman character. Or Mickey is simply plopped into a genre, like a detective comic, sci-fi story, fantasy story, etc. etc. Honestly, you can often take the Mouse out of the story, replace him with some other character, and the story would probably be just as effective. (Blasphemy, right?)
Why? I'm only guessin' here, but I'm sure the Walt Disney Co. wouldn't been too keen on Mickey reverting to his roots... thumbing his nose at "the man" and being a bit of an ornery troublemaker. They've got a corporate image to maintain, and Mickey's (happy, non-threatening) face is the face everyone associates with that image.
Now, the ducks? Just like real duck, they've got a stronger flavor all their own. ;)
Duck stories are often *character* driven. In fact, many a story has been told centered on Donald's or Scrooge's foibles -- usually to comedic (or catastrophic) effect!
As such, I can see the allure of picking Ducks over Mice from a creator's point of view. They're just more fully realized *characters.*
Just my opinion. And this certainly isn't meant to belittle the excellent Mickey stories that have been told over the years. I'm just of the opinion that Mickey happened to be along for the ride in most of those stories, as opposed to driving the stories along with his own personality.

I'm sorry Lars I wasn't trying to be negative I was just stating the facts.

Quote from user: Lars JensenKneon, you're dead wrong. Mickey does have a personality and many stories have been character-driven. Just look at David Gerstein's stories, to pick one out of many examples. Are there stories where events drive the story and Mickey is just along for the ride? Yes, but then I could say the same about many Donald stories.
I said most, not all. And I also said it was just my *opinion* based on the majority of Mickey stories I've read. I will completely agree, though, that the same *can* be true of many Donald stories -- I just haven't seen it as often.

EDIT: I might add that it's not necessarily the Mickey writers' fault, as I get the feeling that Disney is probably much more protective of the Mouse than the Ducks. Who knows?

Personally, I think Mickey needs to be knocked off his pedestal once in awhile and dragged through the muck a little. Like the Ducks. ;)

No one is required to like anything that rubs them the wrong way--de gustibus and all that--but the idea that Rosa (or anyone) has some sort of moral obligation to draw stories that he doesn't want to draw is just bizarre ("talibanesque?" Seriously?). The ducks resonate with Rosa in a way that the mice don't, and there's is absolutely nothing what's wrong with that. The man clearly got into Disney comics out of passion (it sure wasn't for money), so naturally he wasn't going to write about characters he wasn't passionate about. QED. Just as no one can force YOU to like Rosa's work, no one can force ROSA to like mouse stories. Fair's fair.
And in any case, if you hold his work in such disdain, I fail to understand why you would even CARE if he branched out.

I have seen/heard in interviews with both Barks and Rosa stating that it is not the art that drives them, but the stories they write. I like it all.... appreciate it for what it's worth. If you don't like it, don't read it again.