I very much like Rosa, despite being Rosa, so to speak.
A lot of the elements he does (the overfocus on continuity, breaking tone, the stiffer art style, etc) are elements that in most other cases would put me off. The difference is, I guess, Rosa manages to pull above and be great despite them to the point where I still enjoy his work thoroughly.
I also like his element of "look, this is my canon, don't blame me if others follow me" because I can recognise that- blaming Rosa for Rosa's legacy is quite a bit off, to me. It's not his fault, using the OP reference to the DT17 thread, that Angones and his staff grabbed everything I normally wouldn't like about Rosa and made it worse without the quality to counter that. To me the best legacy he gets is from writers like Marco Gervasio in his Fantomius stories, who works off of Rosa's work, but also alters it as he wants to make his own story, just like Rosa did to Barks.
And yes, the overwhelming worship of Rosa by the mainstream that overshadows everyone else is very infuriating, but being honest, even worse is the Barks worship, so I'm used to it.
And yes, the overwhelming worship of Rosa by the mainstream that overshadows everyone else is very infuriating, but being honest, even worse is the Barks worship, so I'm used to it.
With the postmodernism, I think I see what you mean. It's like how Walt Disney (and probably Barks too) saw Mickey and Donald as actors, rather than characters. But instead, Don Rosa saw the characters as ... well, characters - people living in a fictional world, with a past and a future. If that's what you meant then I agree with it, but I wouldn't agree that that's postmodern. I'd call it Writing 101. (I do however agree that many other Disney comic-creators do not see it that way.)
This I can't agree with. Donald in Barks' comics (not least in Barks' best years) is a much fuller and more complex character than he ever was under Rosa. It feels strange to imply that Barks ignored "Writing 101" by writing Donald in different roles and moods from story to story.
I don't believe Barks saw Donald as an actor; I think he saw him as a versatile, human character. There is a difference. The Donald in Taliaferro's newspaper strips really is a generic everyman character for the most part, and replaceable with just about any other everyman character. Not so with Barks' Donald.
Oh no, I didn't mean to imply that Barks' Donald is inconsistent. And I agree that saying that Barks viewed him as an actor is pushing it. I'd also agree his Donald is more complex and probably more realistic than Rosa's. What I meant is that Barks probably thought of the story first and then placed the characters in it, and was willing to mold the characters around the situations, which could create contradictions in personalities. Whereas Rosa has a set idea of what the characters are like. (I'll have to keep thinking about this in order to find out if it's truly the case though.)
However, after sleeping on it, I don't think I agree with my past self regarding the need to see characters as real people. Sometimes writing a story is more about a message than the characters, so their development might not be prioritized. They are sometimes just a vehicle to tell that story. That's fine with me, but that generally doesn't create very interesting characters. It is when a character is used multiple times with contradictory characteristics it bothers me. If character's characteristics does not fit for the story - don't use that character. Sorry, this last part wasn't relevant to the topic.
What's this about Rosa playing auteur? I'm unfamiliar with this.
Well that's a bit anecdotal and totally subjective, but Rosa doesn't like ambiguity about his stories. As the author, he certainly has the right to clarify his intent, but he seems to operate under the implicit assumption that his interpretation of his (and by extention Barks') work is the only correct one. As someone who likes to play around with Rosa's work, this is a little discouraging.
The word you're looking for is "intentional fallacy". The idea that only the creator has the say on what their work means. I could also do without it, though I am grateful that Rosa is one of the few Disney creators who gets the room to deliver all this insight into his working methods.
However, after sleeping on it, I don't think I agree with my past self regarding the need to see characters as real people. Sometimes writing a story is more about a message than the characters, so their development might not be prioritized. They are sometimes just a vehicle to tell that story. That's fine with me, but that generally doesn't create very interesting characters. It is when a character is used multiple times with contradictory characteristics it bothers me. If character's characteristics does not fit for the story - don't use that character. Sorry, this last part wasn't relevant to the topic.
Over on geox' blog, I replied to a comment by joetorcivia and said, basically, that I think Francesco Artibani is a better writer than Don. Controversial? Moi?
But what I like about Artibani is his credo - the characters "write themselves". Maybe this is a bit more Romano Scarpa than either Barks or Rosa, because Scarpa was the one who sometimes rambled through his stories as if he made them up on the spot. Artibani, however, is much more organized. Still, what remains: If the characters don't fit into a story, the story itself probably shouldn't be written (or at least not with the familiar cast).
