Poor Charlie Brown. He’s been tormented by Lucy by failing to kick the football God knows how many times, no one loves him (not even his dog), and now he’s been flushed down the toilet.
Springfield, Oregon. Walt Merritt has gone out to get Chinese food with his friends. He leaves only one person in the house- Pamela Ann Hemphill, a down-on-her-luck woman Merritt let stay at his house. When he returned home, Hemphill had locked herself in the bathroom naked and was in the process of flushing an original Charles Schulz cartoon down the toilet. Merritt carried the cartoon wherever he went- except for that day.
That’s kinda sad. The entire situation seems kinda messed up, though. They’re renting rooms, at his age? The man wanted it to finance his retirement, he carried it with him everywhere… sounds messed up.
Not to mention, Charles Schultz brought a smile to a lot of people’s faces, and now this piece of him is gone.
Something sounds strange in that story. It says he kept it with him at all times rolled up in a tube. Yet supposedly the woman had to get it wet because it was made of cardboard and the only way to tear it into toilet-sized pieces would be to wet it.
If it’s such stiff cardboard that she could not tear it, then how did it get rolled up into a tube?
Not to mention that if it was so valuable, and the owner knew it was valuable, why is he carrying it around all the time? Hope that tube was acid-free paper, although it doesn’t matter now. And then he lets her continue living in his house?
You’re up shit’s creek, Charlie Brown
You went right down the toilet today!
You met a lunatic, a naked gal and a former druggie,
And she flushed you right away!
You’re up shit’s creek, Charlie Brown
And we know you will go very far
Yes it’s hard to believe
How we sob and how we we grieve
In the sewers you are!
The part that I find remarkable is that she’s still living in the house with him. He was helping her out by giving her room and board, she destroys a valuable piece of art and he lets her back in?
The article is somewhat misleading. (For one thing, it refers to it as a “storyboard,” which is actually a drawn script for an animated cartoon.) I don’t think Schulz drew his comic strips on cardboard. I’ve never heard of a cartoonist who drew on cardboard, anyway.
Either she took the cartoon out of the cardboard tube and ripped it up, or she ripped the cartoon up along with the tube.
The article says it’s a storyboard made of cardboard, and that the woman took it into the shower to get it wet in order to make the cardboard easy enough to tear.
I have seen storyboards that were drawn on bristol board, which is a kind of very heavy almost cardboard-like paper. You can get it in different weights, but the lighter ones (which can be rolled) are certainly easy enough to tear up even by a child and the heavier weights that are harder to tear cannot be rolled. Although I’ve never seen bristol board that was impossible to tear anyway. Even the heavyweight ones are not all that heavy.
Anyway, the story doesn’t add up to me. Like I said, two loons.