I did what I promised myself I wouldn’t do, and I called in to “Stu’s Show” on Shokus Internet Radio to talk to Monte Schulz and Mark Evanier about the David Michaelis biography, Schulz and Peanuts. To my amazement I think I didn’t completely blow it, but that’s only because of the topic and the fact I’ve already had some contact with these fine gentlemen.
I will not be posting an audio excerpt from the show until it’s no longer being played on Shokus Internet Radio. The good news is, you have plenty of opportunities to hear it between now and next Tuesday. It will be repeated every evening at 7 PM ET.
I really want you to listen to the entire program, so I won’t even tell you where in it I make my appearance. In fact, I was going to hang up after Monte answered my question, but I was glued to the phone and as a result was able to sneak in an extra comment. Even after that, I was so engrossed in what I heard I again forgot to hang up for a little while!
To my embarrassment, I didn’t say thank you! Many thanks go to Stu Shostak, Mark Evanier, and Monte Schulz.
Thanks so very much for the opportunity to speak with you, Monte! Very much appreciated.
I wanted to pitch a direct quote from the book so you could knock that ball out of the park and precisely drive home how Michaelis has taken things out of context and/or flat-out misrepresented them, especially in relation to the “cold, distant dad” characterization. As only you could explain, there is a huge difference between saying “ONE time he hugged me” and having that come out as, “the ONLY time he hugged me.”
I suggested people should look at the book as a way of saying, “Go ahead and see for yourself that Monte Schulz is right about this!” The quote I read was from page 405, and it was at that point I admit I got very bogged down. So did my like-minded friend Dennis, whose knowledge and tolerance dwarf my own. It just gets to be too much, after a while. Will either of us finish the book? I don’t know. It’s like a dream where you can’t move your feet no matter how hard you try. I just don’t feel like picking up the book again.
The “Stu’s Show” program came together pretty well, I thought. I was lucky to jump in when I did, and it was great (I say “great” a lot) that Lee Mendelson was able to join the conversation. But my concern was that once he was there the calls would shift gears from your father and the criticism of the book to more typically “fannish” questions about the TV shows. And although that did happen, it emphasized the love and appreciation that people have for Peanuts.
The Michaelis e-mails are great ammunition. Nothing could be better than to use his own words to point out his self-contradictions. I now fully appreciate what you mean about the book saying more about Michaelis than about your father.
Once again I offer my thanks, Monte. And y’know, the suggestion made earlier in the program that Brian Sibley (who is also with Harper Collins) be asked to write another biography of Charles M. Schulz might be an idea worth considering.
I was pleased you called in on the radio and that was a terrific question! I didn’t get a chance to thank you for all your postings on this site, and for letting me be part of this here. So thanks! During the show today, I quoted from emails I got from David Michaelis, and these two comments are the most interesting, and intriguing, I think now, to consider when talking about the book. The first speaks (against!) his use of the strip to comment on, and confirm, what David indicates is occuring in Dad’s life at the time he’s writing a particular strip:
“Monte, I know, I know: your father didn’t draw from life; and I’m not looking for a one-to-one match-up here; and the reader probably can’t finally understand art any better by knowing the conditions of the life of the artist—ideally, art has to be understood on its own terms.”
And this sort of sums up (and denies) what his intentions were in how he wrote and constructed and directed his biography.
“I’m sure you must know that my aim for this book is to tell the most complete, fully-rounded account of your father’s life.”
Regarding the above, it’s pretty clear that somewhere along the line, David changed his mind about the focus of his book, because he really did leave out far too much to ever have this book considered a “complete, fully-rounded account of [my] father’s life.”