Now if you have a very set idea of how a character acts, this can limit story development. Barks' Scrooge was also a wildly surprising character with a lot of mood swings, something the Italians picked up and exaggerated even further. Does he ever do any of that in Rosa's stories?
Don Rosa's stories are essentially illustrated fanfics of Barkses stories, except they're official.
I think that is very unfair. Don Rosa added more to the Barks canon than most Disney comic writers. If Rosa's works are fanfics then what are the Jippes/Milton 10-pagers, or all the Junior Woodchucks remakes by Jippes, not no mention many other works by many other Disney artists?
Well that's a bit anecdotal and totally subjective, but Rosa doesn't like ambiguity about his stories. As the author, he certainly has the right to clarify his intent, but he seems to operate under the implicit assumption that his interpretation of his (and by extention Barks') work is the only correct one. As someone who likes to play around with Rosa's work, this is a little discouraging.
The word you're looking for is "intentional fallacy". The idea that only the creator has the say on what their work means. I could also do without it, though I am grateful that Rosa is one of the few Disney creators who gets the room to deliver all this insight into his working methods.
Thank you! I was skirting around "death of the author", but that's really too radical for my tastes.
Well that's a bit anecdotal and totally subjective, but Rosa doesn't like ambiguity about his stories. As the author, he certainly has the right to clarify his intent, but he seems to operate under the implicit assumption that his interpretation of his (and by extention Barks') work is the only correct one. As someone who likes to play around with Rosa's work, this is a little discouraging.
The word you're looking for is "intentional fallacy". The idea that only the creator has the say on what their work means. I could also do without it, though I am grateful that Rosa is one of the few Disney creators who gets the room to deliver all this insight into his working methods.
However, after sleeping on it, I don't think I agree with my past self regarding the need to see characters as real people. Sometimes writing a story is more about a message than the characters, so their development might not be prioritized. They are sometimes just a vehicle to tell that story. That's fine with me, but that generally doesn't create very interesting characters. It is when a character is used multiple times with contradictory characteristics it bothers me. If character's characteristics does not fit for the story - don't use that character. Sorry, this last part wasn't relevant to the topic.
Over on geox ' blog, I replied to a comment by joetorcivia and said, basically, that I think Francesco Artibani is a better writer than Don. Controversial? Moi?
But what I like about Artibani is his credo - the characters "write themselves". Maybe this is a bit more Romano Scarpa than either Barks or Rosa, because Scarpa was the one who sometimes rambled through his stories as if he made them up on the spot. Artibani, however, is much more organized. Still, what remains: If the characters don't fit into a story, the story itself probably shouldn't be written (or at least not with the familiar cast).
Now if you have a very set idea of how a character acts, this can limit story development. Barks' Scrooge was also a wildly surprising character with a lot of mood swings, something the Italians picked up and exaggerated even further. Does he ever do any of that in Rosa's stories?
I think that a creator's intention is always important. After all, it's a message that the creator tried to send to people. The creator tried to communicate something. What a person is trying to say is often more important than what one ends up saying. That's not to say that the recipient's interpretation isn't important; it's just that it could vary wildly from person to person, meaning that it's not a reliable source of "the truth of the meaning of the message".
Anyways, could we have some examples of Rosa doing this? I'm not sure I know what I'm talking about anymore. I know he tried to clarify the "superhero-Scrooge"-stuff from the Klondike-chapter in Lo$, but that's the only example I can think of.
---
I've only experienced (what I hope is) Francesco Artibani's worst stories, i.e. the Young Donald Duck series. However, you speak quite fondly of his work. "Organized stories in which the characters write themselves" sounds exactly like what I consider to be good stories. I would be interested in which of his stories you would recommend.
I think that a creator's intention is always important. After all, it's a message that the creator tried to send to people. The creator tried to communicate something. What a person is trying to say is often more important than what one ends up saying. That's not to say that the recipient's interpretation isn't important; it's just that it could vary wildly from person to person, meaning that it's not a reliable source of "the truth of the meaning of the message".
Anyways, could we have some examples of Rosa doing this? I'm not sure I know what I'm talking about anymore. I know he tried to clarify the "superhero-Scrooge"-stuff from the Klondike-chapter in Lo$, but that's the only example I can think of.
I read his commentary in the first two issues of the Don Rosa Library and the feeling I got was that he just explains almost every damn thing. I'll have to go back and look at it in detail but sometimes I do get the feeling he wants to control every aspect including how the reader interprets his stories.
