tombert
I think about Bill Waterson a lot.I certainly don't blame
Jim Davis for "selling out". He made a marketable
character, and I don't blame him for trying to make his
money because of it. I don't have a ton of artistic talent
but if I created a lovable comic character and someone
offered me a dumptruck full of money to sell toys and
t-shirts and cartoons, I'm pretty sure I would take it,
and I might even take it even if I felt like it diminished
my vision of the comic. I would like to think I have
integrity, and I think I do to some extent (there are
certain types of companies I will not work for e.g.
casinos), but Waterson is on another level.And I have to
say, it has made Calvin and Hobbes age a lot better for
me. Garfield is almost more of a "brand" than a comic at
this point, and it has made it such that I find the
character and even the comics kind of (for want of a
better word) "cheap" or "tacky". The same can be said for
Dilbert (Scott Adams himself not withstanding...I used to
genuinely like the comics).C&H, on the other hand, reads
about as well now as it did when I was a kid. The jokes
still work, the art is appealing, and since there hasn't
been this mass-marketing push for it, it has retained a
purity unlike anything else.I don't have the integrity or
will power that Bill Waterson has, and I probably never
will, but it can be something I strive to have some day.
|
> cogman10
Garfield was always about marketing. Davis was in it
to sell merchandise. It was practically designed in a
lab to be the ideal comic strip for moving product.And
as such, Garfield has never had any sort of message or
meaning. It's just a cartoon that kids and some adults
like.Waterson, on the other hand, very obviously
enjoyed his work and pushing boundaries. C&H was chock
full of his personal beliefs, messages, and morals.
And he loved causing newspapers headaches. He did
things like purposefully making odd shaped vertical
comics just to force the comics page editors to deal
with and think about how they'd lay out the page. All
to try and break people out of commercial thought, to
make people question "why is the layout like this".The
two are such polar opposites it's almost amazing they
both ran comics in the same papers.I wish we had more
watersons running things in all forms of media.
|
> > vintermann
That's what Jim Davis tells everyone. He always
cheerfully said he decided to become a cartoonist
in order to make money. When asked about anything
related to Garfield, he basically always denies
having any artistic ambitions. That surprisingly
dark comic which suggested Garfield's entire life
with Jon was just the hallucinations of him slowly
starving to death alone, for instance? Oh, he saw
a market survey suggesting the thing people feared
most was loneliness, and thought it'd make for a
good Halloween strip.Not to go into an hour long
Lasagna Cat speech here, but maybe Jim Davis isn't
entirely sincere here?To me it looks like he made
the strip at first to laugh at himself (Jon) and
his own cynical tendencies (Garfield). The "I
thought becoming a cartoonist was a good way to
make money" is an obvious joke at his own expense
- it's a terrible way to make money, even with
full Snoopy-level merchandising.It's also notable
that he's been very positive to people doing weird
things like Garfield minus Garfield. He's not at
all possessive to his creation. He accepted ages
ago that as the comic became a phenomenon, it
wasn't wholly his anymore.
|
> > > tombert
I always kind of thought that the "it was
meant to be marketable, not funny" thing was a
cope, in the same way that Tommy Wiseau says
that The Room was always meant to be a
comedy.People would say that the cat who hates
Mondays and loves lasagna isn't very funny, so
he responds with "uhh, it wasn't ever meant to
be that funny anyway!!!".Regardless, I do
really respect how cool he's been with stuff
like Garfield Minus Garfield.
|
> > > pseudohadamard
> That surprisingly dark comic which suggested
GarfieldIf you think that's dark you should
see all the Zalgo Garfield comics Davis did...
|
> > > > lproven
> Zalgo GarfieldThose were a fan parody,
and were nothing to do with Jim Davis.
|
> > > > > vintermann
Jim Davis did however write the script
for that story in "Garfield: his 9
lives" (1984) where Garfield suddenly
goes feral and is implied to kill his
elderly owner.So yeah, even
imsorryjon-level Garfield isn't
offensive to Davis at allIt's clear to
me that he never loved his characters
or were so defensive over his art as
Watterson was - at least not in
Garfield. But he also seems to have
respected that his audience was more
invested in his characters than he
was, which was probably why he kept
making it (and kept the right to the
comic strip itself when selling
everything to Viacom a few years ago).
|
> > > > > > shagie
Available for borrowing at
https://archive.org/details/garfie
ldhis9live00davi7th life is dark.
