well that’s enough for me. based on these remarks from Monte Schulz, i won’t be looking into this book. thanks for the head’s up.

this isn’t the first book about cartooning that tells us more about the author than the subject, and i’m sure it won’t be the last.

“>SIGH

Rats! I was looking forward to reading it, but highly doubt I will bother now, Watterson notwithstanding.

Well, I was going to let Monte Schultz have the last word, but since this has been revived …

>there are so many elements of my father’s life that David deliberately left out of the book, that it really is impossible for anyone outside of our family, or Dad’s circle of friends, to come to any genuine conclusions.

This is the classic argument for authorized biographies. Hire the best writer you can, make sure you have final approval of every line in the bio, then let the books slug it out in history.

And, I must say, I’ve read numerous family objections to biographies over the decades. Can’t remember one that went: “Cripes, my [father/mother/sister/brother/favorite niece or nephew] was a narrow-minded, disagreeable creep. How the heck did that not get in there?”

And since siblings often disagree about the nature of their parents and their upbringing, their outlooks have no more intrinsic weight than that of an outsider.

Schulz and Peanuts was given a strongly positive review in the daily New York Times as well as in the Sunday Book Review.

I had the great opportunity to spend time with Mr. Schulz on a few occasions. While he was definitely reserved, he was anything but melancholy. He was funny, engaging and delightful. My first-hand experience leads me to agree with his children in this controversy over the biography.

This comment is somewhat off-topic:
There is a PBS “American Masters” TV documentary about Charles Schulz. It will be broadcast October 29.

Bill Watterson is still around! Wonder what he’s up to now.

I have to take with a grain of salt the family’s complaints that their patriarch is not portrayed as a saint. Unlike most authorized bios, this comes across as a real biography, rather than the hagiography the family apparently was expecting.

Well here’s the way I see it. This went one of two ways. Either after all these conversations the picture that emerged for David Michaelis is one of a melancholy artist or the guy got all the access and decided to do a creep thing by turning it into sensationalism. It could be either. Is Michaelis saying in the book that Charles Shulz was a child molester or something? Because “melancholy” seems awful mild. I mean, lots of people are sad.

Two other related points. One, for those who met the guy for a few minutes, remember that what Charles Schulz may have shown to you was maybe not his true self. After all, who met Elvis in the 70’s and immediately knew the guy was doing enough drugs to kill a small elephant?

Finally, to quote Bill Moyers (hopefully I get this right), “News is what people want to keep hidden. Everything else is a press release”.

I don’t believe Schulz was melancholy. I saw a picture of him once, and he was smiling.

I adore Bill Watterson’s work, but time and time again in interviews with him i’ve been left with the overwhelming impression that he’s a depressing crank. So it wasn’t that much of a surprise that he penned an adoring review of a book that portrayed Shulz as one as well. I also can’t take a review seriously when it cashes in a 10 cent word like “avuncular” in portraying Charlie Brown. But thats just me…

My question is what elements of the book does Mr. Schulz feel is untrue - besides the accusation of his father being a “depressed, melancholy person.” Obviously there’s a lot more elements here for him to object to the book in this way.

Another question I’m wondering is if the Schulz family is planning to take any legal action against the author and publisher? I haven’t heard the word “slander” yet from the Schulz family, but . . .

Michael Barrier’s 1988 interview with Charles Schulz. Well worth a read.

“And since siblings often disagree about the nature of their parents and their upbringing, their outlooks have no more intrinsic weight than that of an outsider.”

Well, the two siblings that I know of who have commented on this book say they don’t approve of it so it sounds like they ARE in agreement.

“I have to take with a grain of salt the family’s complaints that their patriarch is not portrayed as a saint.”

I never read where Amy or Monte Schulz said they wished their father had been portrayed as a saint.

“I haven’t heard the word ’slander’ yet from the Schulz family, but . . .”

So if they haven’t used the word “slander” then they must be subtly acknowledging the book’s worth.

i think its clear that Dock Miles will not stop defending the books portrayal of the man as completely valid.
from the other thread:
“I really don’t see how anything the book says about the great Charles Schulz “tarnishesâ€? or diminishes him … as a person,”

I haven’t read the book yet, but according to the Salon and the NYTimes reviews, Michaleis’ book portrays Schultz as a depressive, anxious, detached, resentful, self-defeating and self-deceiving person who made his family members feel overburdened and underappreciated.

It ABSOLUTELY tarnishes and diminishes him as a person. I wouldn’t like to be cast as a miserable soul if i was not and neither would you. I can only imagine how angered the Schultz family must feel about this. I remember seeing the retrospective of Alex Toth with his children and they freely discussed his ornery personality.
Why would all Charles Schultz’ family members agree that the book is wrong in its depiction of him?
They should be afforded the benefit of the doubt.

The families of greats like Schulz, Disney, Clampett and the like often get flame broiled no matter what they do, if they loosen restrictions on use of a character, for merchandising and licensing purposes– they are seen as wringing a dry washcloth for that every last cent they can wrench from Daddy’s cash cow. Schulz had his share of ups and downs like the rest of us, yet since Charlie Brown is held as a national treasure, Charles’ life is- well- bigger than life.

Monte, I’ll address you directly, your Dad was awesome- you already knew that… I saw your Dad in San Antonio not too long before his death, I think the Reuben Awards were held here that year, and he and about 50 other cartoonists signed autographs. You could tell he wasn’t in great health, but he was in great spirits “I’m just so glad that I was able to make it” he smiled. Your Dad and mine were very much alike in their quiet determination and personal spirituality. I lost my Dad to Cancer two years ago, and am driven more to be the animator/cartoonist/writer he always knew I would be, but I didn’t. My Dad saw me in my element at two different week long animation festivals/ conventions in the Hollywood area, as I brought him with me for some quality father/son time when I was done with the days events. I’m sorry your family is having to deal with this book of inaccuracy, why not write one with all your family? THAT’S the book I’d buy. Thanks for caring so much about your Dad’s legacy, it can’t be easy to have to deal with the nay sayers and folks with their own personal agendas. I have tremendous respect for you, Monte, which I also have for your Dad and his work.

It’s slander if it’s spoken. If it’s the written word, it’s libel.

“I’m sorry your family is having to deal with this book of inaccuracy, why not write one with all your family? THAT’S the book I’d buy.”

I second that.

And if Monte feels like responding here again I wonder if he’d tell us if any of his dad’s kids ever felt like carrying on the Peanuts legacy. I realize that he didn’t want anybody to but I’m still wondering if any of his sons (or daughters) at least felt some sort of hankering to.

Does anyone else notice the similarity here with the circumstances surrounding the two recent Disney bios? On both counts, a book apparently rife with inaccuracies is corrected and criticized by a separate, more reliable source who obviously knows the subject better.

I don’t know if Bill Watterson is a “crank” or not (he does come off that way sometimes), but he’s certainly a hypocrite. For a guy so über-concerned with his own privacy to be completely credulous of all of the analysis Michaelis puts forth about the most private aspects of Schulz’s life is pretty disheartening. I started losing respect for Watterson after The Complete Works of Calvin and Hobbes because of some aspects of that publication. I had been hoping I was wrong about him… I guess not.

if you read the Barrier interview with Charles Schulz above, they actually mention Bill Watterson and his haughty attitude towards the public.

I”m just interested in seeing a part of Charles Schulz that I never knew existed. This sounds like stuff that he would have never put into his strips.

Better yet, I’m interested in what made Bill Watterson write something. He’s the most reclusive person in animation/cartooning let alone any form of entertainment. I’d be more interested in a book about him!

A good bio (and authorized) on Charles Schulz is ‘Good Grief’ by Rheta Grimsley Johnson. The book was published in ‘89 so it doesn’t cover the last chapter of Schulz’ life, but paints a great picture of where he came from, including a frank discussion of how he coped with depression. It includes commentary about Schulz and Peanuts by most of the major comic strip artists at that time. (Ironically, Bill Watterson endorsed this one as well.)

I agree with the earlier remarks that the family should write his story. I would love to hear a more personal account of his life; it sounds like this book is trying to sell itself by trying to be a tell-all. Instead of buying this book, I think I’ll continue to collect the complete Peanuts Fantagraphics books by Seth.

Well, it may be neither libel or slander. While I heard the Schulz family disagrees with the book, I haven’t seen or read anything from the family mentioning those two above referenced words.

