48. Charles M. Schulz

schulzbook.jpgUpdated 11/12: After the glow of reading this book wore off, and I looked into things a bit more, I’m of the opinion that this portrait of Charles Schulz is flawed in a fundamental way. His son Monte is quoted as calling the book “preposterous.” His daughter Amy declared that “the whole thing is completely wrong.” His wife, Jeannie, said that it’s “not a full portrait. Sparky was so much more. Most of the time he loved to laugh.”

While one could discount these statements as protective or overly biased, I think now that they are absolutely true. Although I came away from the book still thinking highly of Charles Schulz, and the author claims that the biography “comes out very strongly (that) this was a great artist,” it ultimately presents a lopsided and then condensed portrait of a sad man. Unfortunately, since the book is so well written and researched, that is the total picture many reviewers and readers are coming away with.

While I’d prefer to just delete it, I’m leaving most of my original review up…

Schulz and Peanuts, a biography by David Michaelis, is a compelling book about a remarkable person. Some dissatisfaction was expressed by several of Charles Schulz’s children upon reading the finished manuscript — that it didn’t focus more on his fun and funny side — but I found the book to be insightful, honest, and fair, with “Sparky” Schulz’s extremely kind and decent nature, as well as his immense creativity, shining through. The book does delve into the sense of aloneness and melancholy that permeated his very being, but as Schulz himself acknowledged, the strip probably couldn’t have existed without those feelings.

Charles Schulz was a genius of many contradictions. He lacked self-confidence and yet was supremely confident in his abilities as a cartoonist. He was reserved and avoided direct confrontation and yet was intensely competitive in everything he did. He pictured himself a loser and yet was motivated by an unshakable will to succeed and win — and he did.

Although he often imagined himself as unloved and uninteresting, people were captivated by his charm and quick wit. He was friendly and generous and I’ve never heard a cartoonist who didn’t have nice things to say about him. As for his art, professionals and the public were of one mind in revering the innovation, intelligence, simple beauty, and humor of his strip.

Of course, the great revelation of the book is in showing the direct connection between events in his life and events in the strip. Situations that he might have avoided dealing with in real life regularly resurfaced with the use of his pen — very clearly defined and with a clever dose of wit mixed in to bring them alive.

In short, I came into the book thinking Charles Schulz a genius. When I closed the book, I thought him even more so.


7 Responses to 48. Charles M. Schulz

  1. Patrick Merrell says:

    After some mulling, I’ve had some further thoughts…

    Can we be defined by what most people see of us — our outward behavior? Or are we really the inner feelings that only those closest to us, and we ourselves, are aware of? These questions pester me as I mull this book, whose take on Charles Schulz gravitated more toward the latter. Is that the true, full picture of what Charles Schulz was, and what his strip was?

    As I look through books of Peanuts strips, reminding myself of the full scope of what he created, I see much, much more going on than the impression I was left with from reading the book. The book is certainly riveting, well written, and exhaustively researched, and it adds greatly to the picture of Charles Schulz — but I’m left with the feeling that there’s just as much of the man missing as is presented.

  2. Sluggo says:

    Between your puzzles, your blog and your various works elsewhere, we know a lot about your inner workings, but there must be much of your inner man also not exposed to the public.
    Isn’t that how it should be? We don’t need to bare a man’s soul completely to admire him. Let it be.

  3. Jeannie says:

    Mr. Merrell, I am Charles Schulz widow, Jean. I enjoyed reading your perceptive take on Michaelis’ biography. Because of your previous “contact” with Mr. Schulz you obviously see through a lot of the judgementalism in the book.

    I will add 3 documents/emails which I have been given permission to forward. They may give you some insight into the errors of the book – many others of which I have found also.

    You talk about the “great revelation” of the connection of the strips “knowing” Mr. Schulz, through your brief correspondence, I assume you’ve seen or read interviews and heard him say “all the characters are part of me” – “everything I do or say or think goes into the strip”. I suggest you see the 60 minutes archive of August ’99 interview with Steve Croft for good information.

    Michaelis shows two strips that come from direct conversation. I can find many more after 26 years of marriage. However, it still is not as easy as “filling in the squares”.

    You might be interested to see Michaelis on Charlie Rose archives from 1999 an interesting take on biography.

    1) Notes from Abe Twerski, noted psychiatrist, Founder & Medical Director of Gateway Rehabilitation Center in Pittsburgh, author of more than 50 books…

    Someone said that history is essentially playing tricks on dead people.

