Barks/Rosa universe does not have to include all stories Barks ever made. There are stories that obviously don't fit in what is later established, like the story Gladstone first appears.
I'd say Gladstone being a jerk is a key part of his personality in addition to him being very lucky, so it's normal that some stories would focus on the former aspect rather than the latter. Of course, on a meta level we know that Barks hadn't thought up yet the concept of Gladstone being lucky, but the story may work even in the "Barks/Rosa universe", to repeat your expression. By the way, I feel that said expression is so common in the fandom that any attempt to change it into something else would probably be unsuccessful.
Gladstone at his first appearance is not just a jerk; he's practically a villain, not even caring about forcing three ducklings to live in the streets. I don't think canon Gladstone would do that.
I'd say Gladstone being a jerk is a key part of his personality in addition to him being very lucky, so it's normal that some stories would focus on the former aspect rather than the latter. Of course, on a meta level we know that Barks hadn't thought up yet the concept of Gladstone being lucky, but the story may work even in the "Barks/Rosa universe", to repeat your expression. By the way, I feel that said expression is so common in the fandom that any attempt to change it into something else would probably be unsuccessful.
Gladstone at his first appearance is not just a jerk; he's practically a villain, not even caring about forcing three ducklings to live in the streets. I don't think canon Gladstone would do that.
Personally, I like the earliest Gladstone much better than the impossibly lucky demon from Hell into which he evolved. He was a REAL person, albeit lazy, shiftless, dishonest, amoral, mean, egotistical, selfish and unscrupulous, and a true rival to Donald for Daisy's affections, because he was handsome, suave, debonair, and had money (not because he was lucky, but because he chiseled people out of their hard-earned money); and because he liked the finer things in life, closer to Daisy's taste, unlike Donald's being simple and boorish, and liking "tractor pulls" and wrestling matches, rather than cultural events, like Orchestra concerts, art exhibitions, the opera, stage plays and serious book readings, and the like. He was a character which the reader could hate, and side with Donald against him, as opposed to the super-lucky sad excuse for a Human, that we must feel sorry for, despite hating him.
Scrooge also didn't care when he wanted to force Donald to sell his house.
Yes, but no matter how angry Scrooge got with Donald, he NEVER allowed Donald and Huey, Dewey and Louie to be homeless, and live in the streets. He ALWAYS loaned him money to survive, and/or allowed him to return to his job and earn money (albeit at a meagre wage- exploiting him for cheap labour). But, I'd guess that Scrooge paid and loaned Donald more money over the years than the worth he received back in services and labour. And rightly so, as Scrooge was morally wrong in trying to take advantage of Donald in such an uncaring way.
Isn't it interesting that Disney would allow major characters like Gladstone, Daisy and Scrooge, to be so selfish, uncaring and often immoral? That allowed Barks to write and draw such wonderful stories with which we readers could identify as coming from the real World, unlike the sweet and sunny Universes of most of the entertainment fare for little children, today.
Scrooge also didn't care when he wanted to force Donald to sell his house.
Yes, but no matter how angry Scrooge got with Donald, he NEVER allowed Donald and Huey, Dewey and Louie to be homeless, and live in the streets. He ALWAYS loaned him money to survive, and/or allowed him to return to his job and earn money (albeit at a meagre wage- exploiting him for cheap labour). But, I'd guess that Scrooge paid and loaned Donald more money over the years than the worth he received back in services and labour. And rightly so, as Scrooge was morally wrong in trying to take advantage of Donald in such an uncaring way.
Isn't it interesting that Disney would allow major characters like Gladstone, Daisy and Scrooge, to be so selfish, uncaring and often immoral? That allowed Barks to write and draw such wonderful stories with which we readers could identify as coming from the real World, unlike the sweet and sunny Universes of most of the entertainment fare for little children, today.
Yes, Barks did a very good job on these aspects. Also reminds me of his use of Chisel McSue, Barks said he did not make Chisel redeem himself after Scrooge saved his life. Chisel remained a villain anyways, Barks wanted to show that even if the hero saves the villain, it's not gonna change the villain's personality. That applies to real life! Anybody did a favor to a jerk, but the jerk remained a jerk?
Yes, but no matter how angry Scrooge got with Donald, he NEVER allowed Donald and Huey, Dewey and Louie to be homeless, and live in the streets. He ALWAYS loaned him money to survive, and/or allowed him to return to his job and earn money (albeit at a meagre wage- exploiting him for cheap labour). But, I'd guess that Scrooge paid and loaned Donald more money over the years than the worth he received back in services and labour. And rightly so, as Scrooge was morally wrong in trying to take advantage of Donald in such an uncaring way.
Isn't it interesting that Disney would allow major characters like Gladstone, Daisy and Scrooge, to be so selfish, uncaring and often immoral? That allowed Barks to write and draw such wonderful stories with which we readers could identify as coming from the real World, unlike the sweet and sunny Universes of most of the entertainment fare for little children, today.
Yes, Barks did a very good job on these aspects. Also reminds me of his use of Chisel McSue, Barks said he did not make Chisel redeem himself after Scrooge saved his life. Chisel remained a villain anyways, Barks wanted to show that even if the hero saves the villain, it's not gonna change the villain's personality. That applies to real life! Anybody did a favor to a jerk, but the jerk remained a jerk?
