MAD Magazine Peanuts parody (?)

[t***@lsa.umich.edu]

Some time ago in alt.comics.peanuts we discussed the September 1964 issue
of MAD Magazine (#89) and in particular whether the strip therein attributed
to Schulz was really drawn by Schulz.

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=20040116234120.22897.00000157%40mb-m04.aol.com

Although I suspect that this strip is a parody, just like all the other
MAD parodies of Peanuts, others have insisted that it is a genuine Schulz
drawing. The uncertainty has been nagging me and I am trying to figure
out how to settle the issue.

It occurred to me just recently that the first thing to check would be
to see if the article in question credits a "writer" and/or an "artist,"
since the other MAD parodies I've seen do so. Unfortunately I don't
own a copy of MAD #89. Would some kind soul who does have access to a
copy please take a look and post his or her findings?

[Jym Dyer]

=v= It was drawn by Schulz, and the others by their artists,
including the Milton Caniff/Mell Lazarus collaboration!
The feature was reprinted in _MAD_About_Comic_Strips_:

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?isbn=1401200958

This was published last December and can still be found in
book stores.
<_Jym_>

[John Smith]

When I saw this post I raced home to fire up my PC and check my
Totally Mad Collection on CD (ok, I need a life but this was one of my
favorite gifts from a few years back) anywho, when you go to Issue
#89 and go to the article "Comics Strips They'd Really Like to Do"
you get the error message "Sorry! For some fershlugginer reason , we
were unable to include the article you've selected in this CD
collection. If you really want to see it, you'll need to do it the
old fashinoned way - buy the magazine!" This leads me to believe that
it was done by the original artists and they did not get the
permission from one or all to include in the CD format.

That being said I can get back to my life now. Just where did I put
those Cheetos?

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= It was drawn by Schulz, and the others by their artists,
including the Milton Caniff/Mell Lazarus collaboration!
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?isbn=1401200958
This was published last December and can still be found in
book stores.
<_Jym_>

[Poisonmail]

<< This leads me to believe that it was done by the original artists and they
did not get the permission from one or all to include in the CD format. >>

I don't have the CD set (desperately looking for it, in fact), but I remember
hearing that this message was used whenever a rights issue involved the work of
an outsider, like with Andy Griffith material and such, so I guess that's
pretty much confirmation that the original artists were involved. It's enough
for me, anyway.

Didn't Sergio Aragones talk at the CMS Museum recently?




n.

http://www.dusty-books.com

[t***@lsa.umich.edu]

Post by Poisonmail
I don't have the CD set (desperately looking for it, in fact), but I
remember hearing that this message was used whenever a rights issue
involved the work of an outsider, like with Andy Griffith material
and such, so I guess that's pretty much confirmation that the original
artists were involved. It's enough for me, anyway.

This fact, along with the absence of an "artist" and "writer" credit,
is certainly good evidence that the original artists drew the strips.

On the other hand, the texts and the comics themselves---which I've
seen now thanks to Doug Gilford's site that someone kindly posted a
link to:

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

---seem to me to point to the opposite conclusion. Could MAD really have
gotten all those artists to lambast themselves? Did Mort Walker really
say, "It made me realize how lucky I am doing a strip for a living where
it's not necessary to know how to draw!"? Any single one of these texts
taken in isolation, I could perhaps believe was an instance of a comic
strip artist being unusually and surprisingly modest and self-satirical,
but five of them together with the same kind of satire that is the
signature of MAD humor---well, I just have to wonder.

Plus, some of the artwork seems clearly inauthentic, e.g., the Charlie
Brown next to Schulz's photo.

So, I still feel uncertain as to what's going on here. Perhaps MAD
photocopied portions of real comics without permission and this got
them into copyright trouble later? For example, Schulz's signature
looks genuine. And what about the first "Steve Canyon" panel? I haven't
seen enough of that strip to know, but does it look like Milt Caniff's
own work?

[Jym Dyer]

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
This fact, along with the absence of an "artist" and "writer"
credit, is certainly good evidence that the original artists
drew the strips.

=v= Indeed, and note that in other _MAD_About_Comic_Strips_
strip parodies, they *never* sign a creator's name, but will
instead use a pun or lampoon. In these, though, you have
the cartoonists' actual signatures in their own handwriting.
(Walt Kelarus did some lampooning of his own, though it's in
his own handwriting.)

