[HN Gopher] Bill Watterson's refusal to license Calvin and Hobbe... ___________________________________________________________________ Bill Watterson's refusal to license Calvin and Hobbes (2016) Author : herbertl Score : 394 points Date : 2022-07-16 08:23 UTC (14 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.thelegalartist.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.thelegalartist.com) | spaceman_2020 wrote: | Watterson was always going to have a special place in the | cartoonist pantheon because of C&H, but by this decision, I feel | he will be truly immortalized. Every single Calvin & Hobbes comic | strip feels more special because that's the only time I get to | see it, and I get to see it in complete context. | | If it was plastered on mugs and tshirts, it would be completely | decontextualized and feel a little cheaper. | dotancohen wrote: | What about those peeing stickers? I am fully aware that | Waterston had nothing to do with them, but do you not feel that | they diluted the brand? | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | I always enjoyed this _The Onion_ blurb: | https://www.theonion.com/peeing-calvin-decals-now- | recognized... | [deleted] | pizzathyme wrote: | I feel the opposite. In 20 years people who are avid comic | historians may remember him, like how a few people today may | remember Fred Astaire (greatest dancer of black and white | films). But in the grand scheme of things C&H is fading into | nothingness. Few Gen Z or kids today have heard of it, and that | percentage will grow each decade. Large brands like Potter, | Garfield, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars will live on potentially | forever as long as the brands and businesses are well managed. | | I respect his decision but it makes me sad. I loved C&H as a | kids but as I type this in a store it is nowhere to be found. | Immortality at the cost of creative compromise. | mchusma wrote: | I was confused about the comment on Sherlock Holmes, apparently | you do not need a license fee anymore (but this is as of 2014) | https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sherlock-holmes-no... | | The length of copyright is insane. I think the US founding | fathers had it right. 14 years plus the ability to extend another | 14 years. I'd be fine with another extension or 2, with each | extension getting more expensive. (Like $1k for first extension, | $10k for 2nd, and $100k for 3rd). Heck I'd actually be ok with it | keeping going so a 4th extension costs $1M, 5th costs $10m, and | so on so you could have people with 100 year long copyright if | they were willing to pay for it. | deng wrote: | > In the old days, there was this idea of "selling out" and we as | a culture decided that it was bad. Monetizing a thing immediately | called into question its integrity, and more importantly, the | integrity of the artist. But then an interesting thing began | happening in the late 90's and early 00's. The idea of selling | out lost its negative connotation. | | It did? I completely missed that, but it's probably because I'm | old... | I-M-S wrote: | There's an episode of "Decoder ring", an excellent podcast | devoted to decoding cultural mysteries, on this subject: | https://slate.com/podcasts/decoder-ring/2021/08/selling-out | yyyk wrote: | "Old days" is a very relative term here. This attitude was | common for Watterson's generation (b. 1958), but for example | Schulz (b. 1922) had zero problems with monetization. | JKCalhoun wrote: | That may be when Peanuts, IMHO, went downhill. "Oh, the dog | sells? I'll do more of the dog." | | Sigh, so kawaii. | ghaff wrote: | It's hard to look at Peanuts with fresh eyes from such a | distance of time. Halloween specials notwithstanding, I'm | not sure I can say that I ever _loved_ Peanuts--certainly | not as an adult--but it was absolutely a cultural icon. | JKCalhoun wrote: | I think it was from reading the "Complete Peanuts" | collections and seeing how brilliant the strip was in the | earlier part of its run (certainly before I was old | enough to either read or understand its depth as a | child). | chubot wrote: | _In the old days, there was this idea of "selling out" and we | as a culture decided that it was bad. Monetizing a thing | immediately called into question its integrity, and more | importantly, the integrity of the artist. But then an | interesting thing began happening in the late 90's and early | 00's. The idea of selling out lost its negative connotation._ | | Chuck Klosterman's recent book "The Nineties" talks about this | a lot! And honestly it's spot on. I had forgotten about this, | and not realized how much it disappeared as a cultural concept. | | https://www.amazon.com/Nineties-Book-Chuck-Klosterman/dp/073... | | We all used the phrase "selling out" frequently (on the east | coast of the US), but I remember one high school friend who | invoked it constantly. Calling people "sell outs" (i.e. lacking | in authenticity) was a common insult. | | Grunge bands and in particular Kurt Cobain had almost a | pathological obsession with "selling out", to the point where | it had some part in his death. Even popularity was seen as a | sign of selling out -- it was better to be true to your indie | roots. | | There are some interesting quotes in the book from Cobain and | contemporaries, and the author talks about influential movies | at the time that dealt with the concept. | | I was never a Calvin and Hobbes fan, but it's definitely | interesting and notable that the creator avoided "selling out". | | While I think we were too obsessed with it back then, I think a | concept that probably needs more respect today. You could even | talk coherently about Google "selling out", although that | concept may now be foreign to many people. There was a notion | of authenticity and that you cared about the mission, i.e. | organizing the world's information. But that is long gone :-( | | In retrospect the obsession with "selling out" in the 90's was | a reaction to capitalist values affecting more and more parts | of life. Though, being a teenager, I didn't realize that, and I | just said what my friends said! | | It was a way to keep your peers in check. But it's sad that | people don't even notice it anymore. They would wonder why you | did NOT "sell out". | ethbr0 wrote: | Google sold out when they bought DoubleClick. (Bought out?) | wintermutestwin wrote: | You don't need to go as far forward as the 90s and grunge. | Rush was skewering musical sellouts at the beginning of the | 80s: | | "For the words of the PROFITS were written on the studio | walls. Echoes with the sound of salesmen, of SALESMEN (sung | with the highest levels of disdain)" | dasil003 wrote: | Zappa released "We're Only in It for the Money" in 1968. | adastra22 wrote: | It did in the sense that kids these days don't worry about | selling out. It's a generational change. | simonh wrote: | I suspect the difference is that in the past the only way to | go commercial was to work with a big corporation. Going to | market with something was so hugely expensive, and required | extensive marketing and distribution infrastructure, which | was all internal to these big concerns. The problem was these | companies expected a lot of invasive creative control and | long term contracts to give access to those capabilities, | which to be fair were hugely expensive to build and operate. | | Nowadays all of that infrastructure exists as generic | services on the internet you can throw together in a few | days, with costs that scale with your needs. I recently | watched a Q&A Mark Zuckerberg gave to the Harvard CS50 class | in 2005 [0]. He explained that what made Facebook possible to | start with was cheap hosted servers running open source | software, and the ways that had changed over the previous | decade. Nowadays with AWS and Google Cloud its even easier | and cheaper. The same applies to physical goods now with | eBay, Amazon Marketplace, Etsy, Shopify, running your own | one-person media empire on Youtube, etc. | | The negative connotations with "selling out" were the fact | that you had to sell out creative control. You don't have to | do that anymore. Dave Chappelle is rightly still sore about | how he was cheated over the Chappelle Show. Nowadays you can | build an audience independently, and that fact means that | even if you do make a deal with big business, they know | you're not as dependent on them anymore, so creatives have a | much stronger hand than they used to. | | So I really don't think this is down to the generation | themselves, the world they live in is just different. | | [0] https://youtu.be/xFFs9UgOAlE?t=935 | f17 wrote: | You could be right, insofar as in the 1990s, "selling out" | was a discrete event and there was no denying that one had | given creative control up. In the 2020s, the PR departments | are so good at making their efforts look like things that | happened organically that the difference between genuine | success and packaging has blurred. | bsenftner wrote: | It was hip hop, declaring "selling out" (specifically) to | be propaganda. An entire decade and genre of music focused | on this idea and the negative impacts of not selling one's | work. "Getting paid" became the repeated mantra of many an | artists' music. And that changed our culture. | simonh wrote: | That's actually a good point, I'm not sure how much broad | influence that had but it's definitely an element. | coldtea wrote: | > _I suspect the difference is that in the past the only | way to go commercial was to work with a big corporation._ | | I'm not so sure. Even if you "hustled" with a small | business, or sold stuff yourself for the money, you were | considered a sell-out. Musicians weren't supposed to peddle | t-shirts, for example. | jltsiren wrote: | There was a vibrant community of independent publishers, | volunteer organizations and other entities that were | considered authentic. Working with them was not "selling | out". | | The way I remember, it was more about resisting the | establishment than being against commercialization. The | ideal was keeping organizations small enough that everyone | would be doing "real" work. Dedicated managers and | administrators were inherently suspicious. Any organization | large enough to employ middle managers (managers and | administrators working primarily with other managers and | administrators) was part of the establishment. If you | worked with them, you were selling yourself out. | simonh wrote: | >There was a vibrant community of independent | publishers,.... | | Of course, that's always existed. By 'commercial' I meant | mass market. It's always been possible to break through, | in IT Apple and Microsoft both started out with two | techies hacking stuff together. Richard Branson started | out trying to grow Christmas trees. Those are all a very | few extreme outliers compared to the tens of thousands | that would only ever have a chance of making it big by | reaching the mass market. | jltsiren wrote: | You were not supposed to try to break through, because | that meant becoming part of the establishment. Doing cool | things was what