PropaGrandeya

[David A Gerstein]

	Dear Folks,

	Wilmer Rivers quoted the CBG's Barks article:

	"Barks favors the works of Daan Jippes and William Van Horn 
as Duck artists most portraying the Disney look and story.  These 
artist/writers are not trying to reinvent who his characters are 
by the Barks definition."

	I assume that this means 'changing the Barks definition of who
the characters are' (as opposed to 'using the Barks definition to 
reinvent the characters', which doesn't make sense).

	"There was a lengthy history of his key character, Uncle 
Scrooge, published in European comics;  Barks has made it clear he 
does not agree with this version."  Following which Wilmer said:  
"Most of the article (like that) is obviously straight from the 
Grandeys."

	You ain't a-kidding.  This is disgusting.  Particularly when
in that Dutch article Barks recently stated that he liked the work of
Rosa with the exception of the extreme detail of the art.  That's what
Barks told ME in 1987 -- years before he even knew the Grandeys.  I'm
infuriated that Barks will allow himself to be misrepresented like
this to earn a buck, but it's clear by now that he'll let the Grandeys
do and say ANYTHING, because he wants to make money.  (To do WHAT
with?????  At his age?)  I know, Don, I know;  you've told me all of
this before...

	The put-down of the LO$ is the most unbelievable thing I've
ever heard credited to Barks.  Every danged detail in the LO$ is based
on Barks, as any fool can plainly see from the "Making of LO$" article
(and future ones, of course).  Barks even acted as consultant -- that
was BEFORE Gare's death, no?  We can come to our own conclusions...

	David Gerstein

	"I'm the Fuller Brush Man!  I'm givin' g'way free semple!"
	<David.A.Gerstein at Williams.edu>