    There is a plethora of books on psycho-history, trying to analyze people by investigating their writings, art or music, and gathering information about them from various sources. I have always been doubtful of the value of these. Heaven knows that when I have a real, live person sitting in front of me several times a week, it is a major challenge to make a valid assessment of the person’s psychological makeup. The validity of these post-mortem analyses is highly questionable.

    I don’t want to commit the same error. However, since much has been said about Charles Schulz, I wish to share my impression.

    For many years, I was impressed with Sparky’s uncanny psychological insights. I have said that he may well be one of the most insightful people this country has ever produced, and is reminiscent of Sigmund Freud’s statement that Dostoevsky knew more about the working of the unconscious mind than the entire psychoanalytic association. I used to display his cartoon strips under the heading of “Postgraduate Education” for psychiatric trainees to read. Eventually, I put these strips into four books, When Do the Good Things Start?, Waking Up Just in Time, I Didn’t Ask to Be in This Family, That’s Not a Fault, That’s a Character Trait, and one book in Japanese, What’s the Big Deal?

    I met with Sparky a number of times in long sessions. Some people are rather uncomfortable in my presence, fearful that I am studying them psychiatrically. Sparky was not the least bit uncomfortable. He readily admitted that he had an anxiety-panic disorder. “I can get a panic attack just walking into a hotel lobby,” he said. “Rather than going for treatment, I just try to avoid the things that are likely to trigger anxiety.”

    Not all cartoonists are comfortable with their work being interpreted psychologically and possibly reflecting on their personality. I mentioned this to Sparky, who laughed and said, “Go right ahead. If you do find anything about me which you think I should know, tell me. Just don’t expect to get paid as my psychiatrist.” However, I never did find anything like that.

    We talked about whether his cartoon characters reflected himself or others he knew. The answer to this came out when I showed him a strip and said, ”Sparky, do you realize what this strip says? Why, in these four frames you have encapsulated the whole ethos of our frenetic society!”

    In this strip, Sally wakes up Charlie Brown. “Wake up, big brother” she says. Charlie Brown sits up. “Wake up? What for?” he says. Sally says, “So you can get an early start.” Charlie says, “But I’m not going anywhere!” Sally says, “That’s a shame. You could’ve been the first one there.”

    Sparky smiled and said, “Abe, if I allowed myself to see everything that you see in my cartoons, it would paralyze me, and I wouldn’t be able to draw.” Note that he did not say that he could not see them, but rather that he did not allow himself to see them. It was necessary for him to block out all insights, and this holds true for whether the characters reflected himself or others.

    One time he said, “May I ask you a theological question?” I said, “Sure.” “Why do bad things happen to good people?” he asked.

    I said, “Sparky, no human being can really understand that. About all we can say in response to that question is something you’ve already said.”

    “I did?” Sparky asked.

    I then showed him a strip where Linus had built a very intricate castle out of sand on the beach. Suddenly, a torrent of rain washed the castle into the sea. Linus says, “There’s a message in this somewhere, but I don’t know what it is.” I’m a bit more than an amateur theologian, but I really don’t know if I can improve much on that.

    In my sessions with Sparky I saw him as a gentle, sensitive person. I watched him referee kids playing hockey. If, as someone claims, there was a “dark side” to Sparky, I certainly did not see it.

    Sparky was a proud person. I sat with him for about an hour just two days before his death. As a result of the stroke, he was unable to find certain words, and he would become tearful. He said, “Abe, I can’t take this.”

    Shortly thereafter he got up to leave, and said, “Abe, it’s been an honor having you as a friend.” It was only two days later that I realized he had said goodbye.

    2) EdAndersonLetter

    Letter to Schulz biographer: That’s not the Sparky I knew (Press Democrat, Santa Rosa, CA – November 11, 2007)


    Edwin C. Anderson Jr. is an attorney and a Santa Rosa resident.Editor’s note: Early in 2007, Santa Rosa attorney Edwin C. Anderson Jr., a longtime friend and legal adviser to cartoonist Charles Schulz, reviewed the manuscript of a soon-to-be-published biography of Schulz. What follows are excerpts from a letter in which Anderson responded to author David Michaelis. It is timely because of the controversy generated by the book and Michaelis’ appearance last week in Schulz’s hometown.