mattered. Success was tolerated when it | arose organically, but it was not a positive thing in | itself. People who were deliberately trying to be | successful were branded mediocre and boring, because only | mediocre and boring people wanted to be part of the | establishment. | simonh wrote: | Realistically, that was only ever an extreme view held by | a small minority even in the alternative lifestyle and | arts communities. | jltsiren wrote: | I remember it more as the dominant left-wing ideology | among university students, creative people and various | subcultures. Extremists obviously had more extreme views, | but some mild anarchism was mainstream. | | Back then, people still believed in a better future, and | the struggle for money was not as central as it is today. | There was this belief that if everyone contributed | something valuable and focused on things that were | inherently important, there would be enough for everyone | in the future. | | People today are more militant and more focused on money, | because they have lost hope. | ghaff wrote: | Whether or not the odds are actually all that better | today, you have a whole culture of | TikTok/YouTube/Instagram/etc. would-be influencers who at | least _think_ they have a real shot and, of course, that | ends up pervading a lot of the medium. | willcipriano wrote: | The corporations won the culture war. I never realized it but | looking at the cultural wasteland that we have now, they won. | mbg721 wrote: | I don't know about that; the corporations certainly think | they won, but I'm more inclined to believe they already | killed the golden goose. There's no money in top-40 payola; | the time to the grocery store soundtrack has never been | shorter. The average age of cable TV viewers gets a year | older every year, and there's much less patience for | sitting around watching ads than in the 90s or 00s. Big | corps are trying to win loyalty by loudly believing all the | right things, only to find that they're alienating more of | their customers than they thought. It's cool to be a foodie | and do your own cooking, so fewer people are buying ever- | shrinking prepared meals. Everyone's hugely cynical and | expects a sales pitch around every corner. Culture is an | incoherent wasteland largely _because_ the big corps lost | control. | coldtea wrote: | > _I don 't know about that; the corporations certainly | think they won, but I'm more inclined to believe they | already killed the golden goose. There's no money in | top-40 payola; the time to the grocery store soundtrack | has never been shorter_ | | They don't care. They do "hollistic deals", and sell | Billie Eilish merchandize and Taylor Swift dog collars | and barf bags. Music is just a byproduct of the whole | thing... | mbg721 wrote: | Sure, but they're only doing that because they're | desperate and have no other ideas. They'd make way more | money if they had a monolithic gaggle of 18-35 fans, and | they don't. | watwut wrote: | They however care a lot about "shilling" as in trying to | promote yourself on discussion forums. | nickelpro wrote: | "Hustling" is viewed as an on-the-whole good, even if various | archetypes associated with it (the Logan Pauls of the world) | aren't viewed positively. | | Being able to monetize a personal brand is viewed as more | than just benign, it's viewed as a societal endorsement of | the individual and their ideas/perspectives/strategies. | tristor wrote: | To be fair, nobody dislikes Logan Paul due to his "hustle", | it's that he's arrogant and a d-bag. | | Hustling is almost universally seen positively be anyone | under 35. | RodgerTheGreat wrote: | Consider me from a different universe. | ghaff wrote: | Hustle is probably an overloaded word in this context. I | don't think you'll find a lot of people who say "hustle" | in the abstract is bad. What you will probably find-- | especially among older better-off people--is a certain | distaste for trying to aggressively turn _everything_ | into a side-hustle and monetization opportunity. | deng wrote: | > It did in the sense that kids these days don't worry about | selling out. It's a generational change. | | I mean, I can understand that establishing a "brand" is more | important nowadays, but it must still be important to | carefully curate it and not mindlessly promoting anything | that earns you money. When Tony Hawk promoted crypto.com, I | immediately regretted any kind of respect I ever had for that | man. Does the younger generation really not care at all? | adastra22 wrote: | That's not what the article is talking about. When I was | growing up (mid 90's) and earlier, ANY commercial success | was selling out. Playing your guitar at the local cafe? | Awesome. Signing your first album deal? You're selling out, | man. | | It was a weird remembrance of the punk movement, and maybe | counterculture before it, where basically any capitalist | interaction was working with The Man and considered selling | out. | TheSpiceIsLife wrote: | I grew up around then, and definitely noticed the only | people who weren't selling out where those who didn't | have the opportunity to. | toto444 wrote: | That's probably true but people were reminded that they | were losing agency on their creation to businessmen. The | creation was losing a bit of its soul. Nowadays most | 'creations' are designed to make money from the very | beginning. | | Very few people still create something for the sake of | creating something great. If you are aware of some of | them please share ! | dotancohen wrote: | Not "art" per se, but SpaceX has a little cottage | industry of followers who make terrific content, and | successfully monetize it, while staying true to the | ideals of producing the content for enthusiasts' sake. | Marcus House, Tim Dodd, etc. Of course they cover other | content too, and had established products before pivoting | heavily towards SpaceX, but they certainly keep the sense | of community. | usrusr wrote: | Your cafe/album part makes it sound like a clear binary, | but it was an enormous gradient spanning the entirety of | pop culture and just about everybody seemed to rely on it | for orientation. From the most pretentius "we would | never" that was all top obviously more about getting an | offer than about the claimed selling out, all the way to | stadium rockers struggling to retain whatever the term | "authenticity" meant to them or their audience. | | The 90ies started with R.E.M. freshly signed on Warner | instead of I.R.S. and ended with an absurd DAG of labels | and sublabels and sub-sub-sub-labels (again, with the | whole range from true grassroots independence to being | part of one of the global media giants ten indirections | deep), shortly before that entire monstrosity was put | down by the onslaught of Napster, iTMS and so on. | coldtea wrote: | > _When Tony Hawk promoted crypto.com, I immediately | regretted any kind of respect I ever had for that man. Does | the younger generation really not care at all?_ | | The younger generation follows and idolizes social media | stars and "influencers" that sell out 24/7, in the | cheapest, corniest (late night tv informercial style) ways | possible... | lapinot wrote: | Yeah.. hem tiktok youtube facebook hem instagram snapchat | twitch.. This whole thing being discussed in the thread | is not some abstract destiny, it's just that the social | media lobby, ie the mass advertisement and marketing | lobby is crushing everything on it's path since 20 years | because they are now tech giants and have data crunching | tech. It's not "the spirit of the time" or some other | naturalization or whatever, there are active forces | behind this (and i absolutely don't mean this in the | "evil hidden goverment" way, these forces are fuzzy are | multiple, but still, it's a school of thought that | recognizes itself). | ghaff wrote: | It's complicated but it feels like there is a huge aspect | of personal branding/influencer/side hustle/etc. culture | that's about making money any way you can and that to | disdain it is to be "privileged." | hans1729 wrote: | [citation needed] | avgcorrection wrote: | The only selling out buy-in I've seen is on HN with all the | talk about being at "faang" or wanting to get into "faang", | all the while being very aware of how problematic big tech | is. | ekianjo wrote: | Its not that they dont worry. They completely embrace selling | out. Its almost as if everything they do is for the purpose | of selling out. | calvinmorrison wrote: | Well, it's also happened to the music market. Songs are | worthless so you play a show and then hit the merch tent to | sell LPs, hoodies, VIP passes etc. How many full time | cartoonists are employed by papers vs 100 years ago? | karaterobot wrote: | It did. Partly this was a change in economics: it got harder to | make a good living as an artist in a digital, networked | environment, where your art wasn't worth as much. So, artists | started doing a lot more commercials, selling their art or | their image to advertisers, and later using their access to | fans to sell their own consumer products directly to them. | | Once the cultural taboo was banished, it disappeared quickly. | The idea that outside money pollutes art is not a concept most | people under 20 would find intuitive or familiar, and | relatively few under 30 either. | | Now, whether this is good or bad, I can't say. It certainly | _feels_ like there is less art produced today that will stand | the test of time. But there are a lot of reasons that might be | true other than just this one, and in any case as a man in my | 40s, I 'm generally out of touch with culture, and not a | suitable judge. Nor are teenagers the authorities in this | matter, though for other reasons. It's something historians of | the future will have to sort out. | makeitdouble wrote: | We're on a forum that will celebrate independant companies | getting bought by bigger entities. | | Going "major" is widely seen as positive. | | More generally artists will openly talk about trying to get | financing, be more transparent about advertisement spots being | open, or request sponsorship. Patreons and direct support also | comes here. | | The "if you're not paying for it you're the product" quip at | least cemented the idea that how money is made is something | that can be discussed in the open, instead of just shunning | "sell outs" | Folcon wrote: | I personally think "selling out" is a bit more subtle than | that, in my mind it's not about just making money, a tech | company can sell out if it takes money from an entity and | breaks promises that it made to it's early / current users, | be they written or less spelled out. | | Maybe your initial userbase was a bunch of hard core privacy | people and post funding you start selling user data, or | performing other actions which makes your original users or | the people that supported you go, "wait, that's not the | company I championed to success" | | It's not exactly cut and dried when put like that, but there | are a few companies that come to mind that effectively "sold | out". | EnKopVand wrote: | I do think the "selling out" argument