We all know that happens all the time. I'm sure we all have had experiences like that. But that won't stop us from trying to help people in need, because we have the instinct to do that (and most of us still think that is the right thing to do - despite some people's seeming ungratefulness.
Also reminds me of his use of Chisel McSue, Barks said he did not make Chisel redeem himself after Scrooge saved his life. Chisel remained a villain anyways, Barks wanted to show that even if the hero saves the villain, it's not gonna change the villain's personality. That applies to real life! Anybody did a favor to a jerk, but the jerk remained a jerk?
It's not unique to Barks, though. "Hero saves villain, villain double-crosses them anyway" is a common trope, also featured in such Disney movies as Tarzan, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Beauty and the Beast (though those are, of course, much later than The Horseradish Story).
That applies to real life! Anybody did a favor to a jerk, but the jerk remained a jerk?
This question does not have to do with Disney comics.
It's on topic enough, if taken in the context of our conversation. Marco only mentioned that to make the point that Barks used real-life situations with which we Human readers could identify - implying that that writing skill made our reading his stories more enjoyable. I was the one who took that off topic, in saying that that's Human nature, and not relating it to Disney Comics.
I wouldn't want to use the phrase "Barks/Rosa universe" to imply a continuity that should be enforced on anyone
[...]
Would you be any happier with "Barks & Rosa universe"?
For me, using the symbol "/" or the symbol "&" doesn't change a thing, so if something as simple as a symbol change can prevent some people from being offended, then I'll gladly adopt that.
Personally, I believe it should be written Rosa○Barks Universe so as to avoid any confusion
Gladstone at his first appearance is not just a jerk; he's practically a villain, not even caring about forcing three ducklings to live in the streets. I don't think canon Gladstone would do that.
Personally, I like the earliest Gladstone much better than the impossibly lucky demon from Hell into which he evolved. He was a REAL person, albeit lazy, shiftless, dishonest, amoral, mean, egotistical, selfish and unscrupulous, and a true rival to Donald for Daisy's affections, because he was handsome, suave, debonair, and had money (not because he was lucky, but because he chiseled people out of their hard-earned money); and because he liked the finer things in life, closer to Daisy's taste, unlike Donald's being simple and boorish, and liking "tractor pulls" and wrestling matches, rather than cultural events, like Orchestra concerts, art exhibitions, the opera, stage plays and serious book readings, and the like. He was a character which the reader could hate, and side with Donald against him, as opposed to the super-lucky sad excuse for a Human, that we must feel sorry for, despite hating him.
I disagree: maybe it's because I first met Gladstone as "Donald's lucky cousin", or maybe it's because the best stories with him are the ones where he is lucky, but I am glad that Barks gave him that trait. He even said that he wanted to make him as unlikable as possible, and what's more unlikable than the impossibly lucky person who pesters Donald because of that, and never has to work to get what he wants?
For me, using the symbol "/" or the symbol "&" doesn't change a thing, so if something as simple as a symbol change can prevent some people from being offended, then I'll gladly adopt that.
Personally, I believe it should be written Rosa○Barks Universe so as to avoid any confusion
Let's say that "Barks universe" is for people regarding Barks stories (but not Rosa stories) as canon, like TitusMcDuck; "Rosa universe" is for people regarding Rosa stories (but not Barks stories) as canon, which is virtually nobody; and "Barks/Rosa universe", or "Rosa○Barks Universe", is for people ragrding both Barks stories and Rosa stories as canon.
Personally, I believe it should be written Rosa○Barks Universe so as to avoid any confusion
Let's say that "Barks universe" is for people regarding Barks stories (but not Rosa stories) as canon, like TitusMcDuck; "Rosa universe" is for people regarding Rosa stories (but not Barks stories) as canon, which is virtually nobody; and "Barks/Rosa universe", or "Rosa○Barks Universe", is for people ragrding both Barks stories and Rosa stories as canon.
I do not know if it is what gooey98 intended, maybe that was involuntary...anyhow, as a mathematician, I do approve the notation "Rosa○Barks". It represents the composition of Barks(-) and Rosa(-), seen as functions. So, if you consider Disney's Universe as an argument of some sort, then Barks(Disney's Universe) represents the result of the action of Barks on this Universe, and Rosa(Barks(Disney's Universe)) the result of the action of Rosa on the latter. Rosa○Barks(-) is just a standard alternative notation for the composed function Rosa(Barks(-)).
Let's say that "Barks universe" is for people regarding Barks stories (but not Rosa stories) as canon, like TitusMcDuck; "Rosa universe" is for people regarding Rosa stories (but not Barks stories) as canon, which is virtually nobody; and "Barks/Rosa universe", or "Rosa○Barks Universe", is for people ragrding both Barks stories and Rosa stories as canon.
I do not know if it is what gooey98 intended, maybe that was involuntary...anyhow, as a mathematician, I do approve the notation "Rosa○Barks". It represents the composition of Barks(-) and Rosa(-), seen as functions. So, if you consider Disney's Universe as an argument of some sort, then Barks(Disney's Universe) represents the result of the action of Barks on this Universe, and Rosa(Barks(Disney's Universe)) the result of the action of Rosa on the latter. Rosa○Barks(-) is just a standard alternative notation for the composed function Rosa(Barks(-)).
Yup, I understood and approved of this notation...my only problem with it is that the symbol is not on my keyboard! So I'd have to "copy/paste" it all the time.