I've only experienced (what I hope is) Francesco Artibani's worst stories, i.e. the Young Donald Duck series. However, you speak quite fondly of his work. "Organized stories in which the characters write themselves" sounds exactly like what I consider to be good stories. I would be interested in which of his stories you would recommend.
Well, "Scrooge's Last Adventure" (which GeoX reviewed recently and which has a very high Inducks rating) and its spiritual sequel "Il segreto di Cuordipietra" (Glomgold's Secret) are probably high points in that regard. The latter even manages to fuse Barks, Rosa and Scarpa together, with an especially epic Rosa-esque finale.
Other than that, a lot of his longer stories are set in sub-universes such as Duck Avenger or DoubleDuck, so maybe not the easiest to start with. But maybe I will be writing some reviews of my own here soon.
Oh, and he co-wrote the Mickey anniversary story "The River of Time" with Tito Faraci!
I think that a creator's intention is always important. After all, it's a message that the creator tried to send to people. The creator tried to communicate something. What a person is trying to say is often more important than what one ends up saying. That's not to say that the recipient's interpretation isn't important; it's just that it could vary wildly from person to person, meaning that it's not a reliable source of "the truth of the meaning of the message".
Anyways, could we have some examples of Rosa doing this? I'm not sure I know what I'm talking about anymore. I know he tried to clarify the "superhero-Scrooge"-stuff from the Klondike-chapter in Lo$, but that's the only example I can think of.
I read his commentary in the first two issues of the Don Rosa Library and the feeling I got was that he just explains almost every damn thing. I'll have to go back and look at it in detail but sometimes I do get the feeling he wants to control every aspect including how the reader interprets his stories.
I've only experienced (what I hope is) Francesco Artibani's worst stories, i.e. the Young Donald Duck series. However, you speak quite fondly of his work. "Organized stories in which the characters write themselves" sounds exactly like what I consider to be good stories. I would be interested in which of his stories you would recommend.
Well, "Scrooge's Last Adventure" (which GeoX reviewed recently and which has a very high Inducks rating) and its spiritual sequel "Il segreto di Cuordipietra" (Glomgold's Secret) are probably high points in that regard. The latter even manages to fuse Barks, Rosa and Scarpa together, with an especially epic Rosa-esque finale.
Other than that, a lot of his longer stories are set in sub-universes such as Duck Avenger or DoubleDuck, so maybe not the easiest to start with. But maybe I will be writing some reviews of my own here soon.
Oh, and he co-wrote the Mickey anniversary story "The River of Time" with Tito Faraci!
I guess I’ve got to read that Glomgold story. cause I really liked “Scrooge’s Last Adventure” of his. Really interesting story. Rrr
His stories are epic, exciting and touching. So I think he's a great author but you can say what you want, Don Rosa is better
Before I get any more active here, I must apologize for my bad English. I'm German, Spectrus already knows me (but I don't know if he is happy to see me here ^^).
His stories are epic, exciting and touching. So I think he's a great author but you can say what you want, Don Rosa is better
Before I get any more active here, I must apologize for my bad English. I'm German, Spectrus already knows me (but I don't know if he is happy to see me here ^^).
Oh, hi Sergei! Nice to see you here too (even though we've only known each other on Comicforum for a short time )
I guess I’ve got to read that Glomgold story. cause I really liked “Scrooge’s Last Adventure” of his. Really interesting story. Rrr
I recommend it. Note when I said spiritual sequel, I mean that it doesn't reference "Last Adventure", but has a similar scope and tone, and was drawn by the same artist.
Before I get any more active here, I must apologize for my bad English. I'm German, Spectrus already knows me (but I don't know if he is happy to see me here ^^).
Why shouldn't I? I'm only somewhat unhappy that I derailed the thread a bit
Post by Fergus McDuck on Apr 11, 2021 23:51:39 GMT
Well, I'd just like to say I love his work. No surprise there I guess, but I never saw him as trying to be a self-proclaimed heir to Barks. He and I both have ADHD and so I can appreciate all the care he puts into his work and crafting a universe. Yes, he occasionally creates continuity errors (I'm looking at you Hortense) but he's always made up for it for all his attention to detail and I would say he perfectly captures the Barksian style. However, that's just my opinion and it is fine if you disagree, I have learned to be less insecure of my own taste.