is still a thing in the | modern world. Here in Denmark we're going back and forth on | how to regulate things like influencers, and I'm not sure | there would be a push back against it if being forced to tell | people that you're advertising a company that pays you money | to advertise them wasn't still seen as negative. Even here on | HN it's not like the buy of Red Hat by IBM was revived with a | lot of love. | | So I think user deng has a point about "selling out" still | being a thing. | | That being said, I think there is a big difference between | selling out and wanting to remain in control of your | creation. I have no idea whether George Lucas likes what | happens with Star Wars or not, and I hope I'm not going to | start a debate over it either, but by selling it he lost the | creative control in a way the Bill Watterson didn't. | | My guess is that being "seen" as a "sell out" isn't actually | something that comes into play when people consider what to | do with their creations very often. Because honestly, why | would you ever care? So maybe there is less of it today, but | to state that our public discourse has changed on the | subject? I'm not convinced it has. | mc32 wrote: | Charles Schulz commercialized Charlie Brown. He's the | opposite of Bill Watterson but at the same time he wasn't | Mickey Mouse. | | The whole concept of selling out is both particular to a | person or in group and also cultural. A related concept is | 'poser' or 'poseur'. I think it's more about fans thinking | they're losing their importance vis a vis the performer or | artist. The artist is no longer "exclusive" to them, so to | speak as well as no longer an idealized representation of | them, the fans. | egypturnash wrote: | I feel like Watterson's stance about licensing was in no | small part a direct response to the way Schulz never met | a deal he didn't like. At the time Calvin & Hobbes was | becoming successful, there was Peanuts stuff everywhere. | Snoopy was in commercials selling _life insurance_ , and | it really did feel like this was taking something | important out of a small-scale, moody strip about | disillusionment and failure. | selimthegrim wrote: | Didn't Schultz also criticize other illustrators | (including Watterson) for taking sabbaticals as he | thought it was unprofessional? | egypturnash wrote: | I don't remember that but I don't feel like it's | something out of character for Ol' Sparky. Been a heck of | a long time since I last read his bio. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > I feel like Watterson's stance about licensing was in | no small part a direct response to the way Schulz never | met a deal he didn't like. | | Was it his choice? I swear one of the introductions in | _The Complete Peanuts_ talks about how Charles Schulz | spent much of his life trying to buy back the copyright | to his strip. | egypturnash wrote: | It has been a long time since I last read any bio | material on Schultz so that could certainly be the case! | In which case Watterson's lack of licensing becomes more | of a triumph of the artist's wishes that's similar to the | way Eastman and Laird learnt from the way Marvel fucked | over Jack Kirby, and made sure they retained ownership of | the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. | | (Which let them do things like "buy Heavy Metal and run | it at a loss for a while" and "start a publishing company | that became infamous for handing out huge advances to | their comics buddies that let them spend a couple years | on passion projects instead of turning the Superhero | Crank for Marvel/DC", both of which I feel are perfectly | delightful ways to deal with making the kind of money | they made off the Turtles. The history of Tundra Press is | a hell of a ride, if you can find it.) | jfax wrote: | Well, both Charles Schulz and Watterson placed immense | value in craftsmanship, in that they both valued that | their work was untampered by anyone else. Schulz | maintained that the strip was unaffected by licensing. | | https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/selling-newspaper- | comic-... | HWR_14 wrote: | Of the various things you may condemn Walt Disney for, he | placed an immense value in craftsmanship as well. | mc32 wrote: | That's true no doubt. I think when most people criticize | Walt it's about his empire building. Obviously he also | had an iron grip on his IP but leveraged that to amplify | his empire and to expand into all sorts of other areas. | Whereas Bill wanted to limit exposure. So the focus of | their visions were markedly different. | HWR_14 wrote: | Yes, I was commenting on the distinction the above poster | was trying to Walt Disney and Charles Schultz (of | Peanuts) to move Schultz closer to Watterson. | zamfi wrote: | > I'm not sure there would be a push back against it if | being forced to tell people that you're advertising a | company that pays you money to advertise them wasn't still | seen as negative | | Hmm, is this really about "selling out" though? Or is it | about trust, and the deception inherent in taking money to | say something that people could reasonably believe are your | own words? | ghaff wrote: | More generally, there is certainly a subgroup that mostly | celebrates monetization as opposed to just doing something | because you like to, you're good at it, and don't really try | to make any money off it. | bawolff wrote: | People think selling out is bad when you're a punk rock band. | | I dont think anyone really ever thought selling your company, | particularly a speculative tech start up type company, is the | same type of bad. | JKCalhoun wrote: | Yeah, art and enterprise are different. | | And no one begrudges the punk band for selling t-shirts, | albums. It's when they sell soft drinks.... | greedo wrote: | Yeah, the day I see RATM endorsing American Express I'll | know things are wonky... | tzs wrote: | I'm not sure if I've heard RATM but looking at the lyrics | to a few of their songs there seems to be a lot of anger | or rage in their music. | | If that's right, you could actually do a pretty funny | American Express commercial with them. | | It could show a montage of them dealing with shoddy | consumer goods failing shortly after their warranties | expire, which keeps pissing them off and keeps them in a | constant state of rage which is reflected in their | songwriting. | | Then someone points out to them that they paid for all | those things with their American Express card, and | American Express provides extended warranties | automatically. | | They lose their anger over poor consumer products, and | with that their songwriting too loses its anger. | | Cut to them releasing a new album, and it is all slow | acoustic ballads about true love and togetherness. | pksebben wrote: | > there seems to be a lot of anger or rage in their music | | this... this is sarcasm, or irony, right? | | The 'R' literally stands for rage. | | Against the machine. to wit, the _capitalist_ machine. | | So, to put the finishing sauce on your story, 'Rage | against the machine' with the rage taken out, would be | just the Machine, exemplified by Amex. | | I just wasn't sure if you knew quite how appropriate that | scenario fits the schema. | lolive wrote: | Always thought it was rage against the coffee machine. | You changed my whole perspective. Thanks! | LBJsPNS wrote: | "Fuck you I won't leave home without it!" | Retric wrote: | Unfortunately selling out a brand generally means the | quality tanks because it's easy way to boost margins. | | Food gets a few more preservatives and slightly worse | ingredients until over time it tastes like cardboard. Video | games become ever more blatant cash grabs. Clothing becomes | more fragile, with cheaper materials and worse | craftsmanship. | | Trying to appeal to the widest possible audience means | removing that which makes art interesting, but maximizing | short term profit means taking the same shortcuts as | everyone else in the industry. | shaklee3 wrote: | from a Tool song (won't write the name): | | And in between Sips of coke He told me that He thought We | were sellin' out Layin' down, Suckin' up To the man Well | now I've got some A-dvice for you, little buddy Before you | point the finger You should know that I'm the man And if | I'm the man Then you're the man, and He's the man as well | so you can Point that fuckin' finger up your ass. | tablespoon wrote: | > It did? I completely missed that, but it's probably because | I'm old... | | IIRC, being a "social media influencer" is literally selling | out, and it seems like it's what a lot of kids aspire to these | days. | foobarbecue wrote: | Came here to say this. AFAIK "selling out" has just as negative | a connotation as it ever did. Maybe he means commercialism is | more prevalent, but that's not what he wrote. | | Nobody says "congratulations on being a sellout" unless they | are being sarcastic. | locallost wrote: | There definitely was a time, and I noticed I myself let go of | it. Recently I watched an old clip of Bill Hicks where he calls | out Leno for doing a commercial! I can't imagine anybody | calling someone out over a commercial today and having an | audience. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8aj3BA3cGg | bsenftner wrote: | For many of you, some older and some those who did not get into | street music, the cultural event that ended the concept of | "selling out" was hip hop artists declaring "selling out" to be | white establishment propaganda, and "getting paid" is all that | matters anymore. The 90's street music was all about "getting | paid" and quite elaborate examinations of how the negative | attitude toward "selling out" was the establishment suppressing | the voices of the street. | systemvoltage wrote: | "Selling out" is basing your morality on someone's well | deserved accomplishment and whether they should be rewarded for | that or not. That seems complete opposite of how I see morality | ought to be. Seems incredibly contemptious and anything but | moral. | coldtea wrote: | > _It did? I completely missed that, but it 's probably because | I'm old..._ | | Yeah, it totally did. Ever since the 90s. The majority of the | mainstream youth don't even understand the concept. | nabla9 wrote: | The phenomenon is not new. The difference seems to be that | there is no limit at all. Today nobody thinks "this is so | tasteless that I don't want to work with it anymore". | | I think it's more honest. Art's and creative jobs have had the | aura of being form of uncompromising self-expression, vehicle | of social and political change and beauty. Pretending adds | layer of deceit. | | That can't coexist with the goal of maximizing mass market | popularity and income. I think this is the logical conclusion | when something turns into pure commerce. Only thing valuable is | visibility, recognizably, hype. | | What makes Bill Watterson look like mystical figure is that | "having enough" and "shutting up after you have said what you | wanted" is alien concept in business. | ghaff wrote: | There are a fair number of examples in cartooning (to greater | or lesser degrees) where