    Dear David:

    Writing a biography of someone with Sparky’s extraordinary success and popularity is not an easy task. I believe I have heard you say, and your interviews seem to support it, that everyone has his/her own Sparky.

    I knew Sparky well for almost four decades and was involved with him and Jeannie (his wife) in a variety of travels and events, and I agree with your observation. But I must tell you, David, that my Sparky is seldom to be found in a good part of your book. When he is, too often he is followed by negative comments that seem to be in support of your search referred to in the preface for the “cataclysm that had befallen him.”

    After you met with Jeannie in my office in January, I received a copy of your e-mails with Monte (Sparky’s son) in May 2004, in which he takes exception to your “melancholy, morose, sad and depressed” Sparky and gives detailed support for his father’s love of life. In your discussion with Jeannie, she made much the same point, that in your conversations you shared a positive view of Sparky and then contradict it in your text.

    After our meeting, I reviewed the preface, along with some of the other portions of the book. In it Sparky is introduced to his reader with concerns, cautioning that, although he may have “appeared” friendly or was “presented” as someone warm, comfortable, familiar and easy to love, a friend of the world, they would discover that the real Sparky was hidden from his millions of fans.

    You follow this with your introductory analysis: “all his life he felt alone, spending most of his adult-century yearning to be taken care of, to be understood,” asking why, and where had this begun? This and many similar questions and descriptions that recur throughout the manuscript overshadow the opinion held by many of us who knew him.

    Instead, you seem to rely on individuals whose acquaintance with Sparky was limited and often distorted by their needs.

    It was known, for instance, that Sparky had befriended Lynn Johnston (creator of the strip “For Better or Worse”) and supported and respected her as a cartoonist until she, by her own description, became something of a pest.

    Sparky was constantly put-upon by strangers or casual acquaintances asking favors — an original strip, or perhaps a signed copy of one or requests to attend some event, etc. I always thought, and still believe, that Sparky dealt with all of it extremely well. Considering the pressures on him, I was often amazed at his productivity and his discipline.

    The “friend” you cite who recognized that Sparky didn’t want to get too close to anybody is just wrong. Besides Jeannie and the children, he had many close friends whom he greatly enjoyed. He understood that everyone wanted to share him and let others know of their relationship. He accepted it because he was a great student of human nature. Did it upset him at times? I am sure it did, but he had his priorities and put them first.

    There are literally hundreds of stories about Sparky’s generosity and sensitivity to friends and strangers alike. Several weeks ago I had lunch with Kay Marquet (president and CEO of the Sonoma County Foundation) who brought along a new staff member, a woman who had gone to school in Japan, and in the fourth grade had a classmate who wanted to be a cartoonist. Because of the popularity of Peanuts in Japan, she wrote Sparky of her friend’s ambition. He responded by sending her a signed Charlie Brown drawing. Unfortunately, the next year the friend died, and this young woman told how, in her coffin, the friend had her arms around the Charlie Brown drawing she so cherished. Kay immediately followed with a story about Sparky picking up a substantial hospital bill for a friend whose treatment would otherwise have been denied.

    In the four months following Sparky’s announcement to the world that he had a terminal illness, he was gratified, and perhaps a little surprised, to realize how much he was loved and appreciated for his contribution, his creativity and the humor he gave the world. It would be both mistaken and tragic if, eight years later, your book asserted to the world that he was not the warm, insightful and generous person they had come to know through his works, but instead, a cold and lonely person who had somehow managed to mislead them all.

    I am writing this to you, David, not because I am angry with you. Nor do I feel I have been in some way betrayed by your efforts, since we were not in communication during the six years you have been working on the text. My comments are directed at what I believe is neither a fair, balanced or, perhaps worst of all, not a genuinely insightful picture of Sparky.

    During World War II, I served with Sparky Schulz in Company B, 8th Armored Division of the 20th Armored Division. For many years, I was the editor of our Army Company newsletter, PARADE REST. To provide information for the newsletter, I acquired copies of 4 diaries from men of Company B and 4 diaries from men of other units in the 20th Armored Division, contemporaneously recording our wartime activities. I made two trips to The National Achieves at Suitland, Maryland to gather a file of pertinent documents and made several trips to France and Germany, during which, I visited many of the places we had been during the war. I have been in contact with my Army buddies over the years. We have exchanged scores of letters and have had numerous conversations, in which we compared and/or corrected recollections. When one of my sons requested that I write my recollections of WWII, I combined much of my research in the form of a letter to him.

