"The Easter Parade"

 Well, I had something else planned for this week, but then Maciek mentioned Barks' Easter story, and I thought, yeah, oughta do that.  Probably in general, I ought to spend less time harrasing you with Western stories of varying quality.  I mean, I won't, but maybe I should.  Hard to say.  But what's happening today is: this.  I don't think it's a particularly consequential story, but it has some amusing stuff I can point out, so hey, why not?  Happy Easter to those who celebrate, and a pleasant Sunday to those who don't.

Great excitement!  First, let's note that a religious holiday like this is quite unusual for a Western story, to the extent that I'm a little surprised it went through at all.  Sure, obviously there's Christmas, but equally obviously, Christmas has become as much a cultural celebration as a religious one.  You could make an argument that Easter is similarly secularized, with chicks and eggs and chocolate rabbits and whatnot, but I  think it's substantially different.  As I write this, today is Maundy Thursday, and you would never, ever know that unless you were keenly religious yourself or you looked it up (ahem).  You could plausibly avoid Easter entirely without even knowing you were doing it, which I wouldn't say for Christmas.  At any rate, it wouldn't surprise me if the editors discouraged Barks from doing future Easter material.

As I said, this story is fairly minor, but even so, images like this are still great.  We can really see and feel Donald's yearning, which gives the story more resonance than it might have.  Never underestimate the power of good art.

I mean, we might question the way Daisy appears to be starting into the middle distance as she explains the situation, but that's getting to be beyond nitpicking.

(Also, do people generally ply their brothers with candy to get them to like them?  I have two brothers, with whom I have good relationships, and I don't know that I ever have.  Might be a family dynamic I'm unfamiliar with.)

Quite an unusual reaction from Donald here, who's more likely to adopt a defeatist attitude on learning that Gladstone's going to be involved with a contest.  And not doing so here is a mistake on his part; he should know by now that karmically, he's far more likely to come out on top if he doesn't start off all cocky like this.

So it turns out that this popularity contest is really just a bribery  contest.  I really have to doubt that Daisy's club imagined it would go like this.  But hey, they're children--venal little shits almost by definition.  So fair's fair, I guess, but this does seem to be more work than Gladstone would normally put in to something like this.  Normally, he'd just let his luck coast him to victory or ironic defeat, but in this story, his luck actually plays very little role, save at the end, sort of.

Reminds me of that Italian Christmas story where Donald and Scrooge vie to give the most presents to people.  Was this story an explicit inspiration for that?  It certainly seems possible.

Gladstone does seem to really WANT to win this, as opposed to just doing so because it's just kind of what he does, and because it annoys his cousin.  But as much as I have nothing but contempt for small children, I DO think in the real world they're a bit more savvy than they are here about pandering (though admittedly, Donald's is pretty doggone funny, especially that expression in the first panel).

But in spite of his initial over-confidence, Donald does very clearly have the moral high ground here.  At no point does he actually do anything to sabotage Gladstone (yes, he's a bit hypocritical with his high dudgeon about bribery, but that's a minor sin compared to what Gladdy racks up)..  Instead, he makes some impressive-looking colored eggs!  Even if it IS bribery, it still feels more in the spirit of the thing.

Also, shopkeeper watch: look out for this guy!  He's supposed to be...Italian, maybe, with the mustache?  I am selling a LOT of eggs, he thinks.  He may not be visibly excited about it, but he does take a certain quiet satisfaction.

"Ol' Truepenny Donald Duck."  I have to say, these kids don't appear to have much of a theory of mind regarding Donald, or they might wonder, does this make sense?  Would he really be flinging gendered insults at us?  Is there more going on?  I suppose the fact that they don't is a point in favor of Gladstone's luck.

But also, for a guy who foreswears work, he really did an ungodly amount of it for this mean trick.  I guess if you love it it's not work, but it's still atypical.   Meanwhile, Donald's glum "I don't know how it happened, but it did" is a sentiment I often share.  He's just so bummed. :(

See, Barks can do a one-off joke like this and have it land.  I'm not sure why, but I sort of doubt most of his coworkers could've.

As a non-scientist, I suspect that the science here wouldn't really work, but it kind of feels plausible/realistic in a way that a lot of fake Disney science doesn't.  Also, shopkeeper watch: look at that guy!  He's just a dude who sells...well, actually, it's hard to say what he sells.  Novelty science stuff?  Is this an Archie McPhee kind of place?  Anyway, he's into it.

Got some classic "three kids in a trench coat" action going on, confirming that, indeed, terrible costumes in Disney comics nonetheless fool everyone.

This is, as I've said, a minor story, but who else could create such pathos through art?  Who, I ask you?

Fun contrast here.

So, right, do we think this is sublimated polio anxiety?  The story's from '53; the vaccine wasn't introduced until '55.  I dunno.  Seems like a possibility.  But even  so, GODDAMN are those kids ever fickle.  They're the worst.

(I don't know why this turned into an anti-children diatribe.  I guess I'm just working with what Barks is giving me.)

You could make a good argument that, under the  circumstances, neither of them deserved to win; even putting aside questions of cheating, their only efforts to increase their popularity involved bribing kids with candy and eggs.  You wouldn't exactly say that this has Easter spirit, if indeed you can define what that entails.  Nonetheless, it kinda bums me out to see Gladstone 'winning' here in spite of having claimed the mora low ground.  Are you required to wear the costume if you win?  We didn't see him signing any contract, but what the hey; we all know how loosey-goosey the law is in Duckburg.  At any rate, I suppose if Donald never loses, his victories won't be as sweet.  And I guess that's about all I have to say about this.  It's certainly better than that OTHER rather hair-raising Easter story.