BTW, the Schulz family is already attacking the PBS special “Good Ol’ Charles Schulz”.

Good grief! Who knew the guy who created Snoopy would become tabloi fodder!!!

No matter what you think, it’s hard to disagree that the image of Charles Schulz as Mr. Upbeat Genial has become involved with the shaping (and, um, marketing) of his legacy.

I was amused at the passage in the Barrier interview where Schulz complained about the way an article about him had been written. Maybe it’s in the genes.

About all I have left to say is that “Peanuts,” the timeless newspaper comic strip, is more important than its all-too-mortal creator. What matters at the end of the day about a biography of an artist is how well it seems to jibe with the work and deepen your understanding of it. Albert Goldman’s demolition jobs on Elvis Presley and John Lennon are forgotten bags of bile because anyone who knows their music cannot feel that the hateful human wreckage he presents could have created such artworks. That’s what will be on my mind when I pick up Schultz and Peanuts — how correct does it seem that this person could have drawn this art and what does that tell me about it? What it tells me about him is very secondary.

>I wouldn’t like to be cast as a miserable soul if I was not and neither would you.

If I was dead I wouldn’t care and neither would you.

I forgot to look for responses to my last message on here, but seeing the comments, I believe I need to clarify a few things. First of all, we did not expect, nor did we desire, a fan-bio on Dad. I spoke with David Michaelis on a regular basis for the six years he worked on the book and discussed many issues with him. We knew he’d write about the affair and had no dispute with him at all over that. Nor did we anticipate the book being merely a glowing tribute. After all, we didn’t hire him to write the book; we simply agreed (myself and stepmother) than he seemed to be a good choice. He brought the project to us; we did not seek anyone to write Dad’s biography. Remember, he sold the bio to Harper Collins, not to us. So why the complaints?

How could we have been so surprised by what he wrote? And why does he and Harper Collins maintain that I, in particular, had the chance to correct any errors in the book, yet chose not to? Well, this is not a good venue to explain all this in full, but I’ll summarize as best I can. First of all, there are three levels of problems in the book for me (and not only the family objects to this book, by the way, but also everyone in Dad’s inner circle — close friends, his lawyers, business associates, etc.), and they are as follows: an array of factual errors, both large and small, which highlight David’s intentions in the book; a number of people who were interviewed but whose comments were essentially excluded because they either contradicted or failed to support David’s thesis; and lastly, the greater part of Dad’s story, which David’s deliberately left out of the book because it did not interest him.

Now, we were sent a manuscript at Christmas time last year to read through and comment on. I spoke with David just a couple of days before receiving my copys and reiterated my support of his book, and his right as a writer to voice his opinion (which is another reason why we’d never sue him, even if we had grounds: we believe in his First Amendment rights and his legitimacy as an author). But once I read the manuscript and several of the things in it, well, basically, the top of my head blew off. Factual errors, by example: he argued that my dad was able to work so effectively because my mom ran the place where we lived, doing all the cooking, cleaning, etc. But he left out a wonderful black woman who worked for us almost seven years, Eva Gray, one of the dearest people I ever knew (she just died last year, and we made sure that she and her husband Jim were able to attend Dad’s memorial service), and very integral to our lives back then. David leaves her out of the book entirely, boosting Mom’s roll in our lives and diminishing Dad’s. Then, when he does mention her as fixing snacks for us in 1969 while my mom worked at our ice arena, it’s absurd because she hadn’t been with us for three years by then, having left in 1966 to help with her husband’s business.

He also talks about how my mom had built a pond in 1960 and stocked it with bass so my grandfather could fish when he visited (more proof of everything my mom did, which Dad did not), but, in fact, that pond didn’t even exist until seven years or so later, well after my grandfather was already dead. Just two of many, many factual errors, minor except in their intent, and unnecessary because David could easily have asked me about them during his writing. He didn’t because he’s arrogant. Also, he wrote about how we were inundated by strangers visiting for autographs and Kodak pics of Dad. Not true. I have no memory of strangers driving onto our property (which was not the vast estate David makes it out to be), nor does my sister Jill, nor does my mother. It wasn’t true. Lots of errors like that, careless, silly mistakes. There was no bid of $170,000 in ‘69 for the ice arena, and therefore the costs did not, as David wrote, balloon up 780% to 1.25 million. That latter number was the actual bid. I know this because my stepfather was the contractor and that was his bid. He was astounded that David would write that first number. Lots of mistakes like that.

But what about voices who weren’t heard? Well, for example, he only spoke to my sister Jill once over a lunch and that was that. He did interview Cathy Guisewite, but then called back to ask her, if you can believe it, whether or not my dad “came on to her.” Is he joking? Cathy knew Dad for more than twenty years, and except for one or two lines, David left her out of the book in favor of Lynn Johnston who provided much more provocative information, much of which (particularly in the first draft) is silly and self-serving.

He cherry-picked quotes, put ones together that did not belong together (getting my sister Amy in a section about how Dad was unaffectionate to his children to say that she had to learn to hug from the Mormon church. Actually, she told me that she explained to David how when she was younger, she hated people invading her personal space, but when she joined the Mormons, people were always coming up and hugging her, so she had to learn to do so, as well. But she said that story had nothing to do with Dad at all). Yet David conflated the ideas together.

For my part, Dad was a wonderful parent, reading to me, teaching me to throw baseballs, watching movies with me, driving me to school for years, taking me down to SF for doubleheaders, hitting fly balls to me for hours, teaching me how to shoot marbles, sharing his books with me as I grew older and began to write, flying out to Minnesota with me to help buy sheets and pillows for my dorm room, picking me up at the airport each time I flew home, and even in the last six months of his life, staying up late at the ice arena, well past his bedtime, to watch his 49 year old son play hockey games. None of that is in the book. nor are Dad’s passions for golf (which he played all his life, including at the Bing Crosby Pro-Am and the Dinah Shore Invitational for years, baseball (he coached our Bronco League baseball team one summer when I was twelve), tennis where he and my stepmother joined club and met many new friends and played tournaments (he and I won a father-son tournament when I was in my late 20s) and met Billie Jean King, went to Wimbledon twice and became very involved with the Woman’s Sports Foundation, a huge part of his life. And, of course, he loved books, movies, cars, music. What does David mentions of that? Nothing?

Does he name Dad’s, say, five favorite books? Nope. Artists? Nope. He writes a lot about “Citizen Kane” but not about “Beau Geste” or any of Dad’s other favorite films, because the Welles movie influences David’s theme and the others don’t. Why only ten lines or so about the Santa Barbara Writer’s Conference, which Dad and I attended for more than twenty five years? That was huge interest of Dad’s. He loved books and writing and talking about both. In David’s first draft, his only mention of the conference was regarding Dad’s “writer’s conference girl-friend, Suzanne Del Rossi,” a completely preposterous page and a half about a woman Dad knew there, someone all of us knew, anyone attended the conference knew, who was married and flirted endlessly, not only with Dad but with many other men there. And nothing ever happened because it was only for fun. Reading that section is what put me over the edge, because I knew then that David had no desire to tell Dad’s life, but rather was more interesting in moralizing and psychoanalyzing Dad because David himself loves analysis. That’s his story, but not ours.

So, why didn’t I correct him when I read that first version? Because to change the central erroneous nature of what he’d written would have required a massive re-write and re-thinking of the entire book, something he would never have had time to do, even had he the will and the desire, which he obviously did not. I did not want to clean up the minor errors, only to see the bigger ones remain. Again, I’m only touching on a few issues. If any of you want me to answer anything with greater specificity, I’d be happy to do so. I apologize for rambling like this, but the story is very convoluted. I will tell you that NY Times piece happened because a long interview I did for Time magazine was apparently killed somewhere high above the magazine, up at corporate (I’m not allowed to say more than that), and therefore I was directed to the NY Times reporter who, sadly, hadn’t even read the book when we spoke.

Let me tell you, though, that David never met my father, and basically hid from us what he intended to write. This is very apparent when you read some of the email exchanges we had over the years, and what we spoke about on the phone. I used to ask him not to babble about how Dad was depressed all the time because it wasn’t true, and “don’t write some kind of tabloid novel about Dad’s life.” To which he’d always respond, “I wouldn’t spend six years writing that kind of book.” But he did. Oh, someone asked about any of us carrying on Dad’s legacy. Well, none of us can draw, nor do we have the same sensibility he had toward his characters. The strip was his, but we were the ones who made the decision (by renewal copyright law in the ’70s) have the strip die when he did. We have our own lives and interests, though Dad did tell a friend that he thought my fiction was “raising the level of art in the family.” Thanks for that, Dad! Nor true, of course, but I do my best. Yes, all of this, even responding on here is frustrating, but that biography is so absurdly false in so many ways, I could not just be quiet. I’m mostly disappointed that so many reviewers apparently believe what’s in it. Such is life.

