21 November 1982 strip

[Tim Chow]

I was looking at the 21 November 1982 strip in the Complete Peanuts,
featuring Peppermint Patty and Marcie. There are two panels that
strike me as being in "the wrong order." Marcie yanks the binder
hard, much to Peppermint Patty's distress, and then Peppermint Patty
is seen sitting calmly at her desk commenting about how the binder is
stuck.

Long ago, I noticed this anomaly in "Let's Party, Charlie Brown" and
"Kiss Her, You Blockhead," and assumed that this was just a reprinting
error. But now that the Complete Peanuts also displays the same panel
ordering, I'm wondering: Could this really have been Schulz's intended
panel ordering after all? It seems hard to believe.

I tried contacting the Schulz Museum to see if they owned the
original, but they didn't own it, nor did they have any further
information.

Any opinions?

---
Tim Chow

[Pierre Dubuc]

Post by Tim Chow
I was looking at the 21 November 1982 strip in the Complete Peanuts,
featuring Peppermint Patty and Marcie. There are two panels that
strike me as being in "the wrong order." Marcie yanks the binder
hard, much to Peppermint Patty's distress, and then Peppermint Patty
is seen sitting calmly at her desk commenting about how the binder is
stuck.

[...]

Post by Tim Chow
Any opinions?

The panel right after Marcie yanks the binder shows two "pain stars"
above Peppermint Patty's head. The yank happened while Peppermint Patty
was talking, and it actually interrupted her sentence.

I think it's intentional on Schulz's part.

I think Marcie makes a second attempt at untangling the binder, and that
is simply not shown.

And just to be clear about what sequence everyone sees, my copy of the
Complete Peanuts matches exactly what I see here:

http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1982/11/21

[Tim Chow]

Post by Pierre Dubuc
The panel right after Marcie yanks the binder shows two "pain stars"
above Peppermint Patty's head. The yank happened while Peppermint Patty
was talking, and it actually interrupted her sentence.
I think it's intentional on Schulz's part.
I think Marcie makes a second attempt at untangling the binder, and that
is simply not shown.

O.K., I can see what you're saying. It still looks a little odd to
me, but at least now I can believe that this was indeed Schulz's
intent.

Thanks for your input!

---
Tim Chow