    In early 2001, Mrs. Jeannie Schulz asked me to cooperate with David Michaelis who was writing Sparky’s biography. Over a period of time, I sent Michaelis a MASS of data from the collection I listed above. I also supplemented this data with many emails and letters. In justice, I must say that Machaelis was very gracious in his thanks, commending me for the quality of my data and commented that he had benefited greatly from my work.

    When the book was published last month, I bought a copy and compared the book with the documents I provided.

    I was particularly disturbed by the spin he put to a story I told about an accidental shooting in which Sparky was involved. Sparky had told me the story in October, 1996. At the time, I wondered if he was telling me as the editor of the newsletter PARADE REST – or just sharing a war story with a fellow Company B veteran. I chose to believe the latter. I made notes of the conversation at the time but didn’t relate the story to anyone until after Sparky died. When Jeannie Schulz asked me to cooperate with Michaelis, I discussed the accidental shooting incident with her and let her decide if I should tell Michaelis. She assented and on May 2, 2004, I sent a letter to Michaelis, in which I wrote:

    “Shortly after Company “B” entered Salzburg, Austria (Either May 4th or May 5th, 1945) Sparky was rummaging through a German Army warehouse and found some pistols. About that time, an American Army officer entered the warehouse and proceeded to scold Sparky for being there. But then, the officer and Sparky recognized each other. Sparky, in his capacity as Information NCO, had worked with that particular officer. The officer told him he could take one pistol.

    “Later, Sparky and another man in his squad, (now deceased) were sitting on the porch of a house. Sparky was occupying himself examining the newly acquired pistol. There was an American Army medic (identifiable by the circle and cross on his helmet) across the street. Sparky was unaware that there was a live round in the pistol chamber. Sparky said very slowly: ‘I aimed very carefully at that helmet and pulled the trigger very slowly.’ Then he continued with the words coming faster: ‘I don’t remember hearing the sound of the shot but felt the pistol recoil.’ Fortunately the bullet just grazed the medic’s cheek.”

    “As he said this Sparky brushed his cheek with the tips of his fingers. I don’t remember whether he used his right or left hand so I don’t know whether it was the medic’s right or left cheek.

    “Sparky said the medic and a sergeant who was with him apparently had no business being in the area. After expressing their anger at Sparky, they quickly left. It was the last Sparky saw or heard of them.

    “Sparky concluded – and I don’t recall the exact words, but it was essentially – I’ve often thought how my life might have changed if that bullet had hit a few inches away.”

    In his own inimitable and confusing way Michaelis reported this incident on pages 148 and 149. But it is buried under a plethora of asides. My 180 words – down through “the bullet just grazed the medic’s cheek.” – were exploded into over 400 words. So that is his style! Fine! But in garnishing the story, he included two factual errors – which I will discuss later. He ignored completely the paragraph that ended “It was the last Sparky saw or hear of them.” It did not fit into the spin he chose to add to the story. He wrote: “The bullet ‘grazed the medic’s cheek’ but luckily did no serious harm.” Then, he added this spin:

    “But this did not free Schulz from an unending burden of guilt, if anything, it intensified it. He had held a man’s life in his hands – a comrade’s – and could easily have killed him without purpose or meaning.” To support his guilt theory, Michaelis, in his next paragraph, suggests that Sparky acknowledged this “unending burden of guilt” by speaking through one of PEANUTS characters: “Twelve years later, Linus, in a philosophical mode, addressed the question of accountability: ‘Why do I do stupid things? Why don’t I think? What’s the matter with me? Where’s my sense of responsibility?’…Enough said; I let the reader judge.

    Besides his propensity for spin, the author is careless with facts. I can speak only of the errors about which I am knowledgeable, more specifically, those on pages 143 through 152. For simplicity, I list the errors in the order in which they appear without giving weight to their respective seriousness:

    Page 143, bottom paragraph. The author relates that Sparky spent time “at the Chateau de Malvoisine – the Castle of the Bad Neighbor Woman.
    That should be Chateau du Mal Voisin – Castle of the Bad Neighbor. The chateau was featured in two of Schulz’s films. You can read the story line of the first, “Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown (and Don’t Come Back!!) at Wikipedia online. The second film, “What Have We Learned, Charlie Brown?” is also briefly described on Wikipedia. I offered to loan my copies of these films to Michaelis. He emailed me that he had copies…Of note is that “What Have We Learned, Charlie Brown?” was given a Peabody Award for “distinguished achievement and meritorious public service” in broadcasting. Michaelis chose not to acknowledge this achievement.