Thanks for the response. I’ve long theorized that when you’re at the top of any field of endeavor then anybody can accuse you of anything and it will be believed (like Walt Disney being accused as racist). David Michaelis may have freedom of speech and freedom of the press but he doesn’t have the go-ahead to libel or slander somebody else. Of course, it could also be wisest to just let the whole thing die quietly.

Thanks Monte. I do really love your father work. It’s brilliant. It’s classic. It’s up there with the best literature, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain…
I was thinking about buying that bio, but thanks to you I’ll save my money and keep collecting those glorious fantagraphics books with the cronological run of Peanuts.
I guess it’s hard to write biographies, specially when all you really want to do is write about yourself, but, who wants to know what that Michaelis guy thinks? So he writes about someone who’s really interesting.
As I’m an art collector what I really would like to know is if the family owns the original strips minus the ones that Sparky gave as presents. The prices skyrocketed (as it should be) and I don’t know if the family plans to sell the remaining ones or gave them to a fundation or museum.
In any case the warmth, wit and wisdom of Peanuts with live on.

Well, a few of Mr.Schulz comments- especially regarding the phone call to Cathy Guisewite, the author’s use of the out-of-context “hug” quote, and his own comment that the Schulz family would not sue since they believe in the author’s first amendment rights- lead me to the decision not to read this book. I was very much looking forward to it, but I’m not interested in a book by an Albert Goldman/Kitty Kelley kind of sensationalist.

Mr. Schulz, my best to you and your family. I can’t tell you how much your father’s work means to me. Thanks for posting here to CB.

Way to stand up for your dad’s memory and note errors in a very precise way. I think all of us have had to do that in one way or another, and when a parent is not there to defend the misinformation, it’s a scary task to undertake.

My dad was nowhere near as famous as yours but I have still had to step up and say what facts were right and wrong about his life.

You show a lot of love for your dad in saying what you did, and he’d be proud of you.

Good job.

Only Mr. Schulz’s family can speak to the factual errors in the book. However, Mr. Schulz, himself, used to say that all of his PEANUTS characters were different aspects of his own personality. That suggests that he was certainly not one dimensional. He did have his Charlie Brown insecurities but apparently he had a Lucy side (bossy crabby?), a Snoopy side (whimsical, imaginative and fun), a Linus side (thoughtful, religious and deep), a Schroeder side (artistic) and on and on.

The strip alone proves that Charles M. Schulz was a complex man with many attributes. He was human, with frailties and with strengths. It is unfair to depict him in a simplistic way.

I’ll skip the book. I’d rather read Schulz’s comic strips. That will tell you more about the man than a hack-job biography ever could.

Which reminds me… I need to pick up the fourth box set of Fantagraphics’ Complete Peanuts. I’d been hoping for decades that someone would finally put together a proper, chronological collection, and I’ve been absolutely delighted with them so far. (I need to get their Segar Popeye collections, too.)

Wow

It sounds like those details Michaelis messed up on are only the tip of the iceberg. Too bad no one could set up, maybe a web site listing all of the points . . . it just sounds like there are many MANY of them.

But why did Michaelis just march forward like this without taking what the family said into consideration?

A few years after Bob Woodward’s bio on John Belushi (Wired) came out came out, Belushi’s widow Judith Belushi Pisano compiled a wonderful oral history type of biography (Belushi: A Biography).

Maybe the Schulz family should consider creating a book like that?

As for me, I don’t think I’m going to read Michaelis’ book.

There are some scathing books on famous people that ARE deserved, think, “wire hangers”. Schulz’ memory evokes smiles and laughter, not shock and screams.

I was offered a chance to review this book and declined after reading through it-it’s about 90% total bullshit- I DID meet Charles, he’s not the SOB Michaelis portrays, the only son of a bitch here, in my opinion, is David Michaelis. Kitty Kelly, known for her flammable biographies, would have written a loving tribute, compared to the assasination Michaelis tries to pull off. Monte–I’d support most anything that gets the word out not to read this pack of lies.

What you say sounds completely valid.
You do have the option of writing a book yourself. I would read it. You’ve elucidated one major aspect of the scandal that is the modern media and it was the realness of Peanuts that was a big part of its’ greatness.
History takes more than one book. The truth will win out. Your father balanced doubt and insecurity with a commitment to life and following his path.
Hell, announce right away that you are going to write your own book. You could do an oral biography where everything is quotation from the people that did know him.
God bless!

“As I’m an art collector what I really would like to know is if the family owns the original strips minus the ones that Sparky gave as presents. The prices skyrocketed (as it should be) and I don’t know if the family plans to sell the remaining ones or gave them to a fundation or museum.
In any case the warmth, wit and wisdom of Peanuts with live on.”

Apparently you’re not aware of the Schulz Museum and Research Center in Santa Rosa, which opened in 2002. It’s an incredible place, well worth a visit. They have lots of changing exhibits of Schulz’s origiinals, as well as other comics.

Wow. I just heard about this book on CNN, and now I come here and hear about all the inaccuracies?
Buyers beware!

Thanks for filling us all in on the real deal, Monte. Your father’s work was a source of life-long inspiration to me, and now that I know the truth about this book, I can skip it entirely.

Thanks for the insight, Monte.

It always happens to the big celebrities out there, even the best ones. There’s always someone out there who takes the reality behind the celeb’s image just to smear it. As Christian was saying, I instantly thought of Walt Disney’s alleged anti-Antisemitism when I first heard about this upcoming biography. It’s like pulling a loose brick out of the bottom of a building; if there’s enough of them, the whole building comes down.

Somewhere down the line, we hope to get a more sincere biography about your dad and his legacy.

Monte, thank you for your very calm, rational explanation of your family’s concerns.
I am now not going to buy the book. For all your dad’s personal demons which he channeled into his wonderful characters, I do not see what purpose smearing the man’s reputation as a family man can possibly do.

Peanuts will always speak for everyone, but only you and your family are in any position to judge him as a father and husband.

I echo others that you could very well write a truly accurate biography.

I won’t be reading this book.

Thanks Monte for your insight. I was debating reading the book, but now I won’t.

I don’t know what Michaelis’ political beliefs are but I am going to assume he is of the clan that is trying desparetely to rewrite history and in the process, destroy all that is wholesome. Unfortunately, they are winning. I am deeply saddened that he chose your Dad to pick on.

I am 43 and I cannot imagine a world without “Peanuts”. I cannot imagine a world without the “Christmas Special”, where Linus gives us the true meaning of Christmas.

Maybe it’s time that a real biography, written by those who knew him best was put on the shelfs.

God Bless

Here’s a long interview with Michaelis, by Peanuts expert Derrick Bang:

http://www.peanutscollectorclub.com/michaeli.html

It was conducted before the recent controversy, but after Michaelis learned about the family’s objections, so this does a good job representing Michaelis’ side of the story.

As a lifelong admirer of Schulz, and yearly contributor to the Schulz Museum, I have to admit that I find both Monte Schulz’s and David Michaelis’ comments persuasive. From having read the N.C. Wyeth bio, I knew that Michaelis would approach the Schulz bio with a novelistic style full of little details and attempts to explain his psyche. If he failed on all of those counts, then it definitely diminishes the value of the book. Still, you can’t just dismiss 7 years of research out of hand. Although I respect the family’s objections, I still plan on buying the book, because by all accounts it adds a wealth of new information to our knowledge of Charles Schulz (although a lot of the “new revelations” being touted in reviews and news stories were either already revealed in Rheta Grimsley Johnson’s book or by Schulz himself in various interviews over the years). However, reading Monte’s comments, I think it’s probably wise to stock up on grains of salt before you start reading.

The saddest part of this whole mess is that, years from now, people will believe as completely true some of the assertions in this book that Monte Schulz says are untrue. They’ll believe it simply because it’s been published, and will be boiled down, posted to a website, misquoted, misinterpreted, etc. - until some version of it is perceived as “fact”.

