48 ms·

The page you link to gives the reason from an interview he did in 2010: "This isn't as hard to understand as people try to make it. By the end of ten years, I'

The page you link to gives the reason from an interview he did in 2010: "This isn't as hard to understand as people try to make it. By the end of ten years, I'd said pretty much everything I had come there to say. It's always better to leave the party early. If I had rolled along with the strip's popularity and repeated myself for another five, ten, or twenty years, the people now "grieving" for Calvin and Hobbes would be wishing me dead and cursing newspapers for running tedious, ancient strips like mine instead of acquiring fresher, livelier talent. And I'd be agreeing with them. I think some of the reason Calvin and Hobbes still finds an audience today is because I chose not to run the wheels off it. I've never regretted stopping when I did." You could read that as being about Calvin and Hobbes specifically but it feels to me that it's about cartooning in general. It's understandable that someone who had achieved what he has achieved in the medium felt that there wasn't too much more to do and that it was time to try something else.

raldi 13y ago
If that's the case, it's interesting that he was unable to see / admit it in 1995, and instead heaped all the blame on newspaper editors cramping his style.
- scott_s 13y ago
  I don't see much difference in meaning between the quotes from 1995 and 2010.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
  The blaming the papers wasn't a 1995 thing. By that point he'd already taken one sabbatical because of the pressure he felt and had managed to get the papers to accept some small changes to the format of the Sunday strips because he wasn't happy with the work he was able to do. Regardless of his intentions for the future and what he thought he may or may not be able to do, his dissatisfaction with the medium and the newspapers was very real. If you read what he's said about the situation and his unhappiness with it my guess would be that when he quit he really just wanted out and he he probably didn't know what he was going to do next. Realising that he felt he'd done all he wanted to do with the format probably came later when he had some distance.
  - calibraxis 13y ago
    Yes, and he very likely was aware of the issue back in 1995. In an article about him, someone mentioned: "It used to be that 'you did it forever, no matter what the quality was,' says Moore, who doubles as a Times news editor. 'The new camp [of cartoonists] says that when the quality of the strip starts diminishing, you get out of the business.'" (http://articles.latimes.com/1995-11-16/news/ls-3760_1_bill-watterson http://articles.latimes.com/1995-11-16/news/ls-3760_1_bill-w...) His "resignation letter" was naturally too short to contain his complex thoughts on the subject.
    - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
      There is commentary is one of the later books which covers off some of what he was feeling at the time. Reading that I don't think there's much doubt that his dissatisfaction was with the constraints of working as a commercial cartoonist rather than anything that would change between Calvin and Hobbes and another cartoon.
fusiongyro 13y ago
Anybody who liked Garfield as a kid has an object lesson in exactly what he was trying to avoid. At the same time, I think the OP's point is that the "trying something else" never seems to have materialized.
- troygoode 13y ago
  He never said his "something else" would be something that could/should be shared with the public.
  - fusiongyro 13y ago
    He never said it wouldn't, either, and our experience with creative people who work in the public eye suggests that this is anomalous. I get that he's not, like, accountable to us, but our expectations were not unreasonable and neither is our disappointment. Of course if you have a gift, you can decide to selfishly guard it instead of sharing it, even after sharing it for so long. Doing so kind of makes you an asshole. Well within your rights, of course.
    - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
      This comment reminds me of the Simpson's Treehouse of Horror episode where an omnipotent Bart is forcing Crusty to perform 24 hours a day. He made people happy for a decade (and longer with reruns and memories) and you've decided he's an asshole for not doing it for longer. I think that's harsh - ultimately you're saying you want him to do work he isn't happy with and causes him stress for your entertainment.
      - fusiongyro 13y ago
        Your version of me is detestable, but it isn't what I'm really saying. I think you should be able to appreciate the nuances of my point. When a person in a particular line of work says they're going to work on different projects, you interpret that differently than if they say they're going to retire. If someone is not retiring but simply choosing not to exercise their talents, they're being selfish. I am not saying he's an asshole for not doing C&H anymore. I'm saying he's a hypocrite. That's fine, we all are to some extent, but there's no need to promote him to sainthood or work over everything he's ever said with laser precision to exonerate it. Sure, people run out. But sometimes people just get selfish and lazy, and just as creating something great once doesn't mean you necessarily have other great things in you, it also doesn't exempt you from having to live in the world, work like the rest of us, and deal with negative opinions.

