Rosa's own li'l Universe (reply to Don Rosa)

[Daniel van Eijmeren]

DON ROSA to me, 01-04-2004:

>> I don't understand why you need Barks's ingredients and legency, to
>> build your "own" li'l Universe. That's an impossible thing to do. It
>> will never be your Universe, because many of your stories are based
>> on the work of *someone else*.

> A *perfect* example of what I mean, eh?

A perfect example of what?

> Even when I tried to diffuse what someone else wrote, tried to make 
> sure nobody interpreted his wording to imply that he or I claim that 
> my view of this Duck Universe is anything other than only MY personal 
> view, even when I do that, someone complains that I didn't even word 
> that *precisely* to his particular liking. So......

Well, that's exactly what a discussion forum is about. Someone says 
something. Some people agree, and other people don't fully agree or 
simply disagree. 

But there's no "radical minority" here that lures in the dark, waiting 
until someone finally makes a mistake, or something like that. ALL of us 
are radical, for joining this discussion forum in the first place. Comics 
are made to be read. They're not made to be discussed by a bunch of fans, 
so-called experts, or creators, who decide to spend the best part of their 
leisure time behind a computer monitor. If people decide to join each 
other in such a way, like we all are doing here, lurking or contributing, 
then they're *all* clear examples of radical persons. They're certainly 
not a minority. And as long as people keep open and patient towards each 
other, it can be very interesting and a *lot* of fun.

I just disagreed with your statement about having your own little universe. 
That's all. Reason is that you can't make such a claim when writing Disney 
stories. (Or Warner Bros stories, etc.) If artists want to have their own 
universe, they have to fully invent one themselves. From scratch. But if 
an artist writes a Disney story, then it's destinied to be part of the 
Disney universe.

Barks Ducks or Rosa Ducks, they're both *Disney* Ducks. And the main reason 
why people decide to buy Disney comics, is that they want to read about 
their *Disney* heroes. I'm willing to bet that 99,99 percent of the readers, 
past or present, didn't know (or care) about any persons named Barks, or 
Rosa, when they bought/read their first Disney comic. And it's only a very 
limited few of those people, who get radical by getting interested in the 
historical or fictional backgrounds of these stories, and the people who 
created them.

And as long as artists are creating Disney stories, expanding the Disney 
universe, they can't just build up their own territory inside of it, 
purposedly contradicting elements in stories of Barks and other Disney 
colleagues, meanwhile expecting that disagreeing people will just humbly 
look the other way.

That's building walls instead of bridges, in a universe that is shared by 
all Disney artists. So, you can't just ask people to ignore you. If people 
would want to ignore you, they would have to skip a lot of issues with Rosa 
in them. And what if these issues with Rosa, also contain interesting 
material by other Disney artists? What then?

As long as you are writing Disney stories, *any* Disney reader or artist 
is free to criticize what you're doing in these stories. And doing so, 
these people are fully minding their own business, because you are part of 
that business. That includes the "personal view" you are putting into your 
Disney work.

And if you decide to create stories which explain away the work of Barks 
or any other Disney artist, you make yourself controversial. 

And if people get crazy or neurotic (or whatever), when they see what your 
doing with their cherished Ducks, you can't just simply explain that away 
by calling such people a "radical minority". That would make you even more 
controversial.

>> I think that such criticism is something to expect. And why not?

> As I have frequently told people, I *do* expect it. As a passionate 
> Barks fan, if I were looking at the undeserved popularity of my work, 
> I think I'd resent me, too.

Do you really say that you make stories that you would have resented if 
they would not have been made by yourself? Is that really what you mean?

You're using the wording "resent me". So, just to be clear, I want to 
underscore that I'm *not* resenting you, I'm just criticizing your *work*, 
and the way you treat Barks's work. The reason is that I am a passionate 
Barks fan, too. And I'd rather see you make original stories, instead of 
stories that are based on "Barks facts" or Barks elements/storylines. I'd 
rather see 100% Rosa, instead of some kind of some forced Barks/Rosa mix-up.

The Rosa stories I like are the ones with little or no references to Barks. 
"His Majesty McDuck", for example. Or "A Matter of Gravity", or the recently
re-reprinted Nostrildamus-story. I find a lot of your ten-pagers very good, 
because they are so original and well-composed.

But for some reason, most Rosa stories that followed began to lean on Barks 
more and more, structurally trying to explain or continuate Barks's story 
elements. I still found the 12-chaper "Life of $crooge" very good, but only 
as a one-time experiment. When I realized that this was in fact the main 
direction of most Rosa stories that followed, I couldn't enjoy these newer 
stories anymore. And since then I'm less fond of "Lo$" than I was. It didn't 
have that funny one-time purpose which I thought it had. 

I still like a lot of your jokes and twists, but for me the quality of the 
overall stories themselves has been going downhill for a long time. And I 
have no enjoyment or satisfaction at all in saying that, because I find it 
one of greatest losses in Disney comics history.

I'm wondering if I'm really the only one here, on this mailing list, who 
thinks that you are at your best when you make original stories of your 
own, with *new* elements, without leaning on recycled Barks elements.

>> You're known to throw a tantrum when a translator misinterprets some
>> parts of your dialogue, or when a colourist doesn't follow your
>> instructions when colouring this-or-that historical boat, uniform or
>> building.

> "Throw a tantrum"? You are so charitable with your interpretations of
> "objecting". And I will *always* object to errors made on one of my
> stories -- no one else can, no one else knows when the error was made.

That's a great thing to do. (Did I protest? Why would I?)

> I'm supposed to say "thank you for that error"?

No, of course not. I just wanted to say that you can be quite radical, 
too. And again, why not? But I'd rather use that other word you used: 
"passionate". If only because it sounds so much nicer.

--- Daniël

"Stop! You don't know what you're doing to yourself"
(Which Barks story?) :-)
Hint #1: These words are spoken by Donald.
Hint #2: Donald is talking to an animal.
Hint #3: Loss of hair.
Hint #4: Junior Woodchucks
Hint #5: Hello! Is everyone baby-sitting or something? 

Please! What more hints can I give??? AAARGH!!! 
I feel some radicalism coming up! :-)