Previous examples include Walt Disney as anti-semitic and Elvis as a CIA operative.

It’s a damn shame, because Sparky deserves better. Me, I’ll stick with the previous biography, thanks.

It doesn’t surprise me that Lynn Johnston would abet Michaelis in his hatchet job. She’s always made a huge show of being his disciple while breezily ignoring the principles that made Peanuts great. First off, aging the characters in real time was a mistake. If they had to grow older, they could have done so at a slower rate, like the comics strip Baby Blues. Second, the strip has far too many needless characters. The primary example of that, of course, is April. She simply stuck a third child in without really considering how the kid would fit into the family. This brings us to the third mistake she made: the death of he family dog. Not only was the death unnecessary due to her error in aging the characters, Schulz objected to the needlessly melodramatic means of his exit as well as the grotesque collective negligence that forced it. Fourth, the characters do not behave in a consistent manner. You always know what to expect of the Round-Headed Kid but you never know what Elly will do half the time.

Personally, I rather read the great “Complete Peanuts” series or the new “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown 40th Anniversary” book than this exaggerated biography. Thanks for your comments, Monte and I never thought of your great father as a grouch either.

>until some version of it is perceived as “fact�.

>Previous examples include Walt Disney as anti-semitic and Elvis as a CIA operative.

I donno about this. Certainly my perception is that Disney was charged with anti-Semitism recently, but that the evidence for it is scant and shaky at best.

And I don’t think anybody believed Elvis was a C.I.A. operative who didn’t also endorse the notion that Jerry “Beaver” Mathers was killed in Viet Nam.

I tend to agree with the comments of “Chris” above. I don’t think what Michaelis has written is necessarily “wrong,” but it seems clear that he’s decided to steer away from the happier side of Schulz. Those choices of tone are always difficult for someone writing a biography of a man about whom so many words have already been written. Still, for a work that seeks to be a full biography, it’s a bad choice.

As I noted before, I was amazed to see some reviewers like Bill Watterson automatically assuming that everything Michaelis wrote was the gospel truth. I’m also somewhat surprised to see here that others assume that everything he writes is garbage just because the Schulz family doesn’t like it. As with most things in life, I’m guessing there is a middle ground.

If one of the best examples Monte Schulz can come up with in terms of “errors” is that a housekeeper he adored was not mentioned, then I’m not ready to relegate this book to the trash heap just yet. At worst, it seems that Michaelis just assumes too much about his own ability to psychoanalyze. One shouldn’t assume this to be the “definitive” word on Schulz… but then again, one shouldn’t assume such about any single book written on any subject.

There are two more errors Lynn could be counted on to make. The first is accepting unsolicited advice that led to questionable decisions. First off, the decision to add the superfluous third child was suggested by Cathy Guisewite. Her sister-in-law suggested that Farley die heroically instead of perhaps passing on peacefully in his sleep. Third, a dress designer suggested converting a well-meaning but fretful Mira (Michael’s mother-in-law) to a domineering nuisance. All three decisions led to a downturn in the quality of the strip. Her most glaring error is the characters’ unforgivable tendency to spout mock profundity. An example that comes most readily to mind is the youngest daughter’s belief that the words prayer and prairie have more in common than their sound. Schulz had Lucy spout rubbish like that to show us how ignorant a fuss-budget she was.

Why confuse this discussion with all of Schulz’ half-wit wannabes? Lynn Johnston, CathyG. — the other thread had the worst wannabe of all Bill Watterson, I think the lasting image of Calvin will be him wizzing on a car brand name on vehicle back windows everywhere.

He chose NOT to merchandise so all there is is low rent bogus leadpainted Chinese made toys, poorly made ragdoll Hobbes, and ALLLLLLL those Piss Stickers! Yeah, put out a great strip and let the world cheapen it for you because you wanted it to be all about the strip itself, no toys, no anything—which adds up to alot of crappy things in your cartoon’s image. Schulz and Determined Productions were a great fit for many years— Standard poster designs, calendars, toys always looked like the Peanuts gang! All I can say is… “GOOD GRIEF!”

As a journalist myself — and in fact one who interviewed Charles Schulz years ago for the United Media syndicate — I’m appalled at the nuts-and-bolts lapses in fact-checking that Monte Schulz itemizes in damning detail. I, too, will not be buying this book,

All I can do is echo my earlier comments in saying how much I revered Sparky, and all he stood for. I grew up in the same town he worked most of his life. My parents both knew him and in fact were his next door neighbors in the 1980’s. My uncle taught his kids in school. He was a wonderful man, great artist and apparently loving husband and father. This trashy book will hopefully go largely unsold, and along with its author go quietly and permanently FORGOTTEN. All most people REALLY need to know about Charles Schulz….is the way he would have wanted to known and remembered…by reading the brilliant four panel strips detailing the trials and tribulations of Charile Brown, Snoopy, Lucy, Linus, Sally, and Woodstock.

When I was in second grade I wrote a letter to Charles Schultz complete with my second grade attempts at drawing Charlie Brown and Snoopy. I seem to remember getting a letter back although I don’t think it was directly from him, otherwise it would be framed and hanging on the wall in my office. I lived, breathed, ate, and slept Peanuts when I was younger. Charles Schulz was and still is a huge influence on who I am today. To this day and because of him, I still dream of drawing my own comic strip (only to remember, each time I pick up a pencil, how much blood, sweat, and tears goes into such an endeavor!). All of which brings me to ask a few questions of a few of the posts here:

Why would anyone call Bill Watterson, Lynn Johnston, or Cathy Guisewite “half-wit” wannabees? How can anyone think that Bill Watterson didn’t raise the artform of comics in much the way that Milton Caniff or Winsor McCay did?

Why should Lynn Johnston follow a formula for creating her comicstrip? I don’t read “For Better or For Worse” everyday but it’s a very well written and clever strip. And it continues to maintain a high bar despite the creative challenges that arise from having characters age and grow and change.

How much can any of us know about Charles Schulz? Unless we are his family or friends we know next to nothing. As much as I wish I had met him, I didn’t. I only have his strips to tell me who he is. Here is what I know about Charles Schultz. I know that Peanuts was a respectful, thoughtful, and intelligent comicstrip. And aside from him being my childhood role-model that’s all I know about Charles Schulz.

So, with no intended disrespect to Charles Schulz’s family, I plan on reading David Michaelis’s biography knowing full well that, much like anything else in this world, it is bound to include some truths, some speculations, some errors, and some falsehoods. If you don’t want to read it but are still curious about Charles Schulz, pick up “Charles M. Schulz: Conversations” part of the Conversations With Comic Artists series edited by M. Thomas Inge. It was an interesting read and lets you hear (or read in this case) Charles Schulz in his own words.

Monte,
As there is obvious interest in your Dad’s personal life away from the drawing board, have you considered writing about his life yourself, or with your family?

That would be your and your family’s chance to really set the record straight…

SIGH… can’t wait for the inevitable TV movie spun from the book in 20 years, when poor Sparky will be portrayed by Haley Joel Osment as a heavy drinking, heroin addicted womanizer who chases his children around with a hammer.

I bought the book and, having skimmed through it, these are my first impressions:

GOOD
-when Michaelis is at his best, he’s a very evocative writer
-he also does well presenting basic facts, even if he tends to overdo it sometimes
-he handles the more dicey parts (the affair, the divorce) well, with tact and without oversensationalizing. This is not a hatchet job or a trashy book

BAD
-Michaelis thinks he’s skilled at psychoanalyzing Schulz, but his insights are rarely much deeper than the psychiatric opinions of a certain little girl who owns a psychiatric booth.
-A tendency to try to connect certain events with other events, even though it’s a real stretch. Monte’s comment about how Michaelis tries to tie in Amy’s experience with the Mormon fondness for hugging with Schulz’s supposed emotional distance from his children is right on target. Michaelis does that kind of thing a lot.
-A tendency to take things Schulz says or writes seriously, even when they’re obviously meant as a tongue-in-cheek joke. For someone writing a biography of a humorist, Michaelis doesn’t seem like he has much of a sense of humor. Contrast this with Rheta Grimsley Johnson’s book, which manages to be witty and objective at the same time.

From what I’ve read so far, I think this book is a good but flawed first attempt at a full-scale posthumous biography. Hopefully, in the future some other bios will come along that expand on this book’s virtues but eliminiate it faults.

