Ghosts in Barks (and Rosa) stories

[Daniel van Eijmeren]

DON ROSA to me, 29-08-2003:

>> There's another one, the will-o-the-wisp (WDC 159) story.
>> If Barks has written a weird story like this, in his so-called 
>> "classic years" (1950s), then I'm not so sure if he definitely 
>> would have objected to ghosts appearing in his stories.

> His will-o-the-wisp is quite carefully described by the scientist 
> as an elusive, strange, *living* creature who needs food to survive, 
> like a Peeweegah, like a Terry, like a Larky, like an Awfultonian... 
> clearly NOT a supernatural being.

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?

Barks's Magica does some pretty weird things, like turning the Ducks into 
animals with a wand. I find that rather supernatural. Or do I understand 
the word "supernatural" in a wrong way?

BTW. Hypocritical as my taste is, while praising Barks's imagination, 
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. I've 
never had any problems Gneezles bouncing around like giant rubber balls, 
for example. :-)

> In fact, this very story seems to be *debunking* the very idea that 
> will-o-the-wisps are the supernatural beings that folklore holds them 
> to be.

I agree. The will-o-the-wisp certainly doesn't come from nowhere. Barks 
explains its birth. It didn't make much difference to me, though, because 
I found the whole idea rather odd anyway. And to my eyes this is/was one 
of the instances where Barks put his explanations way too far. It ruined 
that part of the story for me. But maybe a reason could be that I've never 
heard about will-o-the-wisp folklore? (Is that American folkore?)

For me, Barks explanation was an *introduction* to the whole idea. I've 
only heard of swamp fires in the technical sense. (Little lights that 
seem to tell passengers the right direction, leading them into the marsh 
instead. Or something like that.) I've never realised that Barks explanation 
could be a *clarifaction* of folklore, instead. That would make quite a 
difference to me.

About ghosts. Would you use ghosts in your 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". 
(I knew beforehand it refers to folklore, though.) I wouldn't have expected 
you to write such a story, and maybe that's why I didn't get what was going 
on in there. It looks rather supernatural to me.

BTW. Even though I didn't understand the Kalevala story, the drawings of 
that giant creature are great! It looks very real and scary, but it still 
has something zany in its behaviour and movement. I wish I could draw that 
way!

--- Daniël