Peanuts & Charles Schulz -- Annh.

[NanoByte]

What is it with all this worship over this comic strip and its author, both now defunct?

Seems to me the strip was just-run-of-the mill. What sort of people are these who get turned on by a dog typing or chasing an air ace, from a war that occurred long before their time, while sitting on top of his abode. So, footballs withdrawn just prior to being kicked may be snickerish in realspace -- but in a comic strip? And musical notes filling comic panels don't really strike my chord either. Security blankets? Shrinks worth 5¢ a session? Birds speaking in illegible hieroglyphics? Great Pumpkin that doesn't even use a sleigh? Ha ha ha, funniest thing Santa Rosa's seen since Luther Burbank.

And Schulz himself -- out there quite far right. Ever notice quite significant sexist themes in a number of his strips? And so egotistical he forbade anyone from drawing new Peanuts strips.

Ray (Bah, humbug! Well, it is funny that so many people got off on that drawing exercise.)

[kunilou]

Have you no respect for a pioneer? Almost a half century ago this man created a set of characters with hopes, dreams, foibles and neuroses. He changed the world of comics from what were joke-driven gag strips to "slice of life" observations that people could identify with. Along with Walt Kelley and Al Capp, he was one of the most influential cartoonists of the post-WWII era.

If his work seems sentimental and sexist to you, it's because you've grown up with it and take it for granted.

I suggest you go to a library and dig up a microfilm edition of any big city newspaper from 1950. Check out the comic strips. Then move up to 1970, 1990 and today. Which would you rather read every day?

Then you can thank Charles Schulz

[RealityChuck]

Try this little bit of research:

1. Pick your favorite cartoonist.

2. Ask him (or her) what he thinks of Charles Schultz.

The odds are they will call him a genius. Those in the field all acknowledge Schultz's genius.

Peanuts was a leader in the comic strip field. So many people have cribbed from it that it's hard for younger people to realize just how innovative it was. You may think that the idea of Snoopy as a WWI ace is old hat, but Schultz invented the concept of an animal thinking and fantasizing. Schultz was one of the first to use a simple line; now you see it all over the place.

Scott McCloud discussed this phenomenon in Understanding Comics -- the true innovators of the medium seem crude compared to the people who copied their concepts. As Bill Waterston (another Schultz admirer)pointed out, Peanuts doesn't look quite as good not because Schultz had fallen behind, but because the rest of the comic strip world had begun to catch up. Art Spiegelman (the only person to win a Pulitzer Prize for a comic book) wrote a touching tribute to Schultz in this week's New Yorker.

If you don't get it, fine. But his genius was obvious to those in the know, and, more importantly, to the general public. This sounds like just a case of the old fallacy "if it's popular, it can't be good."


------------------
"What we have here is failure to communicate." -- Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.

www.sff.net/people/rothman (http://www.sff.net/people/rothman)

[ignatiusjreilly]

I was also allergic to Charles Schulz. Whenever I would read the funny pages or see those kids on television, I used to always break out in hives.

[andros]

Well, thank you for that bit of insight, [johnny[/b]. :rolleyes:

Nano, I agree that Peanuts hasn't been the most uproarious strip of late. But as mentioned, it was a seminal, phenomenally creative strip that tackled some very important issues in its day--race relations, Vietnam, politics--not to mention dealing with universals such as angst, isolation, love, fear, friendship . . .
And above all, childhood.

I don't worship the strip--it's a friggin comic strip. But I respect it, and Schulz.

And I sincerely doubt it was egotism which guided the decision to let the strip die with him. Why should he farm out his creation?

And I don't get that at all--first you deride the strip and the man, then you want to know why the strip isn't still being written by someoen else? Huh?

-andros-

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Interesting timing...Shulz dying on the day before his last strip runs.

Not conspiracy stuff, but.....he knew he was dying months in advance.

Intresting timing.....

[NickyLarson]

Another thing people may never have realized is that Schulz was the sole writer and artist for the strip. There aren't a lot (if any)strips today that are solo efforts. Look at the way Bill Watterson burned out with Calvin and Hobbes. For 49 years he did that strip, I think he took one six-week break in the eighties, and the syndicate did ruruns.
It may not have been the funniest, but it was the greatest. Just like Ali.

