It’s hard to imagine a different a different cover, really. I do wonder why Kidd “drew” the Charlie Brown line instead of scanning Schulz’s own hand, though…
You’re dead right about the lettering. The obvious “font-ness” of the typeface is distracting to me. It looks like something that was whipped up in a half-hour. I got a leaflet like this the last time I exited an indie rock gig.
The funny thing is that Kidd tends to overdo the visual depth thing when he veers into comics territory, as with his books about Jack Cole and Batman. This cover could use a dose of that.
Unsurprising. I suspect, though, that this was probably the only feasible idea discussed. And given that Schulz and Charlie Brown have long been equated, at least it’s a reasonable use of the iconic zigzag.
Expected, yet wanted. Makes my heart skip for joy. Warms me. We all grew up with the Peanuts gang. Identifiable from across a room. Tells you the power of ol’ Charlie Brown. Perhaps Charlie’s stripe is not organic, rather straight-lined as a contrast to the hand lettering.
Expected, yes. But it’s a perfect use of an icon that speaks for itself. I wouldn’t want anything else here. What would make it better? Make the type as non-descript as possible, or better yet, get rid of it altogether. the zig-zag is the perfect amount of the Schulz hand, and is more than enough to get us to pick up the book and read the spine or back cover. I love it!
it’s only expected because you see it here before you. it’s executed very well and the simplicity of “i could’ve done that” shows its success. i’m sure there were many ideas batted around, but reducing the cover to JUST a cropped image of charlie brown’s shirt shows insight into a great, creative solution.
***
and fyi: pbs nyc just had the charles schulz story on “american masters.” good stuff.
The thing about comic strips are the figures are very small. You follow a series of events through a little window, and though you may relate to the content, the visuals don’t pull you in, absorb you into its universe. It’s in fact the lack thereof—the tininess of the comic strip—that brings it life in your imagination.
An “extreme close-up” of Charlie Brown’s shirt is a reversal of that usual depiction. Charlie Brown is large, up close, and personal, as though he were right there, life size, in front of you. Exciting!
The suggestion, then, is that the book is an intimate look at Schults, Peanuts, and accordingly, his star comic strip characters. We’ll see sides of him and them that we haven’t seen before. Finally, we can be a part of the club.
At the same time, however, only seeing the shirt design (and not the rest of him enlarged) keeps Charlie Brown abstract (and so preserves our original memory of him). As though it were a tiny comic strip image, we bring him to life in our imagination.
yes, what happened to the white cover? the yellow cover made me really happy when i saw it but reading watterson’s review makes me think the white cover is the way to go. kidd could have had the hand drawn strip on the white cover, i think it would been more effective.
even though i agree that white is more striking, the color options, i feel, are inconsequential. that is a subjective choice that does not take away from the strong, simple, imagery of the cover solution. that little zig-zag is what we all relate to, be it in color or black & white. you can see that cover from across the bookstore and know exactly what it’s about, regardless of the color. both work well, depending on how you remember Peanuts, be it from the daily comics, the colored sunday version, or the classic tv specials. they are complimentary cover designs.
Cool, whatever. It’s clever, it attracts the eye and the shapes, tones and type communicate what they need to without being literal or relying heavily on the art.
Very weak type. It would be the first approach that comes to mind but the graphic zig-zag on yellow background is so strongly indicative of the strip that the type treatment is overkill. The open letterspacing on Shulz’s penmanship is also an odd choice – weird!
Cute concept, though I like the white version better, too. Too bad the lines and choice of font make it too mechanical, a more natural look would’ve made it warmer—whcihc is what Peanuts invokes.
The more I think about it, the less I like it. A treatment where the cover was free of images except for Charlie’s bald pate protruding on the bottom might have been better. A treatment with just the famous SCHULZ signature and little else might have been better. A view of a group of Peanuts kids from the belly button down might have been better. A picture of Snoopy agonizing over his typewriter, about to write “It was a dark and stormy night” might have been better.
