"The Junior Woodchucks and the Rabbit's Foot"

I briefly considered doing this one in 2018 when I was binging on old Western stuff, but the schedule was already overstuffed and I wasn't able to fit it in.  There you go: a fascinating look behind the scenes at Duck Comics Revue.  Well, anyway, time to fill a much-needed gap, I suppose.

Got some Al Hubbard art going on here.  It's weird that Hubbard apparently isn't prominent enough to warrant a wikipedia page.  The likes of Murry and Strobl are.  I've probably mentioned this elsewhere, but it's interesting how different Hubbard's ducks are from the norm.  Obviously there's individual variation among Western artists, and some are better than others, but they all more or less feel like they're working from the same style sheet.  Hubbard seems somehow categorically different to me.  Weird.  His art isn't my favorite, but it IS sort of interesting for that reason.

"At today's prices that wouldn't buy peanuts."  What the hell do kids know about "today's prices?"  Really, now.  A child might say that, but only because they're parroting something they heard from an adult.  So this isn't exactly unrealistic, but I don't think Hubbard (or whoever; if there's no writer specified, I always just assume it's the same as the artist) meant it to be read like that.  So, anyway.

Bertie and Egghead, those old fan faves.  Mister Edgey, that other fan fave, is sure going to be surprised!

Ha ha, Mister Edgey sucks.  I like how the nephew is still confident about being paid even after this bit of slapstick.

I mean...I'll grant you that sometimes snow can allow you to get some traction on ice.  But sometimes it can also just conceal the ice, causing you to fall on your ass.  I'm not sure, but I feel like Edgey is playing with fire here.  Or ice, as the case may be.  Also, for one-shot characters, I feel like Edgey's name is too close to "Egghead."  Let's be serious.

Here is Gladstone.  In fairness, this seems like a pretty accurate depiction of Gladstone's luck.  Sort of Shacktown-esque.

ooooor...maybe not.

Yup, so here our lucky gander is just a two-bit conman.  

Now, let's think for a moment about the idea of "canon" in these stories: where does it come from?  There's no handbook that lays down commandments about how characters should be portrayed.  I think if we had to formulate a definition it would be something like, how Barks does it, basically, with the proviso that we can edit out those instances when he depicts characters in ways that seem to contradict his fundamental ideas about them, with a certain amount of wiggle room.  It's loose but it works; it seems fine to me.  Still, we do have to allow that there's no particular reason some random, anonymous writer in the fifties should feel constrained.  They can do what they want.  We can not like what they do, but there's nothing fundamental, objectively wrong about them taking characters in directions that seem inappropriate to us.

That said...this is pretty silly even without regard to anything anyone else has written.  These people have presumably known Gladstone for all or most of his life, and they're still falling for his tricks (not that them falling for something this transparent even if they don't know him REALLY flies)?  He's never tried this before?  This would have to be a singular incident that would permanently change their feelings about him, and obviously that's not the case.

Then again, it does have to be allowed that there's actually no indication within this story that the writer is aware that Gladstone is meant to be related to the other ducks.  No one refers to him as "cousin" or anything.  So hell, maybe he's just supposed to be some random mountebank!  Who can say?!?  

Anyway, dumb as it may be, it's always interesting to see people depicting the characters in weird ways, so I guess it's okay.

There's a part almost exactly like this in Scarpa's Donald of the Woods, a story I love, so I guess I shouldn't complain, but for someone who doesn't like to work, Gladstone is going to have to do A LOT of acting if we wants to convince a jury that a car driving near him has caused massive psychological harm.  And come on, man, even if he IS, surely that's a personal problem that no one else could reasonably held accountable for?  At least in the Scarpa story, his foot was actually run over.

I always find Sobbing Nephews to be an unappealing sight, but this version seems particularly yikes.  Also note "that Gladstone;" it's subtle, but to me that suggests a more distant relationship, lending credence to my notion that they're not meant to be related here.

Heh, heh indeed (that missing 'H' is clearly just a printing error).  As is so oft the case, our problem is solved in a rushed way, like a fast-talking snake oil salesman who gets your money and disappears before you can say wait, what?  A customer is willing to pay four times that for his personal "lucky" rabbit's foot.  This may raise questions.  Please don't ask them.  No answers will be forthcoming.  That is final.

Oh ARE they now?  I have some Shacktonians who would like a word with you RIGHT HERE.  Grump grumble.  HDL are rather unseemly in their willingness to buy into this self-serving narrative, I must say.

But, I mean, fair's fair.  You can't expect economic realism from a story like this.  It's meant to appeal to kids and, yeah, I think this would do that: just being able to bust into a toy store and take what you want.  I think I'd likely have very fond memories of this if I'd read it at the appropriate age.  The whole "let us know when we've used it up"--treating it like a bar tab--is kind of funny.

But we have a problem.  Obviously, this blog entry immediately becomes one of the definitive scholarly works on this particular story.  But the fact is, it opens with a lie: this story isn't called "The Junior Woodchucks and the Rabbit's Foot;" it doesn't HAVE a title.  The one I've given it is just an approximation of the various foreign titles, none of which are very inspired.  So how is anyone who wants further information on the story going to find this entry?  Specifically, if someone is writing their own analysis, possibly as part of their doctoral research, what will they do?  It's a real quandry.  How about I include a bunch of keywords in an effort to allow interested parties to find it?

huey dewey and louie, junior woodchucks, troop two, destitute, today's prices, wouldn't buy peanuts, ten dollars, four dollars and eighty-two cents, huey standing on a box with a gavel, bertie and egghead, random dognose woodchucks, mister edgey, falls on his ass, likes ice to be hidden under snow, gladstone gander, swindler, conman, thief, should be arrested for defrauding his family, threatens to sue a guy for getting close to him, lucky rabbit's foot, personal lucky rabbit's foot, what does that even mean, twenty-five dollars, no discernible gritty social realism, cowboy hat, lariat, boxing gloves, archery set, roller skates

Look, what more do you want from me?  I am but one man.