"Good Canoes and Bad Canoes"

 I must admit, I like that after-the-fact title.  It's pretty solid.

Sometimes it happens that I read a story and zero in on one specific thing I want to talk about, and that's the impetus for a whole entry.  Such is the case today.  In most ways, this is a pro forma Donald vs Gladstone story--perfectly readable, but not among Barks' very best.  But!  There IS one thing here that I think needs more publicity!  And maybe some other interesting things will happen; who can say?

Yeah, it's a fairly pro forma story of its type--perfectly okay, but not one of Barks' all-time greatest.  You will note how the contours of this rivalry vary according to the needs of individual stories.  Elsewhere, maybe Donald feels despair at the impossibility of ever defeating his cousin.  But HERE, he's feeling good about it!  That could be a harbinger of bad things, but who knows?  Stay tuned.

"Win what--the alibi contest?" is a sick burn for sure.  Also, you may note--if you want to; it's not a requirement--that the kids have this pet squirrel.  I say you don't have to because even though said squirrel plays a role in the story, they're certainly not very well-integrated into it.  Faint faded echoes of Cheltenham.

One thing about this story, though, is that Donald does seem to be at least reasonably competent at the relevant events.  Compare this to something like "Ten-Star Generals," where he's trying to compete with the Woodchucks and not coming off very well.  What's the difference?  Well, obviously, Barks wants to tell different kinds of stories.  One thing you quickly learn to accept without even thinking about it is that, although the characters are distinct, they're not immutable.  We can and do decide all the time that such-and-such a character is behaving in an out-of-character fashion, and that's fine, but I doubt any of us have particularly well-evolved senses of exactly what is and isn't appropriate.  I dunno.  I personally don't think obsessing about continuity really pays off when looking at these things.

Meanwhile, Gladstone wins by inadvertently bonk!ing a turtle.  Pretty sure I could tell it was under the water without clarification.  I wonder if that box was added by editorial fiat.

Welp, I'm not too big on fat jokes, but if we're gonna have them, they might as well involve someone named "Porkmuscle J. Hamfat," I suppose.

Chomp!  Yeow!  Chonk!  Every sound effect tells a story don't it?  Glad to see the return of the tutrtle.  You have to wonder how the judges expected ANYONE to win this.  Without the benefit of cartoonish luck, it just seems physically impossible.

Sidney.  The squirrel is named Sidney.  You might be forgiven for missing that, since it's only introduced near the end.

ANYWAY, what could the surprise contest be?!?

It's THIS!  This is what we need to highlight!

He's the champion uke player--the WHAT?  WHAT is this now?!  Gah!  I suspect that Barks' thinking on this was that he's good at playing the Ukulele because he never works, he's always just faddle-dee-dee-ing around, he has nothing better to do than strum away--a monument to his laziness.  I'm not letting him off so easily, though!  We know that Gladstone actually IS good at it; we'll see him playing momentarily.  So it's no trick--this lazy, lazy guy, who refuses on principle to work, also cared enough about a skill that has to have required a lot of practice to become exceptionally good at it.  How about that?  It had nothing to do with his luck.  I mean, luck can accomplish a lot, sure, but I just think "making people effortlessly, instantly good at Hawaiian string instruments" falls outside its remit.  Sure, you may tell me that, like Donald being good at canoeing, this is only the case because it's convenient for the story.  And that may be true, but it's also in the story!  Writing a story where Donald's a canoe pro is Barksian, and also one where Gladstone is a ukulele virtuoso!  QED.

Whoa, "HIS Dreamy River Waltz?"  Is the implication that he wrote it himself?  That may be a stretch too far, but I do love the idea that Gladstone is actually secretly a composer.  This conspiracy goes STRAIGHT to the top!

But what in the world does "He gets EVERY break!  Lucky guy!" mean here?  I feel like HDL are so in the habit of bemoaning his luck that now they're saying things that don't even mean anything.  Yes, okay, you can say "it was lucky that the competition asked him to do something he was already good at."  Well, you can say it, but I feel like if you're positing that his luck is THAT all-encompassing, none of this really means anything.  It's not so much that he always wins because he's lucky; he always wins because he always wins (and by "always" I mean "sometimes," but you get the point).  

Although come to think about it, this could also be his tragedy: even if he legitimately wins something by being good at it, it's always just going to be chalked up to luck.  There's no way he can ever be acknowledged for anything else. :(

"Let's just hold our ears and groan" seems like good advice in general for 2026.  You might want to try it.  I do very much enjoy the fact that, in spite of clearly being outclassed here, Donald nonetheless maintains a sunny attitude.  Just wow 'em with a little soft-shoe; that's the ticket!

I mean, it was worth a try, at least.

Sydney is just such a non-presence in this story until he can be used as a deus ex machina.  I dunno, man.

The way Donald "wins" IS kind of comically arbitrary.  A thousand dollars, eh?  Is this some sort of government grant?  I mean, I personally would be in favor of giving a cash reward to a guy with a musical pet, but I'm not sure if that's universal.  And as far as this TV appearance goes: you just go on TV, say, here's this squirrel in a ukulele, then it plays a little, then you're out?  The novelty appeal seems like it would be transient, but what do I know?  Last I  checked, the people were going gaga for a camel that did nothing special other than glow in the dark.

Donald's reaction is probably the most appropriate.  So what did we learn here?  Very little, I'd say.  Donald "wins" for no reason and Gladstone just kind of disappears.   Aside from a bit of inevitable smugness, Gladstone doesn't come off particularly badly here--he doesn't intentionally sabotage Donald in any way.  But then again, Donald didn't resort to dirty tricks either.  I guess our final conclusion is: regardless of who won and who lost, they both got to run around outside and get some exercise, and they both had fun.  Isn't that what's really important?