5th life is a close second.
|
> > evanelias
Despite the mediocrity of the Garfield comic
strip, I think a lot of Garfield's enduring
popularity among late Gen X / early Millennials
can be attributed to the late 80s Garfield and
Friends cartoon [1]. It was actually funny,
largely due to the writing by Mark Evanier. He's
also known for his snappy dialogue on Groo the
Wanderer, among other comic books.And then in the
late 00s, Garfield got an indie-cred boost from
Garfield Minus Garfield [2], the surreal and often
humorously bleak webcomic.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield_and_Friends
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield_Minus_Garfi
eld
|
> > > kbenson
Groo was always a favorite of mine as a child.
The amazing art of Sergio Aragones and the
sarcasm and double speak that pervade the
comic always connected better with me. That
came across in the Aragones panels in Mad much
of the time as well.
|
> > > > evanelias
Same! They actually still put out new
issues, in the form of a new 4-issue mini
series roughly once per year. It's the
only comic book I regularly read as an
adult. Pretty amazing that Sergio is still
doing this at age 88!
|
> > PaulHoule
My understanding is that Davis quit drawing the
strip pretty early on and has other people drawing
it ever since.Something I think a lot of people
don't realize is that Japan has a much healthier
media ecosystem in many respects. Like we just
don't get new comic strips here and haven't in
decades whereas in Japan they get new 4-koma like
Bocci the Rock and The Demon Girl Next Door all
the time and these get anime and video games and
merchandise and make tons of money.Our media
industry has to realize that it doesn't just have
a cyclical problem but that it is stuck recycling
the same old properties over and over again as it
shrinks. It's got to give a chance to some new
blood.
|
> > > cogman10
Japan will certainly drive a property into the
ground (Dragonball, Naruto) though at least
they keep coming up with new/inventive stories
to go along with it. I'd also say Japanese
media isn't without it's tropes that it
repeats ad nauseam if they are successful
once.But comparatively the US and most of the
rest of the world is in a media dark age. The
US seems to only manage to invent a new good
property every decade or so. Everything else
is rehashing existing ideas.I really would
like to know what Japan does differently to
nurture new properties. It clearly works. It
seems South Korea and China are also doing
pretty well in that aspect.
|
> > > > nemomarx
the publishers seem to have more interest
in trying new writers and ideas and
letting them sink or swim, basically. Like
the same weekly magazine that publishers
one piece might let your little idea get
in there too, and if readers seem to like
it they'll open up spots for you in the
schedule, or it can die as a one shot or
get cancelled after a few chapters.Lots of
new interesting stuff comes out and dies
or doesn't survive, but it means they do
have some constant incubation. The
American version of this for comics is
basically letting new writers try their
hand at a big existing property to see if
they're any good, but that means the new
ideas are "fun spin on batman" or etc.
(And of course the indie scene exists in
both to different extents, but the
publishers for non DC/Marvel stuff in the
US are anemic.)I hear scholastic is
genuinely good, but they have a very
specific audience ofc.
|
> > > > fragmede
Hilariously, Dragonball is a rehashing of
a far older folktale.
|
> > > > > hibikir
The very beginning was. Most japanese
comics are designed to be serialized
for a long time, and are built to
change direction if needed: Getting
serialized is difficult, and low
enough reader scores get you kicked
out of the magazines, so it's common
for a story to be built to swerve.
Early Dragon Ball is a light thing
like Dr Slump but a little more some
fighting, but anything related to the
old folk tale was dead and gone by,
say, the second time there's a martial
arts tournament. Most of what most
people think about regarding dragon
ball is past the moment where we
randomly learn, through the power of
retconning, that our main character
was an alien all along, and people of
his race are invading earth. Not quite
the kind of thing from Journey to the
West
|
> > > > > telesilla
Some viewers will remember growing up
with the TV series Monkey, whose
bizarre images and stories of Pigsy
and the titular flying Monkey I shall
never forget.Monkey Magic theme song
anyone?
https://youtu.be/wddJnq-D3XM?si=J2xAgX
oygreTD73whttps://en.wikipedia.org/wik
i/Monkey_(TV_series)
|
> > > > > xandrius
Rehashing and inspired by are
different things.There are certain
elements of Journey to the West found
in DB but not even Goku is similar to
Wukong. Yes, monkey-like features,
extending stick, perhaps a couple of
early characters but everything else
is not even close. So I don't think
it's fair to say that is a rehash.
|
> > > > > > HelloNurse
Judging from the initial portion
of the anime Dragonball pivoted
gradually from a loose adaptation
of Journey to the West (with Goku
as the protagonist among funny
versions of traditional
characters) to a more original and
specific setting and plot (with
Goku as the most important of many
Saiyan and martial artists).
|
> > > > > > lazide
'journey to the west'
[https://collider.com/dragon-ball-
journey-to-the-west/], about 400
years old.
|
> > > > > > PaulHoule
Another Chinese classic is The
Romance of the Three Kingdoms and
I think that might be one of the
oldest character-rich media
franchises of all times. Drawings
of Cao Cao and other characters
have been identifiable for
hundreds of years. They are still
making video games (Dynasty
Warriors) and TV shows based on
it.
|
> > > > PaulHoule
I hardly ever watch those anime which go
on forever like Bleach.When I go out
ashttps://mastodon.social/@UP8/11648419893
5085911I find 20% or so people in the
general population in my town recognize
who I am right away because they watched
either Naruto or Demon Slayer and those
are both in my queue so I can understand
better what they know about me.... but it
is hard because there is Slayers and
Futari Wa Precure and many many anime that
have a few 12 epsiode seasons in my queue.
