Ole Damgaard wrote:Correction: I have been informed, that the list
is being moderated. The administrators are just very fast people, who sits in front of their computers all the time...-sorry.
Yes, DCML is still being moderated. I found out last Saturday when I sent two emails. The second one corrected a wrong link in the first. In the correction suggested that both emails could be blocked and that I could correct the mistake myself. It was a bit of a joke, but it happened. That's handy. But coincidentally I knew then that the moderator must have read at least that second email, before deciding to block both emails. (Again, at my own request.)
I corrected the link in the first email, and it got through. I was sceptical about that, because of being cynical about DCML in that email.
The only other blocking experience I've had was last year, shortly after the moderation started. Here's the blocked email, followed by the reason why it has been stopped from DCML:
----------
[blocked email]
From: "Daniel van Eijmeren"
To: <dcml@ >
Subject: Good luck charms / Rejection of Barks classics
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:57:01 +0200
Here are some more ideas on Barks stories which contain superstition. Through
the years I've seen comments here on DCML, that discriminate a great Barks
story like 'The Magic Hourglass' (OS 291) as being "fictional fiction" in
comparison to other stories by Barks. But so far I've never understood the
reasoning for that.
One of the reasons I've read is that, at the time of the Hourglass, in 1950,
Scrooge was still under development. (Is there a time when he *wasn't* in
development, then?) Because of this so-called early appearance of Scrooge,
the story should be taken with a grain of salt.
Would that be true, then there are many other Barks stories which also should
be put aside from the Barks catalogus, to become part of a black list.
If a magic hourglass doesn't exist, and if Scrooge's first dime Old Number
One can't have an apparent good luck charm effect, then Barks's wishing
stones story (WDC 211) should also be discriminated. One might even end up
rejecting the red paint story (WDC 201), and the Kakimaw rain makers story
(WDC 202), to name just some more examples.
Like 'The Magic Hourglass' and also 'Lost Beneath the Sea' (US 46), these
stories are also full of unexplained coincidental circumstances. So, a black
list of strange Barks stories would become so long, that the stories simply
aren't strange anymore, but common practice. So, what's the thought behind
discriminating some Barks stories? That's a question I would like to see
answered in the form of an open discussion.
If beautful stories like 'Hoblin Goblins' (DD 26) and the one about flipism
(WDC 149) belong in the "canon", even though they are full of superstition and
coincidences, then the sand of an old hourglass and the metal of a Scrooge's
first dime belong in that same "canon" as well. Just tell me why not.
In one of Barks's retirement ideas, of April 1991, Barks revisited the good
charm effect of Old Number One by writing a plot idea for Don Rosa. This plot
idea has interesting resemblances with Barks's early rabbit foot story (WDC 32),
and it has later been used as inspiration for 'Dime And Dime Again', written by
Geoffrey Blum and drawn by Carlos Mota (D D 2001-004), first published in
October 2002.
In these two stories, the rabbit foot with its good luck working only for the
nephews and not for Donald, is comparable to dime Old Number One working only
for Uncle Scrooge and not for Beagle Boys. (Another resemblance in these two
stories, is that the good luck charm effect only seems to work for the owners,
as Donald and the Beagle Boys only experience bad luck after using someone
else's good luck charm.)
In any Barks story I can think of, the good luck charm effect only seems to
work when there's an *attention* for it. And so I think the effect is just a
matter of superstition vs. coincidence.
One might even explain away Gladstone's luck, as there are also Barks stories
in which Donald has a remarkable good luck, and in some stories he even has
more luck than Gladstone. Thus maybe Donald might be as lucky as Gladstone,
in the end? (Has someone counted?)
At the end of 'Luck of the North' (OS 256), Donald and his nephews sing:
"Gladstone's luck ain't worth a shuck! It takes a duck to have good luck!"
Which for example is proven again in 'Trail of the Unicorn' (OS 263) and
'The Secret of Hondorica' (DD 46).
I think that in many Barks' stories, from at least the 1940s up to the 1990s,
there's an interesting line in the treatment of superstition and coincidence.