creators have partially or wholly | walked away. Being engaging and funny day in and day out must | be incredibly difficult and I imagine that many at the top of | their field who aren't doing formulaic creations just burn | out and--once out--don't really have the motivation to get | back in again. | nabla9 wrote: | Walking away when there is diminishing return from the | effort is common. | | Walking away from opportunity to earn 1000X with little | effort is not that common. | swayvil wrote: | Can't tell truth and lies at the same time. | | Or can you? I haven't actually given the idea serious | thought. | starkd wrote: | To see evidence that Bill Watterson made the right decision, | all you have to do is look at what happened to the Simpsons' | brand. Matt Groenig unleashed any and all restraint on product | merchandising. It used to be a clever and insightful commentary | on American society. Now it's just sad. | lancesells wrote: | Same as what happened to David Bowie after he died. His | estate seemed to let everything of his be merchandised after | he passed. Monopoly version of David Bowie, lunchboxes, | etc... oof. | onionisafruit wrote: | I thought you must be exaggerating about the David Bowie | Monopoly game, but you were not. Who is buying that? | clsec wrote: | That's exactly what happened to San Francisco's culture. It | started the during the first tech boom when all the artists | started leaving for the East Bay and PDX. | c3534l wrote: | I've not heard anyone seriously accuse someone of selling out | in over a decade. | jasonladuke0311 wrote: | It's still prevalent in music, especially the hardcore and | metal scenes. Changing your sound and/or finding commercial | success are frequently met with accusations of "selling out" | (see Turnstile or Deafheaven for examples). | maxutility wrote: | There was a really interesting NYTimes piece [0] about Gen X | comedy icon Janeane Garafolo earlier this week that touched on | similar themes of "not selling out." I have often wondered over | the years what happened to her. It turns out that she really | walked the walk of not selling out and the obscurity that comes | with avoiding publicity and promotion. | | Personally my feelings on the subject are conflicted. I think | that some degree of promotion is important so that others can | discover great art and contributions, and so that artists and | creators can make a comfortable living off of their work, but | that "selling out" becomes bad when the pursuit of commerce | overtakes and reduces the art. | | [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/14/movies/janeane- | garofalo.h... | dkarl wrote: | "Selling out" still has negative connotations, but "hustle" | became a positive word that we use for a lot of behavior that | previously would have been labeled "selling out." | | Basically a bunch of upper-middle-class people adopted the | concept of "hustle" from its poor urban context, where it | acknowledged that the drive to do anything to scrape by was | hard to reconcile with strict ethical standards. You don't | question someone's ethics when they're trying to make sure | their siblings have something to eat for dinner that night. | | Upper-middle-class people recognized that feeling -- hey, | that's the desperation I feel when I realize that if I don't | take this adtech job, I might not be able to maintain the same | lifestyle as my friends that I met in the dorm at my highly | selective university. If I don't found a startup and get | monstrously rich, other people will never think of me the way I | think of myself, and that would _suck_. | | How convenient that there's a word for when your desperate | circumstances excuse you from the ethical standards that we | apply to normal people! No matter how privileged you are, when | you do ethically questionable things, just call them "hustle" | and everyone will know that it isn't because of entitled self- | indulgence, but because of your plucky determination to survive | everything the world throws at you. | hitekker wrote: | Solid comment. The word "hustle" conceals face-saving under | the lip-service of survival. A careerist use it to cover up | their wrongdoing. Like you said, they also _believe_ in | "hustle" because they're desperate; they've confused their | face with their character. They believe "I needed to cheat | and steal to get ahead because if I didn't, I won't be who I | need to be, who I am." The belief in hustle masks and | resolves an identity crisis, easily & selfishly. | | When people can justify complex, bad behavior with simple, | bad beliefs, bad behavior spreads like a fire. In the | article, Bill Watterson calls out justifying as the first | step for regulating bad beliefs: | | > The world of a comic strip is much more fragile than most | people realize. Once you've given up its integrity, that's | it. I want to make sure that never happens. Instead of asking | what's wrong with rampant commercialism, we ought to be | asking, "What justifies it?" | hattmall wrote: | It used to be that people lived life for the acts of life and | a material things generally had a negative connotation. Now | for a tremendous amount of people life is almost exclusively | about material wealth and even many life experiences have a | material quality because if you don't post pictures at | certain landmarks did you really even go. | majormajor wrote: | Rich and powerful people have had gaudy things for | centuries. Life was about power and material wealth was | included in that. | | How much of the negative connotations sometimes associated | with that have been akin to propaganda to keep the rest of | the people in line. | stareatgoats wrote: | I remember way back when no real athlete would carry | sponsorship messages - it would be "selling out". People who | participated in sports for money were banned from participating | in "clean sports" (and shamed). Maybe it wasn't like that in | the US, but in Scandinavia it certainly was. | | In the good old days, in many ways. Kudos to Bill Watterson. | Rastonbury wrote: | I'm a millennial, I don't see how licensing IP would be | selling out compared with carrying sponsorship messages. I | understand how the latter can be seen as selling out | batshibstein wrote: | This is because in the last couple of decades "selling out" | has become not only acceptable, not only a desirable | outcome but in fact the ultimate end goal. Probably one of | the key defining factors between Boomer/Gen X and | Millennial/Gen Y/Z/etc. or however they are labeled. | tsimionescu wrote: | If you saw Calvin in a Cola commercial, you wouldn't feel | that lessens the artistic value of Calvin and Hobbes? | jsymolon wrote: | I feel the same way about music licensed to shows or | commercials. Due to the amount of airplay a show or | commercial gets, the music becomes overused. | | The USPS use of "Fly like an Eagle", and overplayed CSI: | X shredded The Who songs. | | Although, "Love and Marriage" used in "Married with | Children" (90's) doesn't have the same tiredness, | probably because that Sinatra really wasn't in my | listening list. | JKCalhoun wrote: | Still laughing about the irony of Melanie's "Look What | They've Done to My Song" becoming "Look What They've Done | to Oatmeal". | | Can't un-hear. | hyperman1 wrote: | I was wondering why I heared 'Running up that hill' from | Kate Bush so much on the different radio stations. Then | HN had an article about someone recreating the synth | sound of it. Why the renewed interest? | | Yesterday I heard it got used on a popular Netflix show. | Ah. | | It could be worse, I thought they were forcing interest | in some new album from her. | burntoutfire wrote: | I think it's ok to cash out once your career is over. | It's bad to do while creating, because the money people | will inevitably influence your works. But, if you're not | creating anymore, then there's no great harm in it. | nkrisc wrote: | In the case of Calvin and Hobbes, I think a lot of the | meaning would be lost if you saw Calvin selling sugary | cereal on TV. | | The philosophy of the strip is fundamentally incompatible | with commercialization. | greedo wrote: | I do see a lot of car decals with Calvin pissing on | [insert name of hated automaker]. Now obviously these are | unlicensed, but a lot of people obviously have no problem | with it. | blululu wrote: | Bill Watterson once remarked: "I figure that, long after | the strip is forgotten, those decals are my ticket to | immortality." | nkrisc wrote: | And you can probably find unlicensed porn of every IP out | there, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that. | planetafro wrote: | It may depend on the type of work but there is something | to be said about the longevity of the art and legacy. | | Calvin and Hobbes was a massive part of my youth. It fed | that creative and mischievous part of me that "regular" | life just wasn't satisfying. I was smitten and still am. | | Fast forward to my daughter's birth... At around 4 years | old, I bought her the giant anthology of strips which | includes everything Calvin and Hobbes ever printed. Like | me, it shaped her in undefinable ways. It drove her | drawing and reading off the charts. She very much grew as | a person because of Bill's work and my influence in | reading to her often. She took over very quickly! She | latched on and studied those books with a fervor that | I've not seen repeated in her yet. | | Do you think the result would have been the same if there | were T-shirts, TV shows, video games, and the like | plastered all over? You can only shield a child from the | world so much. They absorb everything. | | Anyway, I think Bill absolutely made a most excellent | decision. Not only for himself, but for us. | nemo44x wrote: | > Anyway, I think Bill absolutely made a most excellent | decision. Not only for himself, but for us. | | Especially for us. It has remained special all these | years later as it hasn't been supersaturated or made | overrated by virtue of being commoditized. | | I'm guessing whoever inherits his estate sells the | license and rights for untold millions. You can only hope | a billionaire super fan buys it and buries it. | | At some point in the future it will all be public domain | anyways. So enjoy it while you can. | drdec wrote: | > I'm guessing whoever inherits his estate sells the | license and rights for untold millions. | | I wouldn't be surprised if he sets up a trust to control | the rights to prevent that from happening. | szeil wrote: | mcv wrote: | I've seen people with interesting and valuable YouTube | channels suddenly pimp Raid Shadow Legends, which | definitely cheapened their channel to me and made me lose | some respect. I do understand it, but I'm not happy about | it. | JKCalhoun wrote: | Yeah, when a woodworking channel spends half a video | "testing" some new product on their table saw, I begin to | feel like I am being sold a bill of goods. | tzs wrote: | How to you distinguish that from someone trying out a | product to review it? | ghaff wrote: | It's one of those grey areas that comes down to the | integrity of the channel owner. There are