I don't see C&H ever going out of print, or vanishing from the public interest; for kids like us who grew up in these worlds, our books will always be heirloom objects, and we'll always want to transmit the magic to our own children. I think this is the legacy that Watterson had in mind, and the one he strove to create. The man was a crank, but he knew what he was about.
I also think Watterson intuited his hero's contradictions made the most sense on the page. Calvin is by turns an avatar for slack-jawed consumerism, an impulsive solipcist, a terrible son, AND a compassionate nature-lover full of whimsy and imaginative/philosophical yearnings. Keeping all those plates spinning was a magic act, and one which Watterson probably felt he could only do through his chosen medium.
It's interesting to posit a world where Bill had a separate relationship to syndication, though. The idea of syndication-as-fan-service could've taken the ideas present in the strip down some interesting avenues, and I'd be hella down for a Tracer Bullet LARP.
The problem with this is that with mass market commercialization you end up with a crass de-sacralization of the core text. Look at Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. First you have Jackson's trilogy which decent paled in comparison to the text and cheapened it with nonsense like Legolas bouncing around, which led to The Hobbit movies which were unwatchable garbage and spawned Denny's Hobbit Brunches and finally to the ultimate cheapening of it becoming a streaming Amazon action show. It's the Funko Popification cheapening and removal of depth that concerns me.
Of course you do have a point. Will this material die without the commercialization? I don't know, maybe. But I like to think that it will survive to inspire others to create better and more time relevant work when they discover it, instead of saturating the world with ever cheaper dull versions of itself.
Fair point, and I suppose part of the art, aside from the artist, is always going to be the medium. The further it gets from the original vision, the more pallid and inbred the product is as it's produced. There's something magical in the fact we will all speak through Calvin and Hobbes with our own voices, rather than a voice actor.
This is why I'd much rather see Calvin and Hobbes fade out over time (which it may very well) than subject it to franchise treatment. Take Star Wars: George Lucas synthesized it from the pulp sci-fi, adventure comics, noir movies, and Joseph Campbell books he grew up with and produced something that in 1977 was so original and weird that it captivated the whole country. When Han Solo mentioned he fought in the Clone Wars, you had to use your imagination to think about it. When some metal box droid with wheels rolled by in the background, the movie didn't tell you what it was. Today, the writers of the new Star Wars movies are inspired by...Star Wars, and pretty much just Star Wars, and it shows. I'm reminded of the Roger Ebert quote about fandom, and how fandom is less about adulation of any given work of art than adulation of fandom and the fans itself.
I don't know if you've heard of or played Disco Elysium, but this is part of why I'm not bothered by the disillusion of ZA/UM. A striking and wholly original work of art gets to stand on its own for a while, and in time, both Disco Elysium and Calvin and Hobbes will be small parts of another wholly original artwork the same way parts of your great-great-grandmother's experiences are part of your own.
I actually did start Disco Elysium, but got swept up by Elden Ring pretty quickly. Everyone keeps telling me to play it, so maybe I will give it another shot.
While I enjoyed Jackson's movies, there's a part of me that is sad that whenever I think of Frodo I no longer picture whatever I did in my mind when I first read LotR, and instead picture Elijah Wood. The same goes for Narnia and others.
Wow, we have such different understandings about art! First of all, I don't see art as a way to teach lessons, but as a way to show human experience. Second, we've been creating art since before money existed, so it doesn't make sense to me to think of art in terms of money or the size of its audience. There is more to life than markets. I think Bill Watterson would have made himself absolutely miserable if he compromised his personal standards by selling out, and, you know what, artists are people. Our crafts are incredibly personal journeys that require time, effort, and vulnerability. Therefore, I don't think it's fair to ask an artist to sacrifice their integrity and their well being in order to spread a message to as many people as possible.
But would Watterson's message even get out on any meaningful level if he had commercialized Calvin and Hobbes? The impact of more junk in our stores and more people getting paid to design that junk and more people spending more money to buy said junk would certainly undercut the comic's entire philosophy. How many of the people buying hypothetical Calvin and Hobbes merch or watching a TV adapation would actually think about what the story is saying? A larger audience doesn't mean that they're all engaging with the work beyond the surface level.