Barks's catalog contains many interesting stories about rabbit foots, magic
hourlasses, wishing stones, Gladstone's good luck, Donald's bad luck, first
dimes, rain makers, an interesting horseshoe-shaped invention by Gyro, etc.
In 'Riches, Riches, Everywhere!' (US 11) and 'Much Luck McDuck' (US 38),
Scrooge does the same tricks as in 'The Magic Hourglass' and 'Lost Beneath
the Sea'. As we see, Scrooge shows he's able to spot riches with a funny
remarkable talent.
In 'Only a Poor Old Man' (OS 386), Barks deliberately left unexplained why
Scrooge is able to dive into a pile of money as if it's liquid material,
without crowning himself. When the nephews ask how that's possible, Scrooge
only reveals: "Well, I'll admit - it's a TRICK!" (31.6)
In August 1975, Barks explains: "I don't explain that trick because I don't
understand it myself. Perhaps it has something to do with his character: often
he can do things which other people can't. He can go out in the desert and
smell the presence of gold; other prospectors would have to dig mountains of
dirt before they could find any nuggets."
In 'The Witching Stick' (US 28), superstitious Scrooge is prospecting in the
desert. Scrooge says: "I find the gold first with my tried and true old
WITCHING STICK!" (1.5) Donald answers: "You can't MEAN it!" (1.6) But as we
see, Scrooge *is* able to find gold, and so in the end, Donald testifies:
"I'll believe in ANY KIND of witching - even to old ladies riding around on
brooms!" So, in short, Donald also becomes superstitious.
But as 'Riches, Riches, Everywhere!' (US 11) and Barks's 1975 quote reveals,
Scrooge doesn't seem to need any good luck charms. Scrooge just seems to be
superstitious when he hangs on to witching sticks, an old hourglass, and a
lucky dime.
In 'Much Luck McDuck' (US 38), Scrooge again finds riches under remarkable
circumstances. Without good luck charms. And in the final panel, Scrooge
not only defeated Donald, but also the nephews who wanted to keep their
playground.
The nephews conclude: "We KNOW NOW that he gets rich by being lucky!"
Donald's answer is sceptical: "Maybe so! But anybody who can rattle off jive
about argillaceous and calcareous rocks doesn't NEED much luck!"
Given this scepticism, what would have happened if the ducks ended up in the
desert *without* any magic hourglass? The story 'Riches, Riches, Everywhere!'
(US 11) is such a situation, and Scrooge still does find riches.
What would have happened if Scrooge *didn't* keep any first coin and such?
The story 'Much Luck McDuck' (US 38) could be such a situation, and a lucky
Scrooge *does* find remarkable riches. Just like in 'Lost Beneath the Sea',
where Scrooge says: "It is my expert opinion that you will find iron about
fifty feet down!" (21.1) The only difference with 'Much Luck McDuck' and
'Riches, Riches, Everywhere!', is that superstitious expert Scrooge now holds
Old Number One in his hands. That's all. Coincidence or not?
I'm sure it's all part of the great mystery, the perpetuum mobile that Barks
has made for only 10 cents a comic.
That's my statement.
I'm curious for comments, corrections, error reports, etc.
The Barks's quote is taken from an interview by Donald Ault and Thomas Andrae,
4 August 1975, as quoted in the Carl Barks Library (page 8B-494). In the book
'Carl Barks Converstions' by Donald Ault (2003), the interview can be read.
The quote is part of a longer answer, about Scrooge's money swimming. (page 99)
--- Daniël
"All this GOOD LUCK comes from having a MASCOT!"
(Which Barks story?)
----------
From: dcml-bounces@
To: dve@
Subject: Request to mailing list DCML rejected
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:35:46 +0200
Your request to the DCML mailing list
Posting of your message titled "Good luck charms / Rejection of
Barks classics"
has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the
following reason for rejecting your request:
"If we (the moderators of the list) are not mistaken, Don Rosa holds
the opinion that "Magic Hourglass" is "fictional fiction". Therefore,
your mail might be seen by some people on the list as an attack on
him. At this moment in time, we definitely don't want to see any more
conflicts on the DCML. Because of that, we have decided to stop your
mail."
Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator
at:
dcml-owner@
----------