probably people | who never find anything wrong with stuff they're sent to | review and there are people who give honest reviews. | Conflicts of interest are everywhere but it doesn't mean | that a potential conflict of interest automatically | translates into bias. | JKCalhoun wrote: | It's a tough line to walk. For something like | woodworking, I suppose I'm not looking for "a new | product"? | | Perhaps there should be separate channels in such a case: | the wood-worker-reviewing-stuff channel and the making- | things-from-wood channel. | hourago wrote: | T-shirts of Ernesto "Che" Guevara are the top example of | this. It's too take an ideal, whatever you agree with it or | not, and to convert it into a product for profit. | | It's to commercialise ideals, memories and anything that | makes people human. It reduces the idea's value and by | extension our own humanity. | peoplefromibiza wrote: | some people just care about their work more than money. | | Now imagine that the whole star wars franchising made more | money by selling merchandise than everything else combined. | | That's why new movies and shows are being produced ever | more often: to sell toys and merch. | | And that's also why the quality and the creativity went | down compared to the original movies. | | There's a price to pay when you start thinking your | business is not the art itself anymore, but selling or | licensing it. | JKCalhoun wrote: | Ha ha, characters appearing for a few seconds in a | background shot just to get their cameo before the | inevitable Kenner/Hasbroken figure release. | em-bee wrote: | we just had this topic: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32110420 | | making money as an athlete used to disqualify you from the | olympics | melling wrote: | This had nothing to do with selling out. Olympic athletes | were supposed to be amateurs and not professionals. | | If you were paid to be an athlete then you had a | competitive advantage, or so was the thinking. | usrusr wrote: | The amateur/pro separation is spelled out most clearly in | the early history of cycling, and it has very little to | do with the punk rock idea of selling out: gentlemen with | a family name so big they likely had minor celebrity | status even before sports showing off how far and fast | they could go starting to hire a series of pacemakers to | draft behind. Then one day, particularly strong | pacemakers got sponsorship, starting in their own name, | with their own relay of pacemakers, and they took the | prestigious titles. Gentlemen were not amused and started | their own racing series. Members only. (right before | falling in love with the speed provided by the internal | combustion engine) | Lio wrote: | In the UK we have the split between Rugby Union and Rugby | League, now two distinct sports. The history of that | split gets to the heart of British class distinction and | is more interesting that you might at first think. | | There's a good description of it here[1] but the TL;DR | is: | | In the South of England rugby was played by independently | rich amateurs and in the North of England it was played | by the working class men who needed to support themselves | and their families and wanted it to become | professionalised. | | The groups couldn't agree and so split. With the rules of | Rugby League supposedly changed to make it more appealing | to paying crowd. | | 1. | https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/sport/2019/10/split- | bet... | coldtea wrote: | That might have been the thinking, but it was also | totally associated with selling out, and being an | inferior athlete, morals wise. | kingkawn wrote: | Especially if you were Native American | vajrabum wrote: | Did you see they restored the 2 Olympic medals for the | pentathlon and decathlon to Jim Thorpe just the other | day. Long overdue. | mcv wrote: | While it certainly sounds more honest and less | commercialised, it also means that high level sports is | mostly a rich-people's game. Poor people often can't afford | to say no to money. | watwut wrote: | At some point, they even found it dishonest to train for | event specifically. | recursiveturtle wrote: | If the reader here can find it, Linklater's SubUrbia captures | this sentiment on film. | gus_massa wrote: | Cutting the strip at the 10 years is a good idea to avoid the | Zombie Simpson problem. | https://deadhomersociety.wordpress.com/zombiesimpsons/ | | (It's easier when it's just one man job, and you must not fire | all the team.) | detritus wrote: | If you're interested in checking this out, as I am, don't use | the links in the 'table of contents' as they're all misdirected | - use the splurge of links near the top of the document. | ghaff wrote: | I sort of have what I jokingly call the five season rule for TV | series. Even if quality doesn't really trail off, I'm mostly | done. I definitely lost interest in Doonesbury at one point | even if Trudeau did evolve and age the characters. Dilbert? | Pretty much forget about it even aside from Adams'... um | interesting modern perspectives. I've been pointed to a few | funny things now and then but it mostly still seems stuck in | some 1990s PacBell time warp. | sammalloy wrote: | > But someone that disciplined and resolute in his convictions | can probably teach us all something about integrity. That's how | you build a lasting brand. That's how you build meaning. | | I grew up with C&H and their initial fan base. The author of this | piece doesn't get it. Watterson didn't build a lasting brand nor | did he build meaning. The strip had those things already without | the added commercialism. Watterson is a purist whose work doesn't | need to build anything to market it. If you're trying to build a | brand and add meaning, you've already failed. | boomboomsubban wrote: | I feel like I've seen the Calvin pissing meme openly sold in | chain stores multiple times. Is he unwilling to be litigious? | What about his publisher? | adastra22 wrote: | Why would the publisher spend money fighting it? It's not like | they have merchandise sales to protect. | phnofive wrote: | It is a mark of integrity in the same vein of refusing to | license his artwork; he is aware of these rip-offs and | considers them part of his legacy. | kevingadd wrote: | This approach is more common these days, though probably for | different reasons. A massive subset of modern anime and video | game franchises from overseas implicitly or explicitly allow | fan works as long as basic rules are met - people can create | and share fan comics, games, etc, and even sell art books or | prints. | | The people in charge of the franchises recognize that letting | fans riff on the work will make them enjoy it more even if | doing that means giving up control. | | Touhou Project is famous for having barely any controls at all | so there is a massive amount of high quality fan work available | in multiple languages. | ekianjo wrote: | > Is he unwilling to be litigious? | | That point is specifically adressed in the article | boomboomsubban wrote: | Kind of. Making a quip that he should do something still | makes his position somewhat unclear. | pksebben wrote: | I believe that's part of the point. one doesn't get the | sense from Watterson's work that clarity is high on his | list - the lessons of Calvin and Hobbes are very | interpretive, and a lot is left to the reader. | moviewise wrote: | 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- | cap... | sonofhans wrote: | 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 wrote: | >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 wrote: | 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 | fourthark wrote: | _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._ | | The desperate American search for irony where there is none. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Reminds me of the note Watterson sent Breathed: | https://www.reddit.com/r/TheSimpsons/comments/c7viyp/another... | cturtle wrote: | Just finished reading the daily Calvin and Hobbes comic before | coming here. Here's an RSS feed [0] if anyone is interested. | | [0]: https://www.comicsrss.com/rss/calvinandhobbes.rss | margoguryan wrote: | I collect fake Calvin & Hobbes merchandise as a hobby and have | enough peeing Calvin stickers to make a surrealistic flipbook of | it if I hold my collection in my hand. Bill Watterson should | enjoy these dimensions of kitsch, irony and cheap simulacra | instead of fighting it; and even still, would we have pissing | Calvin to begin with had he licensed it early on enough? Who | invented pissing Calvin? I don't care about Bill Watterson. I | care about pissing Calvin. | rideontime wrote: | He should and he apparently does. | Linda703 wrote: | cheschire wrote: | The timing of this is a fun coincidence. My kids recently | discovered my print copies of the strip collections. I didn't | want them to destroy them though so i looked on the kindle store | for the whole set, but the experience is inconsistent and one | isn't even available anymore. Found them on archive.org though! | And I was wondering to myself why those scans are allowed to | live, and why there aren't crystal clear comixology versions, | etc. This article has given just a touch more insight just at the | time I was looking for it. | Joel_Mckay wrote: | Good, kind of admire the respect of the story, medium, and | artwork. | | Upon seeing Disney licensed diapers at the store, it reminded one | that often corporate studios eventually take a literal dump on | characters to sell nostalgia. I doubt Stan Lee had envisioned | this was to be the tragic fate of his work... | baq wrote: | 'Extracting value from the brand' is apparently the MBA term | for this | ken47 wrote: | If you ever read these comics, I think you'd understand that it | would be _extremely_ odd to see these characters in an ad for | e.g. coca cola or some such. Calvin and Hobbes have very well- | defined characters that would seem very out of place in a profit- | oriented environment. | franciscop wrote: | I feel it could be the same for Mafalda, which I just realized | I haven't seen outside of comics. Or maybe I'm too young? | | The internet is tricky for these things though, if you search | "calvin and hobbes mug" you'll definitely find a lot of them to | buy, same as with Mafalda, so not sure how to validate this | feeling. | | Edit: Wikipedia corroborates my feeling that Mafalda hasn't had | many adaptations also because of the author didn't want: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafalda#Adaptations | philistine wrote: | I only know Mafalda through its cartoon; it was broadcast on | Canal Famille in Quebec in the 90s. | spacemanmatt wrote: | I can't drive a mile without seeing a truck sporting a sticker | of Calvin peeing on (competing brand truck logo) or praying to | a cross. Or both. | beowulfey wrote: | You probably knew this but those are 100% not licensed. | makeitdouble wrote: | That has never stopped advertisement companies though. | | I'm pretty sure Rage Against the Machine tracks have been used | for tv commercials without anyone blinking. | [deleted] | jdblair