And a lot of that is in the "so bad it's
good category". One of my guilty pleasures
ishttps://w1.backstabbedinabackwaterdungeo
n.xyz/chapters/1/which gets really good
over time because the crazy overpowered
protagonist and his Level 9999 friends
almost meet their match and I never would
have discovered the light novel and manga
if I hadn't been willing to watch a truly
atrocious J.C. Staff anime. Only in Japan
can some ordinary person write a web
novel, get a contract for a light novel,
get a manga made, then get an anime, video
games, etc. The "media mix" strategy lets
their industry market test content with
low risk and the anime doesn't even have
to be profitable on its own if it
convinces 10,000 or so obsessive fans to
shell out $150 to buy all the books of the
light novel and another $150 to buy the
books of the manga.The cost structure of
the US media industry is a lot worse and
divides between super-expensive prestige
content and a tier of slop. It's all a
gatekeeping-industrial complex and no
wonder people are pissed about DEI, "woke"
and all that because it's a zero sum game.
The industry would love to get another J.
K. Rowlings and we've probably had 10 of
them who never got greenlit because of low
risk tolerance.
|
> > > > > cogman10
> crazy overpowered protagonist and
his Level 9999 friends almost meet
their matchIs this the origin of that
trope? I've seen a couple of
anime/manga that use the same story as
a jump off point. Character that
doesn't know their own strength kicked
out of the party for being "weak" only
for us to later find out they are one
of the strongest/most powerful
individuals in the world.
|
> > > > > > PaulHoule
Nah, that one is too new. Turns
out this guy's power is only
useful at the very bottom of the
most dangerous dungeon which has
dense enough mana that he can
summon people and items stronger
than the surface world. It's
marketed as a crazy revenge
fantasy and it is that, but it
would be unfair it to compare it
to the really mean-spirited
revenge stories that come out of
Korean and China.
|
> > > Forgeties79
It's healthy in that there is a lot of
interesting stuff constantly going on, but the
actual work conditions are incredibly
unhealthy for a lot of those creators.
|
> > > jkestner
I guess, but I'd just say it's moved to other
distribution models because who reads
newspapers now? Mostly people who want to read
Family Circus reruns (okay, that's
uncharitable).I can't speak to other
countries, but we have a very healthy
ecosystem in webcomics. I back several on
Patron, buy the compilations of others on
Kickstarter, and otherwise grab new issues at
my local comic book store or library.
|
> > > mcmoor
Heh I never expect to see Demon Girl Next Door
in public let alone in HN of all places. Seems
like I'll have to see that backstabbed
whatever too eventhough I never touched any
work of that genre.
|
> > rbanffy
> I wish we had more watersons running things in
all forms of media.The world needs Watersons now
more than ever. And Calvins and Hobbeses.
|
> > > mapontosevenths
The world has no place for men like Waterson,
and it is precisely when the world leaves no
place for them that men like him are most
necessary.
|
> > > > > mapontosevenths
Women who dress like Marlene Dietrich
are also acceptable, but that's where
I draw the line.More seriously, I
should have capitalized the "M" to
make clear that it was Men, as in
Mankind, but this is the internet in
2026 and most people are only
semi-literate. I'm not certain it
would have helped.Especially if
someone wants to be offended. You just
can't stop them if that was their goal
going into it.
|
> > > > > > iamtedd
There is a gender-indeterminate
alternative: people.Using "man" to
refer to all people stopped being
popular last century.
|
> > > > > > mapontosevenths
Popularity and correctness are
unrelated concepts.The word "Men"
was gender neutral long before it
became masculine, and Armstrong
did not take "one giant leap for
peoplekind".
|
> > Forgeties79
> He did things like purposefully making odd
shaped vertical comics just to force the comics
page editors to deal with and think about how
they'd lay out the page. All to try and break
people out of commercial thought, to make people
question "why is the layout like this".In his
defense, this was also partially because they kept
shrinking the space he had so he was trying to
work with what he had while also forcing their
hands into giving him more room to work with.