Gee, I guess there won’t be anything that’s too defaming to say about Bill Watterson when his major bio comes out.

I like that slamming certain cartoonists who worshiped Charles Schulz (and were even longterm friends) has become a little sub-theme of these comments.

Yawn!
I grew up on Peanuts, and loved it. But I am SO not interested in this little battle over who has the true story of Schulz. Anybody who knows any cartoonist knows they’re very often difficult, thorny, maladjusted, selfish people with the capacity to be utterly charming and delightful. (Otherwise nobody would tolerate them). This is the case for most artists. So why would I even care if Schulz is any less so than any other artist or cartoonist? I don’t care what his life was like, actually. Give me a Peanuts book instead. Much more interesting!

And yeah, I’d say Monte should write his own bio, except Monte’s really boring and and I could barely dig through what he wrote above.

Larry, that’s my opinion of them, THAT’S why I said it. What basis do I say it? There is soooo much out of context and factually wrong in this book with accusations that Charles was a mentor to them only to get in their pants—THAT IS DISRESPECTFUL, funny it only sees print after Schultz is dead and can’t defend it. He helped them both, and they had nothing but praise before this. I hate that Watterson cheapened and permanantly damaged his own franchise by not allowing merchandising, while that may SOUND noble, it is licensing that enforces standards so someone doesn’t make 8 million carstickers, with your character peeing on the FORD logo. Everything good about Calvin and Hobbes is pissed away everytime someone is exposed to that filthy Calvin Clone urinating sticker.
You are disrespecting the schulz’ by defending these pale versions of Peanuts and saying you’ll read the book in spite of Monte asking us to give it a pass. But then, that’s your opinion.

Bill, you claim that Watterson refusing to license merchandising was what brought about the “Calvin pissing on (something or other)” bumper-stickers. Possibly, but I remember, back in the late ’60s (when Peanuts was at its height of fame and Schulz-approved merchandise was being sold everywhere), Spencer’s Gifts ran a series of posters of Lucy, Patty, and Violet, all very pregnant, shouting “Damn you, Charlie Brown!” It would appear that even the most active merchandising and licensing program is no protection against someone making a buck with tasteless rip-offs.

Wow, I didn’t mean to be boring in that long piece on David’s book. I wrote that late at night and could barely see to correct typos, of which there were several. Sorry! Also, I saw that comment about the housekeeper thing as being trivial, and taken alone it certainly is, but, as I said, it was just one of many small factual errors and this is not an easy forum to get into detail. No one wants to read a ten page diatribe.

And, by the way, I haven’t asked anyone not to buy or read David’s book. That’s not my place. I’m just trying to let you know that it is not bulletproof, and is, in fact, erroneous in many ways. And, actually, I liked David a lot. I used to call him “Pudge” because he had a little bit of a gut and didn’t like working out. We got along well. I just don’t like the book that came out of those years we talked. Nor did I want to talk about myself as being left out of the book. That seemed too self-serving and whiny, as though I’d have liked it better if he’d had more of me in it.

Talking tonight with my stepmother, though, I did tell her that it occurs to me now that had he described more fully my relationship with my father, many of his assertions about Dad as a parent would’ve been contradicted. I believe he left me out deliberately for that reason. Incidentally, speaking of silly errors, in the Updike review, you’ll see he talks about how Dad used to play at the Bing Crosby Pro-Am until his agoraphobia finally prevented him from going. Actually, what ended his trips to that golf tournament was the new management from Japan who bought the tournament and decided that new celebs would be better than old ones, so they stopped inviting him!

Another funny story that David did not write about (though I recounted it to him) was when a friend of mine, Buddy Winston, who used to write for Jay Leno at the Tonight Show, pitched the idea of Dad appearing there; he was told that the booking group passed on Dad because they didn’t think he had anything to talk about! Nice, huh? Maybe sometime tomorrow, if you like, I can post up some other problems with the book. Otherwise, I can only thank you for being so supportive of my dad’s work. Regarding whether or not I ought to write a memoir, well, I write fiction and have lots of work ahead, and don’t really know how to tell Dad’s story. I’m a novelist, not a biographer. But thanks for the suggestion. I appreciate it.

OneReallyBoredGirl….I find your lack of tact absolutely appalling. Couldn’t read through a 15 paragraph post? Maybe you should go watch some Youtube videos instead…might be more your level.

You say you’re not interested in Schulz’s life and you would rather read a Peanuts’ book? My, my. How does that foot taste? Anyone that knows anything about anything knows that Peanuts was largely a reflection of Schulz’s life and/or how he saw things.

Dear Monte, I am among the millions who adore Peanuts and I can only applaud you standing up for what is right. Leave the crucifying of this Michaelis idiot to us ;).

Monte, The late Mark Cohen would always tell me what a wonderful person your Dad was.

Yeah, what J.T. said.

Monte, you love your dad and I think with careful planning you certainly could write a book about him.

Peanuts and Charles Schultz were a part of my youth as well, and I know when I read his final strip that it was as much a part of his life as his family was. You can’t separate them all the time, nor should you.

Your dad gave a gift to the world. He was human…he made mistakes. But anyone who creates a strip that shows so much humanity every day…the good and the bad…is touched by grace. I know it sounds hokey but it’s totally true.

I’m glad you stood up. And if you look around, you’ll see many standing up with you.

Monte, Thanks, you aren’t boring at all, and there have been much longer postings than yours, that were not on, in my eyes nearly as important as “Sparky”’s legacy. Please don’t let a lone immature statement keep you from sharing more with us- you really have a captive and hungry audience for the real story. I don’t know if you were aware of one of your Dad’s last public appearances was here in San Antonio, and although his health was waning and his signature was shakey, he was so upbeat and happy and had that glint in his eye
of the genius humorist he was. My Dad died from cancer 2 years ago, and days before, he asked me to get a card and flowers for him to give my Mom, the cancer had spread to his brain, he and I found out together that day, that he could no longer write, trying hard not to cry or call attention to it once I caught on, I took his dictation, saying “Hey why don’t you let me write it, Dad, your’e not used to that pen.” I thought about your Dad that day and grabbing a huge hardback-A Boy Named Charlie Brown, I read it while my Dad slept, remembering he took me to see that movie and buying me a Snoopy Jews harp at the theater. That book still has water damage from a flood of tears thinking about my Dad, and yours, that day, and how lucky I was to have met your Dad, and most important, I was lucky I had a Dad that shared his fatherly love
as well as his love of his alltime favorite comicstrip, Peanuts– I’m a cartoonist because of those two great guys. Please, as long as you will, continue to tell us more about your Dad.

I think that we’d all like to be made aware of any more problems in this book, Monte. I’ve read and own “Conversations”, and while I still intend to read this new book, I’d like to read more of your input about the book.

I still think you and your family should look into writing a biography, or maybe even findning a biographer to more accurately document your Dad’s life and all the important facts that seem to have been left out of this book.

In any case, thanks for your time here!

The problem with biographies — especialy ones written about a deceased subject, is that they are at the mercy of the author. The subject is no longer around to claify/correct/edit the inaccuracies. It’s like making a really bad stew. No matter how fresh the ingredients are, (or in this case, how accurate the stories are) one bad ingredient can turn it into swill. That’s why I won’t read Biographies. I will, however read AUTO biographies. (Granted, they can be just as slanted.) It’s a shame that David Michaelis has turned into Kitty Kelley. Hmmm — maybe they are and the same??

I’m going to skip the book. I’d rather pick up the compilation of strips currently being released.

Oops — meant to say “clarify/correct/edit the INaccuracies.” Sorry. :-)

Everybody do the right thing, and don’t give into curiousity and buy this book. Let the man’s work speak for itself. Is there anybody, through his strip or TV specials or books, that wasn’t touched/influenced by him?

This all has the feel of a sad Charlie Brown stip…

SIGH!

It seems to me that what Michaelis has done in this biography is not so different from what a screenwriter might routinely do with the script for a biographical film: Conduct research, and then sift through the details to develop an overarching theme (or “central conflict” is probably closer to the point) and structure a “story” and “character arc” around that primary conflict.

The “biopic” is not a journalistic piece or an historical document, a mere catalogue of seemingly random occurrences; it is a constructed fiction supported by *some* selected facts. The biographical screenwriter’s art—and the movie’s dramatic significance—rests in how well the writer weaves together these occurrences to create “events”—moments of change in perception or behavior—revealed and ordered as the story dictates.

