Terry Fermy, Santa Claus, thinking rabbits, ghosts, and luck in Barks or Rosa stories

[Daniel van Eijmeren]

DON ROSA to me, 30-08-2003:

>> 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)?

I can accept *both* of them. I wasn't debunking the story. I just found 
the idea of Terries and Fermies causing earthquackes rather odd. Barks 
normally explains "anomalies with scientifically provable hogwash." 
This story seems to do the opposite. But then, why not. I'm beginning 
to the see the beauty of the story. (Despite the cuts. Who knows what 
more the story may have contained!)

> 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.

But then, I don't see the difference between a Terries and Fermies causing 
an earthquacke, and an old white-bearded extravagant philantrophic giving 
away Christmas presents all over the world. 

Reasons:

Santa Claus might have made a fortune. (During the gold rushes, to mention 
just a wild example.) It might be strange that he's still "alive" today, 
but there's also the "Ghost Sherrif of Last Gasp" (WDC 176). That sherrif 
amazingly managed to taste everlasting life, just by *hiccuping*. And 
"That's No Fable" (US 32) contains another easy solution for everlasting 
life, if one could only find it back.

Santa's reindeer buggy could be a high-speed motorized one. And if not, 
then Barks's severely cut-up and destroyed would-have-been-masterpiece 
"Mythtic Mystery" (US 34) shows a scientifically intended flying golden 
chariot, on which "Thor" is really breaking up storms in the stratosphere, 
with his hammer and chariot act, with four horses up front. This chariot 
resembles Santa's buggy with the reindeer, as in shown "A Letter to Santa" 
(CP 1). And Santa's reindeer could even be robots, like the horses in "The 
Heedless Horseman" (US 66). Rudolf's red nose could then be a lightbulb.

Maybe Santa has the knowlegde of duplicating himself, like Gyro Gearloose 
is working with teleportation in "Stranger Than Fiction" (WDC 249). If a 
person can be electronically transmissed along beams of cosmic rays, then 
I'd say that signal can also be multiplied, giving twice the output, or 
more. And if a signal can be electronically enchanted, it can also be 
transformed into bigger and smaller signals. So, this might explain how 
Santa is doing those "foing" and "shrink" tricks in "A Letter to Santa". 
And why not? Flickus, Flackus, Fumdeedledum! :-)

I think the most difficult part of explaining Santa Claus's "existance" is 
finding out WHY on Earth this man is GIVING AWAY presents to people, and to 
kids in particular. :-) Maybe he's just some kind of reversal version of 
Scrooge's character, being a rich philantrophic instead of a rich tightwad. 
(And Scrooge can do almost anything impossible with his money. Except for 
building a money stairs on a mountain, of course.)

What I'm trying to say is that the existance of Santa Claus might be 
explained and proven, using comparable examples from Barks stories. 
So, in that light, Santa is not "supernatural" to me. Santa Claus indeed 
seldomly visually appears in Barks's stories, especially given the many 
Christmas stories Barks has made. This might indeed say something about 
his fondness of the character, but he *did* write at least one story in 
which he referred to Santa's existance. In the submarine christmas story 
(WDC 172), an initially hard-hearted Scrooge arranges christmas presents 
for the sleeping nephews, who have just sweetly accepted that Santa Claus 
will never find them aboard of Scrooge's submarine on Christmas Eve. After 
having plowed through the black seas for fifty miles, Scrooge gets the 
presents aboard by airplane delivery. An amazed Donald concludes that 
Scrooge gave up his chance to find the Cuspidoria just to get these 
presents for the kids and him. Scrooge puts on radar-phones, so he doesn't 
have to listen to Donald's gushing. And then the radar-phones suddenly 
start buzzing... The Cuspidoria turned out to be fifty miles nearer shore 
than she was reported to Scrooge, *exactly* the distance Scrooge had to 
travel to get his nephews Christmas presents. That could be coincidence 
- just like "The Golden River" (US 20) could be coincidence - but once 
again Scrooge doesn't want to listen to such talks. Instead, he concludes: 
"And don't tell me that Santa Claus didn't lead me RIGHT to her side!"

In this Barks story Scrooge, Donald, and the nephews, believe in Santa. 
And I'm willing to believe them. I think they should know, having access 
to the Junior Woodchuck Guidebook. But that's a matter of taste and vision, 
of course.

BTW. I hope I don't sound as poking fun at your explanation. I intend 
these ideas to be "Barks-inspired" story solutions. It means a lot of fun 
and escapism for me, so that's what you might see shining through.

> The Easter Bunny.

The Easter Bunny doesn't need to be supernatural, either. Just take two 
of Gyro's think boxes (WDC 141), a soft-hearted rabbit that likes to play 
hide-and-seek, and a basket full of eggs. That's all. Gyro can even make 
a dog talk (WDC 152), you'll get one for free if you say he can't! :-)

> Casper the Dead Baby. See? I don't know how else to explain it.

Yup. According to his name, Casper the Friendly Ghost is indeed a 
supernatural ghost. This is clear. He might just be a flying raven in 
a kilted cage, instead of a ghost, as in "Mystery of the Ghost Town 
Railroad" (US 56), but I got your point. :-)
 
>> 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.

I should have known that. I was just wondering where you draw the lines 
between what you find possible in your stories, and what not. But I won't 
be surprised if you - or anyone else - would find that a rather abstract 
question to actually ask. I don't even know where I would draw the lines 
myself. One day I criticize Terries and Fermies, and then the other day 
I suddenly discover that I begin to like them. :-)

> 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.

I agree that Barks seemed to avoid "real" ghosts. Examples of that would 
be the Pizen Bluff story (US 26), and the earlier mentioned Ghost Town 
Railroad story (US 56). The Ducks are willing to believe that ghosts 
exist, but they find counter-proofs. The "Lost Peg Leg Mine" (DD 52-02)
also seems to be such a story, but there the debunking is less clear.

The only inherently magical "supernatural" Barks character I can think of 
is Gladstone Gander. Gladstone seems to have powers by default, without 
needing a wand, or even ancient knowledge. He only needs to put out his 
hand, and mostly even less. If Gladstone doesn't perfom magic, it's still 
something that's as close as can be. (IMO)

> "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.

Yes, that's indeed quite a difference. 

> 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.

Investigating Hollywoord creations and Bram Stoker's Dracula, other than 
in archives would indeed be silly, though this made-up legend seems to 
lure more and more people into actually believing it... That's quite 
confusing. (And I find it very scary if the media have such remarkable 
effects on people.)

Werewolves and vampires do seem to have roots in reality, though. There 
are people who have a disease that fully covers them with hair. And 
vampires seem to have been inspired by people with a skin-disease that 
would make the gums in their mouth bleed, as an allergic reaction to 
daylight. I don't know if that "vampire" disease can be cured, at least 
there are still people who have a sunlight allergy, even the smallest rays 
will cause severe blisters. I think they, and the "werewolve" people would 
love an investigation of their pharmaceutically uninteresting disease.

And I've yet to see the first abominable snowman or Loch Ness creature
waving at a (proper) camera... What exactly is real? What exactly is 
supernatural? What has been made-up? And what exactly is impossible? 
Will we ever know?

> 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".

"The sound cracked the mirror!... Brother! That's QUALITY!"

(Which Barks story?) :-)

--- Daniël