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
On the other hand, the texts and the comics themselves---which
I've seen now thanks to Doug Gilford's site that someone

http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/strip1.jpg
http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/strip2.jpg
http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/strip3.jpg
http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/strip4.jpg

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
---seem to me to point to the opposite conclusion. Could MAD
really have gotten all those artists to lambast themselves?

=v= Why not? It's all really funny. And the artwork is pretty
clearly that of the artists who signed the strips. _MAD_ had
some pretty excellent parody artists, but one could always
tell whose line was whose (Wally Wood and especially Bill Elder
could both do nearly-exact parody, but they do retain their
distinctive panel composition (when Kurtzman didn't do the
roughs, that is) and trademark snuck-in gags).

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
Plus, some of the artwork seems clearly inauthentic, e.g.,
the Charlie Brown next to Schulz's photo.

=v= I think that's the only inauthentic in that one spot
illustration and (perhaps) the spot illo of _Beetle_Bailey_.
The stuff in panels looks authentic to me.

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
And what about the first "Steve Canyon" panel? I haven't
seen enough of that strip to know, but does it look like
Milt Caniff's own work?

=v= It sure does!
<_Jym_>

[t***@lsa.umich.edu]

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= Why not? It's all really funny.

It's funny, but in my opinion it is MAD-style funny, and is not at all the
sense of humor of the artists in question (though Schulz is the only one
where I have a really solid sense of this).

Post by Jym Dyer
And the artwork is pretty
clearly that of the artists who signed the strips.

I didn't mention this before, but the Schulz strip doesn't look like his
artwork to me. I grant that the grass looks like his. Some of the letters
look odd, especially the "G" of the "SIGH." The method of shading the
center of the flower is unlike anything I've seen Schulz do. I admit that
I can't swear that it *isn't* Schulz. But even you grant that the Charlie
Brown isn't his. How do you explain that? Why would they insert an
inauthentic Charlie Brown if everything else was authentic? And the fact
that they didn't give artist credit to the inauthentic Charlie Brown makes
the absence of artist credit seem less significant to me.

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
And what about the first "Steve Canyon" panel? I haven't
seen enough of that strip to know, but does it look like
Milt Caniff's own work?

=v= It sure does!

I see...so you think that they collaborated on that strip. I guess I can
believe that.

What I'm starting to believe is that MAD magazine had the concept
of the article, sketched out the text and the cartoons, but invited
the cartoonists to complete the article by doing the actual drawings.
Those who were good-humored enough to participate in their own satire
complied with the request.

Which of the cartoonists in question are still alive and are likely
to respond if I write to them asking about this article?

[Confabulat]

People, people. I'm old enough to remember when this came out, ye
gads!

First off, that looks like an authentic Charlie Brown to me...he
looked like that in the 1960s, remember.

Secondly, I'm amazed that you all think it's so impossible that
Schultz, Walker, Kelly, and the gang wouldn't play along with Mad. I
think Schultz's intro is hilarious, with the "live actors" and stuff.

Don't you people understand that they were having a goof?

Sorry you don't understand the Schultz bit, I think it's classic. At
the time, comics were pretty evenly split between "cartoony" (like
Schultz & Walker) and "realistic" (a la Mary Worth and Steve Canyon).
A lot of the humor of the piece depends on you knowing that.
Schultz's bit was a bit of a parody of that controversy.

But I have no doubt that it was authentic. Comic artists weren't as
copyright-controlled back in those days.

[Card53]

Post by Confabulat
People, people. I'm old enough to remember when this came out, ye
gads!
First off, that looks like an authentic Charlie Brown to me...he
looked like that in the 1960s, remember.

I agree with everything else you say, but that's not an authentic CB. I
assumed that the MAD gang simply used a drawing from a previous Peanuts parody,
and a little exploring on the website I posted yesterday proves my assumption
was correct. See:

http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/

Scroll down to the link "A Peanut for your thoughts: Charles Schulz and MAD."
Scroll down a bit on that page to see the original parody from which the
drawing of CB was lifted.

Post by Confabulat
Secondly, I'm amazed that you all think it's so impossible that
Schultz, Walker, Kelly, and the gang wouldn't play along with Mad. I
think Schultz's intro is hilarious, with the "live actors" and stuff.
Don't you people understand that they were having a goof?
Sorry you don't understand the Schultz bit, I think it's classic. At
the time, comics were pretty evenly split between "cartoony" (like
Schultz & Walker) and "realistic" (a la Mary Worth and Steve Canyon).
A lot of the humor of the piece depends on you knowing that.
Schultz's bit was a bit of a parody of that controversy.
But I have no doubt that it was authentic. Comic artists weren't as
copyright-controlled back in those days.

