Tumbles
end notes
OK, so, what did you think? First, the art! There's something about it that's seriously weird. The unusual compositions, the fishbowl perspectives, the floating heads, the oddly contorted faces, the continual proliferation and varying permutations of the round-pointed stars. Intriguing. Something was going on with the artist, it's just a question of what. Also, while you were contemplating the art, did it give you a feeling of dejá vu? Could it be that it reminds you of the early black & white work of Robert Williams? No? Take another look.
Now, for the story. At first glance it is perhaps no more cock-eyed than your typical run-of-the-mill circus laff-riot, but on closer inspection, it too possesses some definitive weirdness. The non sequitor gag of the supporting character being a dog. The not-so-subtle innuendo-gag at the bottom of page three that is wildly inappropriate for a children's comic (although, to be fair, there's more than one way to interpret it, and in any event it is highly unlikely that any child would get it, leaving it too to seem a non sequitor; it nevertheless begs the question as to what it's doing there). And then finally there is the overall theme of destructive-- and, ultimately self-destructive-- anti-social behavior in the service of supporting one's employer (which, in this context, is clearly a father-figure) and thereby maintaining one's position (within the "family"), that is borne out to be finally successful, but at a price of self-sacrifice. Yes, on the surface it's just about the stupidest story possible, but, if you cared to dig a little deeper, you could find some points worth pondering.
On another note, as you may
have noticed, the closing caption for the story states, "It's a circus
of laughs with Tumbles in every issue of ' Dandy Comics'." Now, the
only comic book that Overstreet has listed with the title Dandy Comics
was published by EC in 1947 and 1948. This would imply that this
particular appearance of Tumbles is a reprint. How it came to pass
that Decker Publications was printing this in 1957 is anybody's guess;
perhaps Decker was a shell company owned by erstwhile EC publisher William
Gaines. If you know the answer, let
us in on it and we'll pass it along here.