|
> wodenokoto
I think it was on the front page here a few weeks ago
about the creation of garfield.Apparently Davis had
been struggling with a previous comic strip and when
an editor told him that his characters just weren't
what people wanted to see, he rethought his entire
strategy and decided to emulate the success of
Snoopi:- Cute character, but instead of going for dog
lovers, there was a hole in the market for cat lovers-
Few, related jokes that can recur all the time (Love
lasagna, hates mondays)- No word plays - should be
easy to translate- No political jokes- No deep jokes -
should be accessible- Lots of merchandiseI think it is
super interesting that he set out from the start to
build a "sell out"-brand and after reading this, I
kinda respect the whole thing a lot more.
|
> > xandrius
You respect someone who plans to be a sell-out
more than someone who sells out later for whatever
other reason?
|
> > > dust-jacket
Not the commenter, but yeah, I think I
do.Setting out to do something commercial (and
succeeding), is different from setting out to
do something firmly non-commercial and then
commercialising it. The second one will almost
always involve compromise that was never
intended, which often undermines the original,
non-commercial version.
|
> > > wodenokoto
Maybe not for what-ever-reason, but I do
respect someone who can read the market and
build what the market needs, more than someone
who stumbles into it. It also means that he
stuck with his guns. He didn't "sell out", he
decided to just "sell".
|
> > > naasking
Note that you're asking whether it's more
impressive that someone managed to analyze and
intentionally create an appealing,
cross-cultural, and marketable product, rather
than creating something appealing completely
by accident. Of course the former is far more
impressive than the latter, assuming it really
was intention as laid out by the OP. It
requires intelligence and understanding of the
world.
|
> > > grdjjhgggg
I think building a business is hard, and
people that succeed at it (in a generally
non-harmful way) are impressive. Setting out
to build a business and succeeding, as opposed
to stumbling into it unawares, is indeed more
impressive to me, I think.
|
> > > TeMPOraL
Obviously. You're not a "sell-out" if you are
honest up front about your work being
commercial.I find both doing it for money, and
doing it for personal or benevolent reasons to
be good. What I find despicable is claiming
you're doing something for selfless reasons,
but actually doing it for profit. That's what
dishonest and shows ill will towards other
human beings.(Doesn't have to be strictly
about money either. The amount of voices you
could hear saying they won't be writing blog
articles or OSS because it'll become training
data for LLMs, and that this thus deprives the
world of their pro bono work, clearly shows
there's plenty of such dishonest attitudes in
OSS circles too.)
|
> > > RealityVoid
Well, at least he sold something. Only halfway
joking. Because probably worse than knowing
you put slop out is putting thing out nobody
likes.
|
> kemayo
There's this quote from the 2010 interview with
Waterson:> If I had rolled along with the strip's
popularity and repeated myself for another five, ten,
or twenty years, the people now "grieving" for Calvin
and Hobbes would be wishing me dead and cursing
newspapers for running tedious, ancient strips like
mine instead of acquiring fresher, livelier talent.
And I'd be agreeing with them.
|
> > dmurray
But don't we all feel sure he could have rolled
along for three or two or one more year? Surely
it's not like his creativity ran out suddenly on
Jan 1 1996 and he had no more comic strips in him.
And it's not like the quality of the strips had
started a slow decline, so... couldn't we have got
one more year of cartoons?I'm kidding really. Bill
Watterson doesn't owe us anything; if he was no
longer enjoying creating the comics, why should we
get to enjoy reading them? And we'd just have the
same complaint if he quit after eleven years
instead of ten, or worse, we'd be saying how the
last couple of years it was clear his heart wasn't
in it.
|
> > > bombcar
Watterson and Larson (both who retired at or
near the "top" of their game) could easily
have gone on for a year or two more - or
three, or five, or twenty.But they both knew
that the font was running low, if not
completely dry; likely triggered by starting a
joke and realizing they'd done it before years
ago.Both have "come back" here and there to
dabble, as appropriate for someone who
actually knows how to retire.
|
> > > > tombert
I respect it honestly.The Simpsons used to
be my favorite show, but I feel like the
quality dropped dramatically after season
~13 or so. Part of that is because I got
older, I'll admit, but even rewatching the
older seasons, I still find them funny
while season 13 and onward I simply
don't.I would have so rather they ended
the show twenty years ago and use whatever
budget they spent making it on new
cartoons.
|
> > > > vintermann
Schultz, who is still fairly universally
beloved (including by Watterson I think?)
went on forever. So did Johnny Hart (BC).