[Card53]

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
I didn't mention this before, but the Schulz strip doesn't look like his
artwork to me. I grant that the grass looks like his. Some of the letters
look odd, especially the "G" of the "SIGH." The method of shading the
center of the flower is unlike anything I've seen Schulz do. I admit that
I can't swear that it *isn't* Schulz. But even you grant that the Charlie
Brown isn't his. How do you explain that? Why would they insert an
inauthentic Charlie Brown if everything else was authentic? And the fact
that they didn't give artist credit to the inauthentic Charlie Brown makes
the absence of artist credit seem less significant to me.

I'm 99% confident it's authentic. The strip looks like it was dashed off in
that some of the touches resemble Schulz's preliminary sketches, as printed in
"Peanuts Jubilee" and other collections. When he wasn't taking his time with a
drawing, he tended to be a bit crude with his shading.

Also see my previous post -- that drawing of CB was lifted from a previous MAD
parody of Peanuts. The complete original drawing can be found on the same
website. I don't know why they did this, but my uneducated guess tells me it
was quicker and easier to use something in-house -- and perhaps cheaper, as
they didn't have to pay Schulz for another drawing.

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
Which of the cartoonists in question are still alive and are likely
to respond if I write to them asking about this article?

Mort Walker and Mell Lazarus are still around, but you might have better luck
with Al Feldstein, who was Editor-in-Chief of MAD at the time. Al's website
(below) has a link for e-mail on the main page:

http://www.alfeldstein.com/


John Larrabee
Co-founder: Laurel & Hardy Central
http://laurelandhardycentral.com

(To respond via e-mail, remove "nixspam")

[t***@lsa.umich.edu]

Post by Card53
I'm 99% confident it's authentic. The strip looks like it was dashed off
in that some of the touches resemble Schulz's preliminary sketches, as
printed in "Peanuts Jubilee" and other collections. When he wasn't taking
his time with a drawing, he tended to be a bit crude with his shading.

That's true, but the strip still doesn't look like his sketching style to
me. As I said before, I am not swearing that the drawing is inauthentic,
and the circumstantial evidence that has been presented so far is beginning
to sway me. But if I were judging on the basis of the drawing alone, only
the signature and the grass look to me like Schulz's.

I'm not sure about the asterisks...my first impression is that they look
a little funny, but I need to go back and study some examples before I can
give a confident opinion.

[Joseph Nebus]

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
This fact, along with the absence of an "artist" and "writer"
credit, is certainly good evidence that the original artists
drew the strips.

=v= Indeed, and note that in other _MAD_About_Comic_Strips_
strip parodies, they *never* sign a creator's name, but will
instead use a pun or lampoon. In these, though, you have
the cartoonists' actual signatures in their own handwriting.
(Walt Kelarus did some lampooning of his own, though it's in
his own handwriting.)

For what it's worth, one of those late 80s ``Best of Pogo''
books included Walt Kelly's Mell lazarus's Miss Peach in its pages
as self-parody.

I'm convinced the panels are Schulz's, though. Even if the
grass and the leaf weren't distinctive, look at the asterisks. Has
anyone else *ever* drawn asterisks like Schulz?

[t***@lsa.umich.edu]

Post by Joseph Nebus
I'm convinced the panels are Schulz's, though. Even if the
grass and the leaf weren't distinctive, look at the asterisks. Has
anyone else *ever* drawn asterisks like Schulz?

I went and looked up a half-dozen instances of Schulz's asterisks from
that time period and now I can say what looked odd to me about the MAD
asterisks. In every instance of Schulz's asterisks that I found, he
used *four* strokes for each asterisk, while the MAD comic used just
*three* strokes per asterisk.

On the other hand, I also found a strip in "As You Like It, Charlie Brown"
in which Snoopy hears a bee buzzing in a flower and thinks someone has
"left the timer on" (28 August 1963). The flower doesn't look quite the
same, but it's more similar than I expected.

