>>123669319>And the last couple of decades of Peanuts are mediocre fluff.
You’ve obviously never read the 1990s strips, or done a complete read through at all for that matter.>>123669402>>123669435
It can’t be stated enough how much more impressive five decades of consistent writing actually is. Schulz and Watterson also have very, very different approaches to writing in their strip regardless. It’s almost unfair to compare the two, but will for the sake of the conversation.
Watterson generally communicates his message directly to the reader, while Schulz is much more impressive with regard to character dynamics and general subtlety overall. The power and effect generated from Peanuts only comes from viewing it on a macro level, with full knowledge of the characters and their motivations/dynamics beforehand.
Basically, even if Watterson had really awesome individual strips, Schulz’s arcs were always WAY better, and thats because at the end of the day he was a more effective writer. Watterson’s individual strips that are considered to have lots of “depth” are really just a bunch of pseudo-intellectual rambling from Calvin, who stands in for Bill Watterson’s personal thoughts. That’s another thing too, is that the children in Peanuts are actually believable children, and in the regard that they reflect Charles Schulz as a man, genuine self-criticism and personal reflection is far more visible when reading. It offers an overall more relatable experience.
If you want a hint at just how much depth Peanuts actually has, try visiting a thread when it pops up. Almost every person I know that’s decided to explore the strip commented on much the depth of the comic strip surprised them, and how consistent its quality remained over the course of 50 years.