Actually, I’d call it the other way around – Schultz’s grasp of irony was far more evolved than Larson’s. There’s no way I’d call Larson the greatest comic genius of the 20th century. I don’t know that I’d call Schultz that either, but I’d at least consider his candidacy.
I like Steve Martin too, and I admire his range, but he’s got to lose major points for some of the execrable stuff he’s been in.
You’re going to have to expand on that a bit. Irony in Peanuts? Evolved irony? Larson outranks Schultz, if for no other reason, because Larson never indulged in the mawkish preachiness that Schultz was wont to trot out from time to time.
Naw. Anything of Steve’s (apart from Pennies From Heaven) that you didn’t like was simply stuff that you didn’t get. 
Such are the risks taken by comic geniuses. I call your attention to Socrates, Galileo and Mohammed–three of the greatest and most misunderstood comedians of all time!
All I’ll give Schultz is credit for maybe being the foundation for a genre of brilliant comedy. Sort of like what Moses did for Christianity. But this will turn into taste-fight. Shcultz has simply never made me LOL, Larson has. So neener neener neener.
I’d like anybody to provide some examples of Larson irony.
Schulz. Schulz. Schulz.
Well if we are talking COMICS - Stan Lee.
You have an ally now…I love Peanuts, especially the earlier strips from the 50s, because I do think it all got watered down/sanitized over the years. It was hilariously bitter & perverse, actually.
Some other thoughts of mine are, for standup, Bill Cosby. For quick wit & reparee, Johnny Carson, for elegantly hilarious prose, P.G. Wodehouse.
You’re right, I misspelled his name. Now, that’s ironic.
As others have mentioned, Jones had help being funny (from Michael Maltese, Mel Blanc, the other directors who contributed to the characters he used, et al). So it’s hard to tell how much of the “comic genius” credit actually belongs to him. If, taking that into consideration, you still want to consider Chuck Jones, then I submit that you also need to consider Jim Henson.
I like Schulz. He was funny, singlehandedly, for a long time, in ways that no one else had been before. I also like several of the other suggestions people have made here; a strong case could be made for many of them.
For far-reaching influence I nominate William M. Gaines
along with the usual gang of idiots.
Worthy nominations all, but for me, it’s got to be Dave Barry. Week after week of columns, plus books that weren’t compilations of his columns…always cracked me up.
Has anyone mentioned Douglas Adams? I can’t think of a piece of art in any discipline that has made me laugh harder and more consistently than the HGTTG books.
If that’s irony, you can keep it. I mean, it’s sort of funny, but also sort of obvious. Though I agree with your earlier point that it’s a question of taste, I will also say that Gary Larson hasn’t worn that well. I used to be a huge fan, but when I reread his stuff recently, I found it pretty tepid. Nonetheless, he was an original, and his sensibility matches that of a lot of people here. That does not, in my mind, equate to being the greatest comic genius of the 20th century (though I’m not sure you’re claiming that).
I’m still unsure who I’d pick. James Thurber? It’s a bit of a reach. How about Roz Chast?
To expound on this, if you can find a clip of You Bet Your Life watch how Groucho works. The guest would say something, Groucho would pause turn toward the camera and deliver a knock dead funny line.
The rest of the story was the audience was in a balcony and underneath were 5 or 6 joke writers with cue cards. They would hear the line and right a response on a cue card and hold it up. What passed for comic timing was a delay to allow the joke writers to work.
If you ever watched a Tonight Show with Johnny Carson where he went into the audience there was a railing half way up the aisle. That railing was the front edge of the balcony; the lower seats were added after Groucho went off the air.
I was exaggerating a bit. I admit I’m more familiar with the TV specials, but I’ve seen the strip. Schulz did what he did for a long time, but it was never that funny. It might count as innovation and genius within the boundaries of the comic strip; I lack the expertise to say. But so funny that it was unparalleled in the 20th century?
I’ve got a 4-DVD box set of YBYL. The IMDb says there was a TelePrompTer out of the camera’s view, which is a lot easier to believe. Otherwise you’re asking me to believe that there were some very good joke writers who could write very large, very quickly and very legibly. I wonder how much the Marxes improvised onstage, given some of the careful scripting in their movies.
Yeah, the story that Groucho had a gaggle of joke writers under the carpet feeding him material is as silly as it sounds. Like magic tricks, the reality is much simpler. They just recorded an hour’s worth of material for a half-hour’s show and cut out the worst lines. Even so, the shows are pretty deadly by modern standards most of the time.
As for Schultz, piffle. How can he be the best of all time when he wasn’t even the best of his contemporaries. Remember that Walk Kelly started Pogo just about the same time as Schulz started Peanuts. Pogo is my choice for best American comic strip. Hilariously funny, with a wide and varied cast of individual characters, that spoofed politics and love in equal measure.
Again, it’s not an insult to say that Pogo is better than Peanuts. I have all the original Peanuts books issued and I’ve started over with the collected strips. Schulz was terrific in what he did. It’s just that Kelly was better in everything. Just like you can think Brooks was terrific while thinking that Allen was even better.
Or that S. J. Perelman wrote some of the funniest individual pieces of the twentieth century but that Robert Benchley had the better career overall.
Or that Doonesbury is the modern successor to Pogo and that Calvin and Hobbes or Bloom County or the other challengers are nowhere near as good.
Or that Peter de Vries wrote several wonderful parodies of literature but Corey Ford was the best parodist overall.
Lots of humorists are good, very good or terrific. A few are head and shoulders above even that standard. That doesn’t lessen the others in any way.
Walt Kelly.
Darn spell checkers and real words.
Well all I can tell you is my father was in charge of the construction of the NBC studios in Burbank the late 1940’s (1948?). He built the building that that housed Groucho’s studio. He told me that that studio was built differently than all the others studios (the balcony) and that when he asked about why it was built that way this was the answer that he was given by the NBC people.
Is this the straight dope? Beats me, but it seems to come from a lot closer to the horses mouth than IMDB does.
[personal story] Before Carson moved west, the old Groucho studio was used by Let’s Make a Deal. One night we went to a taping. As we walked into the studio, my father IDed it as the You Bet Your life Studio. He looked up over his shoulder and pointed at a spot on the ceiling.
“See that discolored spot? I had a workman fall though the ceiling when the job was almost done, we had to patch it.”
At lest 15 years after the fact he knew that building.
[/personal story]
I’ll put on a show now. Forget the IMDb, I just don’t think anyone can write that fast. You sure you say that’s how it went?
The movies came late. Remember, the Marxes got their start in vaudeville, and had their first success on Broadway.
The old story goes that George S. Kauffman, who wrote Animal Crackers with Morrie Ryskind, was backstage. Someone started to talk to him, and he hushed him with “quiet - I think I hear one of my lines.” That said, the script for Animal Crackers in the American Library edition of Kauffman’s work matches the movie fairly closely, but the notes say that many of the ad libs got put into the movie.
A Night at the Opera went on the road before filming, but I don’t know if there were ad libs put into the script, or the revisions all done by the writers.
I don’t have an answer to the OP, since comedy is such a matter of taste, and so little of it is good the second time through. Plus you have to distinguish humor from influence.