The trick is that they're not really
trying to get a laugh out of you every
day. They're a slightly surreal setting
with warmth, and a few recurring
gags.Larson and Watterson were high
intensity in a way classic cartoonists
weren't. That's not bad, but most people
are probably going to burn out or worse
(e.g. ending up like Scott Adams).
|
> > > > > bombcar
I take Schultz as the epitome of the
"danger" of going forever - the early
Peanuts is substantially different
than the later ones.But he's also a
good example of "growing with his
audience" - the latter strips pleased
his readers even if they didn't gain
many additional.I do find that it's
sad that in an era of increasingly
cheaper and cheaper printing that
comics continue to shrink.
|
> > > > youainti
Another example of retiring at the top was
Howard Tayler's Schlock Mercenary. A 20
year run of daily comics with about 16-17
years of that being a reasonably
consistent storyline.
|
> > > > dhosek
Berke Breathed should have taken their
example more seriously.
|
> > > ghaff
Doing a daily anything is hard. Garry Trudeau
sort of did a good compromise by pivoting to
just a Sunday entry--that is still pretty
solid. But my general observation is that it's
really hard to keep things flowing day-in and
day-out as a cartoonist/columnist/etc.
|
> > > > tombert
I didn't read the comics when they were
new, but I started reading the daily rerun
comics of Doonesbury, and I hadn't
realized how funny they actually are.I
guess as a kid I always thought it was the
comic that "old people" liked, and never
gave it much of a shot, but I kind of
inadvertently found it recently and it
actually pretty good.
|
> > > > > bombcar
The old ones vs the current ones
really do hit different.
|
> > > vidarh
One of my favourite comic artists, Mads
Eriksen [1][2] basically "disappeared" in
2008-2009 and didn't start regularly
publishing comics again for more than a decade
(at a much slower pace) because of the
pressure and burnout.Maybe Watterson could
have squeezed another year or two out of
himself, but it's by no means a given it
wouldn't have meant unreasonable personal
sacrifice.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mads_Eriksen_(ca
rtoonist)[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_(comic_strip)
|
> > > TFNA
> And it's not like the quality of the strips
had started a slow declineWe have had threads
on HN before about C&H where people identify a
slight but noticeable change in the strip in
the last years. Watterson was naturally
growing more ornery as he moved towards dad
age, and that more dismal view of the world
did grind against the strip's basis in the
wonder and magic of childhood.
|
> > > > ASalazarMX
Also, culture changes, and treatening a
little kid with psychological or physical
harm isn't as funny as it was back then.
You had to grow up in that era to
appreciate it. Despite loving and being
loved by their parents, Calvin is
frequently terrified of them.I think this
implies that Calvin is not as unruly as it
appears, and he was raised with good
values, so he still obeys his parents most
of the time because he knows they want the
best for him.If we still had Calvin and
Hobbes nowadays, it wouldn't be as well
received if it didn't change with the
times. I can't picture them going to
family theraphy, for example, although I
haven't read all the strips.
|
> > > CrazyStat
I have similar feelings about TV shows. There
are shows that I wish hadn't ended after a
couple of seasons, but there are also a ton of
shows that dragged on for 6, 8, 15 seasons
when it clearly would have been better to end
them years earlier.Overall I lean toward
appreciating things that end early more than
things that end late.
|
> > jandrese
Joke is on him. The comic section of the paper (if
it even has one anymore) is filled with fossilized
strips that weren't even fresh in the 80s. The
comic cartel in the US basically killed off the
medium.
|
> > > thatguy0900
Do any households with young children present
even get the newspaper anymore? I would wager
if I asked my nephews and nieces they would
all say they've never actually read a
newspaper comic strip. I don't think any
amount of freshness would have saved that
|
> > > esikich
I don't think I've seen a newspaper in
anyone's house in like 15-20 years.
|
> mkovach
Whenever I read something about Bill Watterson, I end
up thinking about how, during the '80s and early '90s,
Watterson, Tom Batiuk, and Harvey Pekar were all
producing some of their best work.Three Northeast Ohio
creators, working in different areas of the comics
world, yet it's easy to imagine a shared universe
where Calvin and Hobbes, Funky Winkerbean, and
American Splendor all occupy the same map and
interact.They also had in common that the work itself
was the product. The strips and stories came first;
merchandising, branding, and other empires were either
absent or beside the point.That's probably a
coincidence. Or it says something about what 1970s
acid rain did to the water in Lake Erie. But Northeast
Ohio did seem to have produced an unusual number of
artists who were more interested in the work than in
building a franchise.