Honestly, I like that Watterson's decision puts the pressure on us to keep this lovely story alive. If we want future generations to remember Calvin and Hobbes, we have to share it with them. Watterson already did plenty by creating art that brightened our childhoods. The least we can do is pass it forward.
Thank you for the article, I found it very thought provoking, even though (or rather because) we disagree!
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I am definitely conflicted about the legacy of Calvin and Hobbes, too. But you’re right - it’s up to the loyalists to pass the joy of the books down to other generations. After all, it’s all we got!
Exactly. Watterson didn't and doesn't owe Calvin and Hobbes or his time and attention to anyone. At the end of the day, despite all the pleasure and inspiration it gave us, it's his, and he did it for himself. I bet that more than a few creators who've franchised their work out secretly wish they'd held the line the way he did.
God, I loved this strip so much as a kid. I must've read every single one at least ten times, and many of them more than that. What I wouldn't give to read them all again for the first time.
Great post! Watterson's perspective reminds me of Alan Moore, who famously requested to remove his name from all of the film/TV adaptations of V for Vendetta and Watchmen. Moore's point was that these commercial re-creations either misinterpreted or diminished the philosophies he meticulously presented in his graphic novels.
I'm a huge fan of both Moore and Watterson and respect their right to decide their relationship with their works. But it does bring up a few questions for me: are original creators the only determinants of what constitutes a legitimate adaptation to a new medium? What about the fans? And for works with an inherently anti-commercial philosophy, like C&H or V for Vendetta, how can we adapt them to historically commercialized mediums but in independent, anti-commercial, and even subversive ways?
Great questions! I am wondering what the Watterson estate has to say on the impact... but in my opinion, remembrances are getting desperate. Watterson is a unique case, just because so many of his comics had so many important lessons.
Any plugs near famu campus ?. I have got some EOS after great wins at this crypo sport betting... are there any ways to invest this straight to u? - https://tinyurl.com/3fbhv4ts
I don't see C&H ever going out of print, or vanishing from the public interest; for kids like us who grew up in these worlds, our books will always be heirloom objects, and we'll always want to transmit the magic to our own children. I think this is the legacy that Watterson had in mind, and the one he strove to create. The man was a crank, but he knew what he was about.
I also think Watterson intuited his hero's contradictions made the most sense on the page. Calvin is by turns an avatar for slack-jawed consumerism, an impulsive solipcist, a terrible son, AND a compassionate nature-lover full of whimsy and imaginative/philosophical yearnings. Keeping all those plates spinning was a magic act, and one which Watterson probably felt he could only do through his chosen medium.
It's interesting to posit a world where Bill had a separate relationship to syndication, though. The idea of syndication-as-fan-service could've taken the ideas present in the strip down some interesting avenues, and I'd be hella down for a Tracer Bullet LARP.
The problem with this is that with mass market commercialization you end up with a crass de-sacralization of the core text. Look at Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. First you have Jackson's trilogy which decent paled in comparison to the text and cheapened it with nonsense like Legolas bouncing around, which led to The Hobbit movies which were unwatchable garbage and spawned Denny's Hobbit Brunches and finally to the ultimate cheapening of it becoming a streaming Amazon action show. It's the Funko Popification cheapening and removal of depth that concerns me.
Of course you do have a point. Will this material die without the commercialization? I don't know, maybe. But I like to think that it will survive to inspire others to create better and more time relevant work when they discover it, instead of saturating the world with ever cheaper dull versions of itself.
Fair point, and I suppose part of the art, aside from the artist, is always going to be the medium. The further it gets from the original vision, the more pallid and inbred the product is as it's produced. There's something magical in the fact we will all speak through Calvin and Hobbes with our own voices, rather than a voice actor.
This is why I'd much rather see Calvin and Hobbes fade out over time (which it may very well) than subject it to franchise treatment. Take Star Wars: George Lucas synthesized it from the pulp sci-fi, adventure comics, noir movies, and Joseph Campbell books he grew up with and produced something that in 1977 was so original and weird that it captivated the whole country. When Han Solo mentioned he fought in the Clone Wars, you had to use your imagination to think about it. When some metal box droid with wheels rolled by in the background, the movie didn't tell you what it was. Today, the writers of the new Star Wars movies are inspired by...Star Wars, and pretty much just Star Wars, and it shows. I'm reminded of the Roger Ebert quote about fandom, and how fandom is less about adulation of any given work of art than adulation of fandom and the fans itself.
