Is this some snobby, elitist, aesthetic thing?
November 19, 2015 10:58 AM Subscribe
Unlike Schulz, Watterson was unable to reconcile his creative ambitions with the lucrative opportunities that success had opened up. He was every bit Schulz’s artistic heir, but he had little interest in inheriting the fertile commercial landscape that Schulz had so carefully cultivated. Twenty-five years later, their disagreements come across as equal parts quaint and timely — a remnant from the last era when newspaper cartoonists commanded widespread readerships and profitable product lines, and an ageless meditation on what selling out and authenticity mean in a commercial art form. -- Luke Epplin in the LA Review of Books on Bill Watterson, "failed revolutionary".
He then moved back to his hometown of Chagrin Falls
I can think of no better-named town for a cartoonist to come from.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 11:12 AM on November 19, 2015 [22 favorites]
I can think of no better-named town for a cartoonist to come from.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 11:12 AM on November 19, 2015 [22 favorites]
There was plenty of good corporate rock music, back in the day. The story of Robotman's origins might be more manufactured than expected (is it really, though?), but the end-product was still creative and quality.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:23 AM on November 19, 2015
posted by Apocryphon at 11:23 AM on November 19, 2015
Working in WFH comics I often ask myself questions like these, about the commercial nature of art and if there are lines that should not be crossed when it comes to slowing art to become a brand...
Younger cartoonists took notice. Jim Davis, the creator of Garfield, set out specifically to match not Schulz’s quality but his financial success. In contrast to Schulz, Davis has acknowledged that PAWS, Inc., his licensing arm, takes precedence over the strip itself. In an interview on his Garfield.com website, he states: “I set aside one week each month to focus on writing the comic strip. Once I get in writing mode, the gags can sometimes really flow and I might write 4-6 weeks worth of material in one week.” He then leaves the more tedious tasks like coloring and lettering to his teams of assistants. He devotes the rest of the month to finding creative ways to expand the Garfield brand.
Garfield. Garfield is the line.
posted by Artw at 11:25 AM on November 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
Younger cartoonists took notice. Jim Davis, the creator of Garfield, set out specifically to match not Schulz’s quality but his financial success. In contrast to Schulz, Davis has acknowledged that PAWS, Inc., his licensing arm, takes precedence over the strip itself. In an interview on his Garfield.com website, he states: “I set aside one week each month to focus on writing the comic strip. Once I get in writing mode, the gags can sometimes really flow and I might write 4-6 weeks worth of material in one week.” He then leaves the more tedious tasks like coloring and lettering to his teams of assistants. He devotes the rest of the month to finding creative ways to expand the Garfield brand.
Garfield. Garfield is the line.
posted by Artw at 11:25 AM on November 19, 2015 [15 favorites]
If Bill Watterson is a failure, we need a lot more failures in our culture.
posted by zipadee at 11:29 AM on November 19, 2015 [39 favorites]
posted by zipadee at 11:29 AM on November 19, 2015 [39 favorites]
The story of Robotman's origins might be more manufactured than expected (is it really, though?), but the end-product was still creative and quality.So when I was seven or eight years old, my grandfather's new wife gave me a Robot Girl doll for Christmas because that's what she thought I'd like. Remembering the original Robot Man cartoon made the evolution of the Morty comic kind of weird.
posted by pxe2000 at 11:31 AM on November 19, 2015
Through a long and protracted struggle, Watterson managed to gain control of his own narrative and destiny. A after producing an impressive body of work, he gracefully bowed out at the top of his game, and is arguably one of the most respected popular artists alive.
Far too much of this essay dances around the flawed premise that Watterson is a failure because he opted-out of a system that he was increasingly at odds with. I couldn't agree with this any less -- Watterson opted-out of a system that he didn't want to be a part of. He chose not to compromise, and chose to prioritize his own health and integrity.
By opting out, his work has also not been tarnished by decades of insipid merchandising and spin-offs. Are we seriously going to hold up Jim Davis as a benchmark for success?
To that end, what IS the definition of success for a popular artist? To work until you die, get rich, or fall from grace via some horrible scandal? Screw that noise.
Watterson donated a huge and incredible corpus of work to society, and is now happily enjoying his retirement.
Few of us could even dream of being so lucky.
posted by schmod at 11:34 AM on November 19, 2015 [108 favorites]
Far too much of this essay dances around the flawed premise that Watterson is a failure because he opted-out of a system that he was increasingly at odds with. I couldn't agree with this any less -- Watterson opted-out of a system that he didn't want to be a part of. He chose not to compromise, and chose to prioritize his own health and integrity.
By opting out, his work has also not been tarnished by decades of insipid merchandising and spin-offs. Are we seriously going to hold up Jim Davis as a benchmark for success?
To that end, what IS the definition of success for a popular artist? To work until you die, get rich, or fall from grace via some horrible scandal? Screw that noise.
Watterson donated a huge and incredible corpus of work to society, and is now happily enjoying his retirement.
Few of us could even dream of being so lucky.
posted by schmod at 11:34 AM on November 19, 2015 [108 favorites]
Yeah, the Robotman thing was a revelation to me, too. That the titular character was phased out because the merchandising failed just... well, that's just perfect.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:36 AM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:36 AM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Jim Davis: the Thomas Kinkade of comics.
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:38 AM on November 19, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 11:38 AM on November 19, 2015 [10 favorites]
>Having exhausted the world of Calvin and Hobbes, Watterson retreated into silence and solitude. He claims to have taken up painting, but has never exhibited his work.
>He has become, perhaps, what he desired all along: an audience of one, laboring over artwork that will never be corrupted or compromised because it will never be consumed.
Wow, grinding an axe much? Watterson quit at the top of his game, fought for his strip's integrity and won, and is widely regarded as one of the best cartoonists to put pen to paper at any time ever. He's in a class with Schultz, Herriman, Kelly, and maybe a couple others. What would he have gotten out of making his strip into Happy Meals, besides money that he didn't need, and a lasting feeling of disappointment? And "an audience of one"? He's got a global audience of millions. Seriously, what is this guy on about? Why has Bill Watterson's refusal to compromise left this author with a stick up his ass?
Incidentally, Watterson's "claim" to have taken up painting, for fuck's sake, can be substantiated by his contribution to a benefit auction for Richard Thompson, the Cul de Sac cartoonist, who's contending with Parkinson's.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 11:42 AM on November 19, 2015 [50 favorites]
>He has become, perhaps, what he desired all along: an audience of one, laboring over artwork that will never be corrupted or compromised because it will never be consumed.
Wow, grinding an axe much? Watterson quit at the top of his game, fought for his strip's integrity and won, and is widely regarded as one of the best cartoonists to put pen to paper at any time ever. He's in a class with Schultz, Herriman, Kelly, and maybe a couple others. What would he have gotten out of making his strip into Happy Meals, besides money that he didn't need, and a lasting feeling of disappointment? And "an audience of one"? He's got a global audience of millions. Seriously, what is this guy on about? Why has Bill Watterson's refusal to compromise left this author with a stick up his ass?
Incidentally, Watterson's "claim" to have taken up painting, for fuck's sake, can be substantiated by his contribution to a benefit auction for Richard Thompson, the Cul de Sac cartoonist, who's contending with Parkinson's.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 11:42 AM on November 19, 2015 [50 favorites]
He completely failed when it came to steering the industry away from merch though. Modern independent comics creators, who have a level of creative independence he could only dream of, are often deeply into the merch, in fact, it often being the thing that pays to keep the art going.
posted by Artw at 11:43 AM on November 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:43 AM on November 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yeah, there does seem to be a lot of hand-wringing over decisions that were made before the Internet, which changed everything.
Good article, though; I'll read anything about Watterson and Schulz.
posted by Melismata at 11:45 AM on November 19, 2015
Good article, though; I'll read anything about Watterson and Schulz.
posted by Melismata at 11:45 AM on November 19, 2015
He completely failed when it came to steering the industry away from merch though. Modern independent comics creators, who have a level of creative independence he could only dream of, are often deeply into the merch, in fact, it often being the thing that pays to keep the art going.
Damn you said this seconds before I was going to but exactly. It seems unfair to criticize his specific proposals for cartoonists to wrest greater creative control because lots of cartoonists have - if this has looked different than Watterson proposed it's because he didn't predict the growing irrelevance of the newspapers and syndicates. The actual irony is that merchandising specifically has only become a bigger and bigger component of a cartoonist's income.
posted by atoxyl at 11:48 AM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Damn you said this seconds before I was going to but exactly. It seems unfair to criticize his specific proposals for cartoonists to wrest greater creative control because lots of cartoonists have - if this has looked different than Watterson proposed it's because he didn't predict the growing irrelevance of the newspapers and syndicates. The actual irony is that merchandising specifically has only become a bigger and bigger component of a cartoonist's income.
posted by atoxyl at 11:48 AM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
If Bill Watterson is a failure, we need a lot more failures in our culture.
Or, a culture that doesn't consider such people "failures"...
posted by Greg_Ace at 11:52 AM on November 19, 2015 [20 favorites]
Or, a culture that doesn't consider such people "failures"...
posted by Greg_Ace at 11:52 AM on November 19, 2015 [20 favorites]
There's maybe something to be said to his artistic objections to merch - that it nails the art down to a single simplistic, iconic form and essentially kills it, or in the case of something like Garfield perpetuates something that was never alive to begin with.
posted by Artw at 11:53 AM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:53 AM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Or an independent cartoonist's income, rather - I'm sure merch was already where Jim Davis made most of his money.
posted by atoxyl at 11:53 AM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 11:53 AM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Artw: "Modern independent comics creators, who have a level of creative independence he could only dream of, are often deeply into the merch, in fact, it often being the thing that pays to keep the art going."
Yes, but these artists are also often in complete control of the merchandising of their art, and it generally takes reasonably tasteful forms (ie. prints, shirts, and books), and is often only tangentially related to the comic itself.
posted by schmod at 12:01 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Yes, but these artists are also often in complete control of the merchandising of their art, and it generally takes reasonably tasteful forms (ie. prints, shirts, and books), and is often only tangentially related to the comic itself.
posted by schmod at 12:01 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
You know what, though, I've got no issue with Jim Davis either. He's not going to be remembered the way Watterson will be remembered, but that's not what he's after. Artists get screwed most of the time. Jim Davis has apparently said to himself, you know what, I like to draw, and I'm going to draw something people will want to buy, I'm going to sell it, and I'm not going to get screwed. I'm sure he reflects on his place in popular culture relative to Bill Watterson's every night before eating a 14-oz steak and sleeping like a baby for ten hours. On a pile of krugerrands. And you know what, that's nice work if you can get it for a guy who likes to draw cats, and God bless him.
posted by Sing Or Swim at 12:03 PM on November 19, 2015 [43 favorites]
posted by Sing Or Swim at 12:03 PM on November 19, 2015 [43 favorites]
might have?
