Quote from user: CoolwaterQuote:[...] Maar als alles goed communiceert en overgoten met een sausje flair, ??kan?? alles. En met inachtneming van die kenmerken van het genre, wordt alles GELOOFWAARDIG. Kan het entertainen; ons hoogste en enige doel, als striptekenaar. Awel, een tekenaar als Don Rosa, om maar eens man en pa?¦ eend te noemen, heeft deze talenten nu juist in onvoldoende mate. Bij hem moet alles KLOPPEN, moet het Duck-universum, door Barks slechts GESUGGEREERD, hermetisch vastgelegd, in chronologische vorm liefst. Terwijl dat voor iedere lezer naar eigen believen vrijelijk interpreteerbaar behoort te blijven.
Ook tekentechnisch ??klopt?? bij hem alles. Hoofden worden uit de mal getrokken; perspectivische wetten met de meetlat gehonoreerd. Maar geen flair! En het tegendeel van economie. En laten we wel zijn: vooral grafisch onbeholpen! Een dilettant voor dilettanten. Ik geloof dat zijn werk aantrekkelijk is voor die lezer die denkt: ??maar dat zou ik ook wel kunnen? . De Dorknopers onder de lezers. Zelfs Barks heeft meermalen en plein public van zijn minachting voor Rosa`s opstelling ten opzichte van het genre en het typerende bijpassende ??talent?? blijk gegeven.
Dat jullie dat maar weten! En mochten er individuen onder de Jippes-fans zijn die heimelijk ook Rosa wel zien zitten, zijn ze bij deze GEROYEERD uit de club. Orders van de baas. Hebben jullie (ja, JULLIE daar) nog geluk; de security-forces van JippesWorld had jullie allang met de ruggen tegen de muur?¦ nou ja.?
Here we go, I'll give you the translation.
But, when everything fits together well and sprinkled with a bit of flair everything "can be done". And taking the genre's charactaristics into account, everything gets BELIEVABLE. Can it entertain; our highest and only goal as comic book artist. Well, an artist like Don Rosa, just to name some... duck, has these talents in insufficient degree. For him everything has to be TRUE, has the Duck universe, merely SUGGESTED by Barks, hermetically fixed, in chronological order preferred. While that should be freely interpretable for every reader.
Also drawtechnical everything is "true" for him. Heads are being pushed out of the mold, perspective laws honored by the ruler. But no flair!
And the oppostie of economy. And let's face it: especially graphical helpless! A dilettante for diletantes. I believe his work his work is attractive for the reader who thinks "but I can do that too". The Dorknopers under the readers. Even Barks has several times and pain public his contempt for Rosa's placing compared to the genre and the typical matching "talent" demonstrated.
That you know! If there are individuals under the Jippes-fans who secretly also like Rosa, they are herewith EXPELLED from the club. Commands form the boss. You (yes, YOU there) are lucky; the security forces of JippesWorld long had you with your backs against the wall... well.
There. I translated it. Happy? :)
Author
Topic: Don Rosa
(102 messages)
Dutch Duckfan Down Under
Don Rosa
Message 91 -
2010-08-29 at 10:09:36
Matilda
Don Rosa
Message 92 -
2010-08-31 at 16:55:53
Quote from user: Dia-DiaQuote from user: BenceDon Rosa never criticized any other Duck-artist openly.
He pretty well did. When he said that he'd never draw Mickey Mouse because it was boring and uninteresting, only drawing circles. By saying this, he disparaged the lifework of great artists and colleagues (of his) like Gottfredson, Scarpa, Massimo de Vita and twenty others.
I can see how Rosa's words about Mickey as just circles and cute lines might make one think he was making a negative comment on artists. It seemed clear to me, however, that he was saying that because he never in childhood read really good *stories* about Mickey, Mickey never became a living character for him the way Barks's ducks did. He actually specifically said that it might have been different if he had encountered Gottfredson's stories in childhood, but he didn't. (And of course he didn't encounter the European creators you mention in his childhood.) I sympathize with this, because I also (my childhood being a half-decade or so after Rosa's) didn't encounter Gottfredson in childhood, and Mickey didn't become a real-live character to me, either. I seldom re-read the Mickey stories in WDC. The only ones I liked were the Phantom Blot stories and Carl Fallberg/Paul Murry's "Pineapple Poachers," where it was the rhyming Hawaiian menehunes I loved. Mickey was a completely vanilla character. So I arrived at adulthood loving the ducks and wanting to share their world, and not having the same feelings at all about Mickey.
