If Rosa hadn't done L&T, the proposed Disney-comics-sanctioned "official" bio would probably be remembered, if at all, as a mildly interesting attempt to depict Scrooge's earlier years. No serious Duck comics fans regarded Disney Comics' stories as anything more than fillers; Rosa, on the other hand, was already regarded as the Greatest Modern Duck Artist by a significant percentage of fans, so his L&T was bound to have a lot more impact on the comics scene than anything anyone else could have come up with. The best thing for him to have done would be to say "there can never be a real official biography of Scrooge," and keep turning out his own duck stories.
If Rosa hadn't done Life and Times, the Disney created Uncle Scrooge Biography would probably have been a lot like the "My First Millions" series. Given the choice between the two, Rosa's story wins hands down.
Yes, but nobody would have tried to take a First-Millions-style story and force all other creators to conform to it, since whoever wrote/drew it wouldn't have been nearly as popular or famous as Rosa. Rosa, by agreeing to do Life and Times, placed his considerable influence behind the misguided idea of a Scrooge biography and ensured that it would cast a big shadow over other creators' work.
(Unless of course it's just a campfire tale told by HD&L, as in Leach's and Van Horn's Prologue to the "Magic Hourglass." But that's not Barks either.)
Actually (…I think I made a thread about this, long, long ago?) the confusing thing is that after they're done telling the story HD&L are dismayed that the other Woodchucks don't believe them, clearly implying that the story happened after all. It's quite odd.
The last line of the Leach/Van Horn wraparound is "That's the nice thing about a tall tale--nobody has to believe it." That line, coupled with the Nephews' dialogue indicating that the story did happen, makes me think that Leach was trying to say that he didn't consider Magic Hourglass to be an "imaginary story," but that at the same time he was telling the continuity-obsessives that "there, now you can discount this story if you want to."
Yes, but nobody would have tried to take a First-Millions-style story and force all other creators to conform to it, since whoever wrote/drew it wouldn't have been nearly as popular or famous as Rosa. Rosa, by agreeing to do Life and Times, placed his considerable influence behind the misguided idea of a Scrooge biography and ensured that it would cast a big shadow over other creators' work.
I don't think a Scrooge biography is a misguided idea. Event stories like this have been the norm for Marvel and DC for years, and it was a good subject for one in the Duck comics. The fact that there aren't many event stories in funny animal books both helps and hurts Disney comics (at least in the US market). It's good, because readers can jump on and off at any time, but bad because the never-ending sameness of the books doesn't attract new readers. Over the years, there have been other event stories, like "The Search for the Zodiac Stone", "Scrooge's Last Adventure", "Wizards of Mickey", "Ultra Heroes", "Donald Quest", and the DuckTales/Darkwing Duck crossover (to name a few), but "The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck" overshadows them all (and probably inspired the "My First Millions" series).
There's nothing wrong with telling stories about Scrooge's past years--Barks himself did one, "The Fantastic River Race." There is something wrong, though, with crafting a "biography" of Scrooge that adheres to a strict timeline and which pins down his activities over the years; it takes all the fun out of Barks' offhand references to Scrooge's fantastical past exploits by either literalizing them or discounting them as "tall tales," and takes a lot of the color and mystery out of Scrooge's character.
There's nothing wrong with telling stories about Scrooge's past years--Barks himself did one, "The Fantastic River Race." There is something wrong, though, with crafting a "biography" of Scrooge that adheres to a strict timeline and which pins down his activities over the years; it takes all the fun out of Barks' offhand references to Scrooge's fantastical past exploits by either literalizing them or discounting them as "tall tales," and takes a lot of the color and mystery out of Scrooge's character.
I fundamentally disagree with you there. There's nothing wrong with creating a biography of a character. And I don't think it takes the fun out of his character. Rather, I think Lo$ is quite a fun ride. And I don't think Scrooge's character needs that kind of mystery. Instead of such mystery, we now know that he's telling the truth whenever he references an event in his past. Lo$ proved that he's not a bullWAK-artist.
You seem to prefer to think of Scrooge as an idea, rather than a fully fleshed out character with a defined backstory. I guess that's fine, that's probably how Barks saw him. But people are different, and other people like other things. I prefer to think of Scrooge as real, or at least as real as a fictional anthropomorphic duck can be. And by chronicling his timeline the way Lo$ did, he feels more real to me. And I enjoy the Duck world more because of that.
It was actually Rosa's Duck tree that first got me into reading Donald Duck. I saw the tree and suddenly he wasn't some silly duck anymore - he was a person with history behind him. His world became something I could relate to. But of course - establishing hard rules to a world means you limit creativity. But limitations often forces people to think outside the box, which more often than not leads to good stuff.
What is this thread anymore? First people don't like that Rosa allegedly contradicted Barks. Then people don't like that new writers can't contradict Rosa. Do want writers to be allowed to contradict lore or not?
Rosa says "I only like Barks' stories, so I tried to follow his canon when I wrote mine! I bet you can't find and lore-mistakes!" and suddenly he is trying to claim the title of "Heir of Barks"?
Come on, people. Rosa is no god, but he's definitely not the devil that you're making him out to be.
When all is said and done though, it's kind of fitting his last story was the deplorable fan fiction "White Agony Creek", since it proved his goal all along really was to just do a story where Scrooge actually bangs Goldie.
When all is said and done though, it's kind of fitting his last story was the deplorable fan fiction "White Agony Creek", since it proved his goal all along really was to just do a story where Scrooge actually bangs Goldie.