Commercially, I guess? Watterson has nowhere near the global reach of Schultz.
posted by Artw at 12:04 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Commercially, I guess? Watterson has nowhere near the global reach of Schultz.
posted by Artw at 12:04 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
He then moved back to his hometown of Chagrin Falls
I can think of no better-named town for a cartoonist to come from.
Yah, we've been down this road before:
Chagrin Falls the town is of course named for Chagrin Falls the waterfalls, which are on the Chagrin River, which got its name from a corruption of either Erie /shagarin/ ('clear water') or of French /Seguin/ (a proper name) (both attested in the 18th c) and has nothing to do with the emotional state of embarassment or mortification.
posted by Herodios at 12:05 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
I can think of no better-named town for a cartoonist to come from.
Yah, we've been down this road before:
Chagrin Falls the town is of course named for Chagrin Falls the waterfalls, which are on the Chagrin River, which got its name from a corruption of either Erie /shagarin/ ('clear water') or of French /Seguin/ (a proper name) (both attested in the 18th c) and has nothing to do with the emotional state of embarassment or mortification.
posted by Herodios at 12:05 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Jim Davis, the creator of Garfield, set out specifically to match not Schulz’s quality but his financial success. In contrast to Schulz, Davis has acknowledged that PAWS, Inc., his licensing arm, takes precedence over the strip itself.
Likewise:
Garfield is not a comic strip. Garfield is a business plan.
posted by Herodios at 12:08 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Likewise:
Garfield is not a comic strip. Garfield is a business plan.
posted by Herodios at 12:08 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I also disagree with some of this author's take on Watterson but I'm not sure some of the comments upthread quite get his point. My reading was that Epplin was applauding Watterson's stance on artistic integrity but criticizing him for retiring right at the moment he could have lead the revolutionary vanguard to indie publishing and the web. This was the key takeaway paragraph for me:
posted by Wretch729 at 12:09 PM on November 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
Although he couldn’t have known it at the moment, his speech came at a pivotal time for comics. Digital technologies soon would nibble away at newspaper circulation and upend the industry’s core business model, causing editors to shrink strip size even further. With his clout and vision, Watterson could have blazed a trail forward for his fellow cartoonists, leading an exodus from newspaper pages to either the internet or a boutique publisher, where he could have secured ample white space for his art. Instead, he abandoned comics precisely when his iconoclasm was most needed.Epplin poses an interesting counterfactual but I also think it comes across as entitled and ignores who Watterson is as a person. I think he'd hate leading a revolution as anything other than a reclusive inspiring figure, and hate the sort of work that successful webcomics/indiecomics artists have to do to self-promote. Webcomics are largely, if anything, even more dependent on advertising and merch than newspaper comics were and indie published comics remain a niche interest. My impression is that Watterson has always prioritized making his art on his terms above all else, and while indie comics offer many kinds of artistic freedom they don't free you from the demands of capitalism if you want to make them for a living.
posted by Wretch729 at 12:09 PM on November 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
This whole thing reads like a troll.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:11 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 12:11 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
He then moved back to his hometown of Chagrin Falls
I seem to remember a pretty good Chinese restaurant there.
posted by listen, lady at 12:13 PM on November 19, 2015
I seem to remember a pretty good Chinese restaurant there.
posted by listen, lady at 12:13 PM on November 19, 2015
Or an independent cartoonist's income, rather - I'm sure merch was already where Jim Davis made most of his money.
Ha, I still have and use a garfield towel I got in like 1979 or something.
Garfield might be a business-only venture, but I loved it as a kid, and the fact that Jim Davis likes Garfield Minus Garfield makes him seem like an ok guy.
posted by Huck500 at 12:17 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Ha, I still have and use a garfield towel I got in like 1979 or something.
Garfield might be a business-only venture, but I loved it as a kid, and the fact that Jim Davis likes Garfield Minus Garfield makes him seem like an ok guy.
posted by Huck500 at 12:17 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Jim Davis: the Thomas Kinkade of comics.
I'm also going to stick up for Davis, and say that this completely wrong.
Kinkade considered himself a Real Artist. He called himself the "Painter of Light".
Davis, as shown upthread, makes no pretense that he's not in it for the money and just the money. He makes no claims to being a great artist. That's pretty refreshingly honest, and what's wrong with that approach?
He wanted to make a fortune and he made it, and we got some funny comics now and then and some fun merchandise if you like Garfield. Why all the hate? Davis himself would be the first one to agree with all these comments that he's a sell out and Garfield is a business plan.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:28 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm also going to stick up for Davis, and say that this completely wrong.
Kinkade considered himself a Real Artist. He called himself the "Painter of Light".
Davis, as shown upthread, makes no pretense that he's not in it for the money and just the money. He makes no claims to being a great artist. That's pretty refreshingly honest, and what's wrong with that approach?
He wanted to make a fortune and he made it, and we got some funny comics now and then and some fun merchandise if you like Garfield. Why all the hate? Davis himself would be the first one to agree with all these comments that he's a sell out and Garfield is a business plan.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:28 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Plus the Garfield Halloween Special which creeped the everliving fuck out of a generation of kids.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:30 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 12:30 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Garfield Minus Garfield drives me CRAZY because it's so close to right without actually being right; it should be Garfield Minus Garfield's Thought Bubbles. Garfield is a cat. Jon is talking to his cat. Cats are real and people really talk to them, but Garfield doesn't talk back, he just thinks stuff. Jon can't hear the stuff he thinks (I mean unless this is a comic about a telepathic guy), so he's just having this wacko conversations and projecting this whole personality onto his cat.
I know this is the kind of opinion that makes my husband call me a crackpot but it drives me nuts because it's WRONG. Jon just talking to the void where we all know a cat should be? Not that interesting to me. Jon having this elaborate and complex imaginary relationship with his real cat? Much more intrigue and pathos in that.
Seriously, I know that how strongly I hold this opinion makes me sound like a kook but it really does matter to me and it drives me bonkers and I think Garfield Minus Garfield's Thought Bubbles would be SO GOOD because it is actually TRUE! You're not changing the strip, you're just removing the filter of Jon Arbuckle's delusion.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 12:30 PM on November 19, 2015 [37 favorites]
I know this is the kind of opinion that makes my husband call me a crackpot but it drives me nuts because it's WRONG. Jon just talking to the void where we all know a cat should be? Not that interesting to me. Jon having this elaborate and complex imaginary relationship with his real cat? Much more intrigue and pathos in that.
Seriously, I know that how strongly I hold this opinion makes me sound like a kook but it really does matter to me and it drives me bonkers and I think Garfield Minus Garfield's Thought Bubbles would be SO GOOD because it is actually TRUE! You're not changing the strip, you're just removing the filter of Jon Arbuckle's delusion.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 12:30 PM on November 19, 2015 [37 favorites]
I was privileged to take a tour of the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library and Museum a month or so ago. They keep the work Bill Watterson donated (which, I believe, is basically every Calvin and Hobbes strip, among other things) in a vault designed for military-grade weapons. It takes two people to open it and very few people have the code. (This is even within the archive that's pretty highly-secured by itself.)
So there's that. I know they have quite a bit of Schulz's work too but it's not in a separately-secured vault.
(Not bragging or anything -- wait, I totally am -- but I did get to see the original of the final Calvin and Hobbes strip. It's as cool as you'd imagine.)
posted by darksong at 12:32 PM on November 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
So there's that. I know they have quite a bit of Schulz's work too but it's not in a separately-secured vault.
(Not bragging or anything -- wait, I totally am -- but I did get to see the original of the final Calvin and Hobbes strip. It's as cool as you'd imagine.)
posted by darksong at 12:32 PM on November 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
It strikes me as wrongheaded to suggest that, because Watterson successfully stood by his ideals and preserved the integrity of his comic strip, that he was also, by default, a "failed revolutionary" -- really for not even attempting to revolutionize the comics industry.
With a HUGE, HUGE emphasis on the "sort of," It is sort of like saying that the American Revolution was a failure, because it didn't do much to liberate Britain's other colonies across the world.
That said, this description by the author (Luke Epplin) strikes me as a really fair, clear-eyed (and tragic) assessment of how licensing will continue to corrode Peanuts legacy over time:
Nothing this atrocious is likely to ever happen with Calvin and Hobbes. We're just going to be treated to ever more well-packaged editions of this comic, as it's the only way the syndicate will ever be able to monetize the damn thing. That's a victory, I think. Period.
posted by ProfLinusPauling at 12:35 PM on November 19, 2015 [23 favorites]
With a HUGE, HUGE emphasis on the "sort of," It is sort of like saying that the American Revolution was a failure, because it didn't do much to liberate Britain's other colonies across the world.
That said, this description by the author (Luke Epplin) strikes me as a really fair, clear-eyed (and tragic) assessment of how licensing will continue to corrode Peanuts legacy over time:
The pervasive licensing of Peanuts is at least partly responsible for the ongoing redefinition of the strip’s characters. Charlie Brown smiles more in greeting cards than he ever did in the newspaper. In MetLife commercials, he comes across as cheerfully competent. This is hardly surprising. After all, Charlie Brown’s depressive disposition translates poorly to advertising and children’s products. To remain commercially viable, he needed to be stripped of his most identifiable personality traits, dulled beyond recognition. Gradually, Charlie Brown has turned into a benign simulacrum of the character who once defined himself as a friendless nothing.This to me is the bottom line and why Watterson is a success.
Even today, the tension between Schulz’s craft and commerce remains unresolved. Since 2004, Fantagraphics Books, an independent publisher in Seattle, has released two lovingly designed hardcover volumes of the strip’s complete run per year. Cultural luminaries like Jonathan Franzen, Walter Cronkite, Billie Jean King, and John Waters have penned introductions for the volumes. At the same time, Running Press Kids, a Philadelphia-based publisher, has churned out children’s books with sunny titles like Peanuts: You Can Be Anything! — the exact sentiment that the hapless Charlie Brown once called into question.