This common approach to biography, in the end, has more to do with the character created than with the person who actually lived. The audience’s empathy and identification with the character are paramount, and unflagging accuracy is neither possible nor preferable. (I’m not saying this as a value judgment, but simply to point out something many of us accept readily in a different medium.)

And the biographical prose writer must weigh carefully whether to play academic historian or popular storyteller. Michaelis clearly has chosen the latter.

Rather than obliterate the book, might it not be better, as outside observers, to acknowledge that the “Charles M. Schulz” portrayed in Michaelis’s book is no different conceptually from the “Frida Kahlo” portrayed in the 2002 film that bears the artist’s name—and to evaluate the book on these grounds?

After all, no biography in any medium can (or should) replicate the life lived; it can only be one story among many stories.

Dear Monte,
I am very thankful that this website has given you the opportunity to express some of your specific grievances about the content of Mr. Michaelis’ book. Even if some think they seem trivial, I think that added up your views help to make a reference to the readers of this book, as to how or when errors and omissions shape the content. I do hope that you and the members of your family and inner circle will strongly consider creating a document that addresses ALL of the specific factual errors and contextual arguments that you feel leads to a misleading representation of your father’s life and work. I think it is an important thing to consider, as it is very, very likely that Mr. Michaelis’ book will eventually become the most significant biographical document on this subject. Perhaps a collective family memoir is in order with the full participation of your siblings, your Mother and Stepmother, where everyone is allowed to expand upon their thoughts and memories regarding Charles Schulz, in order to create a bigger, broader picture of him. I think it will be invaluable in the future, as I am most positive that Peanuts’ appeal will transcend generations, even if Mr. Schulz doubted that himself (as he implied in the excellent interview he gave on the Charlie Rose show). Information about Mr. Schulz should be out there from more than one particular source, and who better to engage this concern than the family and friends who knew him best? I hope you all will consider it.
I do intend to read Mr. Michaelis book. I am very fond of his biography of N.C. Wyeth, and have been eager to read the finished Schulz book for several years now. It is disappointing to me that your family is so dissatisfied. This is a problem with biography in a general sense, coming from a singular viewpoint, and it is truly unfortunate that your father never chose to write his own memoir (I expect he was much too humble to do so).
Best to you and your family, and I hope this is not the final piece of published biography on Charles M. Schulz that we, the fans, are allowed to partake.

Please don’t allow the too long to elapse before we see a contrasting biography. Michaelis’ writing is engaging and his book will almost certainly stand as “official” unless it is shown to be only one perspective on Schulz.

To begin with, I completely agree with every word written by my brother Monte. It is important to me for fans to know that David’s book is more fiction than fact. When David came to my home to spend time with me, learning about who my father was, he distinctly gave me the impression that he wanted to learn and write the truth. David committed the ultimate “sin of omission” by leaving out what would have been many, many chapters of what a wonderful father and friend my dad had been. From the time each one of us was little, to his dying day, my dad devoted large amounts of time to us. There is no way he could have been a more involved and loving father. As for being a friend, it would be extremely difficult to record all the good that he did and the time that he spent with each person that he had the chance to meet and spend time with. There are too many people, not enough time, and it would take volumes of books, not just one. Having said that, I believe David had the sacred obligation to compile this information as best he could and lend credence to it. Leaving out the generous man that was my father, David ends up publishing a book about someone else, not Charles Schulz.

Amy, hopefully the vast majority of responses are clearly in your family’s corner I called into the show that Jerry Beck was the guest, tonight, and let him know that I have refused to review the book for Hearst, because after looking thru it, there were 8 outright inaccurate statements about major events in his life. That’s without looking hard at all. I know with the notes and reference materials in my own collection, I could write a much more honest and realistic portrayal of your Dad, in book form. His impact on comics is the gift that keeps on giving…

James Walley said: Bill, you claim that Watterson refusing to license merchandising was what brought about the “Calvin pissing on (something or other)� bumper-stickers. Possibly, but I remember, back in the late ’60s (when Peanuts was at its height of fame and Schulz-approved merchandise was being sold everywhere), Spencer’s Gifts ran a series of posters of Lucy, Patty, and Violet, all very pregnant, shouting “Damn you, Charlie Brown!� It would appear that even the most active merchandising and licensing program is no protection against someone making a buck with tasteless rip-offs.

Determined Productions made many raids on that merchandise- which said in the top panel “Good ‘Ol Charlie Brown–” with close ups of the girls faces, and in the bottom panel a wide shot w/ them very pregnant, saying “How we hate him!”- the phrase was used in the very 1st Peanuts daily strip-in a different context of course. These bootlegs came and went within weeks, were in very small supply, most Charlie Brown mavens have ever even heard about that due to the swift legal resoloution.

In stark contrast, EVERYONE is aware of the Calvin Pissing sticker, they first surfaced 11 years ago, and they are still sold every year by the MILLIONS, unchallenged by Watterson, because he has no license management, or fraud investigators. I asked 10 folks of different ages and asked if they’ve seen the bogus sticker- they all had, then, asked the same about the pregnant Peanuts Posters that you equate to this. No one had heard of nor seen them, officials yanked them off the shelves so quickly, even you didn’t remember the right captions.

Peanuts was totally protected because they had Determined Productions in the field, actively removing anything not on their master list of products and licensing, something Bill Watterson can only wish he’d done, as well.

As the youngest daughter of Charles Schulz I have not spoken out yet on this book however I would like it to be known that I am in total support of Monte and Amy, and the rest of our family in feeling deceived and angry over what is an extremely incorrect impression of our father and our life growing up with him. He was a very present Dad, and very involved in each and every one of our lives and interest up until the end. The portrayal in David’s book of Sparky as cold, distant and unloving is simply 100% incorrect. I know many of my quotes, well, the few in the book from the one an only hour David ever spoke with me in seven years, were all taken out of context. Also, whomever said that David did not have a sense of humor hit on something which would explain why David never qualifies any quotes from our father has having been said in joking or sarcasm which was a definite style with our Dad. A few years before he fell ill one day my father asked me out of the blue “if I would miss him when he was gone” He wasn’t a big hugging type of Dad (which is all I said to David and he twisted it into him being cold and unloving), but was always there for us emotionally to talk and share time with. Never was he mean. We each a our own special relationship with him and he respected how different we each grew up to be and supported our interested no matter what. Now, regarding all of the factual errors, Monte has mentioned many, and those are just some of them. One big one that seems to appear in all of David’s press articles is that Sparky said “Unhappiness is funny”
That is NOT what he said. He said…..and he said it many.many times, when asked why Charlie Brown never gets to kick the football……”Losing is funny, because only a few people ever
experience winning, but we all experience losing”

I’m glad to see Amy post on here because she had one of the best lines about David’s book. While Michaelis (and many reviewers) seems to favor my brother Craig’s line, “We thought we were getting vanilla, but instead we got Rocky Road,” Amy said last year (after reading the first draft), “I thought I had a happy childhood until I read David’s book.”

