你所需要的只是愛，但偶爾吃點巧克力也無傷大雅

歡迎來到漫畫書傳奇揭曉的第 933 期，在這個專欄中，我們將研究三個漫畫書神話、謠言和傳說，並確認或揭穿它們。

Comic Book Legends Revealed: Was a Famous Quote About Love and Chocolate Incorrectly Attributed to Peanuts?

漫畫傳奇揭秘：關於愛情和巧克力的名言是否被錯誤地歸因於花生？

Welcome to the 933rd installment of Comic Book Legends Revealed, a column where we examine three comic book myths, rumors and legends and confirm or debunk them. In the second legend of this all-Peanuts installment, learn whether a famous quote involving love and chocolate has been incorrectly attributed to Charles Schulz and/or his comic strip, Peanuts.

歡迎來到漫畫書傳奇揭曉的第 933 期，在這個專欄中，我們將研究三個漫畫書神話、謠言和傳說，並確認或揭穿它們。在這部全《花生》系列的第二個傳奇中，了解有關愛情和巧克力的名言是否被錯誤地歸因於查爾斯·舒爾茨和/或他的連環漫畫《花生》。

In the brilliant Michael Barrier interview with Charles Schulz that I've quoted a few times now, Schulz discussed how big the Peanuts characters had become as licensed characters (used in commercials and cartoons and stuff like that), and he nicely explained how the most famous comic characters tend to become more than just "yours" after a while:

在邁克爾·巴里爾(Michael Barrier) 對查爾斯·舒爾茨(Charles Schulz) 的精彩採訪中，舒爾茨討論了《花生漫畫》中的角色作為授權角色（用於廣告、卡通和類似的東西）的規模有多大，他很好地解釋了最重要的角色是如何發展起來的。

Now, there are some people who are against licensing, and in a way, I suppose it should be flattering. They have become fond of your work, and they clutch it to themselves very selfishly. They want it to be theirs. They have discovered this new comic strip and they want to talk about it with their friends, and all of a sudden it becomes popular. It's like hearing a new singer for the first time, and you think she's just wonderful, and before you know it she's got four or five hit records and everybody in the country is talking about her. You've lost her-she's not yours any more. You've lost your discovery, and I suppose this is one of the things that people don't like. But we live in a culture where this is almost taken for granted. Everybody is involved in licensing. If Bill Cosby can sell chocolate pudding and all of the other things that he sells, and Willie Mays can sell things with his picture, and all the movie actors, everybody does it, why should I say, "No, I'm too good for this sort of thing"? Because it's not all mine anyway. As I said back at the beginning, this is not a pure art form by any means, it's a commercial product, and I've always said, "How can a commercial product be accused of turning commercial?" It doesn't make sense. As I've also said, I've been very careful about all the things that we've done. Perhaps we've made some mistakes, but I don't think we've ever turned out anything that was offensive, and I know I've never drawn anything that was offensive. Our television cartoons are as inoffensive as we can make them, without being sugary sweet and dumb. All I can say is that I've just done the best that I can, that's all.

現在，有些人反對許可，在某種程度上，我認為這應該是一種奉承。他們開始喜歡你的工作，並且非常自私地把它據為己有。他們希望它是他們的。他們發現了這部新的漫畫，並想與朋友談論它，突然間它變得流行起來。這就像第一次聽到一位新歌手，你覺得她很棒，不知不覺間她已經有了四、五張熱門唱片，全國每個人都在談論她。你失去了她——她不再屬於你了。你已經失去了你的發現，我想這是人們不喜歡的事情之一。但在我們生活的文化中，這幾乎被認為是理所當然的。每個人都參與許可。如果比爾·科斯比可以賣巧克力布丁和他賣的所有其他東西，威利·梅斯可以用他的照片賣東西，所有的電影演員，每個人都這樣做，我為什麼要說，“不，我太棒了為了這種事」？因為無論如何，這都不屬於我。正如我一開始所說的，這無論如何都不是一種純粹的藝術形式，它是一種商業產品，我一直在說，“商業產品怎麼能被指責商業化呢？”這沒有道理。正如我也說過的，我對我們所做的所有事情都非常謹慎。也許我們犯了一些錯誤，但我不認為我們曾經畫過任何令人反感的東西，而且我知道我從來沒有畫過任何令人反感的東西。我們的電視卡通盡可能做到無攻擊性，既不甜膩又愚蠢。我只能說，我已經盡力了，僅此而已。