------------------
Then we'll turn our tommy guns
on the screaming ravaged nuns
and the peoples voice will be the only sound.
-P. Sky

[SanibelMan]

What exactly is this doing in GQ? This sounds like a Great Debate or at least MPSIMS to me.

But don't mind me, I'm not a moderator...

[ellis555]

NanoByte -
"And so egotistical he forbade anyone from drawing new Peanuts strips."

i'm sorry, but i'm having a little trouble with that one. this man invented something and spent his entire life devoted to it. and you come along and tell him that he has no right to say what happens to it when he can no longer carry on?
hmmm....i must be missing something here.

-ellis

[funneefarmer]

He was a little zealous (sp) in his guarding of use of the characters. A retired farmer in Oneonta NY had put a representation of Snoopy, and maybe Woodstock, (it's been awhile and I was in college then) on the roof of his barn using different colored shingles. Schultz (and/or his lawyers) sued the man to force him to remove it. It was visible from I-88, but he wasn't making any money from the roof, he just did it because he liked the strip. Anyhow he reshingled the roof with the phrase 'doggone'.

[AWB]

johnnyharvard: I was also allergic to Charles Schulz. Whenever I would read the funny pages or see those kids on television, I used to always break out in hives.

Sounds like an allergy to peanuts. :D

------------------
Each of us, at some time in our lives, turns to someone - a father, a brother, a God - and asks, "Why am I here? What was I meant to be?"

[RealityChuck]

A few further comments:

1. Bill Watterston did exactly the same thing with CALVIN AND HOBBES: he took it with him when he decided to quit. And one reason he was able to was because of Shultz's oft-mentioned wish that no one continue the strip once he quit. He didn't want it to meet the fate of THE GUMPS.

2. For a hint of how important PEANUTS is to comics, take a look at DILBERT. The art is based on Shultz's style. The fact that in so many strips, Dilbert ends up losing is directly based on Charlie Brown. Dogbert is merely Snoopy with a more cynical point of view. (It's hard to understand how revolutionary the concept of a dog having opinions, thoughts, and fantasies was when Schultz invented it.) So no PEANUTS, no DILBERT. I'm sure Scott Adams is aware of how much a debt he owes to Schultz.

------------------
"What we have here is failure to communicate." -- Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.

www.sff.net/people/rothman (http://www.sff.net/people/rothman)

[Tinker Grey]

The Calvin and Hobbes reference above reminds me of this GQ I've been meaning to ask: Are those Car Decals that show Calvin pissin' on Ford or Chevy (or ... etc.) copyright infringements that Waterson chooses not to prosecute, or has is getting royalties on that stuff? Anybody got the SD on this?

[SkeptiJess]

Tinker Grey: You were right the first time. Watterson never agreed to any merchandizing of his characters beyond the strip collections. No plush animals, no coffee mugs, no tee-shirts, and no car decals. Any time you see any of the above, you may rest assured that Watterson is getting no royalties whatsoever. Watterson is an intensely (almost pathologically) private person, and has chosen not to attempt to prosecute these copyright infringements. Most of this knock-off merchandise is produced by fly-by-night companies and sold through shady venues such as swap-meets and the like. Pretty hard to follow-up. My guess is that in a few years (especially in the absence of any publicity by Watterson) the whole Calvin & Hobbes knock-off industry will have fallen off. Most of the people who buy this stuff weren't fans (fans know better) and the fad will peak and fade. When was the last time you saw the used to be ubiquitous Keep-on-truckin' guy on someone's tee-shirt or truck? For more information, read _ The Calvin & Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Collection_, Watterson speaks at length on his feelings about merchandizing.

------------------
Jess
Remember the Straight Dope credo: It's all about wiping out ignorance, not coddling the ignorant.

[G.B.H. Hornswoggler]

I do think that we can say both that Peanuts was a tremendously important, seminal and (more importantly) funny strip and that it had not been at its peak for the past decade or so. (Of course, to me, even second-rate Peanuts was miles about first-rate Cathy.)