    Page 144, 2nd paragraph, speaking of the time he was billeted at a Château in France, Sparky “came across a man in his squad, the rural Floridian Frank Diefenwierth, outside the chateau, sketching the vine-covered castle wall and gate post.”
    When I was editor of PARADE REST, our Army Company newsletter, I received a copy of that sketch. I planned to copy the sketch in the newsletter. But first, I tried to determine who drew it. On January 6, 1987, I wrote Sparky enclosing a copy of the sketch and inquired whether he drew it.. He wrote back, in a letter dated January 9, 1987 saying that he did not draw the picture. He remembered going out into the field one day and seeing a fellow making a drawing. They talked about it for a few minutes but Sparky didn’t remember who he was. He would certainly recall if it had been Diefenwoerth, who was in his squad.
    On April 6, 2001, I sent Michaelis copies of my 1/6/87 letter and Sparky’s 1/9/87 reply…Incidentally, it was later determined that our company mail clerk drew the sketch.

    Page 146, paragraph 3. The author says: “There was no eye contact with the enemy until, on April 29…”
    Several documents that were provided to Michaelis showed that we encountered our first heavy action at the town of Nordlingen on April 25.

    Page 146, bottom paragraph, the author says: “Barreling toward the Amper, the First Platoon, farthest forward, had advanced nearly to the end of the road.”
    How do you barrel through a massive traffic jam? In the previous paragraph, he had correctly reported that after the Americans seized one bridge across the Amper River, four American Army divisions tied up in a spectacular traffic jam.

    Page 148, 3rd paragraph: “Everyone seemed to have acquired pistols…of every make and caliber,“ a man in Schulz’s company later wrote. Another remembered May 5, 1945 – only three days shy of VE Day and in no serious contact with the enemy – as among the scariest he spent overseas. In the Eight Armored Battalion’s Bravo Company alone, no fewer than four men managed to shoot either comrades or themselves.”
    Sounds very dramatic but it didn’t happen that way. Michaelis is quoting (but distorting) a letter I sent to my son, detailing my service in the Army. I wrote: “Everyone seemed to have acquired pistols; they were of every make and caliber. Some of the guns were mishandled…I know of one incident where a guy in our Company wounded a soldier in another outfit; and at least three incidents were men in our Company wounded themselves or were wounded by one of their buddies.” The first incident was, of course, the incident with Sparky that happened on May 5th. The other three happened over the next ten weeks – not on that scariest of days, May 5th.

    Page 149: Michaelis wrote: “Across the street, the medic from another platoon was talking to a sergeant.”
    The medic was not from another platoon in our company, or indeed, from the 20th Armored Division. He was from another outfit completely, probably the 45th Infantry Division, that came into Salzburg about the same time.

    Page 151: “On July 27, Sparky sailed for home on an overcrowded troopship, tying up I New York harbor eleven day later, Tuesday, August 7, 1945.”
    Per several documents provided to Michaelis, the troopship landed on August 6, 1945, the same day the first atomic bomb was dropped.

    Page 152: After landing in New York, Sparky traveled to St. Paul. The author continued: “Walking into the Family Barber Shop, he set down his duffel. Carl was working on a customer. ‘Well,’ Sparky announced, ‘that’s it’ His father went on cutting hair”.
    Sounds pretty cold! But that unemotional homecoming did not happen on Sparky’s return form Europe in August, 1945. The story was lifted from Rheta Grimsle6y Johnson’s book, GOOD GRIEF, page 55 in which she says that after Sparky was discharged from the Army (In January, 1946): “Schulz returned to St. Paul a civilian, took the streetcar to his father’s barber-shop, walked in and in Schulz-family fashion said simply, “Well, That’s it.”

    This is a different situation. By January, 1946, the war was over. Sparky had been home for a thirty day recuperation furlough in August-September, a forty-five day “convenience of the government” furlough in November – extending into December, had not been in harms way and was now discharged. He walked into the barbershop to tell his father that he was out of the Army but in a way that would not involve a customer in family matters. What better way was there to communicate that message from son to father than to say “Well, That’s it.”