|
> _the_inflator
I totally agree.BW got thrown under the buss for
taking a stance, his stance. He is a nonconformist and
really, he puts in his comics a one of a kind mixture
of childish silliness, questions, statements, and
philosophical topics.There is no politics other than
being a nonconformist who gets bullied today now,
which not even ironically proves his point as well
reinforces it.It is like he is simply protecting the
purity of his characters, not the other way around. He
appears to be a medium, not so much an artist.He is a
treasure, and a singularity. I ordered all of his
comics back then and to this day hold them dearly and
the books are treated with so much decency, they
appear as never opened. I for example never fold the
book cover, nothing. It is a weird thing of mine, but
it is out of respect for an author with whom I have a
conversation.
|
> imgabe
I think the newspapers and books alone still probably
made Waterson a decent amount of money. More than
enough to live comfortably forever. I remember Scott
Adams (of Dilbert) once saying his syndication deal
was something like $6 million per year, I'm sure
Calvin and Hobbes was at least comparable and the
books certainly sold well. Newspapers used to be
absolute cash cows.
|
> badpun
> but if I created a lovable comic character and
someone offered me a dumptruck full of money> would
like to think I have integrity, and I think I do to
some extent (there are certain types of companies I
will not work for e.g. casinos)What if a casino
offered you a dumptruck full of money?
|
> > tombert
If I were offered a dump truck full of money from
a casino in order to help the casino optimize
their gambling, then I think I would have enough
restraint to say no.I say this because I did turn
down a very lucrative job opportunity at an online
casino recently. It wasn't as much money as Bill
Waterson almost certainly turned down, but it
would be a very significant bump in my salary.
|
> blindriver
If I were a trillionaire like Elon Musk, Bill
Watterson would be one of those people I would
anonymous gift enough money so that the rest of their
lives would be comfortable. We need more people like
him, and he should be rewarded for it.
|
> > hackmack10
Bill Watterson is worth a hundred million dollars.
He's not hurting for cash.
|
> > > blindriver
He didn't license his characters, he's not
worth a hundred million dollars.
|
> > > > alex0015
In 2023 his publisher said that his
printed collections had sold 50 million
copies worldwide, and that the strip had
appeared in 2,400 newspapers. That's at
least tens of millions of dollars over
many years, and with little spending and
risk-averse investments, it's not
unreasonable to conclude $100M for the
total net worth figure.
|
> > > > > TeMPOraL
Yes, but what fraction of that money
ever reached him?
|
> > > > > > tombert
I think a hundred million is
probably a bit optimistic.That
said, I would be surprised if he's
not at least a multi-millionaire.
|
> > > > Benlovescnn
The guy that never sold out won't have the
island next to supreme sellouts, jared and
ivanka.
|
> > > jonstewart
Citation? I'm sure he's fine but $100M?
|
> > > > esikich
Sure, he's sold 10s of millions of books
plus all the syndication money. Sounds
about right.
|
> > bombcar
Bill Watterson is comfortable for life - even
without merchandising he's easily a millionaire
multiple times over.
|
> > dTal
Ah, I think it's safe to say you wouldn't. Nothing
against you, but the personality required to
acquire a trillion (!!!) dollars is incompatible
with the kind of philanthropic thinking you
clearly possess.
|
> > > kbelder
Most philanthropic spending is from rich
people, believe it or not.
|
> selfmodruntime
Eh. There is one thing I don't agree with in the name
of integrity: Waterson didn't allow sales of a stuffed
pet tiger akin to Hobbes, which millions of children
(me included) must've dreamt of. He could've made it
affordable and so keep his integrity.
|
> > wrs
As the article points out, the reason for that
particular lack of merchandise is even deeper.>
Watterson insisted that if he wasn't going to
settle the question of Hobbes, then he definitely
wouldn't let some toy manufacturer settle it by
turning Hobbes "into a stuffed toy for real, and
deprive the strip of an element of its magic".
|
> > > vasco
Having a toy representation of the tiger
doesn't mean anything about what the tiger is
or represents. I'm with the downvoted OP, it's
a holier than thou position and many people
would've had even extra joy compared to just
having the comic books. Plus, people make
their own anyway.
|
> > > > steve_adams_86
Someone making their own is exactly how it
should be. This is perfectly aligned with
the spirit of the character. A factory
churning out clones of Hobbes, and
Watterson essentially making a statement
that Hobbes is in fact just a toy would go
against that spirit.Some things really are
better when you need to use your
imagination.
|
> > tombert
I mean, I think he was just afraid that the comic
would become a merchandise machine instead of a
comic, and I think he didn't want that.
|
> > fragmede
There's like 100 of them on Etsy right now.
|
dgritsko
What a brilliantly written piece. Maintaining one's
integrity is unfortunately rare enough that it makes
Watterson's story so remarkable. I completely respect and
admire his dedication to doing something for its own sake,
for holding himself to the highest standards imaginable,
and from walking away from it all for his own reasons -
even if selfishly I'd rather him keep writing so that
there would be more to enjoy. Time to go pull some old
volumes of Calvin & Hobbes off the shelf for the hundredth
time, I suppose.