What do you mean with "goal all along"? Are you saying he wrote and drew the entire Life and Times just so he could make a comic where Scrooge has sex with Goldie?
The man had a fannish view of what was "correct Scrooge", one he himself says doesn't fit Barks, and when given the chance to have something that he thought would more respectfully fit with the old comics than whatever Disney would've come up with. The result is widely seen as a great comic. Would you rather a great comic not exist in order to avoid editorial idiocy while blaming the writer? What the WAK is it with this attitude? We've known endless times about editorial making weird choices, particularly Egmont, but now where it's convenient so you can snipe at the "sacred cow", we forgive them and just focus on the old man entirely? It's Rosa's fault that writers have to obey him? Is it his fault he can't use Ludwig because Egmont thinks the character is useless, too? Is it Rosa's fault that Disney Italy wanted to use Della but wasn't allowed? Is it his fault that somehow everyone must obey Rosa while new comics come out contradicting Rosa at every turn like the new "Donald and Della as kids" stuff?
He overdetailed his work, he made dumb choices, he's too restrictive with his personal idea and left out tons of stuff I love about these comics- but it'd be nothing but absurd to lay blame at him for any occasions where editors forced others to follow suit. While we're at it, what about authors working for Egmont who don't want particularly to have to restrain their art into washed-down, third-rate Barks immitations? Are you going to go blame Barks now, too?
But here, let me keep up with your tone you've been using to talk about him. Is it all just so you can build up to insulting him as some pervert who was just building up to a sex joke? All his work, all the readership, worth jackWAK because of a bad choice in the end and because of fandom big-names not liking his attitude and blaming him for editorial decisions? Are you sure you're not just mad that while he's read worldwide by millions, your biggest claim to fame is having written about a rapist animator? One man's remembered as a writer, another as an internet blogger with a chip in his shoulder who got to shove some out-of-place jokes into some translations while decrying everyone else and the work he was touching on in particular? Was that why you wrote the John K book in the first place, too?
Post by Scroogerello on Sept 11, 2019 22:49:11 GMT
Welp, this escalated quickly. I was going to respond to a couple of things , but I guess it's best if we leave this topic be before it evolves into another one of those "translation vs localization" threads (if it hasn't already).
Just want to set the record straight on one thing: LP and TheKKM both brought up examples of apparent Rosa-contradictions in recent stories--the Lars Jensen Whitewater story and the new Dutch one pagers with Della, respectively. (I couldn't find any contradictions, but I'm not a Rosa-expert), implying that I made up or exaggerated about Egmont having a "Rosa canon only" policy. I just want to stress that several writers have (casually) talked about this before (even on this very forum, Robb, who works for Egmont, has mentioned that Egmont does not want him clashing with any "Rosa-facts"). So, whatever our opinions are, it is a genuine (albeit odd) policy at Egmont. Maybe I should have been more clear about my sources, but I assumed you guys knew too. Also, those Della one pagers are H-coded (not Egmont).
We know there's a policy to try and keep to Rosa, same way as "no Ludwig" etc etc. Like I said, it's coming from the same editorial that has had restrictions like this for decades- I still don't see the point on blaming Rosa for any of it when we don't blame Barks over Vicar being asked to draw a specific way or characters being mostly and increasingly restricted to a perennial beatification and canonisation of Barks' work.
Post by Baar Baar Jinx on Sept 12, 2019 0:00:07 GMT
One way I can think of (in fact the only way) that the "Donald's First ..." one-pager series contradicts the Rosa version of events is that it has Scrooge in contact with young Donald, Della and Hortense, whereas Rosa has them all estranged from Scrooge from the day he meets the twins for the first time on his return to Duckburg until Christmas 1947.
All his work, all the readership, worth jackWAK because of a bad choice in the end and because of fandom big-names not liking his attitude and blaming him for editorial decisions? Are you sure you're not just mad that while he's read worldwide by millions, your biggest claim to fame is having written about a rapist animator? One man's remembered as a writer, another as an internet blogger with a chip in his shoulder who got to shove some out-of-place jokes into some translations while decrying everyone else and the work he was touching on in particular? Was that why you wrote the John K book in the first place, too?
Two things before I “disappear” again, because I’m really not liking what I see in the quote above!
ONE: Whatever “authority” Rosa has become, WE fans made him that! You don’t see this kind of discussion about Vic Lockman! Vic’s career was longer and he was much more prolific! Indeed, when it came to Scrooge, he essentially set the tone for Western Publishing’s last 10-20 years! But almost no one but me ever mentions him. We civilians clearly have the power to anoint someone whose vision can supersede Rosa in the eyes of collective fandom.
So, anyone with a problem with Rosa can start that particular movement. Who knows, if the American English translation of that person’s work reads well (and not like what we’ve seen in 2019), I may even join that movement!
TWO: And much more important! Why the personal attacks on Thad and his work? He has his strong opinions, and that’s part of what makes him “him”!
I’m sorry to say, this is no tone for a MODERATOR to take! Shades of my earlier criticism of same.
If I may be permitted to take the same sort of liberty – and NOT being a moderator, I certainly CAN take such a liberty… While Thad, and the rest of us, will never be Barks, Rosa, or Scarpa, I daresay that Thad’s professional work, in many different areas, has been read, watched, and listened-to far more than nearly everyone on the forum you have tasked yourself with moderating could ever hope to achieve!
Disagree with Thad (or any of us) in any way you see fit but, to bring Thad’s professional work into your screed in the way you did, just seems to smack of jealousy and not simple difference of opinion!
Guess that means I’m out of here ONCE AGAIN! While I’m gone, please grow up, okay! Luv ya, bye…