That said, I'm not condemning anyone who says humorous negative things about another creator. It's clear that Rosa's style (which includes creating/using a self-consistent "universe" and timeline) not only bemuses but actively irritates some other people, Barks included. I think that's just a matter of personality type. Rosa himself has always been clear that while he enjoyed creating the self-consistent universe and timeline and sticking to it, he does *not* think that the world of Disney comics would be better if everyone else did the same. To each her/his own.
That's where I am personally, too. For me the Barks/Rosa Duckburg of the 1950's is the "real" Duckburg, and I enjoy Rosa's fanboy devotion to creating a consistent timeline. But I also greatly enjoy some stories (such as Byron Erickson's "Lost Treasure of Cornelius Coot") which put the ducks in the computer age. I don't appreciate them less because they don't fit into what for me is the "canonical" narrative.
He pretty well did. When he said that he'd never draw Mickey Mouse because it was boring and uninteresting, only drawing circles. By saying this, he disparaged the lifework of great artists and colleagues (of his) like Gottfredson, Scarpa, Massimo de Vita and twenty others.
I can see how Rosa's words about Mickey as just circles and cute lines might make one think he was making a negative comment on artists. It seemed clear to me, however, that he was saying that because he never in childhood read really good *stories* about Mickey, Mickey never became a living character for him the way Barks's ducks did. He actually specifically said that it might have been different if he had encountered Gottfredson's stories in childhood, but he didn't. (And of course he didn't encounter the European creators you mention in his childhood.) I sympathize with this, because I also (my childhood being a half-decade or so after Rosa's) didn't encounter Gottfredson in childhood, and Mickey didn't become a real-live character to me, either. I seldom re-read the Mickey stories in WDC. The only ones I liked were the Phantom Blot stories and Carl Fallberg/Paul Murry's "Pineapple Poachers," where it was the rhyming Hawaiian menehunes I loved. Mickey was a completely vanilla character. So I arrived at adulthood loving the ducks and wanting to share their world, and not having the same feelings at all about Mickey.
That said, I'm not condemning anyone who says humorous negative things about another creator. It's clear that Rosa's style (which includes creating/using a self-consistent "universe" and timeline) not only bemuses but actively irritates some other people, Barks included. I think that's just a matter of personality type. Rosa himself has always been clear that while he enjoyed creating the self-consistent universe and timeline and sticking to it, he does *not* think that the world of Disney comics would be better if everyone else did the same. To each her/his own.
That's where I am personally, too. For me the Barks/Rosa Duckburg of the 1950's is the "real" Duckburg, and I enjoy Rosa's fanboy devotion to creating a consistent timeline. But I also greatly enjoy some stories (such as Byron Erickson's "Lost Treasure of Cornelius Coot") which put the ducks in the computer age. I don't appreciate them less because they don't fit into what for me is the "canonical" narrative.
Sirredknee
Don Rosa
Message 93 -
2010-08-31 at 18:37:10
Quote from user: MatildaFor me the Barks/Rosa Duckburg of the 1950's is the "real" Duckburg, and I enjoy Rosa's fanboy devotion to creating a consistent timeline.
I don't think Barks' Duck stories are that firmly rooted in the 1950s. On the contrary, they are very timeless for the most part. When reading Barks' comics for the first time in the 1980s I never thought "Oh, the setting is the 1950s!" It's only in more recent times (with everybody using internet and mobile phones, etc.) that you begin to get a sense of the age of his work. That's why the narrow-minded Rosa-timeline doesn't do anything for me and I consider it a grave mistake respectively.
I don't think Barks' Duck stories are that firmly rooted in the 1950s. On the contrary, they are very timeless for the most part. When reading Barks' comics for the first time in the 1980s I never thought "Oh, the setting is the 1950s!" It's only in more recent times (with everybody using internet and mobile phones, etc.) that you begin to get a sense of the age of his work. That's why the narrow-minded Rosa-timeline doesn't do anything for me and I consider it a grave mistake respectively.