raldi 13y ago

If that's the case, it's interesting that he was unable to see / admit it in 1995, and instead heaped all the blame on newspaper editors cramping his style.

scott_s 13y ago
I don't see much difference in meaning between the quotes from 1995 and 2010.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
The blaming the papers wasn't a 1995 thing. By that point he'd already taken one sabbatical because of the pressure he felt and had managed to get the papers to accept some small changes to the format of the Sunday strips because he wasn't happy with the work he was able to do. Regardless of his intentions for the future and what he thought he may or may not be able to do, his dissatisfaction with the medium and the newspapers was very real. If you read what he's said about the situation and his unhappiness with it my guess would be that when he quit he really just wanted out and he he probably didn't know what he was going to do next. Realising that he felt he'd done all he wanted to do with the format probably came later when he had some distance.
- calibraxis 13y ago
  Yes, and he very likely was aware of the issue back in 1995. In an article about him, someone mentioned: "It used to be that 'you did it forever, no matter what the quality was,' says Moore, who doubles as a Times news editor. 'The new camp [of cartoonists] says that when the quality of the strip starts diminishing, you get out of the business.'" (http://articles.latimes.com/1995-11-16/news/ls-3760_1_bill-watterson http://articles.latimes.com/1995-11-16/news/ls-3760_1_bill-w...) His "resignation letter" was naturally too short to contain his complex thoughts on the subject.
  - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
    There is commentary is one of the later books which covers off some of what he was feeling at the time. Reading that I don't think there's much doubt that his dissatisfaction was with the constraints of working as a commercial cartoonist rather than anything that would change between Calvin and Hobbes and another cartoon.

fusiongyro 13y ago

Anybody who liked Garfield as a kid has an object lesson in exactly what he was trying to avoid. At the same time, I think the OP's point is that the "trying something else" never seems to have materialized.

troygoode 13y ago
He never said his "something else" would be something that could/should be shared with the public.
- fusiongyro 13y ago
  He never said it wouldn't, either, and our experience with creative people who work in the public eye suggests that this is anomalous. I get that he's not, like, accountable to us, but our expectations were not unreasonable and neither is our disappointment. Of course if you have a gift, you can decide to selfishly guard it instead of sharing it, even after sharing it for so long. Doing so kind of makes you an asshole. Well within your rights, of course.
  - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
    This comment reminds me of the Simpson's Treehouse of Horror episode where an omnipotent Bart is forcing Crusty to perform 24 hours a day. He made people happy for a decade (and longer with reruns and memories) and you've decided he's an asshole for not doing it for longer. I think that's harsh - ultimately you're saying you want him to do work he isn't happy with and causes him stress for your entertainment.
    - fusiongyro 13y ago
      Your version of me is detestable, but it isn't what I'm really saying. I think you should be able to appreciate the nuances of my point. When a person in a particular line of work says they're going to work on different projects, you interpret that differently than if they say they're going to retire. If someone is not retiring but simply choosing not to exercise their talents, they're being selfish. I am not saying he's an asshole for not doing C&H anymore. I'm saying he's a hypocrite. That's fine, we all are to some extent, but there's no need to promote him to sainthood or work over everything he's ever said with laser precision to exonerate it. Sure, people run out. But sometimes people just get selfish and lazy, and just as creating something great once doesn't mean you necessarily have other great things in you, it also doesn't exempt you from having to live in the world, work like the rest of us, and deal with negative opinions.