With Schulz no longer around to supply original ideas, the branded versions of his characters will continue to eclipse the strip versions. In 2010, the Iconix Brand Group, Inc., acquired an 80 percent stake in the Peanuts empire. A string of iPhone apps, social media handles, and video games followed. But the biggest splash will come this November, when the first CGI Peanuts movie is released in theaters. The teaser trailer doesn’t look promising. In it, a playful Snoopy runs circles around Charlie Brown, silencing his flustered owner each time he tries to speak. The spot concludes with a saccharine hug between the two. It’s an inadvertently perfect metaphor for the post-Schulz evolution of the Peanuts brand. In the end, Schulz’s characters, so thoughtful and complicated on the page, have become the very thing that Watterson predicted: cute.
Nothing this atrocious is likely to ever happen with Calvin and Hobbes. We're just going to be treated to ever more well-packaged editions of this comic, as it's the only way the syndicate will ever be able to monetize the damn thing. That's a victory, I think. Period.
posted by ProfLinusPauling at 12:35 PM on November 19, 2015 [23 favorites]
Jon is talking to his cat. Cats are real and people really talk to them, but Garfield doesn't talk back, he just thinks stuff. Jon can't hear the stuff he thinks (I mean unless this is a comic about a telepathic guy), so he's just having this wacko conversations and projecting this whole personality onto his cat.
I'm not sure this is right. Many strips feature Garfield interacting with other animal characters without Jon around, sometimes Garfield traveling without Jon, and Garfield having elaborate fantasies about himself not featuring Jon.
Either Garfield is having these thoughts that the reader and other animals can understand, or Jon is far, far beyond the normal "talking to your cat" level and into some deep schizophrenia territory.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:37 PM on November 19, 2015
I'm not sure this is right. Many strips feature Garfield interacting with other animal characters without Jon around, sometimes Garfield traveling without Jon, and Garfield having elaborate fantasies about himself not featuring Jon.
Either Garfield is having these thoughts that the reader and other animals can understand, or Jon is far, far beyond the normal "talking to your cat" level and into some deep schizophrenia territory.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:37 PM on November 19, 2015
What I get from the article is that both Schulz and Watterson eventually got what they wanted, which was control of how their intellectual property was handled. The difference was in how each chose to handle that intellectual property, which was a result in the two of them being -- surprise! -- two different people, with differing philosophies about exploitation of their IP.
Inasmuch as in both cases the actual creator of the IP got the final say on the disposition of their work, and got what they wanted out of it, both won. Any sort of argument as to whether comic strips are art or commerce is tendentious and mostly for the amusement of others. Watterson has a point of view and Schulz had a differing one, and in the end what will happen is that history and culture will decide what is art independent of their opinions. In the meantime, during their lives, Watterson and Schulz had their say and were able to exercise their own particular prerogatives. Good for the both of them.
As someone who makes art that is also explicitly commercial (I want to sell lots and lots and lots of books), I find myself generally deeply uninterested in the questions of how artists "should" view their work (as art or commerce), or how it's controlled. There is no "should"; there is what the artist wants, and also, what the artist has the opportunity to do. Some artists want tight control of their work and how its presented, up to and including at the cost of certain commercial opportunities. This is their right and I support them 100%. Some artists want to grab as much money as humanly possible and swim, Scrooge McDuck-like, in a vault of gems and coins. If such is their joy, I wish them luck. Most everyone else I know, artist-wise, is somewhere in the middle.
posted by jscalzi at 12:40 PM on November 19, 2015 [13 favorites]
Inasmuch as in both cases the actual creator of the IP got the final say on the disposition of their work, and got what they wanted out of it, both won. Any sort of argument as to whether comic strips are art or commerce is tendentious and mostly for the amusement of others. Watterson has a point of view and Schulz had a differing one, and in the end what will happen is that history and culture will decide what is art independent of their opinions. In the meantime, during their lives, Watterson and Schulz had their say and were able to exercise their own particular prerogatives. Good for the both of them.
As someone who makes art that is also explicitly commercial (I want to sell lots and lots and lots of books), I find myself generally deeply uninterested in the questions of how artists "should" view their work (as art or commerce), or how it's controlled. There is no "should"; there is what the artist wants, and also, what the artist has the opportunity to do. Some artists want tight control of their work and how its presented, up to and including at the cost of certain commercial opportunities. This is their right and I support them 100%. Some artists want to grab as much money as humanly possible and swim, Scrooge McDuck-like, in a vault of gems and coins. If such is their joy, I wish them luck. Most everyone else I know, artist-wise, is somewhere in the middle.
posted by jscalzi at 12:40 PM on November 19, 2015 [13 favorites]
Mrs. Pterodactyl: "Garfield Minus Garfield drives me CRAZY because it's so close to right without actually being right; it should be Garfield Minus Garfield's Thought Bubbles."
You are 1000% right. Thankfully, there is Silent Garfield.
posted by Rock Steady at 12:47 PM on November 19, 2015 [12 favorites]
You are 1000% right. Thankfully, there is Silent Garfield.
posted by Rock Steady at 12:47 PM on November 19, 2015 [12 favorites]
Either Garfield is having these thoughts that the reader and other animals can understand, or Jon is far, far beyond the normal "talking to your cat" level and into some deep schizophrenia territory.
I know! Isn't it incredible? Is Jon an unreliable narrator? Is Garfield Tyler Durden? Does Garfield actually have these adventures in a crazy world unknown to humans? Are we all hallucinating the idea that there is even a such thing as the Garfield cartoon? Once we open our minds to the fact that Jon isn't actually able to read his cat's mind (or is he? Is it because the cat is special or because he is special? Or is he the cat? Is there any such person as Jon Arbuckle?), Garfield is full of infinite possibilities and questions about the nature of reality. If you take out the cat, it's just some boring guy talking to himself.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 12:48 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I know! Isn't it incredible? Is Jon an unreliable narrator? Is Garfield Tyler Durden? Does Garfield actually have these adventures in a crazy world unknown to humans? Are we all hallucinating the idea that there is even a such thing as the Garfield cartoon? Once we open our minds to the fact that Jon isn't actually able to read his cat's mind (or is he? Is it because the cat is special or because he is special? Or is he the cat? Is there any such person as Jon Arbuckle?), Garfield is full of infinite possibilities and questions about the nature of reality. If you take out the cat, it's just some boring guy talking to himself.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 12:48 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I've seen the concern that Schultz apparently had - that not only was his output supporting his own family but that of all the people who indirectly worked for the Peanuts marketing empire - phrased similarly in one of Anthony Bourdain's books where he talks about chefs and food and "selling out." He pointed out that a celebrity chef is at the bottom of a pyramid of other people making their livings, and many of these chefs are concerned with not just making money for themselves, but making sure their people at all the branch restaurants, etc, are building their careers as well. It was an interesting take on the idea - kind of clannish in the good sense.
posted by PussKillian at 12:48 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by PussKillian at 12:48 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
basically the dream is being able to do meaningful work without regard for whether that work sweats out maximum exchange value for either yourself or for the organization who's buying your creative output. that's why I support a guaranteed minimum wage - if we want to be free, we have to be able to survive while doing work that is of no (exchange) value to anyone.
It is telling that when one of us escapes the trap and gets to make a living doing something worthwhile instead of something marketable, we get defined as failures. it's also telling that we tend not to categorize the useless rich as failures, even though the most that most of them accomplish is meddling in family charitable foundations that on the whole would be much more effective if they didn't have to deal with input from the rich kids who control the purse strings or waste time managing those rich kids' expectations and impressions.
Calling Watterson a failure is like calling Richard Stallman a failure. it's something you would only do if you were a troll, if you had genuinely wretched politics, or if you were forced to pretend to be a troll with wretched politics in order to get the money to pay your rent.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:50 PM on November 19, 2015 [10 favorites]
It is telling that when one of us escapes the trap and gets to make a living doing something worthwhile instead of something marketable, we get defined as failures. it's also telling that we tend not to categorize the useless rich as failures, even though the most that most of them accomplish is meddling in family charitable foundations that on the whole would be much more effective if they didn't have to deal with input from the rich kids who control the purse strings or waste time managing those rich kids' expectations and impressions.
Calling Watterson a failure is like calling Richard Stallman a failure. it's something you would only do if you were a troll, if you had genuinely wretched politics, or if you were forced to pretend to be a troll with wretched politics in order to get the money to pay your rent.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:50 PM on November 19, 2015 [10 favorites]
To that end, what IS the definition of success for a popular artist? To work until you die, get rich, or fall from grace via some horrible scandal?
There is a weird notion on the part of some creators and critics that since judging art is subjective, the only measure of an artist's success or quality, is their popularity.
This resulted in a weird cross-dialogue during the recent Hugo kerfuffle, where one of the Puppies complaints was that "quality" worrying was being neglected, and when asked for examples, they would give examples like Correia's "Monster Hunter" series. It turned out that their measure of "quality" was "Amazon Sales Rankings". Correia sold more novels than that year's Hugo winner, so in their minds, he deserted the award more.
To his credit, I've never heard Jim Davis say he deserves a literary award simply because he's popular.
posted by happyroach at 12:57 PM on November 19, 2015
There is a weird notion on the part of some creators and critics that since judging art is subjective, the only measure of an artist's success or quality, is their popularity.
This resulted in a weird cross-dialogue during the recent Hugo kerfuffle, where one of the Puppies complaints was that "quality" worrying was being neglected, and when asked for examples, they would give examples like Correia's "Monster Hunter" series. It turned out that their measure of "quality" was "Amazon Sales Rankings". Correia sold more novels than that year's Hugo winner, so in their minds, he deserted the award more.
To his credit, I've never heard Jim Davis say he deserves a literary award simply because he's popular.
posted by happyroach at 12:57 PM on November 19, 2015
You are 1000% right. Thankfully, there is Silent Garfield.
Thank you! This is the kind of high-quality dadaist nonsense that makes me question the very fabric of reality! Much appreciated.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 12:58 PM on November 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
Thank you! This is the kind of high-quality dadaist nonsense that makes me question the very fabric of reality! Much appreciated.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 12:58 PM on November 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
If we take Wretch729's reading of the article's point, then Epplin would point to Stallman as an example of a successful revolutionary. He had principles and stuck to them, but he also stayed in the fight and continued to struggle and inspire people the whole time, and actually has made a difference in the world of software.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:00 PM on November 19, 2015
posted by Sangermaine at 1:00 PM on November 19, 2015
Having exhausted the world of Calvin and Hobbes, Watterson retreated into silence and solitude. He claims to have taken up painting, but has never exhibited his work....
