Don Rosa book

Dan Shane danshane at bellsouth.net
Tue Jul 30 14:55:08 CEST 2002


PER MARTINSON WROTE:

> I also think, I know this might be provocative, that Don Rosa isn't such a
> good comic writer. He is a good donaldist, but he doesn't write anything
> really new and innovative, he only uses things that Barks created. Why is
> everything Barks made seen as law? He was an incomparably good writer, but
> that was to a large extent because he made so much new things.

AND I RESPOND:

Barks created many of the characters in his stories, and others he made his
own by pure creative force.  It isn't surprising that other writers would
want to emulate the style that entertained so many for decades.  I like to
compare the Duck "mythology" to the Oz stories of Baum.  He had successors
who built on his creations, and in many instances made the series richer.
Ruth Plumly Thompson was the best of these in my opinion, and she authored
books that were a good mix of new and established characters and places.

The work of Don and others use Barks' work as a foundation, and there is
little doubt that Don is at the forefront of those who use Barksian "facts"
as background for further Duck adventures.  Others, such as Van Horn, don't
rely so heavily (or at all) on the Ducks' "past."  There is plenty of room
for both, but I'm not surprised at the popularity of stories that provide a
continuity to the lives of the Ducks.  Such consistency makes the characters
seem more real to me, taking them out of the realm of standard funny animal
fare.

What ever Don adds that is "new" may be too subtle for you to notice, but it
is there.  He didn't create the Money Bin, but it was a long time before
anyone tackled the daunting task of providing detailed plans of the
structure.  I would say that the design he came up with was innovative.
Anyone could say, "Here's a big square building filled with cash."  To
actually represent that in pseudo-authentic plans to the level that Don did
required creative juices that few possess.  Some would find such attention
to detail irritating and pointless, but others thought it warranted
inclusion in newspaper articles.




More information about the DCML mailing list