Magazine Review: Life-Peanuts

When I saw this on the magazine rack at Wal-Mart, I had to have it.  There was no question because I am a huge fan of Peanuts.  Even the cashier thought it was cool.  I have a large number of the old Fawcett Crest books.  You used to be able to find these in every used bookstore.  They’re long gone now.  I have some memorabilia in various forms.  I’ve got a small Snoopy doll and some die cast character cars and probably some other stuff I’m forgetting. 

 

My review of the magazine is as follows: this thing sucks.  I could get used to these quick reviews.  Publishers are making it too easy for me.  I guess I’ll expound.  We’ll start with the most obvious fault: the price.  This 96-page magazine was $15.  That’s not so much a factor of inflation as it’s just a “Sucker Special.”  Even before I bought it, I was pretty sure I wasn’t going to get $15 worth of enjoyment or enlightenment from it.  I really like magazines (on subjects I’m interested in), but if $15 and more is the new price point, I may not be adding much to this category in the future.  (And good luck getting me or anybody else to pay for digital-only copies at the same price.)

 

I can somewhat praise the magazine for its accuracy in reporting the strip itself.  I recognized so many of the offhand comments about storylines and jokes.  There were also some that I didn’t.  I sort of doubted them, but given the absurd sort of storylines and gags I remembered, I’m sure they were true.  (I’ve found out that those Fawcett Crest books actually truncated quite a bit, so no doubt I missed out on some strips.)  This was also a huge fault of the magazine.  Whether familiar with the material or not, just mentioning all of these incidents and only showing a handful of them was nearly criminal.  It was a tease to the faithful and likely just bewildering to the uninitiated. 

 

If you think my analysis is overbearing and high-handed (you haven’t even read the rest of this yet), I’ve got nothing on the pronouns-in-the-bio crowd who wrote this magazine.  If you always felt you needed a modern woke interpretation of Peanuts, this is a nice primer, and though it’s so short, you’ll be left begging for more.  Or begging for it to end, like I was.  Just to nitpick a bit, I’d like to think my vocabulary is decent, but there were a half dozen words used in the text that sent me to the dictionary.  Or would have if I gave a crap about looking up really obscure words.  (Robert Heinlein’s Number of the Beast did that to me years ago on the first page of the book.  It wasn’t worth the effort.  I didn’t even finish the book it was so bad.)    

 

This isn’t the first psychological/religious/social analysis of the strip (and won’t be the last, since a new one is mentioned in the text).  I actually own two of them. What’s It All About, Charlie Brown?  Looks just like a regular Fawcett Crest book at first glance, but does have a disclaimer on the cover that reads, “This is a different kind of Peanuts book.”  The Gospel According to Peanuts is cited in the magazine.  These were both produced in the 60’s.  Both used numerous full strips to illustrate points.  This magazine uses only panels that mostly barely relate to the text. 

 

The worst fallacy of the commentary was the repeated assertion that Peppermint Patty and Marcie are a lesbian couple.  Outside of a running gag on the old Jim Rome radio show (which was funny), this claim doesn’t even deserve a serious rebuttal.  The girls only flirted with Charlie Brown, who, in typical fashion didn’t get what was going on.  Charles Schulz was quoted as saying that the girls’ friendship would probably only break up over him.  He also dismissed any such alt overtones.  There is a perpetual need for validation within the “community” that can’t believe that two people of the same sex could possibly be friends without any desire to be physically intimate.  (How’s that for psychoanalysis?)     

 

Another faulty assumption of the magazine was that the strip fell off in quality in the 70’s because Schulz was softening the strip to be more licensing friendly.  This is incorrect.  The strips were funny, vibrant, and inventive through the 80’s.  In the 90’s, it did drop off.  The lines started getting shaky.  The stories and gags started becoming flat, unimaginative, and even indulgent.  None of this had anything to do merchandising.  Schulz had gotten older and run out of some creative juice.  It was only near the end when he rediscovered Lucy and Linus’ little brother, Rerun, that the strip was revitalized, kind of like when Peppermint Patty was introduced to the cast in the 70’s.  Exposure to his grandkids probably rejuvenated his sharp sense of humor. 

 

I keep hearing “aficionados” of Peanuts speak of their love of the 50’s and 60’s crueler vein of humor in the strip.  Peanuts has always thrived on the misfortunes, thwarted desires, and unkindness of its characters.  I think the characters “outgrew” being senselessly mean to others, as perhaps Schulz got his own sense of alienation out of his system creatively.  It was too one-note to last like that.  The characters had to be able to show some other feelings and emotions in unexpected ways to become three-dimensional.  Longer and more complicated stories could then be written with such characters.  This wasn’t a fault or compromise, it was necessary and beneficial.

 

I question this “love” of the “true fans” altogether.  There was a Peanuts special a few years ago, Happiness is a Warm Blanket, Charlie Brown.  It was clearly based on the 60’s material.  It was edgy and ended with Linus lambasting all the other characters in an epic rant.  These same people, the critics, hated it.  They got what they wanted and didn’t like it.  I thought it was great, but I was apparently the only one.  This feature has been nearly completely memory-holed.    

 

As for the magazine contents, the magazine has a couple of essays (useless), a bio on Schultz, a couple of articles on the Christmas and Halloween specials, character studies on the main characters (Violet gets two pages, Rerun is never mentioned or shown), and an article on the merchandising.  There are plenty of comic panel illustrations and some photos of Schulz.

 

I did learn some things.  The original strip title of Lil’ Folks was changed by the syndicate because of a rights issue.  Lucy and her relationship to Schroder was somewhat based on Schultz’s ex-wife and his relationship with her.  He’d also cheated on her.  I probably didn’t need to know that gossip detail. 

This photo was historically significant as Charles Schulz gave Snoopy statues to the Apollo 10 crew and California governor, Ronald Reagan.

I actually saw one of these Snoopy dolls in person as a kid in the 70’s.  It was at a second-hand store here in town.  I wanted it, but my parents thought the owner was asking too much for it.  This might have been within ten years after it was made.  There’s no telling what it’s worth now. 

 

I’ve heard about these figures.  They’re big time collectables.  Schroder with the piano is, I think, the most valuable.  The figure above Linus is a strangely squeaky-clean Pigpen.

 

Speaking of Pigpen, Schulz said he kind of resented the character’s popularity.  He was just supposed to be a kind of a one-shot, but people kept demanding continued appearances.  There is something iconic about him.

This is a strip I hadn’t seen before.  I wish I knew the rest of the story.  I collected three volumes of the Complete Peanuts series by Fantagraphics.  If I’d had somewhere to put 25 volumes, I would have.

 

Okay, what to do with this thing?  Demand my money back in a huff?  Tempting.  I actually gave away that Captain America magazine because I disliked the text, but I still thought it had value for a fan of character.  (I gave it to a co-worker who was such a fan.)  I can’t even give this away to a fan, because it’s so terrible.  (And don’t let kids anywhere near this thing.)  It still may find a home somewhere else.  I’m a Peanuts fan and that’s why I don’t want to keep this.  Somebody stop me before I buy any more tribute or art magazines.