The back story to the cover and why that typeface was used and why the zig-zag:
I was at a talk given by Kidd at the LA County Public Library a few months back. He gave the back story on the Charles Schulz biography book cover. The original cover was a composition that contained a picture of Charlie Brown and Schulz’s signature with the title. When they sent the book to Schulz’s widow for a look over she got horrified since not only did the book contain information on Schulz cartooning career (that good stuff) but also the darker stuff of his life (like affairs, etc.). Not wanting Schulz to appear bad in any way, Schulz’s widow tried to stop the publishing of the book but she failed. Her one small victory though was to prevent the usage of any copyrighted material that Schulz produced (such as image of Charlie Brown and his distinctive signature). Kidd’s solution was to use the typeface shown on the book which resembles Schulz’s handwriting and to use a zig-zag line since they can’t be copyrighted.
So, could Kidd not utilize the font derived from Schulz’s handwriting used within the book itself? The title page of the book uses it (as well as chapter headings, etc.), and looks much better than the font Kidd settled on. I’m confused.
It’s hard to imagine a different a different cover, really. I do wonder why Kidd “drew” the Charlie Brown line instead of scanning Schulz’s own hand, though…
Those interested in the subject matter should read the review by Bill “Calvin and Hobbes” Watterson.
— Eric Jacobsen, 2007-10-28 15:59:00
I like the white cover. Gimme.
— Ben, 2007-10-29 23:17:00
He’s a clown, that Charlie Brown. Love it.
— LisaMM, 2007-10-29 23:36:00
You’re dead right about the lettering. The obvious “font-ness” of the typeface is distracting to me. It looks like something that was whipped up in a half-hour. I got a leaflet like this the last time I exited an indie rock gig.
The funny thing is that Kidd tends to overdo the visual depth thing when he veers into comics territory, as with his books about Jack Cole and Batman. This cover could use a dose of that.
— Martin, 2007-10-30 01:54:00
Unsurprising. I suspect, though, that this was probably the only feasible idea discussed. And given that Schulz and Charlie Brown have long been equated, at least it’s a reasonable use of the iconic zigzag.
— GH, 2007-10-30 04:13:00
Expected, yet wanted. Makes my heart skip for joy. Warms me. We all grew up with the Peanuts gang. Identifiable from across a room. Tells you the power of ol’ Charlie Brown. Perhaps Charlie’s stripe is not organic, rather straight-lined as a contrast to the hand lettering.
— Blake, 2007-10-30 05:30:00
Expected, yes. But it’s a perfect use of an icon that speaks for itself. I wouldn’t want anything else here. What would make it better? Make the type as non-descript as possible, or better yet, get rid of it altogether. the zig-zag is the perfect amount of the Schulz hand, and is more than enough to get us to pick up the book and read the spine or back cover. I love it!
— Beth, 2007-10-30 06:33:00
it’s only expected because you see it here before you. it’s executed very well and the simplicity of “i could’ve done that” shows its success. i’m sure there were many ideas batted around, but reducing the cover to JUST a cropped image of charlie brown’s shirt shows insight into a great, creative solution.
***
and fyi: pbs nyc just had the charles schulz story on “american masters.” good stuff.
— mattias, 2007-10-30 06:56:00
The thing about comic strips are the figures are very small. You follow a series of events through a little window, and though you may relate to the content, the visuals don’t pull you in, absorb you into its universe. It’s in fact the lack thereof—the tininess of the comic strip—that brings it life in your imagination.
An “extreme close-up” of Charlie Brown’s shirt is a reversal of that usual depiction. Charlie Brown is large, up close, and personal, as though he were right there, life size, in front of you. Exciting!
The suggestion, then, is that the book is an intimate look at Schults, Peanuts, and accordingly, his star comic strip characters. We’ll see sides of him and them that we haven’t seen before. Finally, we can be a part of the club.