Rodney
Don Rosa
Message 94 -
2010-08-31 at 19:05:22
Quote from user: Dia-DiaQuote from user: BenceDon Rosa never criticized any other Duck-artist openly.
He pretty well did. When he said that he'd never draw Mickey Mouse because it was boring and uninteresting, only drawing circles. By saying this, he disparaged the lifework of great artists and colleagues (of his) like Gottfredson, Scarpa, Massimo de Vita and twenty others.
I'm pretty sure this statement has been debunked about a hundred times, but, just to play into this yet again, assuming that you are correct, you find fault in your own theory by grouping Scarpa, a man that naturally did many duck stories, in with your list of the disparged.
Rosa had no access to the works of these people when he was growing up. Therefore, no matter how great the story or the artist involved in Mickey stories, they lack the nostalgia of Barks' work.
He pretty well did. When he said that he'd never draw Mickey Mouse because it was boring and uninteresting, only drawing circles. By saying this, he disparaged the lifework of great artists and colleagues (of his) like Gottfredson, Scarpa, Massimo de Vita and twenty others.
I'm pretty sure this statement has been debunked about a hundred times, but, just to play into this yet again, assuming that you are correct, you find fault in your own theory by grouping Scarpa, a man that naturally did many duck stories, in with your list of the disparged.
Rosa had no access to the works of these people when he was growing up. Therefore, no matter how great the story or the artist involved in Mickey stories, they lack the nostalgia of Barks' work.
Dia-Dia
Don Rosa
Message 95 -
2010-08-31 at 20:29:51
Quote from user: rodneyQuote from user: Dia-DiaQuote from user: BenceDon Rosa never criticized any other Duck-artist openly.
He pretty well did. When he said that he'd never draw Mickey Mouse because it was boring and uninteresting, only drawing circles. By saying this, he disparaged the lifework of great artists and colleagues (of his) like Gottfredson, Scarpa, Massimo de Vita and twenty others.
I'm pretty sure this statement has been debunked about a hundred times, but, just to play into this yet again, assuming that you are correct, you find fault in your own theory by grouping Scarpa, a man that naturally did many duck stories, in with your list of the disparged.
Rosa had no access to the works of these people when he was growing up. Therefore, no matter how great the story or the artist involved in Mickey stories, they lack the nostalgia of Barks' work.
If he had access to Barks, he had access to Gottfredsson, they were both from the same country and of the same generation. I don't think the point you make is valid.
About Scarpa, of course he made Duck stories (some are truly superb but I really prefer his Mouse stories), but the point is that Rosa seems to have implied that only mediocre artists, or non-artists, for that matter, would be interested in making Mickey stories. And this is just not true and has never, ever been!
He pretty well did. When he said that he'd never draw Mickey Mouse because it was boring and uninteresting, only drawing circles. By saying this, he disparaged the lifework of great artists and colleagues (of his) like Gottfredson, Scarpa, Massimo de Vita and twenty others.
I'm pretty sure this statement has been debunked about a hundred times, but, just to play into this yet again, assuming that you are correct, you find fault in your own theory by grouping Scarpa, a man that naturally did many duck stories, in with your list of the disparged.
Rosa had no access to the works of these people when he was growing up. Therefore, no matter how great the story or the artist involved in Mickey stories, they lack the nostalgia of Barks' work.
If he had access to Barks, he had access to Gottfredsson, they were both from the same country and of the same generation. I don't think the point you make is valid.
About Scarpa, of course he made Duck stories (some are truly superb but I really prefer his Mouse stories), but the point is that Rosa seems to have implied that only mediocre artists, or non-artists, for that matter, would be interested in making Mickey stories. And this is just not true and has never, ever been!
Rodney
Don Rosa
Message 96 -
2010-08-31 at 20:53:01
He had access to Gottfredson if his local newspaper carried the strip. Mine sure never did.
I still maintain that the implication is mostly in your interpretation of the statement.
I still maintain that the implication is mostly in your interpretation of the statement.