If I can find some free time tomorrow or the next day, I’ll go through the book a little more closely to point out some errors and problems that will more fully explain why we object to the biography. Tonight, I just want to explain that it’s very difficult for us to see the press and book reviewers making comments about Dad and our family life that are just simply untrue. I mean, how does anyone expect us to react when Laura Miller over at Salon.com writes, “. . . his children complained incessantly of his detachment and obsession with work.” There is no truth in that statement whatsoever. Moreover, she can’t possibly know whether it’s truthful or not, because she doesn’t know any of us, was never at our house during those years, has no inside information at all about us or our relationship with Dad. Worse yet, all of the above applies to David, too. It’s stunning to read reviewer after reviewer parrot back information like that from the biography without the least bit of skepticism, particularly once we came forward to speak out against the book. Then we hear about how actually we’re just idolizing Dad, putting him on a fatherly pedestal, not facing the reality of his cold and distant demeanor. In other words, David Michaelis apparently knows more about us and our family lives than we do! Is that so? Yesterday I spoke for about an hour with a family friend who was quoted in several places about how Dad was not “the world’s best parent.” After he told me that it was true, Dad wasn’t that good a parent and he saw it first hand at our house, well, I then regaled him for five minutes with a brief history of my relationship with my father, meaning everything this friend had no knowledge of, all the places my dad took me, all the things he did for me, everything he taught me. When I finished, this guy was surprised and sheepish and apologized, and told me that he just didn’t know all that, had no appreciation for a side of my father he’d never seen. And, of course, I had to point to him that it was because Charles M. Schulz was my father, not his. So how could he have known? Therefore, how could David Michaelis possibly know? And how could the reviewers of David’s book know what’s true and what isn’t? They can’t and he can’t. So, here’s the sad truth: actually, David Michaelis absolutely, and without equivocation, knows that what he wrote about our family, and how we felt about Dad, and how he felt about us, is false. He knows it because he did interview us, and each of us told him about our lives with Dad, and no one in the family spent more time, devoted more hours, exchanged more emails and phone calls with David than I did. He doesn’t address me in the press because he knows that my life with Dad, just mine alone without needing to drag in my younger sisters, flatly contradicts a huge part of his portrait of Charles M. Schulz. That’s why he left me out of the book, in any meaningful way. And that’s one of the many reasons this book is deliberately dishonest and incomplete. And he knows it. What’s sad is how deaf I was to him all those years. Nearly everytime we spoke, at one point or another in our conversation, he would suggest that I write a memoir of my life with Dad. And I just laughed it off because, after all, wasn’t that, in part, what he was doing? Well, as it turned out, his suggestion was almost like a code to tell me that I’d better write down that father/son relationship because I was not going to to see it in his book.

Anyhow, it’s just lame to have phony information out there and have so little opportunity to contradict it, set the record straight, have our say. Which is why I really do appreciate this site, and all of you for reading what I’ve written, and responding so thoughtfully.

As I said at the top, I’ll try to suck it up and go through some of the book with you, being a little more expansive with some of the silly things in the book. I would like to let David know this much, however: My friend, out here in the California, we call them “towns” not “villages.”

Amy, Jill and Monte,
The great thing about all this, is that your heartfelt memories and real facts about your father ARE setting the record straight– There is more historical fact in this thread than in the entire Michaelis book. I applaud you all and and I’m really thankful that the internet allows the venue to contradict the falsehoods of David’s bio-crap-phy.

“I donno about this. Certainly my perception is that Disney was charged with anti-Semitism recently, but that the evidence for it is scant and shaky at best.

And I don’t think anybody believed Elvis was a C.I.A. operative who didn’t also endorse the notion that Jerry “Beaverâ€? Mathers was killed in Viet Nam.”

But that’s exactly my point. These kind of “facts” don’t need any evidence in order to grow and thrive. All it takes is for someone to assert an opinion in some form (biography, blog, etc). That opinion gets circulated in a “I heard that…” manner, and next thing you know, the opinion becomes “fact”. If it happened to Disney, it can happen to Schulz.

Despite evidence to the contrary, and even in the face of conflicting evidence (like Mathers’ continued presence on the planet), there are plenty of people out there who believe this stuff, simply because someone told them it was true.

Both Elvis and Andy Kaufman faked their deaths to work for the CIA. DUH! Everyone knows THAT!

“Peanuts was totally protected because they had Determined Productions in the field, actively removing anything not on their master list of products and licensing, something Bill Watterson can only wish he’d done, as well.”

Bill, I used to work for Determined Prod. and you are right on the money. They cared very much about protecting Peanuts and making sure that Schulz was happy with the products, etc.

I have some interesting stories about how Watterson reacted when offered the same merchandising deals for C&H, but I can’t repeat them here. ;) Let’s just say he did not appreciate the attention from licensors.

2 cents, and probably worth less than that (as frustration breeds some illegibility): It seems like the main issue of contention in this discussion is whether Michaelis’ book counts as ‘good history’, and some of the comments have me concerned. In short:

1) Various: “The facts Monte, et. al. mentions are trivial.”

2) Chris: “Still, you can’t just dismiss 7 years of research out of hand. Although I respect the family’s objections, I still plan on buying the book, because by all accounts it adds a wealth of new information to our knowledge of Charles Schulz.”

3) Andy Rose: “I don’t think what Michaelis has written is necessarily ‘wrong,’ but it seems clear that he’s decided to steer away from the happier side of Schulz.”

4) Steven Withrow: “It seems to me that what Michaelis has done in this biography is not so different from what a screenwriter might routinely do with the script for a biographical film: Conduct research, and then sift through the details to develop an overarching theme (or “central conflictâ€? is probably closer to the point) and structure a “storyâ€? and “character arcâ€? around that primary conflict.”

These all point to, and in some cases try to endorse, bad historical methodology. (Now if you really want to resolve that particular issue in full then we need a trained historian–or better yet, a professional historiographer. So, discount this post appropriately: I’m just trying to add the little bit I know of it to add a relevant angle to the conversation, and stamp out some poor argument along the way, but I’ll be butchering a lot of good work by my poor summaries.)

There is a pretty strong argument in Herbert Butterfield’s “The Whig Interpretation of History” that seems to apply here. A ‘Whig Interpretation’, in Butterfield’s book rather than in contemporary use, gives a progressive account of history by taking present political divisions and mapping them on to history. Butterfield was concerned about historians who cleave history into the heroes and opponents of progress, drawing a clear causal line from Martin Luther to modern freedom and the secular state as if these results were where Luther was secretly heading all along, the idea of complete freedom of religion a deep, dark, secret aim of original Lutheranism. The problem is that the present is the product of a complete history, not of some strand of discrete events that either occur in a vacuum or would have occurred more quickly has the rest of history not gotten in the way. The ‘Whiggish’ sort of interpretation gives us a means to summarize history and to create a narrative, but the summary is poor because the justification for the narrative is circular–if we start from the narrative, and validate which facts are significant and which are not on the basis of the narrative, and then by that set of validated facts come to the conclusion of the truth of the narrative, then all we have done is used the narrative to justify itself.

So, back to the present topic. If we construe the Michaelis book as a unconnected pile of facts about a historical figure (Monte, Amy, Jill: sorry for calling your dad a “historical figure.”), then there is no harm in even the systematic omission of other facts. Of course, if the book contains more than just facts–if it is a narrative and a historical analysis–then even unsystematic omissions are a clear sign that the narrative and analysis are misleading. It is easy to come to history with a story in mind and then cherry-pick facts to make the story work, but the result still isn’t good history–it is a Whig Interpretation. The real job of a historian is to give a summary which accommodates ALL the facts. (Note: this, too, is another point where I hew closely to Butterfield’s manner of argument rather than some contemporary interpretations of it.) If all the facts cannot be folded seamlessly into the story, then it is a bad story, a bad history, and a bad psychological analysis of Schultz.

Everything I’ve said so far presumes everyone is entering this discussion in good faith–even David, who on the Butterfield account is merely trapped in a delusion he created for himself, skewing the sorts of facts he validates as “interesting” and so masking from him his own original errors. Assuming everyone is on the up and up, there are a few arguments we can easily eliminate:

1) If many of the facts that are omitted are trivial, this actually helps Monte’s argument. It is evidence that instead of carefully compiling all the facts and then learning from the whole story that they present, David either began with or stumbled upon a narrative that he liked and then just listened in for things that would corroborate his story. Why else would a supposedly careful student of history make such silly errors? If David knew when someone worked for the Schultzes and when they did not, then there is no methodologically sound excuse for getting those facts so wrong in the biography. But, of course, I don’t think David is a liar. So, he must not of known when that person worked or did not work for the Schultzes. Of course, there is no methodologically sound excuse for David to not know when someone was and was not working in the Schultzes home, with the Schultz family, when the object of the historical investigation is a biography that makes any significant reference to a Schultz.

By the same token, specific omissions do not (as I think Monte wishes they would) demonstrate that David’s story is wrong all on their own. They do demonstrate that David was more unconcerned with historical accuracy, and that IS sufficient to call the whole biography into question. Moreover, use of the “Rocky Road” quote and others out of context is not only historically suspect, it is also a fictitious depiction of the way Schultz’s children feel RIGHT NOW. That depiction is integral to the narrative of “Schultz as a bad father.” We are committed, once we have learned that the children do not feel this way, to the falsehood of this essential component of David’s work and thus to the inadequacy of the biography. The only way to argue, from this point forward, that the biography is an accurate one would be to argue that Schultz’s children are lying now but were not lying when David originally interviewed them. Care to explain to me how you might walk that fine line?

