A Reply to Mikko and Daniel about Lawsuit

JALustig@aol.com JALustig at aol.com
Sun Jul 23 07:51:24 CEST 1995


DANIEL:

I'll be addressing some of your concerns in my reply to Mikko below. I did
want to acknowledge your message first, however, and thank you for being
polite in the way you broached your questions. I regret I can't answer those
questions more fully, but--as you'll see below--I have my reasons.

MIKKO:

When I mentioned that negative things were said about Barks, Van Horn, myself
and others you didn't seem to believe me. In particular you refused to
believe than anything negative was said on the list about Barks. You insisted
that Rosa certainly hadn't said anything bad about Barks. And you demanded
that I repeat all those awful things--if they really existed--and tell
everyone exactly who said them.

Well, here's my answer: No!

I am not going to repeat and rehash all the awful things that were ever said
on this list. If you really want to know what was said you can go through the
archives and find them yourself.

As far as my original message goes--yes, I was deliberately vague as to
exactly what was said and who said it. I figured that anyone who was familiar
with the controversy would probably know what I was talking about--and anyone
who didn't know didn't really need to know.

My goals in posting that message were simple:

1) Let everyone know the lawsuit was settled and that both sides had come to
an agreement.

2) Issue a plea that we put this nastiness behind us. (Based on your letter,
Mikko, I've apparently failed on this one.)

3) Remind everyone that there are two sides to every argument.

4) Express a small part of the anguish this whole controversy has caused me.
(I did this partially to get this off my chest and partially because I wanted
to remind everyone that these war of words do have consequences. People get
hurt.)

5) Lastly, I tried to make a case that the attacks on the mailing list
against Barks in particular were unfair.

If you really must have proof of these attacks then take a look at the "Joint
Statement of Settlement" that both Rosa and Grandey signed: "Rosa
specifically regrets having made reference to Mr. Carl Barks as an 'evil
genius.'

There were other things said about Barks by Rosa and other people on this
list, but why go into all that?

When I wrote my message I tried to get across the idea that both Grandey and
Rosa had made some unfortunate statements and mistakes. The Joint Statement
seems to bear this out: "Rosa specifically regrets...any negative
connotations or references he may have made to or against Grandey including
references to Grandey as the 'weasel.' Grandey likewise specifically regrets
any inference that Rosa was drunk or engaged in any criminal activity while
attending the comic book convention in Atlanta in June of 1993."

I know that after all the vitriol of the last two years it's hard to just
accept that this matter is over. But it is over. If Don himself "regrets"
calling Grandey a "weasel" then maybe you should too, Mikko. In any event, I
think you should respect the wishes of both parties and let this end.

Mikko, I must say I find your behavior some of your comments curious. You
state:

"So why did Grandey start all this? Maybe he gets Barks money after Barks is
gone?"

Look, I could argue with you about who really started all this and why it
started--but that's a matter of opinion. On the other hand, speculating
(about Carl's will) seems...well, at the very least odd. First of all, you
don't appear to have any facts to base this on. And second, even if Bill were
getting some money in Carl's will--which I have no reason to believe is the
case and is none of our business anyway--what the heck does that have to do
with the Rosa-Grandey feud?

I'm also puzzled, Mikko, by your comments about Section 3 of the Joint
Statement. The Statement--signed by both Rosa and Grandey, remember?--seems
to be saying the exact opposite of what you've concluded. The statement says
that "Rosa's 'Scrooge History' is his own work and was done neither in
collaboration with nor with the endorsement of Mr. Carl Barks."

How can you read that and conclude that Barks gave his "approval" to the
series?

Mikko, you end your message with this: 

"...then Grandey started a campaign against (Rosa's) series...and that
campaign was also going on here in Finland.

"Yep, call him weasel."

After I read this I went back through the archives and tried to track down
exactly what Grandey supposedly said in print when he and Barks were in
Finland. Perhaps I missed something, but the only instance I could find was a
brief report by you. Excuse me if, at this point, I doubt your objectivity.
Even assuming you've translated what Grandey said correctly and presented it
correctly--well, yes, it is somewhat critical of Rosa's work. Of course, any
writer or artist has to be prepared for a certain amount of criticism of his
work. Still, it seems particularly unfortunate and unwise in this particular
case. At least, though, it's not an attack on Rosa himself.

Grandey himself, on the other hand, has been attacked repeatedly and in very
personal ways on this mailing list. A great many assumptions have been made
about him--with very few facts to base them on.

Here then are a few facts: Contrary to what some people have speculated here
Bill Grandey and Kathy Morby did not suddenly appear on Carl Barks' doorstep
shortly after Barks' wife died and somehow trick him into letting them be his
business managers. Carl and his wife, Gare', were close friends with Bill and
Kathy for many years. The agreement to have Bill and Kathy take over Carl's
business affairs and help care for the ailing Gare' was worked out well in
advance of Gare's death. However, by the time Bill and Kathy were able to
sell their house, wrap up their own business affairs and move to Oregon,
Gare's health had worsened. Gare' died about two days after Bill and Kathy
arrived.

Those facts probably aren't as exciting as some of the theories that have
been floating around this mailing list. But at least--for once--somebody is
saying something about Bill Grandey who actually knows Bill Grandey. I
thought it might make an interesting change of pace.

At the end of my original posting about this topic I concluded with "That is
all I have to say about this subject." Clearly some people--Mikko being the
most obvious example--didn't believe me. The sense of disbelief and anger
that was expressed did succeed in drawing me out this once. In retrospect, I
suspect it's better to never say "never." Still, I can't foresee any
circumstance in which I will allow myself to drawn into the discussion again.

I truly think we should all put this behind us as quickly as possible. You
folks are all welcome to say whatever you want, but this stuff does tend to
feed on itself and it obviously can get out of hand. For me, at least, this
is the end.

----John Lustig




More information about the DCML mailing list