He has become, perhaps, what he desired all along: an audience of one, laboring over artwork that will never be corrupted or compromised because it will never be consumed.
He has indeed become exactly what he wants. The entire English-speaking world that was alive and literate between the years of 1986 and 1995 knows his name, and most of us remember his name fondly. He added color to the lives of millions of people. Garfield may still in the funny pages, but Jim Davis is less of a household name to me than is the creator of a strip that has been gone for twice as long as it was in production. His lack of subsequent commercial success may in fact be voluntary; how are we to know? He took ownership of that strip, and saved the rest of us from having our nostalgia crushed beneath the stultifying compositions of Edvard Grieg.
That's not a failure in any sense of the word. This guy is either straight-up trolling, or is maybe a little bit too concerned about his own lack of creative commercial success.
posted by Mayor West at 1:00 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
He has become, perhaps, what he desired all along: an audience of one, laboring over artwork that will never be corrupted or compromised because it will never be consumed.
He has indeed become exactly what he wants. The entire English-speaking world that was alive and literate between the years of 1986 and 1995 knows his name, and most of us remember his name fondly. He added color to the lives of millions of people. Garfield may still in the funny pages, but Jim Davis is less of a household name to me than is the creator of a strip that has been gone for twice as long as it was in production. His lack of subsequent commercial success may in fact be voluntary; how are we to know? He took ownership of that strip, and saved the rest of us from having our nostalgia crushed beneath the stultifying compositions of Edvard Grieg.
That's not a failure in any sense of the word. This guy is either straight-up trolling, or is maybe a little bit too concerned about his own lack of creative commercial success.
posted by Mayor West at 1:00 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't think Watterson was really being called a failure? A failed revolutionary, but I think the article, while explaining Schultz's worldview pretty clearly, was far more sympathetic to Watterson's take on things. And while I also tend to think that Schultz's marketing outreach ultimately does dilute the popular perception of his characters (too much happiness, not enough existential despair), I don't know that, say, a Hobbs plushie here or there would have sunk Watterson's art into the bland, sticky depths that Peanuts sometimes falls to.
posted by PussKillian at 1:03 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by PussKillian at 1:03 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's also 3eanuts, which removes the last panel of the Peanuts comic strips. Works pretty well.
posted by Melismata at 1:07 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 1:07 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
And let's be fair, Watterson wasn't looking at just himself with his decision:
Beyond all this, however, lies a deeper issue: the corruption of a strip's integrity. All strips are supposed to be entertaining, but some strips have a point of view and a serious purpose behind the jokes. When the cartoonist is trying to talk honestly and seriously about life, then I believe he has a responsibility to think beyond satisfying the market's every whim and desire. Cartoonists who think they can be taken seriously as artists while using the strip's protagonists to sell boxer shorts are deluding themselves.
The world of a comic strip is much more fragile than most people realize or will admit. Believable characters are hard to develop and easy to destroy. When a cartoonist licenses his characters, his voice is co-opted by the business concerns of toy makers, television producers, and advertisers. The cartoonist's job is no longer to be an original thinker; his job is to keep his characters profitable. The characters become "celebrities", endorsing companies and products, avoiding controversy, and saying whatever someone will pay the to say. At that point, the strip has no soul. With its integrity gone, a strip loses its deeper significance.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:08 PM on November 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
Beyond all this, however, lies a deeper issue: the corruption of a strip's integrity. All strips are supposed to be entertaining, but some strips have a point of view and a serious purpose behind the jokes. When the cartoonist is trying to talk honestly and seriously about life, then I believe he has a responsibility to think beyond satisfying the market's every whim and desire. Cartoonists who think they can be taken seriously as artists while using the strip's protagonists to sell boxer shorts are deluding themselves.
The world of a comic strip is much more fragile than most people realize or will admit. Believable characters are hard to develop and easy to destroy. When a cartoonist licenses his characters, his voice is co-opted by the business concerns of toy makers, television producers, and advertisers. The cartoonist's job is no longer to be an original thinker; his job is to keep his characters profitable. The characters become "celebrities", endorsing companies and products, avoiding controversy, and saying whatever someone will pay the to say. At that point, the strip has no soul. With its integrity gone, a strip loses its deeper significance.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:08 PM on November 19, 2015 [9 favorites]
If you've ever cried over what They did to your favorite childhood characters: the reboot, the retcon, the reimagining, remake after remake after remake…
If you've ever had to endure a car commercial starring the post-Henson Muppets…
If you've ever wished that Disney hadn't gotten their hands on everything from Winnie-the-Pooh to Wolverine…
…then you should wish for more people like Bill Watterson.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 1:08 PM on November 19, 2015 [22 favorites]
If you've ever had to endure a car commercial starring the post-Henson Muppets…
If you've ever wished that Disney hadn't gotten their hands on everything from Winnie-the-Pooh to Wolverine…
…then you should wish for more people like Bill Watterson.
posted by overeducated_alligator at 1:08 PM on November 19, 2015 [22 favorites]
Although it seems to be unmentioned in the link in the FPP, it was thirty years ago yesterday that Calvin and Hobbes debuted.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:10 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:10 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
The purpose of art is to speak truth that power can't hear, but that the powerless can. It's to produce symbols that the oppressed can use to recognize their own power, without the powerful understanding it and then suppressing or recuperating it. But aside from that, art must in some way be a specific statement about something in the world, that in some specific way alters the world or how we view it.
The profit maximization strategy works through willfully ignoring specificity — the thing you produce doesn't particularly matter, just so long as it is exchangeable for more money than you used producing it. Typically the end game for this process involves shaving off as many distinguishing details as possible, so that the work can be reused in as many ways as possible.
As such, your aim when running this strategy is ultimately to say nothing and to change nothing. Instead, you are interested in making the perfect icon — some recognizable symbol, like Garfield or the Minions or the Nike Swoosh or Dilbert, that doesn't mean or do anything, an icon that can be smoothly slotted into any campaign whatsoever and still function.
It is most especially important, when running the strategy that Jim Davis and Metafilter's Own Scott Adams ran, to produce icons that appeal to the people in charge of very large money piles, since in practical terms these are the only people worth making products for — they're the ones who will pay the most to slot your icon into their campaigns.
As a result of the Jim Davis/Scott Adams strategy being dominant under capitalism, artwork produced under capitalism tends toward a sort of vague blithe optimism, since that style is most easily slotted into ad campaigns. This is why Mickey Mouse, Garfield, Dilbert, Charlie Brown and all the rest have basically no character features whatsoever — what characteristics they once had over time have been worn away, like a stone in a stream gradually has its rough features worn away by running water.
I've seen this blithe optimistic empty style described as "capitalist realism," by analogy with the equally blithe, optimistic, and empty socialist realist artwork that came out of the Soviet Union.
Although it is possible to make really interesting art about icons and iconicity, that is not what Davis or Adams did. (Moreover, even self-aware critiques of iconicity can have their distinguishing features worn down so that those critiques can themselves become featureless second-order icons, just as fit to be smoothly slotted into other systems as Garfield and Dilbert are.)
The only way producing this stuff can be thought of as a "success" is if you leverage the proceeds to do something more worthwhile than just living comfortably. Davis has not done that — and, hell, it's not like Watterson has a difficult life himself. The only metric that Watterson failed by is that he has failed to be maximally pleasing to his masters. If you define success by pleasing your masters, he failed. But if you define success as pleasing your masters, you're not actually a person yourself, just a tool for their needs and desires. Reducing yourself to tool status is, IMO, the apotheosis of failure.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:23 PM on November 19, 2015 [14 favorites]
The profit maximization strategy works through willfully ignoring specificity — the thing you produce doesn't particularly matter, just so long as it is exchangeable for more money than you used producing it. Typically the end game for this process involves shaving off as many distinguishing details as possible, so that the work can be reused in as many ways as possible.
As such, your aim when running this strategy is ultimately to say nothing and to change nothing. Instead, you are interested in making the perfect icon — some recognizable symbol, like Garfield or the Minions or the Nike Swoosh or Dilbert, that doesn't mean or do anything, an icon that can be smoothly slotted into any campaign whatsoever and still function.
It is most especially important, when running the strategy that Jim Davis and Metafilter's Own Scott Adams ran, to produce icons that appeal to the people in charge of very large money piles, since in practical terms these are the only people worth making products for — they're the ones who will pay the most to slot your icon into their campaigns.
As a result of the Jim Davis/Scott Adams strategy being dominant under capitalism, artwork produced under capitalism tends toward a sort of vague blithe optimism, since that style is most easily slotted into ad campaigns. This is why Mickey Mouse, Garfield, Dilbert, Charlie Brown and all the rest have basically no character features whatsoever — what characteristics they once had over time have been worn away, like a stone in a stream gradually has its rough features worn away by running water.
I've seen this blithe optimistic empty style described as "capitalist realism," by analogy with the equally blithe, optimistic, and empty socialist realist artwork that came out of the Soviet Union.
Although it is possible to make really interesting art about icons and iconicity, that is not what Davis or Adams did. (Moreover, even self-aware critiques of iconicity can have their distinguishing features worn down so that those critiques can themselves become featureless second-order icons, just as fit to be smoothly slotted into other systems as Garfield and Dilbert are.)
The only way producing this stuff can be thought of as a "success" is if you leverage the proceeds to do something more worthwhile than just living comfortably. Davis has not done that — and, hell, it's not like Watterson has a difficult life himself. The only metric that Watterson failed by is that he has failed to be maximally pleasing to his masters. If you define success by pleasing your masters, he failed. But if you define success as pleasing your masters, you're not actually a person yourself, just a tool for their needs and desires. Reducing yourself to tool status is, IMO, the apotheosis of failure.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:23 PM on November 19, 2015 [14 favorites]
The purpose of art is to speak truth that power can't hear, but that the powerless can. It's to produce symbols that the oppressed can use to recognize their own power, without the powerful understanding it and then suppressing or recuperating it. But aside from that, art must in some way be a specific statement about something in the world, that in some specific way alters the world or how we view it.