I personally think the strip had more than one high point: the original strip was great (and, if you've seen the often-reprinted-recently first strip, you can tell that it was quite different from what Peanuts became later, both in tone and art style) and it hit another high point, in a slightly different mode, during the late '60s through the early '80s. To my mind, a strip that not only lasted nearly 50 years but had several distinct periods of greatness shows a gifted cartoonist who never stopped tinkering with the strip and was always open to new ideas and approaches.

I mean, compare Peanuts of last year with some of the other long-running strips (I'd choose B.C., Cathy and Family Circus, but YMMV) and see who comes off best. In the elephants' graveyard that is the funnies page, Sparky Schultz kept doing good work for five decades while his competition bought jokes, farmed out the art, and went golfing. I think the difference shows.

------------------
...but when you get blue, and you've lost all your dreams, there's nothing like a campfire and a can of beans!

[Vestal Blue]

Nano, stick it in your ear! You've spent far too much time thinking like the archetypical engineer (no insult intended to engineers).

You may not think much of the man or his strip, but as is well covered in other posts, he was undeniably a pioneer.

I'm not a huge peanuts fan either, but the music written for it by Vince Guaraldi can instantly transport me back to childhood, and brighten my spirits.

Lighten up, please.

------------------
VB

I could never eat a mouse raw...their little feet are probably real cold going down. :rolleyes:

[Tinker Grey]

Jess: Thanks for the info. I rather thought that particular decal (in all its forms) was not in character with the strip. It is nice to know that he does not approve (of merchandising his stuff - I suspect, though, he wouldn't approve of the nature of these decals), he just chooses to not prosecute.

[andros]

Brief and fairly useless anecdote about Calvin and Hobbes knockoffs:

A few years ago I saw a t-shirt with C&H and Bart and Lisa Simpson. Hobbes and Bart were pitching back a few beers while Calvin was putting the moves on Lisa.

I was scandalized, but dear Ghod! it was funny.

-andros-

[John W. Kennedy]

He was a little zealous (sp) in his guarding of use of the characters.

No more than necessary. The law is the law. If you don't "aggressively defend" your trademark, you lose exclusive rights to it forever. A trademark owner is obligated to choose between chasing down everybody or nobody.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[Padeye]

Originally posted by RealityChuck:
Dogbert is merely Snoopy with a more cynical point of view.

I thought that was an odd comparison as Snoopy was never a mean spirited character while Dogbert is pretty much evil in fur. Snoopy had his fantasies there were never about ruling the world and he always depended on the round headed kid to get his supper.

[Alphagene]

What exactly is this doing in GQ?
That should be Nanobyte's theme song. The guy is completely incapable of posting anything outside of GQ. Lucky us.

------------------
Marge: Your father is... resting.
Bart: "Resting" hung over? "Resting" got fired? Help me out here.

[funneefarmer]

Originally posted by John W. Kennedy:
No more than necessary. The law is the law. If you don't "aggressively defend" your trademark, you lose exclusive rights to it forever. A trademark owner is obligated to choose between chasing down everybody or nobody.



So does he chase down every schoolchild and adult that doodles it on a notebook, or every vandal that spray paints it on a bridge abutment ? If I paint Bugs Bunny on the side of my house am I asking for a lawsuit ?

[DAVEW0071]

First of all, folks, the man's name is spelled Schulz, not Schultz. Now that I've satisfied my anal tendencies....

Anything in popular culture that lasts half a century has got to have something going for it, whether everyone "gets it" or not. Peanuts struck a chord in the nation as no other part of this genre did, or probably ever will. While many erudite posters in this thread have come up with reasons for the strip's greatness, my personal opinion is that many things combined in order to make it resonate in so many people. They can't be tracked down and identified because many of them are subjective and personal.

To me, the Peanuts characters were more than two-dimensional. They agonized, philosophised, fantasized and lived in a world larger than most strips of the time, or even today. The commentary was not just about social issues of the day, although there were those. Peanuts observed and reflected the human condition. That's why I think it was so wildly popular in the 60s, when, as a nation, we were searching for our identity. No matter how crazy things got socially or politically, Peanuts always seemed to bring home the message that we're all human, most of us are still little kids deep down inside, and nobody's perfect.