wrote: | Sometime in the 80s while the strip was still running (and I was | probably 10 or 11), I attended a talk by Bill Watterson at the | Akron Art Museum. He looked astonishingly like Calvin's dad! | | Over the course of about an hour he drew all the different | characters he had tried before Calvin and Hobbes. One was a | hedgehog that looked like a short Hobbes. What struck me the most | was that he had tried over and over before he hit on Calvin and | Hobbes. | | At the end, I walked up and introduced myself and asked if I | could have one of the drawings. The answer was no. He was already | very careful. | | I lived in Hudson, Ohio and he donated a signed book to the | library auction at least once. I'm pretty sure I once saw him | sitting in the lawn at Western Reserve Academy drawing. | selimthegrim wrote: | Rumor has it he slips signed copies into the shelves at | Fireside Books in Chagrin Falls every so often. | gedy wrote: | He stopped that once he saw them being auctioned on eBay for | high prices iirc. | selimthegrim wrote: | Well at least we had nice things for a while. | optimalsolver wrote: | He did give permission for someone on Tumblr to make a C & H/Dune | mashup. | | Calvin & Muad'Dib: | | https://calvinanddune.tumblr.com/ | tptacek wrote: | Sort of. He got C&D'd for it, had his lawyers make a fair-use | argument to the Calvin & Hobbes lawyers, and got his specific | use cleared. He never talked to Watterson. | em-bee wrote: | _I've always been a little skeptical of letting creators have so | much control, because that's how you end up with things like the | Star Wars Special Editions or Jo Rowling claiming she should've | killed off Ron so Harry and Hermione could get together. If | enough time passes, creators can lose touch with what makes their | work so special in the first place._ | | i don't follow this argument. the author claims that everyone | should have a right to modify someones creations to their liking, | but they criticize the original creators if they do that? | | that seems kind of hypocritical to me. i am all for shortening | the copyright, but that won't protect us from any star wars | special editions. | | we don't need a shortening of copyright to allow fan-fiction or | even fan films. star trek is a good example of that. there are | thousands of fan films out there. star trek creators have given | explicit permission for these works, while other creators are | much more restrictive, and it would be nice if what star trek | fans are doing was actually explicitly allowed by copyright law. | in other words, loosen the control a bit, without needing to | abolish control completely. | Trasmatta wrote: | It's amazing how you uncover just a bit more depth to Calvin and | Hobbes every single time you read it. Reading it once again | recently, I began to really see the subtle depth written into his | parents. | | They're generally seen from Calvin's perspective: super old, | crabby, out of touch. But then you realize that's just how a 6 | year old sees them, and that there's a lot more to their | characters. They're likely only in their early 30's, and are | honestly doing their best job as parents. There are all sorts of | little hints towards how much they love their son (even though he | can drive them crazy), their fears, their hobbies and interests | outside of parenting, their relationship, etc. It's really | beautiful. | mcv wrote: | Ever since I had kids, I started identifying a lot more with | Calvin's parents. Sometimes more than with Calvin. | Trasmatta wrote: | Reading strips like this as a kid, it was easy to look at | them slightly negatively: https://i.imgur.com/zBko5hB_d.webp? | maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&... | | Now, though, I get it. Parenting is hard, and it's not only | thing going on in their lives. And despite it all, they put | up with Calvin's behavior, encourage his imagination, keep | him fed and warm, and comfort him when it matters. What more | could you ask for? | glitcher wrote: | Now I want to go back and read all my old Calvin and Hobbes | books again! | | Speaking to the depth of the comic strip, one of my favorite | themes was the philosophical discussions about the nature of | reality and meaning of life while they were barreling down a | huge hill in the sled or wagon :) | Trasmatta wrote: | I remember always skipping over those when I was 10 because I | couldn't understand them. Now they're some of my favorite | parts. | | Calvin and Hobbes is magic in how it seems to unlock new | depth at every age. | webkike wrote: | It's hinted at throughout the series that Calvin's mom was a | much more difficult child than even Calvin was, and I always | appreciated that touch. | radley wrote: | It's made clear both parents were naturally difficult too, | which is part of the point. This panel probably had to be | expressly stated since Mom doesn't encourage Calvin's (over) | imagination like his father does. | avalys wrote: | Really? I think I've read all the C&H strips multiple times | and never picked up on that. Notably, Calvin's parents are | never given names, and the only relative ever featured as I | recall was his uncle on his dad's side. | | Do you have a link to a strip where this is hinted at? | madcaptenor wrote: | IIRC Watterson said that he had been planning to introduce | more adult relationships to the strip, but he realized this | would be difficult when Uncle Max couldn't address his | brother (Calvin's father) by name. | webkike wrote: | Here's a panel that references it https://calvinandhobbes.f | andom.com/wiki/Calvin%27s_mother?fi... | creaghpatr wrote: | Wow I never caught that! | WalterBright wrote: | That's a bit more than a mere hint! | DizzyDoo wrote: | I believe it's this one: | https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1987/07/31 | civilized wrote: | Even when I was a kid I thought the parents were cool. Other | than perhaps Moe, Calvin is obviously the worst human being in | the comic (although in a mostly funny and relatable way). | d1l wrote: | There are plenty of people out there who share Bill Watterson's | beliefs about art or their creations. You just don't hear about | it because obviously they aren't interested in shilling. I do, | however, wish that blatant self-promotion was more frowned-upon | by our culture. It's hard to tell when the creator is motivated | by sincerity or a cynical desire for personal gain. I personally | believe, though, that we don't live by money (or prestige) alone. | I take comfort from the fact that for thousands of years others | have shared this belief. | AndyNemmity wrote: | This very idea that you should be trying to determine if a | creator is motivated by sincerity or a cynical desire for | personal gain, assumes negative intentions. | | When you assume negative intentions, you accuse sincere people | of a cynical desire for personal gain. | | The reality is, you can't tell what someone's motivations are, | and believing you can sets you up for a world of intentionally | hurting people who are just trying to live their life. | nathanvanfleet wrote: | It generally irks me when I hear about someone who tried to get | famous in about 5 distinctly different categories before they | actually became famous. It seems like that is just not looked | down upon enough. I was reading about how Blippi was apparently | a Jackass like videos where he shit on his naked friend in a | Harlem Shake video. It really tells you what he's after and it | informs you about his goals. And when Blippi came out with his | own NFTs it made sense because you know what he's out for. | cableshaft wrote: | If you don't promote then your work is much less likely to be | noticed by the people who would like or appreciate it, though. | There's SOOO much crap being released now, you're really knee- | capping your chances at success if you don't promote as much as | possible (speaking as someone who has thrown away opportunities | because I've been pretty terrible at self-promotion). | | I'm watching it right now with my wife. She's been relentlessly | promoting her first book, and she's gone from someone no one | knows about and 0 preorders, 0 followers to beating several | established authors in her writing groups' in having more | preorders for her first book than they've gotten for any book | they've ever released. She's creating her own promo graphics, | writing and engaging in Facebook group takeovers, and filming | her own Instagram and Tik Tok videos. She's up to almost 1000 | followers in just a couple months. And this is for a pen name | she doesn't want to share with friends or family, so not even | getting any initial boost from them. | | Meanwhile I've been trying to make it as a board game designer | for the past six years (as a side-thing), and haven't really | gotten anywhere, since I've been mostly just networking with | publishers and other designers and not the fans, and have | hesitated to really put myself out there much (still get | nervous talking to a publisher for the first time). I do have | one signed game, but it's probably not coming out for a few | years still. | d1l wrote: | You said it in your first paragraph. You've equated success | with some kind of approval from others. | | I'm saying some people, like Bill or the dwarf fortress | brothers, or countless others, have a different idea of | success. | FPGAhacker wrote: | Or perhaps they just want people to enjoy the work. Success | is an overloaded term. | | I would definitely prefer people producing things I'm | interested in promote them than not. | sixstringtheory wrote: | Yes, I also read "success" as in "getting your message | heard". Art is a statement and is pointless in a vacuum. | As Sufjan says, "What's the point of singing songs / If | they'll never even hear you?" Or the old "if a tree | falls..." | NikolaNovak wrote: | It's an interesting example as both of them have phenomenal | approval from others and are widely respected, shared and | enjoyed for decades and seen as successful along various | lines of criteria. By tautokogical definition, we cannot | share mutually recognizable examples of artists who _aren | 't_ seen and shared :). | | They may have taken unique _path_ there, but I 'm not | certain their motivations are as different. If an artist | does not want their work to be shared and seen and enjoyed, | I'm not even sure they're an "artist" , as opposed to | someone who's spending their private time on a whimsy and | hobby - They're just tinkering in a vacuum with audience of | one. Art, to me, is created to have an impact, an | impression, a point do view, or a message, or emotion - all | of it predicated on a receiving audience. | | I think we'll quickly agree that _methods_ of achieving | that sharing can be significantly different, and there | certainly are other motivations such as money and fame etc, | but this perspective of an artist as someone who doesn 't | care is their art is seen strikes me as depressingly anti | social. | phailhaus wrote: | > You've equated success with some kind of approval from | others. | | Yes, this approval is called "money to survive." If you | don't self-promote, you are not going to get enough income | to support your side hobby, which means it has to remain a | side-hobby powered by whatever extra time you have left | after your real job. That might not be much, if any. | | Looking down on people for "shameless self promotion" means | that you only want art from people privileged enough to | have a job that can support it, or that are passionate | enough to make significant sacrifices to their quality of | life. We can deal with a little self-promotion so that they | are compensated for their time and effort. | d1l wrote: | As I wrote already, | | >I personally believe, though, that we don't live by | money (or prestige) alone. I take comfort from the fact | that for thousands of years others have shared this | belief. | | That said I'm not really interested in arguing with you. | I'm already familiar with all the rationalizations and | arguments. I choose to believe something different, | that's all. | thaumaturgy wrote: | I love coding. Wrote my first code when I was 8, so I've | been doing it off and on for 35 years. It's my art. There's | a chance I've managed to write code in more languages and | on more platforms than any other HN'er. | | I also loathe self-promotion. Not because I'm some kind of | purist, I just... suck at it. Hate it. | | So guess what? I'm miserable. Money has always been okay | sometimes, hard a lot of others. I'm stuck on an endless | treadmill right now with my resume hoping that if I just | keep polishing this turd, somebody will see some value in | it and that will help me feel like less of a failure in my | 40s. | | This argument paints a too starkly black-and-white idea of | success. We should not romanticize the starvation of the | artist, and we should accept some of the facts on the | ground, like, "success should include happiness" and "our | society doesn't reward unrecognized artists". | | Much as I appreciate Watterson for never making Calvin and | Hobbes into a product -- and I truly do -- I'm not so quick | to judge anyone else as a sellout. | WalterBright wrote: | I'm pretty proud to say that many contributors to the D | programming language have found it to be a path to a | well-paying job. Many employers look to our contributors | for people to hire. Anyone can contribute - all we care | about is the quality of the code contributed. | nemo44x wrote: | Well, we live in a world where it isn't considered sociopathic | to refer to and think of yourself as a "brand" somehow. | d1l wrote: | I think it's easy to overestimate how many people approve of | this attitude, because the ones who do are also extremely | loud and present in mass media. | wussboy wrote: | Right now. It isn't consider sociopathic right now. But it is | my sincere hope that it will soon be again. | nemo44x wrote: | I remember a skinhead moralizing to me about a Calvin and Hobbs | pirate t-shirt I was wearing (sone local guy made it) back in the | 1990's. Was ironic to say the least. | beardyw wrote: | I am saddened that now success === money is so very pervasive. | maverick74 wrote: | I love the strip. I love the artist decision and resistance to | "the money". | | It's the artist I have more respect in the whole world because of | this! | | It's still teaching us something!!! | ur-whale wrote: | > Which is what makes Watterson's position so fundamentally at | odds with what we consider normal behavior. | | So, selling out is "normal behavior" now ? | | What a deeply arrogant perspective from the article's author. | abetusk wrote: | This, to me, is another tragedy of the overly long copyright | term. The author even somewhat acknowledges this ("I've even | advocated for ... copyright terms to ... 75 years in order to | limit that control"). | | I do respect Watterson for his stance but at the same time, I | look at the effect of his stance and it's made Calvin and Hobbes | inaccessible to a new generation so much so that I would guess | that anyone under 30 thinks that Calvin and Hobbes has something | to do with redneck culture or "southern pride" because of all the | bootleg "Calvin pissing" stickers. | | Ironically, Watterson even acknowledges this ("long after the | strip is forgotten, those decals are my ticket to immortality.") | but still won't even consider letting up control. | | The author talks about Sherlock Holmes without acknowledging that | one of the big successes of Sherlock Holmes is almost surely that | it's in the public domain, which allows endless reboots from the | same source material. We see Austen's work re-invigorated because | it's in the public domain and I imagine we'll soon see more | Howard and Lovecraft's work re-imagined because of it. There is a | sprawling culture of re-interpretations from the Potterverse, | Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc., we just call them "fan-fic" | without any real legal way for all those artists to keep | producing content under that umbrella. | | I would like to see an article that frames this stance not as | some show of integrity but touches on the the deeper discussion | of the social contract an artist has with the society they live | in. The government puts the weight behind the artist to allow | them to have a monopoly for a period of time with the | understanding that, eventually, the artist has a duty to put | their work in the public domain for everyone to use. By creating | that term to be more than a century, this creates a void for | media that that's older than 20 years but still not in the public | domain, as it's not relevant enough to keep producing but not | free enough for other people to experiment with and re- | invigorate. | tptacek wrote: | In exactly what way has Calvin & Hobbes been made inaccessible | to new generations? By not allowing some horrible movie to be | made of it? My young niece had no trouble inhaling all of the | Calvin & Hobbes books; neither did my kids, 10-12 years ago. | | If you want to advocate for shorter copyright terms, raising | the salience of Calvin & Hobbes seems like the worst possible | way to do it; this is one place where copyright is doing | exactly what reasonable people want it to. | walrus01 wrote: | Obviously the people selling the "Calvin pissing on (WHATEVER | THING)" stickers sold in truck stops and gas stations did not get | the message. | michaelbuckbee wrote: | We're talking a lot about "selling out" but maybe not so much | about the bigger issue of his work leaving his control and | becoming a property that would be used all sorts of weird ways. | | If you want a cautionary tale, look at the Iron Giant. A | thoughtful and interesting character whose whole arc is choosing | peace is now shoved into things like Ready Player One [1] as a | fighting weapon. | | It's hard not to think that Calvin wouldn't get reduced to some | Dennis the Menace type character that misses the point were he to | leave Watterson's control. | | 1 - https://www.inverse.com/article/42896-ready-player-one- | iron-... | manytree wrote: | Thanks for this link. Had me remember that excellent movie. | | And an excellent illustration of the perils of "selling out" | rights to depict a fictional character. | defaultcompany wrote: | Winnie the Pooh also comes to mind. There was one beautiful and | very authentic animated movie followed by two or three terrible | films that just felt like a horrible caricature of anything the | original work was about. | szeil wrote: | bokchoi wrote: | The Lorax, The Cat in the Hat, and The Grinch movies also were | completely warped by Hollywood. | wdr1 wrote: | I've been running a Calvin & Hobbes bot for ~20 years now. Back | when Google Reader was a thing, the bot published an RSS feed | which had greater than >1M subscribers. It's now a bot on Reddit | (/u/CalvinBot) with >700k karma. | | During that time, I've tried to be very mindful of Watterson's | copyright and make sure I don't violate it anyway. | | This had led to some interesting "bugs." Specifically | amuniversal.com only publishes the comic strip as a GIF. But the | official Reddit mobile app has a bug. It treats _all_ GIFs as a | video & disables other image features, like zooming. The nature | of C&H is such that very often _want_ to zoom to see all the | wonderful details Mr. Watterson put into the strip. | | Because of that I routinely get complaints about it being in a | GIF ("GIFs are for movies!" the whippersnappers say) and tell me | to publish them as JPG or PNG. Now converting a GIF to JPG or PNG | is trivial, but there's no way I can do so without violating his | copyright. I'd have to host the converted image myself, which I | don't have the right the do. | | So I won't do it. | | It's minor, but knowing Watterson felt so passionate about | copyright, I think it's important to honor. But because the team | at Reddit won't fix the bug, the complaints continue to come | rolling in. Enough that I wrote a FAQ about it: | | https://www.reddit.com/r/CalvinBot/comments/bdxb6h/why_are_p... | | If any C&H fans knows anyone on the team at Reddit, I'd much | appreciate it if you could ask them to fix it. | LeoPanthera wrote: | This is a very common bug. Lots of software think all gifs are | animated - Telegram is a good example. We've all forgotten our | history. | gjs278 wrote: | arijun wrote: | I can't read your link because Reddit thinks it's "Unreviewed | Content", a fairly transparent play to get me to download the | app or log in. | boogies wrote: | I can because LibRedirect | (https://github.com/libredirect/libredirect) automatically | redirected it to https://libreddit.projectsegfau.lt/r/CalvinB | ot/comments/bdxb... | culi wrote: | The redesigned reddit is unusable ~~on mobile~~. You need to | change the "www" subdomain to "old" like this: | | https://old.reddit.com/r/CalvinBot/comments/bdxb6h/why_are_p. | .. | kzrdude wrote: | There's not too many photos of Bill. | | Here's a few from 1980s | | https://goldfm.lk/life/other/3349/bill-watterson-creator-com... | | https://calvinandhobbes.fandom.com/wiki/Bill_Watterson | darepublic wrote: | There was the somewhat ubiquitous car sticker of Calvin grinning | mischievously and peeing on the ground. Used to see that a lot as | a child. | dry_soup wrote: | > 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 | snowwrestler wrote: | Right. 