Those are some pretty bold assumptions that many, many people, artists included, would disagree with. Whether art even has or needs a purpose is an ancient debate.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:27 PM on November 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
Those are some pretty bold assumptions that many, many people, artists included, would disagree with. Whether art even has or needs a purpose is an ancient debate.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:27 PM on November 19, 2015 [6 favorites]
read the rest of the comment, after the "but aside from that" clause. Art is a thing that is something or does something; I think we can agree on this without agreeing about the specific things that art must do.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:29 PM on November 19, 2015
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:29 PM on November 19, 2015
elaborate and complex imaginary relationship with his real cat
My elaborate and complex relationship with my real cat is not imaginary, I'm no kook Mrs. P. Even my cat just told me she agreed with me.
posted by jeather at 1:30 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
My elaborate and complex relationship with my real cat is not imaginary, I'm no kook Mrs. P. Even my cat just told me she agreed with me.
posted by jeather at 1:30 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
After seeing that famous 60 Minutes episode where they had people who claimed that a pile of garbage was art, my conclusion is, it's art if people think it's art.
posted by Melismata at 1:30 PM on November 19, 2015
posted by Melismata at 1:30 PM on November 19, 2015
It strikes me as wrongheaded to suggest that, because Watterson successfully stood by his ideals and preserved the integrity of his comic strip, that he was also, by default, a "failed revolutionary" -- really for not even attempting to revolutionize the comics industry.
From reading what Watterson wrote about Calvin and Hobbes and how he viewed the strip and comics as a whole, I think it's incorrect to look at him as a revolutionary. He was so suffused with Krazy Kat, with Nemo's Adventure's in Slumberland, with The Katzenjammer Kids and The Yellow Kid ... Watterson did some great things in fighting for more artistic freedom in layouts and coloring and more, but I always felt like his viewpoint was looking backwards, not forwards.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:34 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
From reading what Watterson wrote about Calvin and Hobbes and how he viewed the strip and comics as a whole, I think it's incorrect to look at him as a revolutionary. He was so suffused with Krazy Kat, with Nemo's Adventure's in Slumberland, with The Katzenjammer Kids and The Yellow Kid ... Watterson did some great things in fighting for more artistic freedom in layouts and coloring and more, but I always felt like his viewpoint was looking backwards, not forwards.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 1:34 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Art is". Is the only statement I'll agree with. Everything after that has some major, major assumptions that cuts out a lot of art. Likewise saying art has a purpose.
But then again, isn't the whole point of your post to be able to point at stuff and say "Naaah, that ain't art!"?
posted by happyroach at 1:35 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
But then again, isn't the whole point of your post to be able to point at stuff and say "Naaah, that ain't art!"?
posted by happyroach at 1:35 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
ugh, apologies for making ontological claims about art; that's always a sucker's game. Maybe the tl;dr is that Garfield et al have to be understood primarily as generic pieces of graphic design. This does not mean that they're not art, just that they're a particular type of art, art about featurelessness, iconicity, interchangeability, and ease of use, rather than about expression in more conventional senses.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:40 PM on November 19, 2015
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:40 PM on November 19, 2015
Arguing about the delineations of art is something that Watterson explicitly mocked multiple times in C&H's run so it's kind of dumb in here
posted by shakespeherian at 1:42 PM on November 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 1:42 PM on November 19, 2015 [8 favorites]
I need to dig out the New Yorker cartoon about one guy doing cave paintings, and another guy standing behind him saying "But is it ART?"
Note: I don't remember ever actually seeing that cartoon. I just know it's out there. It has to be.
posted by happyroach at 1:52 PM on November 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
Note: I don't remember ever actually seeing that cartoon. I just know it's out there. It has to be.
posted by happyroach at 1:52 PM on November 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
Isn't anyone willing to stick up for Peanuts? Imo it is way better and more hopeful (in the actual strips, which I encourage everyone to read more) than Calvin and Hobbes, which I love don't get me wrong, but I think it takes an oversimplified Gen X cynical route out on a lot of issues--idealistically, in the way (as the article points out) BW did eventually.
I read the last strip of C+H every morning when I change diapers (my kid's not mine (I change mine in the attic, like a king)) because it is framed and on her wall. All that white snow looks like death to me after a while. Let's go exploring? Maybe, but also, let's quit. Let's erase. Let's die. Or maybe I'm being cynical. My daughter listens when I read it and coos at the tiger and the boy. She likes them.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:29 PM on November 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
I read the last strip of C+H every morning when I change diapers (my kid's not mine (I change mine in the attic, like a king)) because it is framed and on her wall. All that white snow looks like death to me after a while. Let's go exploring? Maybe, but also, let's quit. Let's erase. Let's die. Or maybe I'm being cynical. My daughter listens when I read it and coos at the tiger and the boy. She likes them.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:29 PM on November 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
This resulted in a weird cross-dialogue during the recent Hugo kerfuffle, where one of the Puppies complaints was that "quality" worrying was being neglected, and when asked for examples, they would give examples like Correia's "Monster Hunter" series. It turned out that their measure of "quality" was "Amazon Sales Rankings". Correia sold more novels than that year's Hugo winner, so in their minds, he deserted the award more.
None of Correria's stuff is doing better in Amazon sales rankings than Anciliary Justice, as far as I can tell. It's a little hard to tell though as a bunch of it doesn't even seem to be still in print.
posted by Artw at 2:42 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
None of Correria's stuff is doing better in Amazon sales rankings than Anciliary Justice, as far as I can tell. It's a little hard to tell though as a bunch of it doesn't even seem to be still in print.
posted by Artw at 2:42 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
Calvin and Hobbes was something to me in my childhood that's pretty damn close and special, and I'm glad Bill Watterson respected his audience enough to know how to keep it special in our hearts. Fuck the economy of it, he kept to the heart of it and that matters more than politics or market share everywhere and every way for all time.
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:05 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:05 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I hope to someday fail as abjectly as Watterson has.
posted by anonymisc at 3:28 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by anonymisc at 3:28 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Chagrin Falls the town is of course named for Chagrin Falls the waterfalls, which are on the Chagrin River, which got its name from a corruption of either Erie /shagarin/ ('clear water') or of French /Seguin/ (a proper name) (both attested in the 18th c) and has nothing to do with the emotional state of embarassment or mortification.
I am experiencing some sort of emotion upon hearing this but I'll be danged if I can think of the exact word for it.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 4:17 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I am experiencing some sort of emotion upon hearing this but I'll be danged if I can think of the exact word for it.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 4:17 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
That said, this description by the author (Luke Epplin) strikes me as a really fair, clear-eyed (and tragic) assessment of how licensing will continue to corrode Peanuts legacy over time:
To me, this is really the heart of it.
I mean, in fairness, I more or less read the whole of Calvin & Hobbes as it was published, from age 5 through 15, and so in that regard I think Watterson likely has an unfair advantage in my heart. Still, I grew up saturated in Peanuts, and cannot count the hours I spent reading through collections of the strips over the years (being born in 1980, I was simultaneously saturated with Garfield, and comics in general). I have a ton of respect for Schulz, and I don't think the level of commerciality in his work somehow ruins it for all time.
That being said, I have a hard time thinking that 100 years hence, that it will be Watterson whose work is viewed slightly askance due to the level of its commercial involvement. I'm also kinda sad as time passes, and it feels like Schulz' legacy is being at the very least eroded a bit before our eyes by the post-Schulz changes required to keep the business going.
Admittedly, that's possibly just me being a grump, whining about the kids on my lawn.
posted by tocts at 4:24 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
To me, this is really the heart of it.
I mean, in fairness, I more or less read the whole of Calvin & Hobbes as it was published, from age 5 through 15, and so in that regard I think Watterson likely has an unfair advantage in my heart. Still, I grew up saturated in Peanuts, and cannot count the hours I spent reading through collections of the strips over the years (being born in 1980, I was simultaneously saturated with Garfield, and comics in general). I have a ton of respect for Schulz, and I don't think the level of commerciality in his work somehow ruins it for all time.
That being said, I have a hard time thinking that 100 years hence, that it will be Watterson whose work is viewed slightly askance due to the level of its commercial involvement. I'm also kinda sad as time passes, and it feels like Schulz' legacy is being at the very least eroded a bit before our eyes by the post-Schulz changes required to keep the business going.
Admittedly, that's possibly just me being a grump, whining about the kids on my lawn.
posted by tocts at 4:24 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
What drives me nuts about stuff like Peanuts is that it doesn't seem to be declining at all. I mean, back in the day, things DIED. You know? Stuff that was popular eventually died off. But Peanuts seems to be just as strong as it once was. Comic artists die, so their kids take over, and you have something like Hagar the Horrible or Blondie & Dagwood, that in theory would have died with its creator, that just refuses to stop. It's got to be hard to break into the field with so many ancient cartoons still laboring on.
posted by Slinga at 4:35 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Slinga at 4:35 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Wry the hate?
Because Garfield, in its early days, was actually funny. Then Davis discovered how to milk his cash cow, and it turned into an automated milking machine: repetitive and dull.
For all that Peanuts declined after its peak in the early 70s, Schultz cared about his characters. It wasn't licensing that killed Peanuts, just the natural arc of an idea or set of characters.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:22 PM on November 19, 2015
Because Garfield, in its early days, was actually funny. Then Davis discovered how to milk his cash cow, and it turned into an automated milking machine: repetitive and dull.
For all that Peanuts declined after its peak in the early 70s, Schultz cared about his characters. It wasn't licensing that killed Peanuts, just the natural arc of an idea or set of characters.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:22 PM on November 19, 2015
and you have something like Hagar the Horrible or Blondie & Dagwood, that in theory would have died with its creator, that just refuses to stop.
SO THAT'S WHY!
Blondie constantly hurts my head because the art style insists (to my brain) that the strip is taking place in the 60's, then the strip refers to current affairs aaand... head asplode.
I kind of think of Blondie as the anti-Peanuts, because the Peanuts art is timeless (unlike Blondie) and the strip doesn't refer to current affairs (unlike Blondie).
posted by anonymisc at 5:27 PM on November 19, 2015
SO THAT'S WHY!
Blondie constantly hurts my head because the art style insists (to my brain) that the strip is taking place in the 60's, then the strip refers to current affairs aaand... head asplode.
I kind of think of Blondie as the anti-Peanuts, because the Peanuts art is timeless (unlike Blondie) and the strip doesn't refer to current affairs (unlike Blondie).
posted by anonymisc at 5:27 PM on November 19, 2015
Isn't anyone willing to stick up for Peanuts?
