KeithE4 said:
ixnay said:
Schulz never liked the name and apparently took that disgust to his grave.
After complaining about it all the way to the bank for over 50 years.
To be sure, the title didn't affect the marketability or popularity of the strip, but Schulz was an artist as well as a businessman, and it annoyed him that the name was attached to the strip without his approval. (Long before he had the clout to call his own shots; at the time he was new, struggling, and didn't want to rock the boat.) He thought the name "Peanuts" was both precociously silly and meaningless, had nothing to do with the content, and claimed that all his life he would encounter ignorant readers who thought "Peanuts" was Charlie Brown's nickname, as in, "Oh, it was so funny what 'Peanuts' did in yesterday's strip."
Once he had successfully established the strip, and it was nonetheless too late for the overall title to be changed (being already attached to it in the public mind), he lobbied for the Sunday strips to include "featuring Good Ol' Charlie Brown" as a "subtitle" to "Peanuts," and that the published book collections of the strip (after the first few, which, again, he had little control over) not use "Peanuts" in the titles. (Indeed, the actual titles usually featured Charlie Brown's name, and the phrase "A 'Peanuts' Book" would only appear in much smaller print at the bottom of the cover.)
Very few cartoonists have the clout to demand such things of their syndicate (who, after all, actually legally own the characters and content, not the artist -- Peanuts was always copyrighted to United Features, not to Schulz). Only someone on the level of a Schulz, Watterson, or Trudeau gets to have that much say over how his creation is presented and marketed.