|
> all2
I have so much nostalgia for Watterson's work. I
occasionally will buy another of the hard bound 3
volume set. I always wind up giving them away and then
buying another.A worthy cause, I hope.
|
> > smithkl42
I'm waiting until my kids are out of the house
(just a couple of years now) to repurchase the
3-volume set. The first purchase didn't survive my
kids' childhood - which, yes, I think Watterson
would have approved.
|
> > snorremd
The three volume hard-book bound set is one of my
favorite possessions. It has been a little while
since I read them, but I must have read them cover
to cover twice. The print quality and feeling of
the hefty books makes them feel like really high
end comics in the material sense. I really respect
Watterson in keeping the comic pure in the sense
that the characters only exist in that one medium.
|
> > rbanffy
It makes everybody's day a little bit more
surreal. Certainly a worthy cause.
|
> > > lproven
For those who do not know, this comment is
itself a C&H
reference.https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandho
bbes/1986/09/27https://www.reddit.com/media?ur
l=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F4...
|
> > > > rbanffy
Good to see you here, Liam.This is why I
love this community.
|
> Cider9986
It's great that he wasn't tricked or coerced. I
imagine some artists have the integrity, but not the
knowledge to prevent being taken advantage of.
|
> echelon
Was this the right choice, though?Interest in Calvin &
Hobbes has fallen off a cliff. I don't see any
references to it in public anymore, and it used to be
everywhere.Kids today probably don't even know about
it.
|
> > defen
I bought my 8 year old daughter the hardcover box
set for Christmas. When she opened it her initial
reaction was definitely "oh...thanks" (she was
clearly not excited about it but wanted to be
nice). Within a week it was borderline impossible
to get her to put them down and go to sleep at
night.
|
> > > ericd
Yeah, our boys read my old C&H collection more
than almost any of their modern kids books.
Downside, it's inspired all sorts of
mischievous ideas.Roald Dahl, too, and the
Uncle series. These old books have more of an
edge to them that our kids seem to light up
at, and I've had a hard time finding modern
equivalents. Most of the modern kids books
seem too saccharine/sterile by comparison.
Maybe it's just survivorship bias, these are
just the old books that people bothered to
keep reading.
|
> > > > sgarland
And Dahl's foundation or whatever it's
called had the audacity to try to rewrite
the books; removing references to people
as ugly, or fat, etc.You don't get to
rewrite books because they make you feel
uncomfortable. Don't read them. Even
Disney has had the common sense to not
alter the problematic parts of its films,
they just issue a warning at the beginning
that it doesn't represent their current
values.
|
> > > > > GJim
> Even Disney has had the common sense
to not alter the problematic parts of
its filmsTrue, Disney don't merely
alter them..... they bury
them!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip
-a-Dee-Doo-Dah
|
> > > > > ericd
Ah yeah, I heard about that, I think
we have the older edition. I think
it's fine to just stop and provide
some parental commentary about it - it
can be a good forcing function for
talking about that stuff.Hopefully
they didn't take out the Oompa
Loompa's judgemental songs, the kids
find those hilarious. The humor's the
sugar that makes the moral tale about
how to be and not to be in the world
go down - don't be a glutton, don't be
greedy, try to be humble, kind, and
empathetic like Charlie. It's not
actually about superficial traits.
|
> > > > wrs
Yeah. Ronald Dahl once said something to
the effect that to make a good children's
book the first thing you have to do is
kill off the parents!
|
> > > > > ericd
Sometimes by having a rhinoceros
suddenly and unceremoniously gobble
them up.
|
> > > > everfrustrated
Sadly the same happened to modern
publications of Enid Blyton.
Best to find old editions.
|
> > > senordevnyc
Exact same story here. I got my father in law
the box set as a gift, and when my daughter
was about seven she started reading them when
we were visiting them. So I bought her a set
of her own. She still reads them all the time
at 11.
|
> > jjulius
My wife and I take turns each night doing bedtime
for our two girls, 4/6. I have the full C&H box
set and, a whiiiiile back, my oldest asked what it
was and if we could read it.For over a year now,
any time it's my time to do bedtime, we have to
read C&H and cannot read anything else. We've been
cruising through it from start to finish and are,
within the next week or so, going to reach the
end.Both kiddos, especially my oldest, have been
demanding that we start it over. I'll probably
table it for a couple of years and then come back
to it when they're just a bit older, but yeah...
kids definitely know about it and really do
appreciate/enjoy it.Edit: To say nothing of the
idea that, eventually, everything fades into
obscurity. I feel like what you're lamenting is
something that actually jives with Watterson
philosophically.
|
> > > zavec
Hmm, where have I seen a story before where a
kid wants their parents to read the same book
over and over. I can't quite put my finger on
it...
|
> > beAbU
And that's perfectly fine!It makes the accidental
discovery of C&H all the more special. I remember
the day a school friend showed me a C&H book he
got from his dad. It was never in the newspapers
where I grew up, so I would never have discovered
it otherwise.Not everything in this world needs to
obtain global reach and fame.
|
> > conception
Rather than bombard children with advertising to
buy plastic junk? Y...yes it was the right choice?
|
> > vohk
I think that's just a natural part of the times
changing and generations having their own icons.
