Commenting on my own review
Given the attention that my review of Schulz and Peanuts: A Biography is now getting and the degree of Schulz expertise people ascribe to me at times, I thought I should clarify that.
The book does add a richness of fact, but don’t take my review to attest to the accuracy of every fact presented. I am far more knowledgeable about Schulz’s work than I am about the history of the man himself; most of what I know of the man comes simply from reading earlier biographies. While I know enough to catch errors in other biographies like apparently melding Schulz’s two wives (sequential!) into one, far more subtle details would easily elude me. However, the book did well in the category of facts with which I’m familiar.
Perhaps more significantly, I cannot attest to the accuracy of the emotional portrait of Schulz the book paints. I never met the man, only saw him in the flesh once. And I suspect that with any human being, there are many different perspectives through which one can view the person inside.
I just don’t want people using my supposed expertise to validate this single portrait. Thanks!