I too think Peanuts is a lot better than Calvin and Hobbes, but I think Peanuts is a lot better than almost everything, so I don't think that really affects the thrust of the thread.
posted by escabeche at 5:43 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
I too think Peanuts is a lot better than Calvin and Hobbes, but I think Peanuts is a lot better than almost everything, so I don't think that really affects the thrust of the thread.
posted by escabeche at 5:43 PM on November 19, 2015 [2 favorites]
Isn't anyone willing to stick up for Peanuts? Imo it is way better and more hopeful (in the actual strips, which I encourage everyone to read more) than Calvin and Hobbes, which I love don't get me wrong, but I think it takes an oversimplified Gen X cynical route out on a lot of issues--idealistically, in the way (as the article points out) BW did eventually.
I've had this same reaction in the past ten years. I used to love Calvin and Hobbes with a passion. I identified with Calvin's way of escaping through the imagination (and loved and still love the art). But at some point I found it impossible to avoid reading it as the tale of a sad little boy with no real friends. I find Peanuts and Mafalda a lot more true to life because they are about the interaction of several distinct personalities.
posted by Omon Ra at 5:48 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I've had this same reaction in the past ten years. I used to love Calvin and Hobbes with a passion. I identified with Calvin's way of escaping through the imagination (and loved and still love the art). But at some point I found it impossible to avoid reading it as the tale of a sad little boy with no real friends. I find Peanuts and Mafalda a lot more true to life because they are about the interaction of several distinct personalities.
posted by Omon Ra at 5:48 PM on November 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Isn't anyone willing to stick up for Peanuts?
Not me. I've disliked Peanuts since before the first TV special.
Blondie constantly hurts my head because the art style insists (to my brain) that the strip is taking place in the 60's . . .
60's what? You mean the 1960s? Chick Young worked out his style in the 1920s and started the Blondie strip in 1930. In a scrapbook somewhere we've got a (very very yellow) strip my parents cut out of the paper in 1951.
So . . . Did you know Beetle Bailey and Lois Flagston were brother and sister? I think you'll agree that Chip Flagston inherited his uncle's eyes.
Reed and Sue "Benjamin" lived next door for a while. Going by this party snapshot, the Bumsteads, The Mitchells, and the Woosters must not've lived far away.
posted by Herodios at 6:25 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
20 years ago now, I was in an MFA program in creative writing. One of my classmates did an interesting job: he drew famous cartoon characters for merchandise, for a big company that produced and sold that stuff. I remember specifically that he said he did a lot of Garfield stuff. It had never occurred to me before that the original artists didn't draw all the pictures of cartoon characters that ended up on lunchboxes and towels and t-shirts, but as soon as he started talking about it, it made sense.
I have no idea why this is relevant. Though when it said in the article that Jim Davis has letterers and colorers, though, I wondered if there would be a point when he wouldn't bother doing the art himself either. And then I wondered if he'd already passed that point but wasn't going to say so in an interview.
It was interesting to me to hear him describe his work as "gags." Of course that's what it is. I think I'd always want to at least pretend to myself that I was doing more than "gags" with my life.
Of course, I just finished writing a romance novel, so I'm not exactly looking down on anybody here.
posted by not that girl at 6:44 PM on November 19, 2015
I have no idea why this is relevant. Though when it said in the article that Jim Davis has letterers and colorers, though, I wondered if there would be a point when he wouldn't bother doing the art himself either. And then I wondered if he'd already passed that point but wasn't going to say so in an interview.
It was interesting to me to hear him describe his work as "gags." Of course that's what it is. I think I'd always want to at least pretend to myself that I was doing more than "gags" with my life.
Of course, I just finished writing a romance novel, so I'm not exactly looking down on anybody here.
posted by not that girl at 6:44 PM on November 19, 2015
You know who else was a failed revolutionary?
No, not him. Eddie Kobain. That guy coulda had it all. Money, chicks, one of those little top-hat birds that drinks every 30 seconds or so, all that.
And, to be fair, Schulz was a kid during the Depression. Success and Money were spelled differently back then.
posted by petebest at 7:27 PM on November 19, 2015
No, not him. Eddie Kobain. That guy coulda had it all. Money, chicks, one of those little top-hat birds that drinks every 30 seconds or so, all that.
And, to be fair, Schulz was a kid during the Depression. Success and Money were spelled differently back then.
posted by petebest at 7:27 PM on November 19, 2015
The linked essay was interesting and had some valid points.
I disagree with a couple of observations, most notably this one:
I grew up with Peanuts, but Calvin & Hobbes came out after my childhood. I didn't really pay attention to the strip, until one particular Sunday full-page strip which just grabbed me, and I LOL'ed with delight - the setup, the drawing, the two-frame payoff. Watterson simply nailed it. He fucking nailed it. I couldn't imagine that particular strip being done better, by anyone. From that point I was a fan, and have seldom been disappointed.
I think that this is what Schultz is praising - that when Watterson puts in a detail, it's always ... right. It's part of the action. Peanuts by comparison is sparse and usually static, and the focus is more strongly on the characters' expressions and speech, with minimal distraction from the setting. Schultz is giving props to a fellow artist for his art, not for his line sizes, fonts or use of perspective. Ok, maybe the bit about the dinner-roll shoes.
Anyhoo - I like the work of both artists and I think both possess(ed) talent and integrity in the choices they made.
And this one - I don't think Watterson set out to be a revolutionary; he may be perceived as one for his uncompromising stance on licencing, but that's not his problem. He was simply doing what he thought best for the work, and I don't think the world would necessarily be better if Calvin was printed on every inanimate object.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:30 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
I disagree with a couple of observations, most notably this one:
If Watterson insisted on praising his mentor as an artist, then Schulz would laud his pupil as an artisan. In a three-paragraph foreword to Watterson’s first treasury collection, The Essential Calvin and Hobbes, Schulz commended Watterson for his “great water splashes and living room couches and chairs and lamps and yawns and screams, and all the things that make a comic strip fun to look at.” It's an odd way to express admiration — akin to praising a novel not for its content but for its lovely adjectives and readability.I have that book and know the intro well. The things Schultz is praising are the details and choices and the execution of Watterson the creator, that delight us and that we anticipate and appreciate as we become familiar with the work.
I grew up with Peanuts, but Calvin & Hobbes came out after my childhood. I didn't really pay attention to the strip, until one particular Sunday full-page strip which just grabbed me, and I LOL'ed with delight - the setup, the drawing, the two-frame payoff. Watterson simply nailed it. He fucking nailed it. I couldn't imagine that particular strip being done better, by anyone. From that point I was a fan, and have seldom been disappointed.
I think that this is what Schultz is praising - that when Watterson puts in a detail, it's always ... right. It's part of the action. Peanuts by comparison is sparse and usually static, and the focus is more strongly on the characters' expressions and speech, with minimal distraction from the setting. Schultz is giving props to a fellow artist for his art, not for his line sizes, fonts or use of perspective. Ok, maybe the bit about the dinner-roll shoes.
Anyhoo - I like the work of both artists and I think both possess(ed) talent and integrity in the choices they made.
And this one - I don't think Watterson set out to be a revolutionary; he may be perceived as one for his uncompromising stance on licencing, but that's not his problem. He was simply doing what he thought best for the work, and I don't think the world would necessarily be better if Calvin was printed on every inanimate object.
posted by Artful Codger at 7:30 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Watterson's familiarity with intellectual property theory predate Calvin and Hobbes; his father was a patent lawyer. Watterson also gave this profession to Calvin's father, and intellectual property rights come up in the strip a few times.
posted by carmicha at 8:00 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by carmicha at 8:00 PM on November 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
I kind of think of Blondie as the anti-Peanuts, because the Peanuts art is timeless (unlike Blondie) and the strip doesn't refer to current affairs (unlike Blondie).
Snoopy racing Hank Aaron for Babe Ruth's home run record (2 weeks of great strips)
posted by rouftop at 5:54 AM on November 20, 2015 [3 favorites]
Snoopy racing Hank Aaron for Babe Ruth's home run record (2 weeks of great strips)
posted by rouftop at 5:54 AM on November 20, 2015 [3 favorites]
“I love to see cartoon toys and t-shirts […] They add color, life, and good humor to the world,” Walker stated. “If you don’t want to [license your characters], OK […] but you shouldn’t say others can’t do it,”
It's hard to argue with this.
I realize that many people see TV cartoons as "advertisements for toys," but having read about these merchandizing deals from the animators' perspective, back in the 80s merchandizing was seen as a great way for animators to get more economic support for their work. The cartoons weren't about selling the merchandise, the merchandise was supposed to be supporting the cartoon.
Now one can (convincingly) argue that ultimately capitalism eats everything and that the merchandizing will consume the art, and the art will end up serving the merchandise. But I think that in Shultz's case, this didn't happen. Although the temperament of the merchandised characters in MetLife cartoons are whitewashed, the comic strips maintained their same tone. Artistic shortcomings of Garfield and Dilbert come about because their creators are explicitly about creating merchandizing empires.
posted by deanc at 7:37 AM on November 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's hard to argue with this.
I realize that many people see TV cartoons as "advertisements for toys," but having read about these merchandizing deals from the animators' perspective, back in the 80s merchandizing was seen as a great way for animators to get more economic support for their work. The cartoons weren't about selling the merchandise, the merchandise was supposed to be supporting the cartoon.
Now one can (convincingly) argue that ultimately capitalism eats everything and that the merchandizing will consume the art, and the art will end up serving the merchandise. But I think that in Shultz's case, this didn't happen. Although the temperament of the merchandised characters in MetLife cartoons are whitewashed, the comic strips maintained their same tone. Artistic shortcomings of Garfield and Dilbert come about because their creators are explicitly about creating merchandizing empires.
posted by deanc at 7:37 AM on November 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
The defense of Jim Davis which goes something like "but he was just trying to make a buck, and look how many bucks he made" makes the parallel argument that bad art is OK if it is in the service of a capitalistic enterprise.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:11 AM on November 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:11 AM on November 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
makes the parallel argument that bad art is OK if it is in the service of a capitalistic enterprise.
