 |
| Images copyright D.C. THOMSON & Co., Ltd |
Going by this week's BEANO, it looks like we could now be reading about the son of the original DENNIS The MENACE, whose grown-up self is the current Dennis's dad. On what evidence do I base this seemingly wild conjecture? Look at the contemporary Dennis's grandfather in the page below - that's the dad of Dennis that all those of a certain age remember, up until he underwent a sudden transformation into a younger incarnation not too long ago.
Of course, this theory is not without problems. If true, it would mean that WALTER The SOFTY and all Dennis's other pals are also the sons of the originals. It would further suggest that the current GNASHER is either the doggy offspring of the original - or even the son of the original GNIPPER, whose current incarnation is the son of the new Gnasher. Yeah, it's complicated, isn't it?
Anyway, full marks go to D.C. THOMSON for giving its readers a larger than usual issue for the standard price - it makes up in some way for the vastly over-priced Christmas edition back in December. (Let's hope they don't give with one hand and take away with the other any time soon.) The Beano is a right good read (in the main) these days, and I heartily recommend it to those looking for an amusing way of whiling away twenty minutes or so in a harmless fashion.
Remember - "Never be without a Beano!"
6 comments:
Theres also a picture of wartime Dennis so our Dennis might be the grandson of the original?
Dennis didn't make his comics debut 'til 1951, but it's always possible that the wartime one is the same one, although he'd have looked a bit younger. If we were talking about real people that is, because - as we all know - comics characters tend not to age. Unless the writer wants them to, of course.
I said it was complicated.
So Dennis's dad would be Dennis?
Yup. Although he'd probably now be called 'Den'.
So all the times they celebrated his birthday it was a sham. Its not even the same character!!! What a rip off.
Only if my conjecture is correct, but one can never be too literal about these matters. Maybe the writer is just indulging himself.
Post a Comment