DCML Digest Issue 78

[Don Rosa]

> From: "Daniel van Eijmeren" <dve at kabelfoon.nl>
> Subject: Ghosts in Barks (and Rosa) stories
> I agree that Peeweegahs and Awfultonians could be real existant people.
> But what is the clear difference between supernatural beings and Terries,
> Fermies, and Larkies?

You can accept little square people (Awfultonians) but not little round
people (Terries/Firmies)? As I said, these Barks characters are certainly
all impossible in the real world, but they are not depicted as magical or
supernatural... the Peeweegahs, Awfultonians, Terries/Firmies were weird
comicbook beings who apparently evolved into their forms due to some
separation from the rest of the world into remote and isolated regions. The
Larkies flew because they had wings, not because they had magic broomsticks.
These are "natural" beings (though admitted they are of a comicbook
"natural"). A supernatural being would be... Santa Claus. The Easter Bunny.
Casper the Dead Baby. See? I don't know how else to explain it.

> Barks's Magica does some pretty weird things, like turning the Ducks into
> animals with a wand. I find that rather supernatural.

Of course it's supernatural. She performs magic. But she needs TOOLS to
perform that magic or special study of secret incantations... she is not
*inherently* magical like Witch Hazel or Louhi.

> I've never really liked "Land Beneath the Ground" (US 13). One reason is
> that the story is cut, but the other reason is that I found the idea of
> those creatures causing earthquackes rather silly. I don't know why.

You don't? Because it IS silly. I always *loved* "Land Beneath the Ground"!
But only in Barks' hands. I can't tell a Terrie/Firmie story because that
whole idea is too silly for my style. The best I could force myself to do
was allow them to make a cameo appearance in my "Universal Solvent" story
since they were in and out before they got too silly on me.

> About ghosts. Would you use ghosts in your stories?

I've done so on several occasions. I will again. I already said that I LIKE
ghost stories.

> How do you define the
> imaginative scenes in "Quest For Kalevala" (D 99078), for example? I've
> never really understood what was going on there, in connection to
> "reality". It looks rather supernatural to me.

Of course it is! I *said* I am ready and willing (and perhaps even eager) to
use supernatural ideas in my stories even though Barks seemed to avoid it.
"My" Kalevala characters performed impossible, magical feats, appearing and
disappearing at will into an extra-dimensional reality. Larkies lived on a
remote mountain having cooking contests and flew around because they had
wings.

> What's the difference between supernatural and paranormal,
> for example?

Supernatural is that which is clearly impossible by normal physical laws.
Paranormal or preternatural is that which is not understood or not
completely understood by current science but which may be scientifically
explained and understood someday. But that's as far into that subject as
I'll get. I still recall a frustrating conversation 'way back in my college
days with someone who just couldn't understand why scientists would explore
the possibility of large sea creatures in Loch Ness or the so-called
"abominable snowmen" in the Himalayas, but they were not investigating the
existence of werewolves in the suburbs or vampires at the all-night grocery.
I could not get through to him. He had "supernatural" logic.

But step back everyone and notice what I face. On one hand is a reader who
doesn't like some of my stories because they are too fanciful. Fine. On the
other hand is a reader who complains that he doesn't like some of my stories
because they are not fanciful enough, set too much in real history & the
real world. Also fine. But how do I react to such polar opposition in reader
comments? Simple... I just I don't. There's never been a truer axiom than
"you can't please everyone, so don't even try". I just follow Frank and
"dooooo it myyyyyy waaaayyyyyyy".