[Gary E. Ansok]

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu

Post by Poisonmail
I don't have the CD set (desperately looking for it, in fact), but I
remember hearing that this message was used whenever a rights issue
involved the work of an outsider, like with Andy Griffith material
and such, so I guess that's pretty much confirmation that the original
artists were involved. It's enough for me, anyway.

This fact, along with the absence of an "artist" and "writer" credit,
is certainly good evidence that the original artists drew the strips.

Mort Walker drew his, at least. It's collected in _The Best of Beetle
Bailey_, along with the following text:

A little satire can be fun occasionally. I used the head of
MAD Magazine symbol, Alfred E. Newman, in my strip once. It
brought in mountains of mail. Then MAD magazine invited me
to create a new strip for them and I did the version below of
"The Heart of Juliet Jones." Stan Drake, my golfing buddy
and creator of Juliet, retaliated with this page in "The
Cartoonist magazine.

All three strips (the Beetle Bailey with Alfred E. Newman, the MAD
Magazine strip, and Stan's "Fetal Bailey" retaliation) are included.

By the way, Stan's strip has "by Wart Molker" in the header, but is
signed Stan Drake. Mort's strip for MAD is signed "the new Mort Walker".

Gary Ansok

[t***@lsa.umich.edu]

Post by Gary E. Ansok
Mort Walker drew his, at least. It's collected in _The Best of Beetle

Well, this, along with the "Best of Pogo" reprint mentioned by someone else,
is about as conclusive as you can get! So we now know for sure that at
least some of the drawings are authentic.

On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that the Charlie Brown isn't
Schulz's. In Mort Walker's book, did the picture of Beetle Bailey and
Sarge accompany the strip? It doesn't look like Walker's work. So it
seems that *some* of the content isn't authentic.

I'll try to write a few more letters to see if I can find more about
exactly which parts are MAD's and which parts aren't. I guess if I had
to give my opinion about the Schulz strip at this point, I'd grudgingly
admit that the evidence points to its authenticity, although the
inauthenticity of the Charlie Brown leaves a small bit of doubt in
my mind.

[Gary E. Ansok]

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu

Post by Gary E. Ansok
Mort Walker drew his, at least. It's collected in _The Best of Beetle

Well, this, along with the "Best of Pogo" reprint mentioned by someone else,
is about as conclusive as you can get! So we now know for sure that at
least some of the drawings are authentic.
On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that the Charlie Brown isn't
Schulz's. In Mort Walker's book, did the picture of Beetle Bailey and
Sarge accompany the strip? It doesn't look like Walker's work. So it
seems that *some* of the content isn't authentic.

The drawing of Beetle and Sarge does accompany the strip, but so does
Mort's picture, intro, and the header "MORT WALKER--creator of "BEETLE
BAILEY". Given that, I'd say it's a reprint from the MAD article.

The drawing doesn't look that far off from the early-60's Beetle and
Sarge, but I wouldn't call it conclusive one way or the other.

Gary

[mercury]

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that the Charlie Brown isn't
Schulz's. In Mort Walker's book, did the picture of Beetle Bailey and
Sarge accompany the strip? It doesn't look like Walker's work. So it
seems that *some* of the content isn't authentic.

By following another link, the image of CB appears to have been lifted from
a panel drawn by Charles M Brown.

http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/


The link is about 2/3 of the way down the page
"A 'Peanut' for your thoughts; Charles Schulz and Mad."


OR.......straight to the image.

Loading Image...


David.

[t***@lsa.umich.edu]

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
I'll try to write a few more letters to see if I can find more about
exactly which parts are MAD's and which parts aren't.

Mell Lazarus wrote back! As others here have attested, Mr. Lazarus
is a very generous and gracious gentleman, and supplied a number of
interesting details about his contribution to this article. According to
him, he wrote the satirical text and drew the cartoon himself. As for
the Steve Canyon parts that look like Milt Caniff's work, Mr. Lazarus
said that he cut and pasted them. So they are "authentic" in a sense,
although Milt Caniff was not directly involved.

Mr. Lazarus also said that he was not involved in Walt Kelly's piece
at all. So it seems that the Miss Peach elements were either cut and
pasted too, or else drawn by Walt Kelly.

All this points to the authenticity of the Schulz item, though in that
case I'm quite puzzled as to why MAD would insert an inauthentic Charlie
Brown.

I wrote a few other letters, too, but I'm not counting on getting any
replies. If I do, of course, I'll report on what I find.

