4 ms·

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 s

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.
      - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
        It seems there is a reasonable but incorrect assumption here - that the next thing he did would also be public. As I say, that assumption is perfectly reasonable, but it was still an assumption rather than something he said and it turned out to be incorrect. If you think he knew for sure that he wouldn't do anything similar again yet said this then you'd be justified in saying that he'd mislead people (which wouldn't make him a hypocrite, rather an outright liar) but there's no evidence that that's the case. The guy worshipped cartoons and had worked for years to become then remain a cartoonist. As stressed as he'd been by it all I suspect he felt there was a chance he'd return to it at some point (and may still do, though that seems unlikely now). But at the time he quit, like many people ending a long term, all consuming project which has left them financially secure, all he really knew was that he was going to take some time out then do something different without really knowing what. Sure it would have been great had he felt that he had another great, public venture in him but he didn't and I don't think there's anything at all to criticise in what he did or how he did it. That's not saying he's a saint (I think he unwillingness to speak about almost anything since is slightly off, though it is his right), just that I don't think he's done anything to deserve criticism in the way you're suggesting.
Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
Interestingly Jim Davis stopped doing Garfield ages ago - he just had a team of people doing it on his behalf so he could keep making the money... Obviously it diminished any legacy Garfield has had but he's still got to go and do what he wanted (Orson's Farm). But it's not clear that Waterson's something else would ever be commercial or public - just that he was going to go and do something that wasn't Calvin and Hobbes. Only he will know what his original intention was (or even if he had any sort of clear idea at the time) but he has no children and is presumably financially secure for life from Calvin and Hobbes so at the very least he'll have known that not "working" again was an option.
- techtalsky 13y ago
  I wonder how he managed to be "financially secure for life" without any merchandising. Just from book sales and syndication money? That seems amazing.
  - scott_karana 13y ago
    If he lives as modestly as I suspect, he may be able to easily live off the growth of investments on one or two million dollars. :)
  - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
    As of January 2010 it had been featured in 2,400 newspapers worldwide and there are 18 books with combined sales of nearly 45 million... Reruns of the strip still appear in over 50 countries. He's married but has no children and seems, from what you can read, to live a relatively modest life. I'm assuming that adds up to being secure and I suspect if it were to go one way or another from secure it would go towards being very well off indeed.
breadbox 13y ago
It is generally believed that Watterson has been painting in his retirement. The fact that he hasn't tried to make a splash by selling his art should come as a surprise to exactly nobody.

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.
    - Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
      It seems there is a reasonable but incorrect assumption here - that the next thing he did would also be public. As I say, that assumption is perfectly reasonable, but it was still an assumption rather than something he said and it turned out to be incorrect. If you think he knew for sure that he wouldn't do anything similar again yet said this then you'd be justified in saying that he'd mislead people (which wouldn't make him a hypocrite, rather an outright liar) but there's no evidence that that's the case. The guy worshipped cartoons and had worked for years to become then remain a cartoonist. As stressed as he'd been by it all I suspect he felt there was a chance he'd return to it at some point (and may still do, though that seems unlikely now). But at the time he quit, like many people ending a long term, all consuming project which has left them financially secure, all he really knew was that he was going to take some time out then do something different without really knowing what. Sure it would have been great had he felt that he had another great, public venture in him but he didn't and I don't think there's anything at all to criticise in what he did or how he did it. That's not saying he's a saint (I think he unwillingness to speak about almost anything since is slightly off, though it is his right), just that I don't think he's done anything to deserve criticism in the way you're suggesting.

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago

Interestingly Jim Davis stopped doing Garfield ages ago - he just had a team of people doing it on his behalf so he could keep making the money... Obviously it diminished any legacy Garfield has had but he's still got to go and do what he wanted (Orson's Farm). But it's not clear that Waterson's something else would ever be commercial or public - just that he was going to go and do something that wasn't Calvin and Hobbes. Only he will know what his original intention was (or even if he had any sort of clear idea at the time) but he has no children and is presumably financially secure for life from Calvin and Hobbes so at the very least he'll have known that not "working" again was an option.

techtalsky 13y ago
I wonder how he managed to be "financially secure for life" without any merchandising. Just from book sales and syndication money? That seems amazing.
- scott_karana 13y ago
  If he lives as modestly as I suspect, he may be able to easily live off the growth of investments on one or two million dollars. :)
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
  As of January 2010 it had been featured in 2,400 newspapers worldwide and there are 18 books with combined sales of nearly 45 million... Reruns of the strip still appear in over 50 countries. He's married but has no children and seems, from what you can read, to live a relatively modest life. I'm assuming that adds up to being secure and I suspect if it were to go one way or another from secure it would go towards being very well off indeed.

breadbox 13y ago

It is generally believed that Watterson has been painting in his retirement. The fact that he hasn't tried to make a splash by selling his art should come as a surprise to exactly nobody.