In contrast to the shambling undead of Mickey
Mouse and other eternally recycled franchises, I
think it's OK to for things to fade a little. If
nothing else, it leaves things for future
generations to rediscover and make their own.
|
> > willis936
I'm not a kid, but I asked for some calvin and
hobbes books for my birthday. The postmodernism
laid out in the first comic of each anthology gets
the main thrust across. It's a timeless piece of
art. It doesn't need boosting. It will be there
for me to reach for if I have kids who might enjoy
them.https://youtu.be/P5ivZLTMhso
|
> > pydry
I saw a little girl reading it on public transport
just yesterday.
|
> > LandoCalrissian
Everything comes to an end friend, not everything
needs to go on forever. Maybe it is forgotten,
left behind, but that's not really important.
What's important is it ended on his terms and some
of us had the privilege to experience it.There
will still be people that find Calvin for the
first time, and they will get the same privilege.
I'm glad he did it his way and I think most of his
new fans will as well.
|
> > nkrisc
It's still there in libraries and bookstores, and
even online. It's not going anywhere.My son enjoys
reading the collection I had when I was young.
|
> > cortesoft
Is that the main goal, though? Making sure your
characters stay in the public conciousness?I am
not sure that is the most important thing, or even
that important at all. The characters matter a LOT
to people of a certain age, and his decisions
helped maintain that.
|
> > jamesfinlayson
I haven't looked at the comics in a physical
newspaper in a while but it was still there maybe
12 years ago (in Australia at least).
|
> > biomcgary
My teenage boys are hooked on Calvin & Hobbes.
|
> > prmoustache
My 7y old nephew inherited my complete collection
and is a big fan.
|
> > alanbernstein
I suggested it to my young kids and it became an
instant favorite.
|
jeronimobomfim
I once posted Bill Watterson's speech to the 1990
graduating class of his alma mater, but it never got to
the front pages. I think I tried posting it again, no go.
I just made this account so I can try it a third time.
More than any comment I could write to some HN post, I
wished people would click on the link and read it.
Here's hoping some of you will do it, before it's wiped
out from the
net:https://web.mit.edu/jmorzins/www/C-H-speech.html
|
> frollogaston
Great speech. I appreciate how he talked about not
selling out, but only after he described how tough it
is to earn money in the real world. Especially because
Kenyon is one of those places you would hear "I don't
care about money" from people who already got it the
easy way.A quote that stood out: "Selling out is
usually more a matter of buying in. Sell out, and
you're really buying into someone else's system of
values, rules and rewards."
|
> > Folcon
> A quote that stood out: "Selling out is usually
more a matter of buying in. Sell out, and you're
really buying into someone else's system of
values, rules and rewards."This quote more than
ever seems like taking the road less travelled by
in this day and age
|
> jfengel
I take advice from rich people with a grain of salt.
It's easier to praise the value of money over
integrity when you have both. They don't ask starving
artists to give graduation speeches.Watterson appears
to have genuine integrity and I applaud him. There is
a point where you have enough money, and the ones who
deserve the most scorn are those who cheat to get even
more when they have orders of magnitude more than
that. But don't forget that a lot of people really do
have to choose between integrity and dinner, and I
don't judge their decision.
|
> > sometimes_all
It is my opinion that while you do not judge
people who have to choose between integrity and
dinner, you can definitely judge people who made
decisions and structured their life in such a way
that they had that choice, and not only did they
choose money, but did it in such a way that what
other people would call riches was subsistence for
them because of the lifestyle they led.> There is
a point where you have enough moneyYou forego the
option of choosing when you end up chasing a goal
or living a standard of living which requires you
to continuously choose money every time. It takes
a lot of thinking to come to what "enough" means.
For some, enough is a few hundred thousand dollars
max. For some, even a billion is not enough. You
can definitely appreciate the former when they
reach that goal and stay there, but it becomes
difficult to appreciate the latter (and they are
the focus of most of the criticism here), because
you do need to sacrifice more than a bit of
integrity in that case.
|
> smallerize
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38751452
|