    Page 152: The author spends a half page dwelling on the lack of parades or celebration over the war’s end, scenes of subtle forms of reserve repeated on Main Streets all over the country. Evidently, Michaelis never saw the very famous LIFE MAGAZINE cover for the issue following the Japanese surrender – the one with the sailor kissing the nurse on Times Square. THAT was the scene repeated all over the country. I was there and I know how happy everyone was – and how they showed it.
    Sparky, and the rest of Company B of the 8th Armored Infantry Battalion did participate in a parade – at Los Angeles in the autumn of 1945. It was the Saturday that U.C.L.A played Oregon. All the services participated in the parade, the Army, Navy and Marines. For whatever reason, Company B was one of the units selected to represent the Army. We rode from Camp Cook, California to the Los Angeles area in trucks, camped in a school yard in Santa Monica – and on the given day – marched through the down town streets of Los Angeles. As trained infantry, we were proud of our marching skill. Smartly attired in dress uniforms and accompanied by an army band, we marched, in arrow straight rows and in perfect step. The crowds roared their approval…That night the participating servicemen received complementary tickets to the U.C.L.A. vs. Oregon football game. Sitting across from the student section, we watched the students switching colored squares to show the animation of a bear (The U.C.L.A. Bruins) shoot a duck (The Oregon Ducks).
    Nothing justifies the author’s contention that Sparky’s homecoming lacked celebration and parades. Bottom line to all this, the author didn’t research his data; or when he had the correct data, he ignored it or distorted it.

    Other items might seem petty but again, reflect his lack of research or ignoring research.
    Item: He frequently referred to Company B as Bravo Company. The so-called phonetic alphabet – Alpha, Bravo etc. wasn’t instituted until sometime in the 1950’s. During WWII, the alphabet used for radio and telephone communications only was Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog, Easy, Fox. But in normal communication, it was always Company B. (As in The Andrews Sisters classic song, “The Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy Form Company B.”)
    Item: He refers to the 20th Armored Division as The Liberators. This nickname wasn’t used until the 1970’s, after the 20th Armored Division Association was formed.
    Item: Page 145, 2nd paragraph, the author speaks of the names soldiers gave their squad halftracks, the “vehicles dubbed Salty Baldy, Sidownbud, Snowballs N All, Big Surprise, Stardust, and (Schulz’s own) Sparky” (Underscore added)
    Michaelis was given a copy of the July, 1987 B Company newsletter, PARADE REST, which reported: “While at Camp Campbell, the Company B vehicles had names beginning with the letter B. Some names selected by the drivers were: Bloody Bucket, Bucket of Bolts, Beats Me, Berlin Blitz, Big Surprise, Beatuprec. In Europe, the vehicles had names beginning with the letter S, such as: Sidownbud, Sugar, Snowballs N All, Salty Baldy, Stardust.“

    These errors are found in just a few pages of the text that I am familiar with. If one were to extrapolate, the conclusion would be that there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of factual errors – negating the many conclusions the author makes.

  4. WOW- Good Grief!!-I am humbled to be allowed to comment-I am 67- grew up with peanuts-but really didn’t pay much attention until I became involved with CCI and visited their HQ in 1991 and was told of Mrs. Schultz wonderful involvement CCI-
    and was told she was Charles’s wife-and he had given CCI many unpublished strips to auction off for CCI-so I really became a fan and read as much as I could about Mr. Schultz-My, of course, unfounded, but heart felt thought- He kept his love of SPIKE alive via the strip. Hence the “Happiness is a warm puppy” comment-
    Now my thoughts on the book-Good? Bad? I my opinion his art/strip told who he was-No book can 100% capture what is in a person’s heart. In my mind his heart was as pure as a blanket of Minnesota snow!!!
    Thanks for allowing me to post this.
    Jeff Golightly

  5. Malc says:

    I often wished, during Schulz’s lifetime, that I knew more about his character – who he was. Instead, he came across as a reclusive, protected and reluctant speaker, an enigma. That seemed to suit him and his family.

    For many of us cartoonists who would have liked to have met the man, this book is all we will have. Whether it gives an exact picture or not, it nevertheless must be a great deal closer to the truth than what was out there before, namely zilch.

  6. code de la route…

    […]48. Charles M. Schulz « Pat Tricks[…]…

  7. Philippe, psychiatrist training…

    […]48. Charles M. Schulz « Pat Tricks[…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: