Fans of Snoopy and his creator Charles M. Schulz should be outraged. I know I am. I have loved that adorable white beagle since I was a young girl (as the only sister in a house full of boys I earned the nickname “Lucy” for trying to boss my brothers around). And now, decades later my own daughter is an enormous Peanuts fan. Her room is filled with Snoopy furnishings and decorations. Which is why I was so upset to hear about a new biography, which depicts Schulz as a “driven, unhappy, and rather cold man, distant even from his wives and children.” What’s more upsetting is the fact that Schulz is dead and can’t defend himself. That leaves his kids to do the work for him.
Members of the Schulz family having been making the rounds on various talk shows speaking out about the way their father is portrayed in “Schulz and Peanuts,” by David Michaelis. Schulz’s children call the contents of the book “false and inaccurate.”
Schulz’s daughter Amy Schulz Johnson told news reporters that not only is the family outraged, but they are also severely disappointed by Michaelis’ manipulative moves. Schulz Johnson said Michaelis is a well-known author and the family trusted him to tell an honest and compelling story about the man they truly loved. Instead, Schulz Johnson says Michaelis betrayed them.
“We trusted him, and invited him into our homes, and shared a lot of what we felt (were) sacred things with him, things that we feel and things that we had in our home,” Schulz Johnson told reporters. “And it’s very upsetting now.”
Schulz Johnson maintains Michaelis put a negative spin on all of the stories the family shared with him and “he psychoanalyzes my dad and every relative, and my mom, and paints a picture of our family … like we had this terrible family and our life wasn’t very good, and … dad was cold and distant. And it was totally opposite of how we all grew up.”
In the book Michaelis claims Schulz wasn’t affectionate and never said, “I love you.”
Schulz Johnson says that’s preposterous. Schulz and his wife had five children and each one has made a point to publicly state that their father is nothing like the man depicted in Michaelis’ biography. Schulz’s kids describe their father as open and loving. Adds Schulz Johnson: “I didn’t even know had a job. … All he did was pay attention to his five kids and played baseball with my brothers and hang out with my little sister and I. And when we’d go to visit him in his studio, he worked where we lived, we’d go and visit him, he’d put his pen down or sit and talk to us or play ball with the boys or hang out with all our friends.”
Even more painful, according to Schulz Johnson, is the fact that despite sharing intimate family moments with Michaelis “there’s still a wonderful story about a wonderful man that is completely untold now. And I think that’s a shame, that we waited seven years to hear a story told and it’s untold.”
The book’s author declined to comment about the biography. But his publisher, Harper Collins, issued a statement saying in part, ” ‘Schulz and Peanuts’ is a masterful poetry of a complicated and beloved American genius. Monty Schulz was given an opportunity to correct factual inaccuracies and declined to do so.”
Monty Schulz is Charles Schulz’s son who says he declined the opportunity to correct those factual inaccuracies “because these are just factual details, but they’re not personal. And, yes, we could help David correct the factual errors, and then he would leave the whole negative twist to the book, and they would be able to say, ‘Well, they corrected the book,’ when, in fact, he wasn’t willing to correct the feeling that came across in the book. That would be impossible.”
I haven’t read the book, but if it is causing that much pain to the family of the man whose talent has brought me so much pleasure then I’m not sure I want to. What would drive Michaelis to cast Schulz in such a negative light? Did he think he would attract more readers if he exposed a dark side to a man who spent his life trying to make others laugh? In my opinion, Michaelis is going to have a tough time convincing readers that the man they’ve known for years as a docile Charlie Brownish figure was actually a cold hearted individual. I think Schulz’s work speaks volumes for the man that he was and I hope his children gain some solace from that.