At the same time, however, only seeing the shirt design (and not the rest of him enlarged) keeps Charlie Brown abstract (and so preserves our original memory of him). As though it were a tiny comic strip image, we bring him to life in our imagination.
— Dylan G., 2007-10-30 07:23:00
yes, what happened to the white cover? the yellow cover made me really happy when i saw it but reading watterson’s review makes me think the white cover is the way to go. kidd could have had the hand drawn strip on the white cover, i think it would been more effective.
— afarrell, 2007-10-30 08:04:00
even though i agree that white is more striking, the color options, i feel, are inconsequential. that is a subjective choice that does not take away from the strong, simple, imagery of the cover solution. that little zig-zag is what we all relate to, be it in color or black & white. you can see that cover from across the bookstore and know exactly what it’s about, regardless of the color. both work well, depending on how you remember Peanuts, be it from the daily comics, the colored sunday version, or the classic tv specials. they are complimentary cover designs.
— mattias, 2007-10-30 08:20:00
Cool, whatever. It’s clever, it attracts the eye and the shapes, tones and type communicate what they need to without being literal or relying heavily on the art.
— Ian Shimkoviak, 2007-10-30 11:03:00
Very weak type. It would be the first approach that comes to mind but the graphic zig-zag on yellow background is so strongly indicative of the strip that the type treatment is overkill. The open letterspacing on Shulz’s penmanship is also an odd choice – weird!
— beauGeste, 2007-10-30 12:03:00
I’m with beauGeste on this one. The cover does look much better in white as a 3D though.
— JRG, 2007-10-30 12:15:00
Thanks for that Dylan – I grew up reading Peanuts & I didn’t get the ‘zigzag’ crop at all. One for the true fans I guess?
— Luke Tonge, 2007-10-30 12:26:00
Cute concept, though I like the white version better, too. Too bad the lines and choice of font make it too mechanical, a more natural look would’ve made it warmer—whcihc is what Peanuts invokes.
— van, 2007-10-30 23:06:00
I believe there is no “white version,” WSJ just posted a pic from the print edition
— Eric J, 2007-10-31 07:52:00
The more I think about it, the less I like it. A treatment where the cover was free of images except for Charlie’s bald pate protruding on the bottom might have been better. A treatment with just the famous SCHULZ signature and little else might have been better. A view of a group of Peanuts kids from the belly button down might have been better. A picture of Snoopy agonizing over his typewriter, about to write “It was a dark and stormy night” might have been better.
— Martin, 2007-10-31 12:48:00
How awesome would it be to have no text and just the Charlie Brown zigzag on the cover? Ah… one can dream.
— C Wys, 2007-10-31 22:31:00
I want a shirt like that!
— EL, 2007-11-27 15:06:00
The back story to the cover and why that typeface was used and why the zig-zag:
I was at a talk given by Kidd at the LA County Public Library a few months back. He gave the back story on the Charles Schulz biography book cover. The original cover was a composition that contained a picture of Charlie Brown and Schulz’s signature with the title. When they sent the book to Schulz’s widow for a look over she got horrified since not only did the book contain information on Schulz cartooning career (that good stuff) but also the darker stuff of his life (like affairs, etc.). Not wanting Schulz to appear bad in any way, Schulz’s widow tried to stop the publishing of the book but she failed. Her one small victory though was to prevent the usage of any copyrighted material that Schulz produced (such as image of Charlie Brown and his distinctive signature). Kidd’s solution was to use the typeface shown on the book which resembles Schulz’s handwriting and to use a zig-zag line since they can’t be copyrighted.
— Roy N., 2007-12-22 21:17:00
This book is very interesting. Hats off to you David Michaelis!
— Jeremy, 2008-01-10 11:20:00
So, could Kidd not utilize the font derived from Schulz’s handwriting used within the book itself? The title page of the book uses it (as well as chapter headings, etc.), and looks much better than the font Kidd settled on. I’m confused.
— freem, 2008-01-11 22:19:00