Correspondence and history - replying to Don Rosa

[Kai Saarto]

Mike Rhode wrote:

>Don said:
>
>
>"There are many more letters from Barks to Rosa and
>Rosa to Barks during
>1975-1998 and I have copies of them all, but if I can
>help it, no one will
>ever see them. "
>
>Don, as an archivist and historian, I've got to
>disagree with you on this one.  You could deposit the
>correspondence with an archives such as OSU or MSU or
>even the Library of Congress w/ restrictions as to its
>use.  The UKY article quoted you as saying that Barks
>was the greatest storyteller of the 20th century - is
>it fair to deprive future generations of the
>possibility of new insights into Barks' work? 
>
As a historian I can appreciate some of Mike´s comments. Still, private 
correspondence is *private*. Personally, I wouldn't want my personal 
e-mails all over the internet. When writing to someone in private I at 
least write just to that person and tell him/her things that are meant 
*just* for him/her.  I think what Don said about being "feeling soiled" 
is good description of how I too would feel if my personal letters were 
exposed to anyone who'd like to read them.

Still, it would be great that *some* parts of the said correspondence 
between Barks and Rosa could be seen *someday*. Those that are not 
overly personal.

Following rant in not for you Mike (this is not the same thing), this 
just reminded me of one of my pet peeves:

Why do some people assume they have the right to know everything about 
every celebrity in the planet? I don't think personal diaries/letters of 
people like JFK, Marilyn Monroe or princess Di belong to anyone else but 
them. Its just plain wrong that someone *whole* life becomes public 
domain if he/she becames a public figure.

Then again, I've always hated those celebrity gossip magazines.

-- 
- Kai Saarto
http://www.go.to/donrosa