Ramapith
Don Rosa
Message 97 -
2010-08-31 at 20:54:35
Quote from user: Dia-DiaIf he had access to Barks, he had access to Gottfredsson, they were both from the same country and of the same generation. I don't think the point you make is valid.
From 1938-1952, Gottfredson's work was regularly available in comic book form in the United States??but usually only in one comic book, Walt Disney's Comics and Stories; and from 1949-1952, most of these reprints were redrawn, losing a lot of their visual energy.
From 1953 to 1977, only an occasional Gottfredson story was reprinted. By "occasional" I mean a total of less than ten, again with some redrawn??and others available only in hard-to-find specials.
If one didn't have access to ancient newspapers, there was no easy way for Americans to grow up with Gottfredson during this period. That goes for Don Rosa??and William Van Horn, and Byron Erickson and many others. I mention Byron because he managed to research the stories later in life and became a staunch fan as an adult.
A few younger colleagues and I were lucky enough to grow up with Gottfredson, thanks to being just the right age for the Gladstone reprints of the mid-1980s, and for some of the Gottfredson-inspired new stories that followed them.
From 1938-1952, Gottfredson's work was regularly available in comic book form in the United States??but usually only in one comic book, Walt Disney's Comics and Stories; and from 1949-1952, most of these reprints were redrawn, losing a lot of their visual energy.
From 1953 to 1977, only an occasional Gottfredson story was reprinted. By "occasional" I mean a total of less than ten, again with some redrawn??and others available only in hard-to-find specials.
If one didn't have access to ancient newspapers, there was no easy way for Americans to grow up with Gottfredson during this period. That goes for Don Rosa??and William Van Horn, and Byron Erickson and many others. I mention Byron because he managed to research the stories later in life and became a staunch fan as an adult.
A few younger colleagues and I were lucky enough to grow up with Gottfredson, thanks to being just the right age for the Gladstone reprints of the mid-1980s, and for some of the Gottfredson-inspired new stories that followed them.
Lars Jensen
Don Rosa
Message 98 -
2010-08-31 at 21:16:06
Quote from user: ramapithQuote from user: Dia-DiaIf he had access to Barks, he had access to Gottfredsson, they were both from the same country and of the same generation. I don't think the point you make is valid.
From 1938-1952, Gottfredson's work was regularly available in comic book form in the United States??but usually only in one comic book, Walt Disney's Comics and Stories; and from 1949-1952, most of these reprints were redrawn, losing a lot of their visual energy.
From 1953 to 1977, only an occasional Gottfredson story was reprinted. By "occasional" I mean a total of less than ten, again with some redrawn??and others available only in hard-to-find specials.
If one didn't have access to ancient newspapers, there was no easy way for Americans to grow up with Gottfredson during this period. That goes for Don Rosa??and William Van Horn, and Byron Erickson and many others.
Just wanted to chime in for a second: I never even heard of Gottfredson until I read http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php?c=no/KB04 in the late 1970s. I still remember my reaction: "This is how Mickey Mouse should be characterized." Followed by me wondering why we never saw that characterization in that era's Mickey stories.
Anyway, even if Don had come across Gottfredson's Mickey strips in the newspaper, it would probably have been the gag-a-day version. I like those gag strips just fine... but they are not exactly using all facets of Mickey's adventurous personality.
From 1938-1952, Gottfredson's work was regularly available in comic book form in the United States??but usually only in one comic book, Walt Disney's Comics and Stories; and from 1949-1952, most of these reprints were redrawn, losing a lot of their visual energy.
From 1953 to 1977, only an occasional Gottfredson story was reprinted. By "occasional" I mean a total of less than ten, again with some redrawn??and others available only in hard-to-find specials.
If one didn't have access to ancient newspapers, there was no easy way for Americans to grow up with Gottfredson during this period. That goes for Don Rosa??and William Van Horn, and Byron Erickson and many others.
Just wanted to chime in for a second: I never even heard of Gottfredson until I read http://coa.inducks.org/issue.php?c=no/KB04 in the late 1970s. I still remember my reaction: "This is how Mickey Mouse should be characterized." Followed by me wondering why we never saw that characterization in that era's Mickey stories.
