Magica

[Don Rosa]

This is a difficult matter to address because there have been untold
hundreds of stories produced and published about Magica by Egmont and Italy
and Holland and probably South America which I've never seen, and just like
this idea of the coins in the Money Bin being accepted as pure gold due to
long European tradition, even if I think that's completely wrong, it doesn't
change what the accepted tradition has become in other lands. I've even seen
it written by European fans that, even though they know that a particular
"fact" they grew up with is based on an incorrect interpretation of the
original, that doesn't matter, they prefer it because it's what they grew up
on... and that's certainly a very legitimate reason for a preference!
I don't know how other Magica writers interpret what she is. And I can't
even say that how I am personally choosing to define the word "sorcery" will
stand up to scrutiny by Webster and his dictionary. But my interpretation of
Magica, and Egmont's "official" interpretation of Magica, and I personally
feel sure Barks' original interpretation of Magica is quite different from
any idea that she is a "witch". So I'll need to define *my* usage of the
words and go from there. If my definition of "sorcerer" is not the
dictionary definition, it doesn't matter -- suffice it to say that my
definition is used here only for the purposes of delineating the character
Magica de Spell.
A witch (or warlock) is a supernatural being with inherent
supernatural/magical powers who can call forth mystic powers from his/her
fingertips. In ancient and pop fiction they are hideously ugly and evil and
often shown flying through the air on a broom, which is to say they can fly
on a broom or a Hoover or anything they wish, or just plain fly at will,
broomstick or not... they can just about do anything.
A sorcerer/sorceress is a normal human. Like an alchemist. He/she learns to
manipulate preternatural powers through the science of chemicals or
incantations or ancient spells or by using empowered wands. Anyone can learn
to become a sorcerer with great study of arcane knowledge found through long
examinations and translations of ancient tomes and lots and lots of
practice... (actually, it's very much like being a cartoonist).
Magica de Spell is a sorceress. She obtains all of her knowledge through the
study of magic and through her discovery or purchase or fabrication of
magical tools. She might find or develop a wand to do anything in my
imagination that might be funny, but she will always need that wand to do
that magic. If Donald grabs the wand or overhears the incantation, he could
duplicate the feat.
After all, is she is *really* an omnipotent witch, WHY does she seek to use
the #1 Dime to become rich?!?! Why doesn't she just wave her hands and
create a mountain of money or gold? For that matter, why would a witch
*need* money? She could just wave that hand and create her yacht in the
Adriatic or her mansion on Capri.
Someone mentioned my story "A Little Something Special", and I *did*
purposely use that story in part to define Magica's abilities, or lack
thereof. I explained that she is a second-rate sorceress who lacks the
ability to create wealth or the money to buy the wands or spells from the
alchemy store that would enable her to get rich. These are particularly
expensive spells or tools (naturally). The only thing Magica has that's
special is ONE single scrap of arcane knowledge that apparently no one else
either has or is stupid enough to try to act on: if she has a coin that has
been handled extensively by a *very* wealthy person, she knows a spell that
will enable her to melt that coin down to form an amulet which will give her
the Midas Touch to create gold. But okay, that specific point is lost to
history, so suffice it to say she knows a spell that will *somehow* enable
her to use that #1 Dime to make herself rich. That's all that matters. She
can't do anything else of any real practical value. But that one spell she
has learned will make her rich if she can just get that Dime.
Egmont's "official" policy: When Byron Erickson first took over the
editorship of the comic creation department, with no prompting from me, also
decided that it was time to return Magica to her roots. He said Egmont would
eliminate the use of Magica as a "witch" who flew around on a broomstick. He
would see that she returned to the original Barks version since that is the
only version that would make sense (for reasons I mention above). Now, has
Egmont stuck to Byron's policy? I don't know, I can't read the comics. They
also told me that Fethry and Ludwig were "dead", but I have heard they are
mighty lively as of late. But despite whether Egmont could carry through on
this policy, at least in my stories Magica is definitely NOT a witch.
Barks' original intention: I don't know why, but Barks apparently had a
strong aversion against telling any story that involved the supernatural in
any way, shape or form. Normally I would think there was some fundamentalist
religious belief that was causing that, but I've never heard that was the
case. And yet Barks never *voluntarily* used a witch or ghost or Santa Claus
in any of his stories *unless ordered to by the editor for a specific
reason*... like "Trick or Treat" to promote a Disney film, or "Golden
Christmas Tree" where someone else wrote the script, or "Letter to Santa"
when the editor wanted a Santa story for the Christmas annual. I personally
also can't bring myself to tell a Santa story for my own reasons, and that
always is a problem for Finland because they *really* want me to do a story
about Santa living in Finland.
Barks would *never* use a ghost in a story. Me, I am quite different, and I
make no attempt to follow Barks' lead in that respect. I like ghosts (as
benign spirits) as story elements. Some GREAT movies and stories have
involved ghosts or spirits! And I could easily decide to have a witch in a
story... I don't mind doing stories about the occult! (Just look at all the
voodoo I had going on in "Crown of the Crusader Kings"). On the other hand,
Barks loved to tell stories about strange creatures hiding in remote spots,
like Terries and Firmies, about Pygmy Indians, about the Norse gods being
critters on an asteroid, or about the mythological Greek creatures living on
an obscure mountain cooking parsnip pudding. These are ideas that do not
involve the occult or supernatural -- these are strange creatures living in
hidden places. Me, I am again *quite* different. I like the Pygmy Indians
(after all, they're only pygmies, no big deal), but I can't hack Terries or
Firmies or Larkies or Harpies or any of that. Yeah, I loved those stories as
a kid, they were two of my top favorites -- but I could *never* tell a story
using them myself. In fact, at a publisher's request, I actually started
once on a sequel to the "Golden Fleecing" and got a week or so into ideas
for a return of the Larkies or a return of $crooge to their hidden city. But
I had to abandon the idea... the Larkies were just too silly for my style.
I'm more comfortable with other ideas (though they might be less
entertaining... my loss).
Anyway, Barks' Magica was a sorceress. She was a normal person who would
discover Circe's secrets or seek the Cave of Ali Baba in order to gain wands
or learn magic spells. When she grabbed the Dime and tried to flee Duckburg,
she's hop on the next scheduled flight at Duckburg airport. Did Barks'
$crooge ever call her a "witch"? Sure, for the same reason I have people
call her a "witch" -- it's an insult... witches are ugly old crones. Did
Barks consider titling a Magica story "Which Witch is Which?"? Sure, it's a
play on words... and after all, he ultimately did NOT use that title.
So, I don't know if Magica is treated as a witch in all the other bajillion
Duck stories being produced, but in the stories I create, she is still a
mere sorceress, which I think is her charm.