[t***@lsa.umich.edu]

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
I'll try to write a few more letters to see if I can find more about
exactly which parts are MAD's and which parts aren't.

Mell Lazarus wrote back!

[...]

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
I wrote a few other letters, too, but I'm not counting on getting any
replies. If I do, of course, I'll report on what I find.

Mort Walker wrote back, too. He said that he couldn't remember much about
that article, but he did remember drawing the comic and writing the
accompanying text.

So the evidence is pretty overwhelming now that Schulz's contribution
was authentic, other than the picture of Charlie Brown of course.

[Steve Carras]

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
I'll try to write a few more letters to see if I can find more about
exactly which parts are MAD's and which parts aren't.

Mell Lazarus wrote back!

[...]

Post by t***@lsa.umich.edu
I wrote a few other letters, too, but I'm not counting on getting any
replies. If I do, of course, I'll report on what I find.

Mort Walker wrote back, too. He said that he couldn't remember much about
that article, but he did remember drawing the comic and writing the
accompanying text.
So the evidence is pretty overwhelming now that Schulz's contribution
was authentic, other than the picture of Charlie Brown of course.

I can think of too fare to mention going back to the 1950s..all pretty
funny erven today,one from c.66-67 even had Shermy (y'know.....that
"cypher" whuo bowed out in 1969 after 19 years with the gang) having
moved but returning to find out that the gang has changedm,
drastically, reprinted a number of times..One thing that I wished
they'd do is the old gag of Lucy offering to hold the football for
Charlie Brown, and Chuck runs up, tries and kicks to kick the football
but Lucy then yanks it but Snoopy goes number 2 on the grass and
Charlie would land in it~!! (Or did Mad DO one like that??)

[Card53]

Ta-da. Here it is. Click on the pages for larger views.

http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/



John Larrabee
Co-founder: Laurel & Hardy Central
http://laurelandhardycentral.com

(To respond via e-mail, remove "nixspam")

[Card53]

Post by Card53
Ta-da. Here it is. Click on the pages for larger views.
http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/

Whoops, let's try that again. The above link only gets you to the main page of
the site -- there appear to be no specific links for individual pages.
Therefore...

Scroll down on the man page to the yellow menu box. Look for "Your thoughts on
Totally Mad CDs and missing articles." Click on the word "articles." Go to
the last entry on the page (Issue #89) and click on pages 38-41.


John Larrabee
Co-founder: Laurel & Hardy Central
http://laurelandhardycentral.com

(To respond via e-mail, remove "nixspam")

[Chris Lee]

FWIW, I'm going to the Schulz Museum next Wednesday, and they have the
Peanuts/Mad exhibit going on right now. If we don't have a definitive answer by
then I'll see what I can find out.

Christopher L.
http://ezclee4050.tripod.com

Remember, philosophers are trained professionals. Do not attempt it at home.

[t***@lsa.umich.edu]

Post by Chris Lee
FWIW, I'm going to the Schulz Museum next Wednesday, and they have the
Peanuts/Mad exhibit going on right now. If we don't have a definitive answer
by then I'll see what I can find out.

I was there last week, and naturally examined the exhibit carefully. There
is nothing in the exhibit about this particular article. About a month ago,
I emailed the Schulz museum with this question. The person who responded
said she asked the curator, who said that this was an authentic Schulz
drawing. I wrote back asking how the curator knew that, and on what
information that conclusion was based. I received no reply.

Perhaps I should have tried to talk to the curator in person while I was
there, but it's too late for me to do that now. So maybe you can do that
during your visit.

[t***@lsa.umich.edu]

The joke itself (which is hardly a joke at all) strikes me as perfectly
Schulzian. In fact, I could swear that he *did* do this gag in
Peanuts, only with Snoopy in place of the flower.

Close, but not quite. There are a number of strips involving Snoopy and a
falling leaf, but none that exactly matches this one.

[Vince Macek]

I'm sure I'll come off like the slack-jawed yokel who fell off the
turnip truck who never even *heard* about lawyers, but what's the
chances of finding this article online?

VMacek

[Jym Dyer]

This MAD article was a great one, unfortunately not included
(I believe), probably for legal/cost reasons, in the MAD comic
strips book.

=v= I'm sorry, I was wrong about that. I'd just read the book
*and* some of my old _MAD_ magazines, and I'd read the article
in question, and mistakenly though I'd read it in the book.
D'oh!
<_Jym_>