Anyway, even if Don had come across Gottfredson's Mickey strips in the newspaper, it would probably have been the gag-a-day version. I like those gag strips just fine... but they are not exactly using all facets of Mickey's adventurous personality.
GeoX
Don Rosa
Message 99 -
2010-09-01 at 17:48:02
Quote from user: Dia-DiaHe pretty well did. When he said that he'd never draw Mickey Mouse because it was boring and uninteresting, only drawing circles. By saying this, he disparaged the lifework of great artists and colleagues (of his) like Gottfredson, Scarpa, Massimo de Vita and twenty others.
Really? This again? As some people here already know, I find most MM stories that I have read (which includes a fair bit of Gottfredson) to be--how should I put this?--boring and uninteresting, not to mention frequently politically troubling. For that, I must now deeply apologize for disparaging the lifework of great artists and blahdy blah blah, but I can at least take comfort in the fact that nobody without an enormous chip on her/his shoulder would imagine that this statement is in fact intended to "disparage" anybody.
Really? This again? As some people here already know, I find most MM stories that I have read (which includes a fair bit of Gottfredson) to be--how should I put this?--boring and uninteresting, not to mention frequently politically troubling. For that, I must now deeply apologize for disparaging the lifework of great artists and blahdy blah blah, but I can at least take comfort in the fact that nobody without an enormous chip on her/his shoulder would imagine that this statement is in fact intended to "disparage" anybody.
Dia-Dia
Don Rosa
Message 100 -
2010-09-01 at 19:04:33
Sorry GeoX, are you Don Rosa? Just so I know.
Rodney
Don Rosa
Message 101 -
2010-09-01 at 19:10:50
That would be pretty amazing if he were, since I stood in line with him to get books signed by Don Rosa.
I should point out that I cannot be Don Rosa, as I am a great fan of Gottfredson's, having grown up during the time of Gladstone's mid-80's reprints.
I should point out that I cannot be Don Rosa, as I am a great fan of Gottfredson's, having grown up during the time of Gladstone's mid-80's reprints.
Mcduck_Enterprises
Don Rosa
Message 102 -
2010-09-01 at 19:33:35
Quote from user: GeoXQuote from user: Dia-DiaHe pretty well did. When he said that he'd never draw Mickey Mouse because it was boring and uninteresting, only drawing circles. By saying this, he disparaged the lifework of great artists and colleagues (of his) like Gottfredson, Scarpa, Massimo de Vita and twenty others.
Really? This again? As some people here already know, I find most MM stories that I have read (which includes a fair bit of Gottfredson) to be--how should I put this?--boring and uninteresting, not to mention frequently politically troubling. For that, I must now deeply apologize for disparaging the lifework of great artists and blahdy blah blah, but I can at least take comfort in the fact that nobody without an enormous chip on her/his shoulder would imagine that this statement is in fact intended to "disparage" anybody.
Don't worry bud, we accept your apology. No, serious, love this post......sums up the beaten horse arguement. :)
Fact is to Dia Dia, Don stated to me he won't frequent the forum because of a few mud slingers that came in from some other previous forum. (I'm not sure what that forum was as I wasn't around then,) He accepts there is people who don't like his work and he has opinions about others work as well. He is as much of a fan of comics as the next reader/collector. So, it is really pointless to single out anyone for their opinions. If the man thinks MM is boring - the world still turns.
Really? This again? As some people here already know, I find most MM stories that I have read (which includes a fair bit of Gottfredson) to be--how should I put this?--boring and uninteresting, not to mention frequently politically troubling. For that, I must now deeply apologize for disparaging the lifework of great artists and blahdy blah blah, but I can at least take comfort in the fact that nobody without an enormous chip on her/his shoulder would imagine that this statement is in fact intended to "disparage" anybody.
Don't worry bud, we accept your apology. No, serious, love this post......sums up the beaten horse arguement. :)
Fact is to Dia Dia, Don stated to me he won't frequent the forum because of a few mud slingers that came in from some other previous forum. (I'm not sure what that forum was as I wasn't around then,) He accepts there is people who don't like his work and he has opinions about others work as well. He is as much of a fan of comics as the next reader/collector. So, it is really pointless to single out anyone for their opinions. If the man thinks MM is boring - the world still turns.