5 ms·
> Whatever decisions Lucas and Rowling and Martin made regarding the integrity of their work, they were tempered by the need to ensure their properties were als
by dry_soup 4y ago
> Whatever decisions Lucas and Rowling and Martin made regarding the integrity of their work, they were tempered by the need to ensure their properties were also profitable. Conventional wisdom says that’s how you build brand recognition. But Watterson stands apart from his fellow creators because he rejected that wisdom. Which ironically has led to the exact thing Watterson didn’t want… the creation of a brand identity.
This is a misunderstanding of what Watterson was (is!) trying to achieve. He wants Calvin and Hobbes to exist on its own terms. You can call that a "brand identity" if you like, but it is certainly very deliberate on Watterson's part. What he is really trying to avoid is taking away the experience of reading the comic strip by having to make elements of it too concrete: What Calvin's or Hobbes' voices sound like, making the fuzzy line between Calvin's imagination of Hobbes and the real world too clear, etc. This isn't speculation, you can read this in the 10th anniversary Calvin and Hobbes book, which has a lot of great commentary.
As for how he was able to financially justify this, you can read about it in his commencement speech at his alma mater of Kenyon College, which I highly recommend reading in its entirety [1].
> Creating a life that reflects your values and satisfies your soul is a rare achievement. In a culture that relentlessly promotes avarice and excess as the good life, a person happy doing his own work is usually considered an eccentric, if not a subversive. Ambition is only understood if it's to rise to the top of some imaginary ladder of success. Someone who takes an undemanding job because it affords him the time to pursue other interests and activities is considered a flake. A person who abandons a career in order to stay home and raise children is considered not to be living up to his potential-as if a job title and salary are the sole measure of human worth.
You'll be told in a hundred ways, some subtle and some not, to keep climbing, and never be satisfied with where you are, who you are, and what you're doing. There are a million ways to sell yourself out, and I guarantee you'll hear about them.
It's funny to me that all these years later, Watterson is still seen as some mysterious recluse with obscure motivations, when it couldn't be more clear: Watterson does not want to compromise his artistic vision, and he does not need more money than he already has in order to live a life he is content with. So there is no reason for him to milk Calvin and Hobbes for all it's worth.
[1] https://web.mit.edu/jmorzins/www/C-H-speech.html https://web.mit.edu/jmorzins/www/C-H-speech.html
- whiplash451 4y agoAbsolutely. I always felt that Tintin’s movies were such a terrible idea.
- philistine 4y agoI truly fell in love with Tintin watching the Nelvana cartoon as a kid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tintin_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tintin_(TV_s.... It wasn't a bad idea, but it highlights the most important element of adapting Calvin & Hobbes: you must change the format. While Tintin stayed an adventure series that lasts for about 45 minutes per story, what do you do with Calvin & Hobbes? It can't be a 5 seconds long show! It's a big part of Watterson's refusal; he was adamant that Calvin was a strip, and only worked as a strip.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- snowwrestler 4y agoRight. Watterson had no issue with making money; the strips ran in tons of papers and he signed off on lots of retail items: books, calendars, posters, etc. But none of the retail items took the characters out of the context of the comic. They all presented the full strips that Watterson drew. That was his ethic: the strip is the object, the whole piece of art. To him, selling a stuffed Hobbes would be like selling a commemorative plush “left eye of Mona Lisa.”
- antisocial 4y agoLogged in to post about this commencement speech. "We're not really taught how to recreate constructively. We need to do more than find diversions; we need to restore and expand ourselves. Our idea of relaxing is all too often to plop down in front of the television set and let its pandering idiocy liquefy our brains. Shutting off the thought process is not rejuvenating; the mind is like a car battery-it recharges by running." It had a great impact on me and I never had a TV in the living room. I made my kid read this as well. This speech is aging well and is timeless in my opinion.