Making it "personal"...

danshane@bellsouth.net danshane at bellsouth.net
Tue Apr 6 17:49:20 CEST 2004


TO ALL DCML MEMBERS:

In the spirit of trying to keep things friendly, I hope everyone will realize that I am trying to defuse the bomb just lobbed into DCML by D van E, not throw myself on top of it.  So I'm going to address these points simply because they have been made in a public forum in what I perceive to be an insulting manner, and should not go unchallenged.  Some might feel I should recuse myself from this discussion because of my close association with Don, but please bear in mind I am not sitting in judgment; I am merely defending a friend that has been unjustifiably attacked for simply doing his job.  If my relationship with Don is supposed to prevent me from having any say, then what are friends for?

Some points that Daniël makes, including the first one below, are not directly defamatory.  However, since they seem to build on one another to reinforce his notion that no one has the right to expand Barks' Duck world (or by Daniël's previously posted contention, Walt Disney's Duck world), I've chosen to include them.  I have given much careful thought to my comments, and be assured they are purely MY thoughts.  They neither belong to nor have they been suggested by anyone else.  All rights reserved.

I recognize that people (and I number myself among them) will sometimes in the heat of a debate post messages or send e-mails that unintentionally come across as too strong.  If a suitable apology follows, then no harm, no foul.  But the post quoted below continues an unhealthy thread that betrays some sort of crusade to have Don quit his job, an uncomfortable thought to say the least.

So, here goes my response to Daniël's post.  Strictly disinterested parties may scroll on down to the next missive.

> STEVEN ROWE to KAI SAARTO, 05-04-2004:
> 
> > well, what was Bark's reaction when Jack Chalker wrote his 
> biography 
> > of Uncle Scrooge? (which is far as I know was the first structured 
> > timeline)
> 
> This year, a friend of Barks has personally told me that he 
> can't remember the amount of occasions, where Barks 
> complained about people who were trying to hook his stories together.

Daniël "quotes" an anonymous "friend of Barks" as if he is offering empirical evidence.  Factual or no, in its context the message makes an attempt to pit Mr. Barks against Don and/or others who strive to find continuity in Mr. Barks' tales.  Since Mr. Barks is no longer with us (indeed, he never posted to DCML when alive), we now are given an invisible source to put words in Mr. Barks' mouth.

 
> > of course Barks did do a Duck family tree, right?
> 
> Only for private use. And Rosa even had to REMIND Barks of 
> the tree's existance! Even *after* the thing was published in 
> The Carl Barks Library. This happened somewhere at the dawn 
> of the 1990s.
> 
> It can be read in Barks's correspondence with Rosa, that Rosa 
> for some reason prefers to remain silent about. (It even 
> contained an interesting, new story idea that almost got 
> lost, this way.) And I look at this correspondence as the 
> best-kept secret of the so-called Barks/Rosa universe. 

Now Daniël infers that Don is purposely keeping tippy-top secret private mail from public eyes to protect himself.  Does Daniël think it wise to insinuate himself into private letters between two individuals he has never met.  Neither Mr. Barks nor Don are elected officials who are concealing financial statements from the taxpaying public.  They are not keeping state secrets under covers for personal gain.  These are not communiqués that would reveal proof of insider trading.  They are letters between private citizens.  If I opened one without permission you would be guilty of a US felony.  I may politely ask if Don would reveal the full contents of these letters, but Don may just as politely refuse to do so.  I may not discourteously demand or even cajole the release of any private correspondence in the hopes of discovering juicy tidbits for my own satisfaction.  That is called being a nosey-parker.

> In some known (published) parts of these letters, Barks 
> recommends Rosa to explore new situations and places. (I can 
> dig up some quotes, if you wish.)

If Daniël really feels it necessary to continue his assault, then direct and documented quotes would be welcome.  Preferably not from Deep Throat this time, who continues to be cited as an unimpeachable source below.

> And, as far as this friend knows, Barks only ever produced 
> family trees and such, under pressure to do so. This would 
> include the additional family trees for Rosa. 
> 
> So, apparently, Barks was just trying to be helpful to people 
> who asked him all kinds of weird questions.
> 
> I hope Don Rosa will reveal more of Barks's letters, one day. 
> There was nothing really private in these letters, as far as 
> I know. So, I hope they won't rot away in a cupboard. Or end 
> up demolished as some kind of last will, or something. We 
> Barks fans are at Rosa's mercy here...

Now Don is being accused of holding us all hostage, denying us access to private information that the public obviously has a constitutional right to know.  And Daniël has again used his crystal ball to discern that, though there is "nothing really private in these letters," Don must be hoarding revealing truths.  

In the next Digest we find this exchange:

> KAI SAARTO to me, 06-04-2004:
> 
> >> This year, a friend of Barks has personally told me that he can't 
> >> remember the amount of occasions, where Barks complained 
> about people 
> >> who were trying to hook his stories together.
> 
> > Maybe Barks just meant that since he didn't meant them that 
> way in the 
> > first place, he didn't see much point in it.
> 
> A friend of Barks has personally told me that Barks often 
> complained about people who were trying to hook his stories 
> together. Period.
> 
> There's no need to try to twist that around with some 
> long-distance guessing. Barks *complained* about sticking his 
> stories together.

Now Daniël denies Kai the right to make any inferences based on a completely undocumented attestation by the still unknown advisor.  Daniël reserves that right for himself.  He has set himself up as judge and jury on Don's professional and private activities, but anyone who wishes to suggest that Daniël's interpretation of events revealed by some ethereal being is only one possibility is accused of "long-distance guessing," followed by another dogmatic claim with no proffered material to back it up beyond something a friend of a friend said.

> > There won't be any dark secrets or revolutionary revelations to be 
> > found about Barks in them.
> 
> How would you know? Did Rosa show them to you?

Exactly what scandalous material is Daniël hoping to see unearthed beyond what Don has already willingly allowed to be published?  How are we to take these last two questions?  Is Daniël's curiosity about other people's mail a wholesome thing?  This topic of Don's chosen field and how he works in it has all been hashed out before.  I'm curious what Daniël does for a living.  Perhaps we could all entertain ideas of how he might do his job better.  Maybe he could send us all copies of his employer's performance reviews so we will better understand how we might help him in this regard.

Oh, wait!  That's none of my business, is it?  How foolish of me not have seen that right off.  Fortunately, I did not need someone to write and tell me so.  But if that had been necessary, rest assured I would have apologized for overstepping my bounds.  Apologized to Daniël, and apologized to all members of DCML who had their minds filled with unwholesome and unwarranted accusations.

I have achieved maximum verbosity.  I am perfectly content with the soon-to-be-proved event that mine will not be the last word on this subject.  I don't need to chew my cabbage twice, so if this matter is not soon put to rest, and if anyone is for some god-forsaken reason interested in my view on future tirades, just refer back to this message.  It won't be repeated.

Dan the Irritable





More information about the DCML mailing list