I don't know if you've heard of or played Disco Elysium, but this is part of why I'm not bothered by the disillusion of ZA/UM. A striking and wholly original work of art gets to stand on its own for a while, and in time, both Disco Elysium and Calvin and Hobbes will be small parts of another wholly original artwork the same way parts of your great-great-grandmother's experiences are part of your own.
I actually did start Disco Elysium, but got swept up by Elden Ring pretty quickly. Everyone keeps telling me to play it, so maybe I will give it another shot.
You might be right that real C&H syndication will just end up making it embarrassing over time. Too much commercialism and too little authenticity.
While I enjoyed Jackson's movies, there's a part of me that is sad that whenever I think of Frodo I no longer picture whatever I did in my mind when I first read LotR, and instead picture Elijah Wood. The same goes for Narnia and others.
I just reread The Great Gatsby and couldn't help but see DiCaprio's face in every scene!
We need this thank you
Would you choose Calvin & Hobbes video game or amusement park? Calvin & Hobbes... MMO??
Wow, we have such different understandings about art! First of all, I don't see art as a way to teach lessons, but as a way to show human experience. Second, we've been creating art since before money existed, so it doesn't make sense to me to think of art in terms of money or the size of its audience. There is more to life than markets. I think Bill Watterson would have made himself absolutely miserable if he compromised his personal standards by selling out, and, you know what, artists are people. Our crafts are incredibly personal journeys that require time, effort, and vulnerability. Therefore, I don't think it's fair to ask an artist to sacrifice their integrity and their well being in order to spread a message to as many people as possible.
But would Watterson's message even get out on any meaningful level if he had commercialized Calvin and Hobbes? The impact of more junk in our stores and more people getting paid to design that junk and more people spending more money to buy said junk would certainly undercut the comic's entire philosophy. How many of the people buying hypothetical Calvin and Hobbes merch or watching a TV adapation would actually think about what the story is saying? A larger audience doesn't mean that they're all engaging with the work beyond the surface level.
Honestly, I like that Watterson's decision puts the pressure on us to keep this lovely story alive. If we want future generations to remember Calvin and Hobbes, we have to share it with them. Watterson already did plenty by creating art that brightened our childhoods. The least we can do is pass it forward.
Thank you for the article, I found it very thought provoking, even though (or rather because) we disagree!
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! I am definitely conflicted about the legacy of Calvin and Hobbes, too. But you’re right - it’s up to the loyalists to pass the joy of the books down to other generations. After all, it’s all we got!
Exactly. Watterson didn't and doesn't owe Calvin and Hobbes or his time and attention to anyone. At the end of the day, despite all the pleasure and inspiration it gave us, it's his, and he did it for himself. I bet that more than a few creators who've franchised their work out secretly wish they'd held the line the way he did.
God, I loved this strip so much as a kid. I must've read every single one at least ten times, and many of them more than that. What I wouldn't give to read them all again for the first time.
It really is such a masterpiece… we have to carry the legacy onwards!
Great post! Watterson's perspective reminds me of Alan Moore, who famously requested to remove his name from all of the film/TV adaptations of V for Vendetta and Watchmen. Moore's point was that these commercial re-creations either misinterpreted or diminished the philosophies he meticulously presented in his graphic novels.
I'm a huge fan of both Moore and Watterson and respect their right to decide their relationship with their works. But it does bring up a few questions for me: are original creators the only determinants of what constitutes a legitimate adaptation to a new medium? What about the fans? And for works with an inherently anti-commercial philosophy, like C&H or V for Vendetta, how can we adapt them to historically commercialized mediums but in independent, anti-commercial, and even subversive ways?
Great questions! I am wondering what the Watterson estate has to say on the impact... but in my opinion, remembrances are getting desperate. Watterson is a unique case, just because so many of his comics had so many important lessons.
Any plugs near famu campus ?. I have got some EOS after great wins at this crypo sport betting... are there any ways to invest this straight to u? - https://tinyurl.com/3fbhv4ts