April 23, 1953: Schroeder scoffs

One thing Schulz does, it seems to me, in the early days is repeat information unnecessarily. Schroeder's words in the last two panels are practically the same.

Here at Roasted Peanuts, we don't rest until we've dissected and bean-plated* each strip until all humor has been annihilated.

So, is there a way to have written this strip that could eliminate duplicating most of the text in the third panel? The obvious change, I suppose, would be to change Schroeder's words in either the third or last panel to something like "That's ridiculous!" Since the comedic point of the strip is Schroeder's lack of realization that (to spoil the joke completely) his playing Beethoven on his toy piano is just as ludicrous, it doesn't seem to me like anything is lost through this change.

This isn't meant to denigrate Charles Schulz's abilities as a writer. He was still developing at this point, but the comic itself is great. The fact that it does leave unstated the disconnect between Schroeder's statement and his actions, refusing to point to it outright and trusting the reader to make the observation himself, is a sign that he's already an excellent gag man. Most other comics would explicitly state the point of the joke and wreck the comedy almost as badly as I have, here, in explaining it.

* HI IM ON ROASTED PEANUTS AND I CAN OVERTHINK A PLATE OF BEANS

April 22, 1953: Another chase strip

Usually turnabout/chase strips only concern two characters, but Patty in this one is just a bystander.

So, let's return to the subject of the implications when one character chases another. Why does a character do so? It usually happens when the chased insults the chaser, or uses an exceptionally bad joke, usually appears angry while chasing, and it is implied that the chaser seeks violence. (Otherwise, what would that character do if he catches the other? Make him or her see reason through argument?)

Because of this, when a girl chases a boy it is funnier than when a boy chases a girl. We have reason to believe that Schulz saw it this way too; he has been recorded as saying a girl punching a boy is funny, but a boy punching a girl is disturbing.

The implications here are slightly allayed due to Lucy's spirited "WHEEE" in the last panel. At the very least she doesn't seem to feel threatened.

Sunday, April 5, 1953: Charlie Brown's first breakdown

Remember when I said that a character's personality tends to become set the moment other characters refer to it? This is what I mean. Charlie Brown's exaggerated reaction could be taken as cartoonish hyperbole right up until Violet and Patty remark upon it. That proves that his hysterics are intended to be hysterical, and the relief the reader feels at having any first reaction to CB's weird behavior as weird justified lends extra comedic punch to the strip.

Roasted Peanuts: dedicated to over-analyzing each strip to the point where all humor is lost!

(P.S., Again I feel compelled to remind you: don't give your own dogs chocolate creams, or indeed chocolate anything. Chocolate is toxic for dogs.)