2) We can easily 7 years of research out of hand because of poor historical methodology, and we’ve sufficient argument for that much at least. We don’t need to say David is just lying if we instead say that he did not spend 7 years researching history but rather doing research in the service of a fictional narrative (just as an author of fiction might look for ways to embed their story into a psuedo-historical context. Example: Neil Stephenson’s “Cryptonomicon”). If you are deciding to buy a book on the basis of what it adds to your knowledge, then the evidence on the table suggests that David’s book adds nothing on a non-critical read-through, and may perhaps detract by generating false beliefs buffered by an appealing but historically wrong narrative. Just because it is a book with good reviews (by non-historians) does not mean you necessarily learn anything from it.

3&4) “Steering” history IS WRONG–the resulting narrative might be right, maybe, but it should in no way be taken as evidence for itself and this is exactly what steering does. Don’t even get me started on biographical films that try to force a narrative–this post is long and agitated enough.

In short: David’s methodology as a historian is poor no matter how you want to slice it. We could call him a liar, but Butterfield gives us a way to call him merely deluded. The Schultzes in any event should not be made to feel as if they must compile a counter-fiction in order to successfully demonstrate that David’s biography is shoddy work–David has accomplished that himself.

Dock Miles misses the mark YET again:

“Gee, I guess there won’t be anything that’s too defaming to say about Bill Watterson when his major bio comes out.”

-no one said that and perhaps Mr. Watterson will have the benefit of still being around before a book misrepresents him no?

“I like that slamming certain cartoonists who worshiped Charles Schulz (and were even longterm friends) has become a little sub-theme of these comments.”

Was Bill Watterson friends with Charles Schultz? no.
the fact is that they never met.

Anti-Semite or not, Disney did give information to McCarthy, and that is just as bad, if not worse, than anything he could’ve possibly believed.

McCarthy aside, this does remind me of that ‘Dark Prince of Hollywood’ book that came out a while ago. Disney did have feet of clay, but he still did more than that. Dark Prince felt like a fun loving half truth, as if Adolf Hitler ran the studio. Everyone has feet of clay, but this and the Shulz books feel as if they’re slanted to make a Deep Point About Our Heroes ™. I mean, what sounds jucier, that the creator of Peanuts was a cold hateful man or that the creator of Peanuts was exactly like everyone imagined him to be?

>But that’s exactly my point. These kind of “facts� don’t need any evidence in order to grow and thrive.

Of course, the most infamous Disney hooey is the cryogenically-frozen head routine. Seems to me the discussion about the Schulz biography does not concern such “facts.” This is a discussion about assertions that might confuse or mislead an intelligent, skeptical person with a standard grip on reality.

Monte, Amy and Jill-

I am so glad that you guys are speaking out. I was looking forward to reading this book, but I’ve been checking reviews, etc. just to make sure. Like some others have expressed here, your father was a major influence on my life. I’ve written much about Peanuts over on our site, I’ve read about your dad in many books (my favorites have been Good Grief and Conversations with…) and read many, many strips. Just in reading some of the initial reviews a red flag popped up. Even some of Sparky’s own comments in interviews seemed to contradict what I was reading about in these reviews. Then when I read your comments here, I realized what was wrong.

Like many biographers today, there seems to be an effort to fit the research within a theme. Many of the bios try to psychoanalyz their subjects and that is a selling point with many publishing houses. Also, as Monte probably knows the little dirty secret with reviewers is that it is rare when a review actually reads the entire book- and they rely heavily on pr matertial they receive with the book from the publishing house. Being involved in the history side of it, I personally know of reviewers who get 10 - 15 books to peer review for a quarterly journal and know that they aren’t even able to read the books from cover to cover. No one really could and teach, etc. Several history books have been reviewed that way, and because they fit an idealogically templete- reviewers read what they could and gave glowing reviews. Then when other reviewers or interested parties actually read the book and find the errors, the backtracking begins.

I can only echo others when I say that I would love to read a memoir by the family. And would love to thank, through you, your father for all the joy he brought into my life. I was a Charlie Brown growing up, and related to so much in the strip. I actually felt “not so alone” knowing Charlie Brown and the gang were around. My grandfather and I used to read the funnies together, and Peanuts was always his favorite too.

One other thing- Amy I can really understand your comment regarding the church and hugging. I am a member of the LDS church and wasn’t much of a hugger growing up myself. It is a part of the culture, because the church is family oriented and each Ward is almost like an extended family. It can take some getting used to for someone who isn’t used to all of that. I’ve seen some recent converts who have been surprised by it when they’ve never been that way. Which is not to say you are assulted by hugs - it’s just that Wards can tend to be close and friendly. I wasn’t much of a “hugger” but my family is- that’s just the way it goes.

As a side note- Amy I had read at one time that after you joined the Lds church, that your dad often discussed religion with you. I know that was a component of his life- is that true?

Schulz wrote an introduction for one of the Calvin & Hobbes treasuries, so they must have at least spoken to each other…

Maybe I’m in the minority of cartoonist but accuracy isn’t how history is written. There has never been an interesting biography written that isn’t flavored by the author’s opinion. Biographies are about building myths. What is more interesting Napoleon was an average height strategist who had good days and bad, or a short ruthless dictator who had to take over the world in order to prove something. No human is black & white; we are all shades of gray. I’m sure Schulz was as complicated as any man and similar to many other cartoonists. I haven’t read the Schulz book (although I really liked Michaelis’ N.C. Wyeth) but I plan on doing so when I have more time. I would just like to state if you want accuracy, read books on math and science but not history or biographies. Monte, history is written by the victors so you’ll just have to write the definitive book on your father at some point.

In the age of ‘tell all’ books where family members cash in tarnishing their famous parents, the fact Monte, Jill & Amy are so devoted & respecting of Schulz’s memory and fighting for the truth to be known is the clearest statement on what a good father he was!

I never had the honor of meeting Mr. Schulz but once when telling a mutual friend how much I enjoyed a Peanuts strip published on that day, my friend called back an hour later to tell he mentioned it to Schulz & that ‘Sparky’ set the original aside for me.

The best book to read is “Charles M. Schulz Conversations”, it’s a wonderful book & in the great man’s own words!

To Monte, Jill & Amy. You guys are awesome to speak up about this book. I wanted to pick this book up (Being a Schulz fan) but after reading all of this, I’m sorry but David is a horrible person for publishing this. Even if this was all true, he should have your guys consent on it. Nobody’s perfect in this world, and I’m sure your dad wasent but in my lifetime that man has done sooo much good that I have seen. I got to hang out with Bill Melendez a year ago for a day and he had some great things to say about Charles. Bill told me that Sparky still payes residuals for doing the voice of Snoopy (even to this day) He had a good laugh about that but that’s what kind of a person Charles was. Here’s a good question: Will this book be sold at the Charles Schulz Museum in Santa Rosa or the Cartoon art museum in SF CA? I hope not. Take care guys….

“Bill Watterson is still around! Wonder what he’s up to now.”

Not to start rumors, but I read somewhere that Bill paints every weekend and then burns every painting so the world may never see them. I don’t know how true this is, has anyone else heard of this?

I can’t believe that anyone still has doubts that this book is ridiculous. We have the family members actually writting in to state their case! After 6 years of writting a book, you’d think there wouldn’t be so many errors. If Monte listed off a laundry list of errors and still has many others to claim, I think it’s really clear that the book is more fiction than truth. How can anyone believe that this perception on Schultz from David is true if he presents so many errors?

I believe that there probably was a darker side to him and that it should be written about, but the fact that it’s presented as a full biography is ridiculous. Just as well, his children all agree that their father was more good than anything else as well as the people who knew him closest and including the man himself. In all that is written about Charles including his own personal reflections and interviews, he is not presented as a bad person or father. How can you read Peanuts or Lil’ Folks and think that he wasn’t a kind fella’?

The proof is in his humor and comics, this is his artform to express his very being. I didn’t know him at all, but I have to trust his children and close friends. They would absolutely know who and how he was. Why argue the idea? The sheer fact that so many little details are completely wrong is a good indicator that the biography is not well researched and written. I know every biography is going to have some errors and a different view on the person it’s written about; but to be so off base with the people who knew him the best is completely unreasonable.

Jason Geyer said: Bill, I used to work for Determined Prod. and you are right on the money. They cared very much about protecting Peanuts and making sure that Schulz was happy with the products, etc.

Jason, I’m ecstatic that you replied to this,