3 ms·

Another take: "Watterson, of course, is Calvin, at least partly, and the refusal to agree to what his bosses wanted in terms of licensing is a demonstration of

Another take: "Watterson, of course, is Calvin, at least partly, and the refusal to agree to what his bosses wanted in terms of licensing is a demonstration of the rebellious spirit that energizes the comic strip. But at the end of the day, it is juvenile, shortsighted, and damaging. This is why becoming an adult is hard to do. Watterson made a decision that was rooted in pettiness: "I worked too long to get this job, and worked too hard once I got it, to let other people run away with my creation once it became successful."" From: https://moviewise.substack.com/p/are-you-socially-mad-or-capably-glad https://moviewise.substack.com/p/are-you-socially-mad-or-cap...

moviewise 4y ago
Related: Here is an article describing the speech Watterson gave railing against licensing. Note the different approaches of the two cartoonists on opposite sides, Bill Watterson vs 'Beetle Bailey'/'Hi and Lois' creator Mort Walker. "Walker and Watterson also had very different approaches to dealing with the public at the three-day festival. Walker agreed to numerous requests to do autographed sketches and pose for photos, while Watterson declined to give autographs and requested no photos and no taping of his remarks." http://timhulsizer.com/cwords/cdiffer.html http://timhulsizer.com/cwords/cdiffer.html
sonofhans 4y ago
I appreciate that you’re just quoting someone else’s work here. But let me say that this is by miles the worst take I’ve read on Calvin & Hobbes, and one of the saddest and most dehumanizing things I’ve ever read about the intersection of art and commerce. They author fundamentally misunderstands art: “The value of artistic work is in reaching people.” They claim repeatedly that artists have an obligation to use commerce to spread their work far and wide: “Can you not see that in denying the syndicates profits that countless others were harmed?” It is a long elucidation of exactly what Watterson has spent his life trying to avoid. It’s literally calling the man “selfish” for refusing to allow others to profit from his work. It’s kneeling at the altar of capitalism and kissing the ring of commercial exploitation, and prizing both those things above simple human creativity, and the ability of artists to curate their own works.
- moviewise 4y ago
  >It’s literally calling the man “selfish” for refusing to allow others to profit from his work. If the object was to prevent others —— i.e. the syndicates who helped him develop the comic strip and helped to promote and distribute it —— from profiting from his work, why wouldn't you call this selfish? Bill Watterson chose to syndicate "Calvin & Hobbes," that is, he chose to sell it, so he fully engaged in capitalism. He just didn't want to profit (or let others profit) from it in other ways, e.g. selling plushy toys etc. But he profited enough from newspaper syndication and book publishing to retire at 35.

moviewise 4y ago

Related: Here is an article describing the speech Watterson gave railing against licensing. Note the different approaches of the two cartoonists on opposite sides, Bill Watterson vs 'Beetle Bailey'/'Hi and Lois' creator Mort Walker. "Walker and Watterson also had very different approaches to dealing with the public at the three-day festival. Walker agreed to numerous requests to do autographed sketches and pose for photos, while Watterson declined to give autographs and requested no photos and no taping of his remarks." http://timhulsizer.com/cwords/cdiffer.html http://timhulsizer.com/cwords/cdiffer.html

sonofhans 4y ago

I appreciate that you’re just quoting someone else’s work here. But let me say that this is by miles the worst take I’ve read on Calvin & Hobbes, and one of the saddest and most dehumanizing things I’ve ever read about the intersection of art and commerce. They author fundamentally misunderstands art: “The value of artistic work is in reaching people.” They claim repeatedly that artists have an obligation to use commerce to spread their work far and wide: “Can you not see that in denying the syndicates profits that countless others were harmed?” It is a long elucidation of exactly what Watterson has spent his life trying to avoid. It’s literally calling the man “selfish” for refusing to allow others to profit from his work. It’s kneeling at the altar of capitalism and kissing the ring of commercial exploitation, and prizing both those things above simple human creativity, and the ability of artists to curate their own works.

moviewise 4y ago
>It’s literally calling the man “selfish” for refusing to allow others to profit from his work. If the object was to prevent others —— i.e. the syndicates who helped him develop the comic strip and helped to promote and distribute it —— from profiting from his work, why wouldn't you call this selfish? Bill Watterson chose to syndicate "Calvin & Hobbes," that is, he chose to sell it, so he fully engaged in capitalism. He just didn't want to profit (or let others profit) from it in other ways, e.g. selling plushy toys etc. But he profited enough from newspaper syndication and book publishing to retire at 35.