The pros and cons of crediting

[Daniel van Eijmeren]

CHRIS HILBIG to MARTIJN HOUWEN, 14-06-2004:

> I myself am a loyal Disney fan, but I'd be more inclined to purchase a 
> title that has work by someone I enjoy and respect than an unknown. 
> Maybe Dutch editors could get more copies sold among those 2.3 million 
> readers. I'm sure there are quite a few talented Dutch writers and 
> artists that could be built up into stars and could through their own 
> merits, build a solid fan base that will buy week after week, month 
> after month because of their names and the credibility attached to them.

If there's one thing that a lot of famous artists complain about, it's 
the huge amount of fans coming to their door and mailbox, or the huge 
amount of fans making their public life impossible. Even helpful Barks 
seems to have MOVED from time to time, to get some rest.

Not every artist is begging for attention from fans, or for hours of 
correspondence with anyone who's friendly. And I wonder how artists are 
happy to just name themselves "Walt Disney", and enjoy their private 
lives. I mean, some artists *like* to stand in the shadow, hidden by a 
curtain with "(c) Disney" written over it.

And I also wonder if there are artists who might think: "No royalties, 
then no credits." I mean, why does one want to see his/her PERSONAL name 
being printed and reprinted for free, into infinity, without *any* control 
on where and how?

I believe Rosa also has complained about comics being sold with all-too-
obvious credits using his name (on the covers?), and that he wanted to be 
paid for those credits, because he thought it was a way of misusing his 
name. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't remember the details, but I'm sure 
that others can fill me in. 

Rosa also has complained that editors/translators change his stories, and 
that readers as a result would think it was credited artist Rosa himself 
who made the "error". Without those credits, readers will just blame the
*Disney company* instead of Don Rosa. So, that would be an advantage, too.

A lot of Disney artists are too busy working for their monthly rent and 
food, to have much TIME to pay attention to any potential fans. (A lot 
of artists have families and kids.) Only a few Disney artists have the 
opportunity to travel around the world, to visit conventions and such.
So, what use would a "famous" name be, for most Disney writers/artists?

But these are just some thoughts. I can't underscore enough that I'm mainly 
*pro-credits*, but I just can't resist pondering some (IMO) negative sides 
of getting credits from a royalty-free company like Disney. 

Being just a person in the shadow while disguising yourself as Walt Disney, 
might also be fun and satisfactory for some artists. (Or is that a rarity?)

> Disney editors in Europe are quite lucky because they don't have to 
> deal with the stigma of "Disney Comics are only for kids" that those in 
> the US (or North America if we include Canada) have to struggle with. 

At least in The Netherlands, Disney comics are mainly intended for kids. 
Stigma or not. A lot of people are willing to accept that they (at least 
in theory) can be fun for adults, too. But maybe they just don't want to 
be rude? :-)

> It's frustrating some of the reactions I get just mentioning comic 
> books, let alone any Disney material. It's not like I'm even obsessive 
> or anything. (Or I don't think I am.) But it's not easy mentioning 
> comic books in everyday conversation unless it involves a movie.

I'm wondering if the Duck "family tree", "life story" and "mammal duck" 
attempts are partly based on such frustrations. ("Look! This man isn't 
a fantasy Duck! He has a *pedigree*, just like your dog!")

--- Daniël