While Schulz is more specifically talking about licensing, it speaks, also, to the idea that when a character becomes REALLY famous, their creators really don't have "ownership" over them, at least not when it comes to the public's imagination. It sort of ties to something I wrote recently about headcanon. You're obviously always owed your personal take on a character, even if you have no direct control over the character, no one else can tell you what to THINK about the character.

雖然舒爾茨更具體地談論了許可，但它也談到了這樣一個想法：當一個角色真正出名時，他們的創作者實際上對他們沒有“所有權”，至少在公眾的想像力方面沒有。這與我最近寫的有關 headcanon 的文章有些聯繫。顯然，你總是對一個角色有自己的個人看法，即使你無法直接控制這個角色，也沒有其他人可以告訴你如何看待這個角色。

And so Snoopy, Charlie Brown, and the rest of the Peanuts gang have long entered into the sort of public consciousness (just not the public domain, of course), and so people really feel like they KNOW them, and BECAUSE they know them, they like to quote them a lot...like, a LOT. Even if the quotes might not belong to them...

所以史努比、查理布朗和花生幫的其他成員早已進入公眾意識（當然，只是不是公共領域），所以人們真的感覺他們認識他們，因為他們認識他們，他們喜歡引用很多……很多。即使引用可能不屬於他們...

I just did a cursory look of the internet for this phrase related to Peanuts, and, well, great googley moogley, it is WIDESPREAD. I picked just four almost at random (my father hates the way people use the word "random," as people almost never use it correctly, as if you use any sort of control over your choices, you are inherently NOT doing it at random. So I just throw in qualifiers like "almost at random" to mollify the voice in my head of my dad moaning about me using "random" incorrectly)....

我只是在互聯網上粗略地瀏覽了一下與花生有關的這個短語，而且，好吧，偉大的谷歌穆格利，它是廣泛傳播的。我幾乎隨機地只選擇了四個（我父親討厭人們使用“隨機”這個詞的方式，因為人們幾乎從來沒有正確地使用它，就好像你對你的選擇使用任何形式的控制一樣，你本質上不是隨機做的。 所以我只是加入「幾乎隨機」這樣的限定詞來安撫我腦海中父親抱怨我錯誤地使用「隨機」的聲音）…

As you can see, the public really loves this quote, "All you need is love ... but a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt," and it loves to attribute it to Charles Schulz in general, or Peanuts in specific (sometimes even specific characters WITHIN Peanuts, even Lucy Van Pelt).

正如你所看到的，公眾真的很喜歡這句話，“你所需要的就是愛……但偶爾吃點巧克力也沒什麼壞處”，而且他們喜歡把這句話歸功於查爾斯·舒爾茨，或者俱體來說是《花生》 （有時甚至是《花生漫畫》中的特定角色，甚至是露西·範·佩爾特）。

We see this come up frequently with cool quotes, where Mark Twain gets credited for almost every old witty line. And Jack Kirby often gets credited for cool comic book innovations, whether he did them or not, as Twain and Kirby are both famous, beloved figures, who we tend to gravitate to when we're talking about moments and quotes that we don't recall specifically. The same goes for Schulz.

我們經常看到這一點經常出現在很酷的引言中，其中幾乎每一個古老的詼諧台詞都歸功於馬克吐溫。傑克柯比經常因酷炫的漫畫創新而受到讚譽，無論他是否做到了，因為吐溫和柯比都是著名的、受人喜愛的人物，當我們談論我們不知道的時刻和引言時，我們往往會被他們吸引。舒爾茨也是如此。

The great Peanuts expert, Derrick Bang (who I've cited a few times in the past for Peanuts

偉大的《花生》專家 Derrick Bang（我過去曾多次在《花生》中引用過他的作品）