Charles Schulz was an innovator, an artist, a philosopher, and that rarest of birds, a genuine humorist. I didn't always find his work to be funny, but the characters were always my friends. Schulz is also to be admired for the fact that he wrote and inked every single strip for 50 years. Peanuts wasn't just his job, it was his life's passion, his raison d'etre. And we are his beneficiaries.

RIP, Sparky.

------------------
The Dave-Guy
"Since my daughter's only half-Jewish, can she go in up to her knees?" J.H. Marx

[DSYoungEsq]

Peanuts hasn't been worth reading on the whole for the last fifteen years, but then, neither has Doonesbury, and I venture to suggest many still treat Garry Trudeau as some sort of genius (which he was, and maybe still is).

I remember fondly the Peanuts collections I had from the 50's and 60's, when there was more pointed commentary from the kids, which included some quite un-nice members of the 'gang' (Violet was a stuck-up priss and I don't recall Patty as being much better (not Peppermint Patty; the orininal one)). And the Peanuts Christmas special is still classic, despite having been seen every year for over 30 years.

Then there is this great golf strip: Charlie Brown asking Snoopy what he thinks about before he takes a shot and Snoopy replying: "I ask myself, you haven't hit a good shot all day, what makes you think you're gonna hit one now??"

[BobT]

Originally posted by funneefarmer:
So does he chase down every schoolchild and adult that doodles it on a notebook, or every vandal that spray paints it on a bridge abutment ? If I paint Bugs Bunny on the side of my house am I asking for a lawsuit ?

Yes, Warner Brothers will be most unhappy. For all that company knows, you may be using Bugs Bunny to advertise something in your house. And since you didn't ask permission from them, they will be upset.

If you want to really get in trouble, try painting Mickey Mouse on your house. Watch the wrath of Disney fall on you.

[eggo]

what about all those children's wards where there are countless plaguized (sp?) cartoon characters lining the walls? do you honestly think if Walt Disney had seen that in a hospitol that he would sue? i think not

eggo

[salinqmind]

Disney will indeed sue if you use their characters in an unauthorized manner, a day care center here had a mural on their wall and received a threatening letter to remove same immediately.

As for Peanuts and Charles Schulz - I have in my "library" a stack of Peanuts cartoon collections - both hard and soft cover - that I have been collecting over 20 years. It is just about 3 feet tall. In my closet at this very moment are 5 items of clothing with Snoopy and Woodstock on them. I felt sadder to hear of Charles Schultz death than many of my own family's deaths. I cannot imagine opening to the funnies pages and not seeing Peanuts there.

Does anyone know if the newspapers are going to continue to print re-runs and for how long?

[John Corrado]

eggo said:
what about all those children's wards where there are countless plaguized (sp?) cartoon characters lining the walls? do you honestly think if Walt Disney had seen that in a hospitol that he would sue? i think not


I think so. In fact, I believe that Children's Hospital was forced to paint over the pictures of Disney characters on their walls because they hadn't asked DisneyCorp for permission first. Hanna-Barbera stepped in and paid for the wall to be repainted (with Fred Flintsone and the Scooby Gang, not uncoincidentally), and got as much good publicity as Disney got bad.

As Harlan Ellison said, "Don't f**k with the Mouse."

------------------
JMCJ

Winner of the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches for knowing an actual atheist in a foxhole.

[John Corrado]

Sigh. That should be "not coincidentally". Teach me to try and use double negatives for effect. Just gets me all confused, it does.

------------------
JMCJ

Winner of the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches for knowing an actual atheist in a foxhole.

[Jinx]

Originally posted by NanoByte:
What is it with all this worship over this comic strip and its author, both now defunct?


Peanuts: If you have to even ask, you'll never get it!

Nanobyte, based on reading many of your postings, you must be the most negative person around! Boy, and I thought I was ever the cynic! Maybe you were given one too many rocks when "trick or treating" at Halloween?
(And, obviously you've never had a dog!)

[Jinx]

Nanobyte must fit the definition of a Troll! Like many OPs from Nbyte before, S/He starts an upsetting topic just to get our goat, and then leaves...like hit and run. You'll notice that his/her name appears only once in the list of Posters, so s/he's afraid of rebuttal! :p

[minlokwat]

Speaking as a fan, as we all are, I kinda got tired of the whole "Peanuts"-thing long ago.
Now I enjoy the Christmas special as much as anyone BUT there is a limit.
With all of the posters, tee-shirts, greeting cards, MET Life blimps, stickers, stationary, coffee mugs -not to mention a number of horrible feature length cartoons- you have to think- Enough already.