Comic strips, particularly Garfield, are a form of mass popular entertainment. You can argue that the masses only appreciate bad art, but there is nothing wrong with producing a form of popular entertainment nor is there any problem with consuming it. Jim Davis already got his artistic comeuppance having been inducted into the the Marketing Hall of Fame rather than feted as a brilliant comic artist. He had a goal. He accomplished his goal, which were not primarily artistic ones. It's like claiming that Furious 7 was bad art and that it was bad for it to be made. It did well what it set out to do.
posted by deanc at 8:28 AM on November 20, 2015
Comic strips, particularly Garfield, are a form of mass popular entertainment. You can argue that the masses only appreciate bad art, but there is nothing wrong with producing a form of popular entertainment nor is there any problem with consuming it. Jim Davis already got his artistic comeuppance having been inducted into the the Marketing Hall of Fame rather than feted as a brilliant comic artist. He had a goal. He accomplished his goal, which were not primarily artistic ones. It's like claiming that Furious 7 was bad art and that it was bad for it to be made. It did well what it set out to do.
posted by deanc at 8:28 AM on November 20, 2015
If we're going to talk about crusty old legacy strips clinging to the sinking ship of newspapers, then you really need to be reading The Comics Curmudgeon every day. Only he could make me care about Apartment 3-G or Mary Worth.
posted by emjaybee at 8:32 AM on November 20, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 8:32 AM on November 20, 2015 [3 favorites]
Watterson's stance definitely had an effect on the newspaper comics industry.
A few years ago, a friend of mine won a Universal talent search, vanished into development hell for a couple years, then finally emerged with a strip about a girl and her unicorn, which she titled "Heavenly Nostrils" (named after the unicorn, Marigold Heavenly Nostrils.) The syndicate hemmed and hawed over that title, and ultimately made her rename it to Phoebe and her Unicorn for the newspaper launch. Which has been huge.
But anyway. I digress. The point I was going to make here was that the contract they offered had her still owning the characters. It won't continue forever after her death unless she deliberately makes arrangements for just that. And this wasn't something she had to fight for; it's the standard contract among most modern strips there.
Will there be hordes of plush toys and advertising spokescharacter deals? Who knows. There's certainly a series of animation development meetings regarding her previous web strip Ozy and Milly. But I get the impression that she's definitely got control over what happens to her ideas, without having to worry about threatening to stop drawing the strip to avoid the otherwise inevitable merch she doesn't want.
posted by egypturnash at 8:53 AM on November 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
A few years ago, a friend of mine won a Universal talent search, vanished into development hell for a couple years, then finally emerged with a strip about a girl and her unicorn, which she titled "Heavenly Nostrils" (named after the unicorn, Marigold Heavenly Nostrils.) The syndicate hemmed and hawed over that title, and ultimately made her rename it to Phoebe and her Unicorn for the newspaper launch. Which has been huge.
But anyway. I digress. The point I was going to make here was that the contract they offered had her still owning the characters. It won't continue forever after her death unless she deliberately makes arrangements for just that. And this wasn't something she had to fight for; it's the standard contract among most modern strips there.
Will there be hordes of plush toys and advertising spokescharacter deals? Who knows. There's certainly a series of animation development meetings regarding her previous web strip Ozy and Milly. But I get the impression that she's definitely got control over what happens to her ideas, without having to worry about threatening to stop drawing the strip to avoid the otherwise inevitable merch she doesn't want.
posted by egypturnash at 8:53 AM on November 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's like claiming that Furious 7 was bad art and that it was bad for it to be made.
Well, Furious 7 was bad, but I chalk that up to the departure of Justin Lin and the well-intentioned but utterly unconvincing attempt to fill in the space left by Paul Walker's death. 5 and 6 were glorious absurdist spectacles which transcended the otherwise pedestrian aspirations of the franchise.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:59 AM on November 20, 2015
Well, Furious 7 was bad, but I chalk that up to the departure of Justin Lin and the well-intentioned but utterly unconvincing attempt to fill in the space left by Paul Walker's death. 5 and 6 were glorious absurdist spectacles which transcended the otherwise pedestrian aspirations of the franchise.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:59 AM on November 20, 2015
I always saw Calvin and Hobbes in a lineage with Krazy Kat, Polly and her Pals and Trots and Bonnie. All share, overlappingly, a certain surreality and artfulness.
posted by y2karl at 9:19 AM on November 20, 2015
posted by y2karl at 9:19 AM on November 20, 2015
deanc: "Comic strips, particularly Garfield, are a form of mass popular entertainment. You can argue that the masses only appreciate bad art, but there is nothing wrong with producing a form of popular entertainment nor is there any problem with consuming it. "
I don't think we even need to get into an aesthetic critique of the quality of "art" that is widely enjoyed by the public, because I think that Garfield stopped being art a long time ago. Like the whole recent Minion thing, Garfield was popularized in a way that robbed it of any meaning or message. Garfield is a blank canvas that you can paint any of your own beliefs onto.
The art style is mind-numbingly consistent (to the point where Davis apparently doesn't even draw the strips himself anymore), and the writing is just dull and meaningless. A computer could do a better job, to the degree that a modern Garfield strip would probably fail the Turing Test.
Garfield is a franchise zombie. To say that Garfield is a piece of art that is enjoyed by the masses is frankly an insult to the masses, because I doubt that there is anyone left who actually enjoys Garfield. It's just part of the background noise of pop culture, and its ubiquity and familiarity makes enough money for its creators to keep it going, printing the characters on any smooth surface that they can find, in turn giving us a very small window through which we can harmlessly project some of our own thoughts, desires, and opinions.
On the other hand, Calvin & Hobbes had an ethos. You could learn a lot about Watterson by reading his strips. The artwork in the strips was varied, and often beautiful -- Watterson's battles for control over his layouts were certainly not without merit, and he unquestionably took full advantage of that freedom, and did so often.
posted by schmod at 9:38 AM on November 20, 2015 [5 favorites]
I don't think we even need to get into an aesthetic critique of the quality of "art" that is widely enjoyed by the public, because I think that Garfield stopped being art a long time ago. Like the whole recent Minion thing, Garfield was popularized in a way that robbed it of any meaning or message. Garfield is a blank canvas that you can paint any of your own beliefs onto.
The art style is mind-numbingly consistent (to the point where Davis apparently doesn't even draw the strips himself anymore), and the writing is just dull and meaningless. A computer could do a better job, to the degree that a modern Garfield strip would probably fail the Turing Test.
Garfield is a franchise zombie. To say that Garfield is a piece of art that is enjoyed by the masses is frankly an insult to the masses, because I doubt that there is anyone left who actually enjoys Garfield. It's just part of the background noise of pop culture, and its ubiquity and familiarity makes enough money for its creators to keep it going, printing the characters on any smooth surface that they can find, in turn giving us a very small window through which we can harmlessly project some of our own thoughts, desires, and opinions.
On the other hand, Calvin & Hobbes had an ethos. You could learn a lot about Watterson by reading his strips. The artwork in the strips was varied, and often beautiful -- Watterson's battles for control over his layouts were certainly not without merit, and he unquestionably took full advantage of that freedom, and did so often.
posted by schmod at 9:38 AM on November 20, 2015 [5 favorites]
Schmod: that minion meme article is fantastic, and while the analysis reeks of classism it does a great job of laying out the evolution of memes over time.
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:01 AM on November 20, 2015
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:01 AM on November 20, 2015
How to remain true to his artistic ideals, to retain a semblance of authenticity in the mainstream realm of newspaper cartooning, gnawed at Watterson. His model cartoonist was publicity-shy, protective of his work, narratively and aesthetically ambitious, impervious to moguldom, and, above all, solitary. He was like a comedian who spurned collaborative work on sitcoms for lonely nights on stage honing his idiosyncratic act.
So that's why I love Stewart Lee!
posted by rorgy at 10:35 AM on November 20, 2015
So that's why I love Stewart Lee!
posted by rorgy at 10:35 AM on November 20, 2015
I used to love Calvin and Hobbes with a passion. I identified with Calvin's way of escaping through the imagination (and loved and still love the art). But at some point I found it impossible to avoid reading it as the tale of a sad little boy with no real friends. I find Peanuts and Mafalda a lot more true to life because they are about the interaction of several distinct personalities.
This feels like such a perverse reading of Calvin to me. He's not "escaping" anything—he genuinely occupies the world of his imagination, and it's vibrant and colorful enough that he rarely feels the need to leave it, or even have other people come along. Calvinball is a better sport than football, dinosaurs are more interesting than US history (or at least the US history that gets taught to a 6-year-old), and a philosopher-cynic friend with sharp claws and muscular back legs is pretty much better than any friend you're gonna find in school.
The joy of Calvin is the joy of a young genius who's smart enough to see the world in technicolor but not wise enough to reach the logical conclusions that his intelligence allows for. It's id, sure, but it's the id of imagination, creativity, and seeing, in a sense, the best of all possible worlds, whether or not anybody else is seeing it along with him.
Are you saying there's no "interaction of several distinct personalities" in Calvin + Hobbes? Because you've got his parents, you've got Rosalyn, you've got Suzie Derkins and Mrs. Crabtree and Moe. It's such a wonderful mix of authority figures, each of which have to put up with Calvin in a slightly different context (i.e. his parents love him, Rosalyn'll put him in his place for ten bucks, Crabtree hates herself and her life and just wants to stop having to put effort into anything at all, ever), and his peers, mostly Suzie, who's frustrated with him and fond of him in equal parts. Okay, maybe less than entirely equal. Then, of course, you have Hobbes, who is no more a figment of Calvin's imagination than any of the other characters are, whose beliefs are usually diametrically opposed to Calvin's, and whose disagreements with him usually lead to fistfights that leave Calvin scratched and beaten.
I used to read Calvin + Hobbes because I liked it more than I liked most of the people I knew, and didn't feel remotely lonely. That's how I feel with a lot of things. I like people when they're a part of the world I care about, but there're a lot of facets of so-called reality that I can basically do without. Then, right as I was hitting the point where I maybe needed more than books, the Internet became a thing, and webforums gave way to Tumblr and Twitter and the colorful digital landscape we've got today.
There're lots of arguments about whether or not Calvin grows up to become some kind of uberqualified successful genius or if he turns into a janitor working a dead-end job somewhere for the rest of his life. Those arguments buy into the same false dichotomy about "success" and "failure" that this article does. I mean, I could see Calvin throwing himself into some venture-funded startup or whatever, or else slacking his way through an assistant manager shift at a Wawa, but either way, I'm pretty sure he goes home and reblogs about a hundred different things on Tumblr, then posts about the latest episode of Hannibal or True Detective over on FanFare.
