Charles Schulz was very skilled at what he did. Full credit to him for being such an influential cartoonist. But he had one thing wrong.
“Superman was destroyed on several levels.”
Interesting. That is a curious answer you have for that interview question. How so?
“You cannot have a daily strip going, a Sunday page going, Action Comics going, another Superman comic book going, a movie going. You can’t have all these things going because he can’t be damaged in one area and be undamaged in another.”
Hrrm. I disagree. Superman helped create the comic book industry in the late 30s and early 40s. The radio show was a part of the Golden Age. Superman was one of the few comics that survived the Seduction of the Innocent/ Comics Code Authority purge of the 50s. And in the 90s he was appearing across four different comic book titles while still having his own animated show. I could go on. Respectfully, of course. However, you were entitled to your opinion and you were a world-renowned creator.
“Superman was great until he began to be able to see through things and fly. Superman shouldn’t fly; Superman should jump. So they made a lot of mistakes.”
Okay, Sparky. Now you are wrong. Simply incorrect. Characters can be powerful enough to move moons or they can be so ineffectual that they lose to a kite. What matters is heart. Are you rooting for the character? Do you care what happens to them? Everything else comes after that. The reason why Superman has been in continuous publication since 1938 is the exact same reason why Peanuts has been beloved since the 50s: Heart.
The characters continue because we love them. We want them to stick around. So they do. Power is just one facet; one of the many layers that create media. I do not loathe Charlie Brown because he struggles to feed his dog and I do not love Superman because he can punch a T.Rex.
My loyalty is not that cartoonish. I think we shall have to agree to disagree, Charles Schulz.
...Of Course, this Could All Go Horribly Awry 
Leave a comment