You created a brilliant strip- made millions upon millions of dollars-and....
Here is a quote from Watterson that sums it up perfectly:

"When cartoon characters appear on countless products, the public inevitably grows bored and irritated with them, and the appeal and value of the original work are diminished. Nothing dulls the edge of a new and clever catoon like saturating the market with it."

Needless to say, that says it all.

[minlokwat]

Speaking as a fan, as we all are, I kinda got tired of the whole "Peanuts"-thing long ago.
Now I enjoy the Christmas special as much as anyone BUT there is a limit.
With all of the posters, tee-shirts, greeting cards, MET Life blimps, stickers, stationary, coffee mugs -not to mention a number of horrible feature length cartoons- you have to think- Enough already.

You created a brilliant strip- made millions upon millions of dollars-and....
Here is a quote from Watterson that sums it up perfectly:

"When cartoon characters appear on countless products, the public inevitably grows bored and irritated with them, and the appeal and value of the original work are diminished. Nothing dulls the edge of a new and clever cartoon like saturating the market with it."

Needless to say, that says it all.

[NanoByte]

andros and ellis555:

I don't see anything inconsistent about thinking it somewhat egotistical, in a case where the world (or the US or whatever) seems to think your comic strip is so great, to forbid its being continued by others. Like it's not a Rembrandt, is it (which have no continuity anyhow)?

Well, I don't think he invented anything; he just designed something. But would/could an inventor say no one could improve on his invention, so long as he paid royalties to the owner of the patent (which would probably be a company, no matter how egotistical he was) during the 17 yr it was in force? But I didn't say he had no right to do that; I just said that decision seemed a little egotistical to me.

i must be missing something here.

Even Standord students do that on occasion. ;) Spent a year there a long time ago for an MSEE.

funneefarmer:

I wonder if he ever sued the artist who stuck Snoopy and his doghouse on a single abandoned piling near in SF Bay near the Emeryville Mudflats. It remained there for a decade or two.

RealityChuck:

. . .DILBERT. The art is based on Shultz's style.

Only very vaguely. And about the rest, I dunno. At least Dilbert is still often funny. . .although it's in a pretty narrow rut.

I never read Calvin and Hobbes at all. Nothing but silly tigers and stuff. Not into fantasy.

And Cathy?. . .Blaaaaaaaaahhhhh! Rhyme that with Orange.

Vestal Blue:

A USAF type that's crashed in Boise? Scott Adams was an engineer.

Music for Peanuts? Never heard it. You don't exactly sound too light yourself. Guess that's why you're not floating anymore.

JWK:

You mean you can't give rights to copy some of your work to those you wish, while still suing others to whom you don't wish to give such rights? I don't believe that.

Right on, Padeye.

Alphagene:

Doesn't 'GQ' stand for 'go qwazy'? Wasn't the OP a question? And no general asked any of the questions around here.

DAVEWOO71:

Yeah, well, the comics are always good when times are not so, and v. v.

Hey, DSY, I agree with you on something: Trudeau has been the pits for numerous years -- way off in his own too-contrived sophistication.

salinqmind:

Well, the SF Chronicle has been printing reruns of Peanuts since the middle of January and intend to indefinitely, AFAIK.

Jinx:

Oh. Well, "s/he" is back and is s/he snickering. I thought the others were rather happy s/he had come back. I just wasn't that interested in Peanuts -- like I said. I've come back too many times in other threads, rebuttin' all over the place. ;) I wasn't down on Peanuts; it just never struck me as anything worthy of all the noise at its demise, particularly since it had quite well petered out long ago.

I mean, can't we get rid of Garfield now -- quietly and painlessly? We've gotten the same few themes in that strip for nigh onto as long as Cathy or longer.

Oh well, at least, in the next war against the US, the enemy will know well how to wipe out this nation's morale and will to fight -- just torpedo its comic strips.

Ray ("What's up, Doc,. . .must come down. . .and "That's all, Folks!")