The world in which imaginative people who think snobby things about art and love violent, mindless TV are ostracized and forced to make up their own friends ended with the Internet. Did Calvin ever feel lonely? I doubt it. Bored? Of course. Did Calvin ever have friends? I'd submit that he had all the ones he needed, at the time, and if he ever grew up and made some, it wasn't Calvin adjusting to the ways of the world—it was the world finding ways of catching up to him.
posted by rorgy at 11:08 AM on November 20, 2015 [4 favorites]
This feels like such a perverse reading of Calvin to me. He's not "escaping" anything—he genuinely occupies the world of his imagination, and it's vibrant and colorful enough that he rarely feels the need to leave it, or even have other people come along. Calvinball is a better sport than football, dinosaurs are more interesting than US history (or at least the US history that gets taught to a 6-year-old), and a philosopher-cynic friend with sharp claws and muscular back legs is pretty much better than any friend you're gonna find in school.
The joy of Calvin is the joy of a young genius who's smart enough to see the world in technicolor but not wise enough to reach the logical conclusions that his intelligence allows for. It's id, sure, but it's the id of imagination, creativity, and seeing, in a sense, the best of all possible worlds, whether or not anybody else is seeing it along with him.
Are you saying there's no "interaction of several distinct personalities" in Calvin + Hobbes? Because you've got his parents, you've got Rosalyn, you've got Suzie Derkins and Mrs. Crabtree and Moe. It's such a wonderful mix of authority figures, each of which have to put up with Calvin in a slightly different context (i.e. his parents love him, Rosalyn'll put him in his place for ten bucks, Crabtree hates herself and her life and just wants to stop having to put effort into anything at all, ever), and his peers, mostly Suzie, who's frustrated with him and fond of him in equal parts. Okay, maybe less than entirely equal. Then, of course, you have Hobbes, who is no more a figment of Calvin's imagination than any of the other characters are, whose beliefs are usually diametrically opposed to Calvin's, and whose disagreements with him usually lead to fistfights that leave Calvin scratched and beaten.
I used to read Calvin + Hobbes because I liked it more than I liked most of the people I knew, and didn't feel remotely lonely. That's how I feel with a lot of things. I like people when they're a part of the world I care about, but there're a lot of facets of so-called reality that I can basically do without. Then, right as I was hitting the point where I maybe needed more than books, the Internet became a thing, and webforums gave way to Tumblr and Twitter and the colorful digital landscape we've got today.
There're lots of arguments about whether or not Calvin grows up to become some kind of uberqualified successful genius or if he turns into a janitor working a dead-end job somewhere for the rest of his life. Those arguments buy into the same false dichotomy about "success" and "failure" that this article does. I mean, I could see Calvin throwing himself into some venture-funded startup or whatever, or else slacking his way through an assistant manager shift at a Wawa, but either way, I'm pretty sure he goes home and reblogs about a hundred different things on Tumblr, then posts about the latest episode of Hannibal or True Detective over on FanFare.
The world in which imaginative people who think snobby things about art and love violent, mindless TV are ostracized and forced to make up their own friends ended with the Internet. Did Calvin ever feel lonely? I doubt it. Bored? Of course. Did Calvin ever have friends? I'd submit that he had all the ones he needed, at the time, and if he ever grew up and made some, it wasn't Calvin adjusting to the ways of the world—it was the world finding ways of catching up to him.
posted by rorgy at 11:08 AM on November 20, 2015 [4 favorites]
Went to GoComics to check out one of the links from this thread, and appropriately the actual comic images are newspaper-tiny and seemingly incidental to loads of ads and navigational cruft. It's like even on an infinite canvas the syndicates still need to make sure the strippers know their place.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 11:28 AM on November 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 11:28 AM on November 20, 2015 [1 favorite]
To say that Garfield is a piece of art that is enjoyed by the masses is frankly an insult to the masses, because I doubt that there is anyone left who actually enjoys Garfield.
I'd like you to meet my 10-year-old son. You and he are going to have a lot to talk about.
posted by escabeche at 4:08 PM on November 20, 2015
I'd like you to meet my 10-year-old son. You and he are going to have a lot to talk about.
posted by escabeche at 4:08 PM on November 20, 2015
There're lots of arguments about whether or not Calvin grows up to become some kind of uberqualified successful genius or if he turns into a janitor working a dead-end job somewhere for the rest of his life.
The thing about Calvin, I think, is that he's no more a genius than most other kids. The fact that he has conversations about chewing gum as a lifestyle or the hall of mirrors that is pop art or the way that gravity bends space no more makes him a genius than the melancholy adult-ish conversations in Peanuts make all of those six-year olds geniuses. It's just a function of the medium and the peculiar universe of the strip -- see also the weirdly esoteric knowledge required on his first-grade history tests while he's also being tasked to accomplish single-column addition. I think Calvin is bright to a certain degree, but he's also really dumb a lot of the time, in a way that is similar to a lot of folks' childhoods (even while they were in childhood -- when I was a kid reading C&H, I didn't know what the word 'redundant' meant, so I missed at least one joke in the strip, but I also knew a lot of things that Calvin was evidently clueless about, and I'm no genius).
I think Calvin is pretty normal, really, and I think that's part of the appeal. He's smart in the way that a lot of kids are smart, and dumb in the way that a lot of kids are dumb. Both are exaggerated, but if the strip were about a child genius destined for greatness (or, conversely, a child genius destined for the dull drudgery of a world bereft of joy), a lot fewer people would identify with it.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:04 PM on November 20, 2015 [4 favorites]
The thing about Calvin, I think, is that he's no more a genius than most other kids. The fact that he has conversations about chewing gum as a lifestyle or the hall of mirrors that is pop art or the way that gravity bends space no more makes him a genius than the melancholy adult-ish conversations in Peanuts make all of those six-year olds geniuses. It's just a function of the medium and the peculiar universe of the strip -- see also the weirdly esoteric knowledge required on his first-grade history tests while he's also being tasked to accomplish single-column addition. I think Calvin is bright to a certain degree, but he's also really dumb a lot of the time, in a way that is similar to a lot of folks' childhoods (even while they were in childhood -- when I was a kid reading C&H, I didn't know what the word 'redundant' meant, so I missed at least one joke in the strip, but I also knew a lot of things that Calvin was evidently clueless about, and I'm no genius).
I think Calvin is pretty normal, really, and I think that's part of the appeal. He's smart in the way that a lot of kids are smart, and dumb in the way that a lot of kids are dumb. Both are exaggerated, but if the strip were about a child genius destined for greatness (or, conversely, a child genius destined for the dull drudgery of a world bereft of joy), a lot fewer people would identify with it.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:04 PM on November 20, 2015 [4 favorites]
This feels like such a perverse reading of Calvin to me. He's not "escaping" anything—he genuinely occupies the world of his imagination,
Calvin is pretty clearly escaping things. I'm not sure how much more plainly the strip could spell it out. History class is equal parts boring and stressful, so why not chase dinosaurs in a spaceship instead? He's bullied, so why not pretend to be the alpha predator in the Jurassic. His one kinda friend doesn't really understand him, nor does he understand her. So she gets swept away in his imagination too. Much easier than trying to figure out how to deal with her.
Which isn't really a problem, at least in the short term. Any remotely creative kid does it. Especially the ones with a touch of introversion. I was that kid. Sometimes preferring to indulge in my own imaginary pursuits than deal with the messiness of school and friends and the inevitable cruelties. Probably a majority of us on Metafilter was that kid. Maybe the majority of everything was that kid, hence C&H's immense and lasting popularity.
And compared to Charlie Brown, Calvin really is a loner. Charlie Brown gets pigeonholed into being a lonely kid drowning in existential crises. But he's got solid friends. Linus, Peppermint Patty, Marcie, Franklin. He's a leader of sorts, even if it's in the role of the worst little league manager ever. He interacts regularly with and sometimes directs the community of children in his neighborhood. He even gets his crush / muse, the little red-headed girl, to smile at him on occasion.
Calvin's much more limited in his social options. Having your best friend be a tiger is great fun, but not indicative of a 6 or 7 yr old who is fitting in with his peers. You can lose yourself in your imagination, and still have loneliness gnaw at the edges. That sometimes comes out in the strips and is one of the things which makes the comic great.
posted by honestcoyote at 2:34 AM on November 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
Calvin is pretty clearly escaping things. I'm not sure how much more plainly the strip could spell it out. History class is equal parts boring and stressful, so why not chase dinosaurs in a spaceship instead? He's bullied, so why not pretend to be the alpha predator in the Jurassic. His one kinda friend doesn't really understand him, nor does he understand her. So she gets swept away in his imagination too. Much easier than trying to figure out how to deal with her.
Which isn't really a problem, at least in the short term. Any remotely creative kid does it. Especially the ones with a touch of introversion. I was that kid. Sometimes preferring to indulge in my own imaginary pursuits than deal with the messiness of school and friends and the inevitable cruelties. Probably a majority of us on Metafilter was that kid. Maybe the majority of everything was that kid, hence C&H's immense and lasting popularity.
And compared to Charlie Brown, Calvin really is a loner. Charlie Brown gets pigeonholed into being a lonely kid drowning in existential crises. But he's got solid friends. Linus, Peppermint Patty, Marcie, Franklin. He's a leader of sorts, even if it's in the role of the worst little league manager ever. He interacts regularly with and sometimes directs the community of children in his neighborhood. He even gets his crush / muse, the little red-headed girl, to smile at him on occasion.
Calvin's much more limited in his social options. Having your best friend be a tiger is great fun, but not indicative of a 6 or 7 yr old who is fitting in with his peers. You can lose yourself in your imagination, and still have loneliness gnaw at the edges. That sometimes comes out in the strips and is one of the things which makes the comic great.
posted by honestcoyote at 2:34 AM on November 21, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older The one who gives birth to herself. | FDA approves the nation's first genetically... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Wait, what? As a young'un I thought Robotman was hilarious; the sudden knowledge that it was straight-up work-for-hire (and, reading that Wikipedia article, its evolution, etc.) is jarring .
What a weird thing all 'round. The syndicate tried to Poochy Calvin and Hobbes long before Poochy was ever invented.
posted by Shepherd at 11:12 AM on November 19, 2015 [7 favorites]