Bullshit

[Olaf Solstrand]

> Pardon my language, but this is pure BULLSHIT!!!

...and, as I mentioned, I expected that someone here would have to burst out
against my last mail. In fact, I'm even surprised that nobody BUT Sigvald
reacted on this. Oh well, I guess there are more to come?


> You know, as I and veryone else here know, that Don Rosa's name is put on
> the front of the Scandinavian Weeklies - just as with Barks' name. That
> proves that he is a very important creator.

No, that only proves what the editors of the weeklies think of him. I heard
that they will put it on the front when _my_ first story comes (in Norway,
that is) in six weeks - does that prove that I am a very important creator?
No, I'm not. The editors like Don Rosa, plus I guess they feel that putting
his name on front pages would SELL more. (I hope no publishers reading this
are offended.)

Whether his name is on the front page or not doesn't prove anything. Don
Rosa has been writing Disney Comics "only" in 16 years. You say that he is
one "of the major famous creators who have fronted the development of the
Duckburg-universe". No, he's not. When Don Rosa started writing Disney
Comics, most of the universe already _was_ fully developed. And most of what
Don Rosa does, is despites everything that is "normal". Don Rosa e.g. writes
stories he claims finds place in the 1950's, while NO other writers in
Egmont are allowed to write stories that doesn't find place today (I mention
only Egmont here, as that is both Don Rosa's publisher and the one I know
best myself - but feel free to add information on the situation in other
countries). And when he is doing one thing and everybody else not only
_does_ the opposit, but also _are made_ doing the opposit by the publisher,
you can't call him a developer.

And as long as you choose to say that e.g. Scarpa and Gatto are just in the
big mass, I don't see why Don Rosa shouldn't be in there. Romano Scarpa has
been writing Disney stories since Don Rosa were in diapers (give or take a
year or two), and is still active today. Besides writing, he has given A LOT
to the Mouse- and Duck-universes through new characters and new sides of the
characters. If FIFTY YEARS of EXCELLENT writing, art and development doesn't
qualify him to be "of the major famous creators", I don't see why Don Rosa
is so different.

Don't get me wrong - I _love_ the comics of Don Rosa. But often everything
he writes can be divided into three classes: (a) "Regular" comics, (b) Barks
references and (c) things not following the rules everybody else has to
follow - or combinations of these three. I don't mind ANY of these classes,
but they're not very developing. At least not more developing than what all
other writers and artists must face every day (I'm not trying to say that
Don Rosa's work is EASY - I feel very sure it isn't - but it's not very
developing).

Yes, Don Rosa develops side characters himself. That's developing, but not
more than the development EVERY writer and artist does in EVERY story. E.g.
in my own story "Being Donald Duck" (art by Nuñez, hitting the Scandinavian
weeklies 26-03), we meet a farmer. He doesn't have a name, and we will
probably never see him again. Still, in a comic he's just as valuable as
Arpin Lusène or Scrooge's horse Hortense. He is a character created by a
writer because he was needed for that story - and so what if he wasn't
created by Don Rosa? It's not like so many of Don Rosa's characters have
been used by _other_ writers, so it's wrong calling it development.

Yes, much of what Don Rosa has written contains great parts with huge
importance for the development of characters - but these parts are usually
Barks references. Let's take an example: "King of the Klondike" (The life
and times of Scrooge McDuck XIII). Yes, this is an IMPORTANT part of
Scrooge's life - but all the vital facts are already given to us by Carl
Barks. Carl Barks told us Scrooge was here, he told us about Goldie, he told
us about Soapy Slick. He told us about the goose egg nugget, he told us
everything. That is what Don Rosa took, and he added a lot to make a GREAT
story out of it. But the parts he added are not any more developing than
what every writer and artist do.

And whenever Don Rosa does something that COULD be developing - it's not
developing at all. Don Rosa's stories finding place in the 1950's COULD be
developing, if the editors approved this (again, I'm talking Egmont only).
If Don Rosa wrote stories finding place in the 1950's, and all editors said
"I like this, I want all writers to write stories from that period" - now,
THAT would be developing. But no. Don Rosa is allowed writing stories
finding place in the 1950's simply because he's a special writer. No
"normal" authors are allowed to write like that.

> And we both knows that it's just
> a matter of time before "Sign of the Triple Distelfink" will be reprinted.

Eh... No, we don't. Where do you know that from? Anyhow, we're talking about
"reprinted timeless classics" here, aren't we? Well, "Sign of the Triple
Distelfink" is not a classic, and certainly not reprinted. And even if it IS
reprinted some day, that's no reason that it should be a classic. We read an
awful lot of reprints in the weekly these days, Sigvald, don't we?

No, I don't see what seperates "Sign of the Triple Distelfink" from other
stories. It's a birthday story, yes - but we've seen quite a lot of those
the last years. Donald has a birthday story every year, everybody else has
one at least every fifth year... That's awfully many stories.

> So I hope that you was just kidding here - and not seriously attacking Don
> Rosa's name and reputation?

Don Rosa, if you're reading this: If you feel that I attack your name and
reputation by writing this, please let me know. That surely was not my
intention.



Olaf :-(