Category: Charles M. Schulz

I got a laugh of out Monte Schulz’s comment about his brother Craig that’s in a previous post.

I just wanted David Van Taylor to tell a more complete story and to give some clarification to a story my brother tells regarding “us” riding our dirt bikes on the roads and not being bothered by the cops — none of us except him either owned or rode dirt bikes, and David only used that clip to “show” how pampered we were back then, and privileged, neither of which was true.

The reason it’s funny to me is my brother rode dirt bikes, but I never did. I would have the same reaction as Monte if my brother said “we” in a way that sounded like a reference to our family, rather than to his friends. Here’s Craig on a dirt bike.

At the moment, the header for this blog is this picture. I stitched it together from a couple of scanned images. It was inspired by a poem that Monte Schulz wrote, that was published in Happy Birthday, Charlie Brown, in 1979, as ‘Peanuts’ headed into its 30th year.

I salute you,
Speaker to the world
Through little boxes.

I applaud the four little squares
A world watches and laughs with, mornings.
And I share the fortune
You grant us,
Allowing a peek through four little windows
Into your world each day.

I cherish the wisdom lessons
and the story telling.
And always I treasure
The laughter,
Greeting every new morning.

Speaker to the world
Through little boxes:
I salute you.

— Monte Schulz

I’ve been working my way slowly through Schulz and Peanuts by David Michaelis, alternating with reading strips from The Complete Peanuts, to keep things in perspective. For nearly a week I’ve been drafting a post with more commentary on the biography from the family of Charles M. Schulz. It’s been my intent to speak out more firmly in favor of the position that has been expressed by Monte Schulz and his sister Amy. Monte has forced my hand by commenting on a previous post of mine.

Actually, I just want to thank the hosts here for posting my comments on this site to sort of set some of the record straight on what we thought of the biography on my dad. The internet has been much more beneficial to us than the mainstream media which filtered our objections or ignored them entirely. By the way, I didn’t hate the documentary. I just wanted David Van Taylor to tell a more complete story and to give some clarification to a story my brother tells regarding “us” riding our dirt bikes on the roads and not being bothered by the cops — none of us except him either owned or rode dirt bikes, and David only used that clip to “show” how pampered we were back then, and privileged, neither of which was true. I agree, too, that his and Michaelis’s use of “Citizen Kane” was odd, trying to tell my dad’s story analogically to Welles’ movie, given that Dad’s own life story is so unusual: the child given a comic strip character’s name almost at birth, then growing up to be the most famous cartoonists of the 20th century, and dying on the night before his last strip runs in the newspapers. Why not just say that? It’s odd.

Thank you, Monte, for writing, especially for your comment about the PBS program. I immediately thought of my own brother, who rode dirt bikes around town with his friends.

The deeper I’ve gotten into the book Schulz and Peanuts, while discussing it with my friend Dennis Rogers, whose opinion I value highly, the more I understand and appreciate what Monte and Amy are talking about. First, regarding ‘Citizen Kane’, I agree completely with Monte. Why try to enhance one fascinating story by force-fitting it into another? There’s just no need for it.

Further, given the obvious wealth of material that was provided to the author, and the vast amount of detail that is in the book as a result, why did Michaelis feel the need to inject so many his own interpretations? I’m reminded of Donald Spoto’s biography of Alfred Hitchcock, The Dark Side of Genius. Hitch always wiped up bathroom sinks after using them, and somehow Spoto turned that into his central thesis about Hitchcock’s dark obsessions. I thought it was a ludicrous premise, and I feel that Michaelis has taken a somewhat similar approach in his writing. “Just the facts” would have served his subject well.

Schulz himself was the first to broach the subject of his moods and panic attacks, in his biography by Rheta Grimsley Johnson. Given that, there’s no point in pulling out his bouts of melancholy like a club, to bludgeon home a point. Sparky wasn’t an unknown figure working in obscurity, and his story is one that can tell itself, given a full presentation of the facts and events.

Finally, Rheta Grimsley’s ex-husband, cartoonist Jimmy Johnson, has a very funny anecdote about Sparky, over at his Arlo and Janis site. He doesn’t use Permalinks, so you may have to scroll down to find it.

You watched American Masters: Good Ol’ Charles Schulz, didn’t you? Good! I think it strikes an excellent balance, portraying the artistic man, the family man, and the inner man in equal portions. I don’t completely buy into Citizen Kane being a significant theme, let alone an obsession, for Schulz — I love the movie myself — but overall I found the documentary to be positive, informative, and poignant. I was particularly taken with Donna Wold’s description of a conversation she had with Sparky when he called her in 1970.

I was pleased to see how throughout the program there was always a return to an emphasis on Schulz at his drawing board. The simple act of putting pencil and ink to paper was, after all, what the man loved to do, and it’s the reason he’s worth the attention he is receiving. Congratulations to writer-director David Van Taylor for his excellent production.

Two of the Schulz offspring, Monte and Amy, have had very little good to say about the David Michaelis biography of their father, and Jill has gone on record as agreeing with them. Michaelis appears in Good Ol’ Charles Schulz, and reading his book I can see that he does tend to fancy himself a psychoanalyst, and he’s consistently negative where he could have been more balanced. I feel that David Van Taylor found that balance in Good Ol’ Charles Schulz, so I’m a bit surprised that Monte and Amy aren’t mostly positive about the program.

Over at the Cartoon Brew blog you can read Amy and Monte’s comments about the book. My buddy Dennis has pulled their entries out of the comment thread. If you see a “more” link, click it to read them, otherwise keep scrolling.
Continue reading Charles M. Schulz, An American Master