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 wrote: | Logged 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. | [deleted] | whiplash451 wrote: | Absolutely. I always felt that Tintin's movies were such a | terrible idea. | philistine wrote: | I truly fell in love with Tintin watching the Nelvana cartoon | as a kid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tin | tin_(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. | shmde wrote: | I have read his comics since my childhood and I have no idea why | I always assumed throughout my 25 year existence that Mr. Bill | Watterson was history. I found out "NOW" that he is well alive | and kicking and lives in solitude, away from public eye. It feels | so weird thinking a man is dead for your whole childhood years | only to be alive this whole time, I feel like crying right now. | camoufleur wrote: | I was quite surprised to learn he began Calvin and Hobbes at | only age 27 and quit by 37 | shellfishgene wrote: | Sometimes I hope he has been drawing more comics all this time, | to be published some time in the future, all at once in a great | book. Probably not, but who knows... | nemo44x wrote: | Last I heard he paints landscapes. | thechao wrote: | I've read this, too; I could only imagine the price he'd | command on a painting. The man is a national treasure. | [deleted] | stiltzkin wrote: | > I've always been a little skeptical of letting creators have so | much control, because that's how you end up with things like the | Star Wars Special Editions or Jo Rowling claiming she should've | killed off Ron so Harry and Hermione could get together. If | enough time passes, creators can lose touch with what makes their | work so special in the first place. That's why I support a "death | of the author" approach over the long haul - maybe the author's | intent isn't as important as we assume. Once the work is out | there, it belongs to the people, regardless of what copyright law | says. I've even advocated for shortening copyright terms to a | flat 75 years in order to limit that control. | | There must be a balance, creators with control know how the lore | and the story must follow. See now Disney's Star Wars has gone | different route not for the love of the lore and just for the | good ESG score of Disney company. | ghaff wrote: | Lucas didn't really do a whole lot for Star Wars after the | original trilogy. And while most agree that the prequel trilogy | was mostly pretty bad (though I'd argue that the original | Phantom Menace played a big role in tainting the following two | installments), a lot of what's followed has been at least | middling and some quite good. | thaumaturgy wrote: | I haven't seen it mentioned yet, so in case you're a big Calvin | and Hobbes fan and haven't heard about Watterson's brief return | to the comics page as a guest artist for Stephan Pastis' _Pearls | Before Swine_ , Stephan describes the whole thing in a really fun | story here: https://stephanpastis.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/ever- | wished-t... | | It includes links to the strips. | | C&H remains one of very few influential and yet uncorrupted parts | of my youth. I'm grateful to Mr. Watterson for never selling out. | But it's bittersweet, because kids don't read newspaper funnies | with their breakfast cereal anymore, and I fear that Calvin and | Hobbes will disappear from the public consciousness long before | Garfield does. | dredmorbius wrote: | Thanks! | | That's one of the returns I was thinking of earlier (see my top | level comment in thread), though I couldn't think of the strip. | It was of course PBS. | gnicholas wrote: | > _because kids don 't read newspaper funnies with their | breakfast cereal anymore_ | | Neither kids nor adults read the newspaper with their breakfast | much anymore... | | That said, my kid came across my old C&H books and loves to | read them. She also reads Fox Trot, Garfield, and Peanuts, but | not nearly as much as C&H. | arunprakash01 wrote: | NKosmatos wrote: | Interesting to read about this and never knew about it since I'm | a fan of Calvin and Hobbes. I can understand his motives and | reasoning, but I'm sure after a few decades, when the copyright | pass over to his heirs, we're going to see more of Calvin and | Hobbes. | Hayvok wrote: | Just imagine what Disney or Amazon will be doing to this | property in thirty years time. | stargrazer wrote: | So... what does Waterson do now with his life? | rm445 wrote: | Got to respect Mr Watterson's stance, but I was a little bit | gutted to learn he had turned down Pixar - surely a safe set of | hands that could produce something incredible from his creation. | Would he turn down Hayao Miyazaki as well? | phinnaeus wrote: | Yes | layer8 wrote: | Are you aware of how different Miyazaki's adaptations generally | are from the original works? | [deleted] | em500 wrote: | I'm glad he did. I hope you realize that not everybody loves | Pixar or Miyazaki. (Or C&H for that matter.) | | Watterson seems close to enlightened in the Buddhistic or | Daoistic traditions. | | "Therefore he who knows that enough is enough will always have | enough." Dao De Jing - Chapter 46 | alsetmusic wrote: | Watterson's integrity is one of the reasons that I have a | Stupendous Man tattoo on my forearm. | | It's the pose from the back of Homicidal Psycho Jungle Cat[0], | only I asked the artist to draw the costume as it appears in | Calvin's imagination. It's one of the few things about which I | absolutely know my feelings will never change. I always feel | happy when I look at it. | | [0] | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/superheroes/images/6/65/St... | js2 wrote: | Working link | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/superheroes/images/6/65/St... | endominus wrote: | For those who are interested and may not know; Bill Watterson | also ghost-drew a few strips for the comic Pearls Before Swine | (part of an arc beginning on the 2nd of June 2014[0] and | continuing till the 8th). There are a couple of neat references | to who it is behind the better art (anyone who's read Watterson's | complaints on shrinking panel space in print media will be | familiar with the guest character's comments) and I recall an old | blog post by the artist of Pearls describing what it was like to | work with Bill (terrifying; the thought of the postal worker just | chucking these, the only comics anyone had gotten out of | Watterson in years, onto his porch in the rain was horrible), but | I can't find it. | | [0]: https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2014/06/02 | | EDIT: Nevermind, found it! | https://stephanpastis.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/ever-wished-t... | JoeAltmaier wrote: | It so easy to see that Bill Watterson drew those 'Libby' | panels. Once you're told anyway. Especially 2nd one! | JoeAltmaier wrote: | Another comic that I identified by style, is the 'Secondhand | Lion' strips. They seem almost identical to Berkely | Breathed's strips 'Bloom County' | classichasclass wrote: | That's because Breathed drew them for the film. | guggalugalug wrote: | Patsis's blog contains a post from 2014 and a post from 2018. | Yet its "Pearls Books" page has been kept slightly more up to | date. There is something comically sad about a recently active | blog with only two posts over a 6+ year period. Bill Waterson | and a canceled United flight were some of the most noteworthy | things to have happened to him. | dcminter wrote: | That's amazing, thank you for posting it! | Natsu wrote: | It's funny how it says there's "one picture in existence" but | the site just shows "watterson.jpeg" and no actual photo, even | in old archives. | Izkata wrote: | Looks like broken javascript. If you inspect "watterson.jpeg" | and go up a few sibling elements, there's this: | <div class="rawhtml"> <span class="resimg adv-photo- | large" data-image="http://media.cleveland.com/ent_impact_home | /photo/11001963-mmmain.jpg" data-position="article- | main"></span> </div> | | http://media.cleveland.com/ent_impact_home/photo/11001963-mm. | .. | jamiek88 wrote: | https://www.themarginalian.org/2013/05/20/bill- | watterson-199... | upwardbound wrote: | If anyone wants this, here's the highest-resolution version | I could find of that photo of Watterson. | | https://image.cleveland.com/home/cleve- | media/width2048/img/n... | | He looks just like Calvin's dad for sure :) | jamiek88 wrote: | That's what I thought as well, Calvin's dad as self | portrait adds another lovely layer to it too! | Sateeshm wrote: | That was a great read. I really liked the second comic. | dclowd9901 wrote: | There's definitely strong thematic overlap between the two. It | delights me to know Watterson had some hand in PBS as I really | love it too. | tomcam wrote: | Beautiful. Thank you very much. | deathgripsss wrote: | I've never read any Calvin and Hobbes, is there a resource to | read the comics in the most sensible way or should I just try to | read them in chronological order? | psyc wrote: | Get an anthology. Someone got me one for Christmas in 9th | grade. By the time I finished high school I owned all of them. | I don't keep much physical stuff around, but I still have | those. | brk wrote: | IMO you can read them in pretty much any order and get 90% of | it. Most of them were self-contained. | | In same cases there are occasional characters, like Susie, and | Calvin's perspective of her changes over time, but you can read | any strip with Susie in it and probably get the message even | without knowing her history in the strip. | keithnz wrote: | I like the books, but the strips are online | anhttps://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2022/07/16 | nemo44x wrote: | Buy an anthology book and just read it from the beginning. | There's no "bad season" and he stopped it well before it was | showing signs of going off. | | For me it's hard to give a critical review since reading the | strip every day in the newspaper is both nostalgic and | sentimental as my dad and I both loved it. And then it was gone | and that was that. | JJMcJ wrote: | Similar to The Far Side. | | Also Peanuts. Charles Schultz died overnight just before the | final Sunday strip. He'd been in failing health and had drawn | the final strips a month or two before his death. | | Garry Trudeau, who does Doonesbury, has drawn some flak over | the years because he doesn't throw himself into the full | publicity grind. | Sjonny wrote: | I love this comic from him: https://i.imgur.com/CFq57ny.jpg | the_common_man wrote: | This is not by him, this is zenpencils | Sjonny wrote: | you're right .. it's the quote, not the comic. | dredmorbius wrote: | Two observations: | | Bill Watterson did return to public cartooning, if briefly, in | 2014. There's a reference here:[1] | https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/55321/first-new-bill-wat... | | Berkeley Breathed's "Bloom County" shares a similar cultural and | temporal space (1980--1989 initial run) with "Calvin and Hobbes", | and I was going to comment that _for the most part_ Breathed 's | also avoided commercialisation. Only to learn that there's an | animated series planned to appear on Fox: | | https://collider.com/bloom-county-animated-series-berkeley-b... | | In the current world of Web2.0 / Web3 hype and catastrophe, much | of the Waterson ethic resonates fairly strongly with me. The | 1980s and early 1990s were something of a spiritual child / echo | of the 1960s, within the digital realm, and there was a promise | of possibilities which ... have to a large extent failed to | materialise. | | The cesspits of Facebook and Twitter are the Altemont to Usenet | and the WELL's Woodstock. Reality, bad trips, and Hells Angels | have intruded. | | ________________________________ | | Notes: | | 1. Stealth footnote edit: thaumaturgy's commented with the strip | in question, Pearls Before Swine, see | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32116647 | easytiger wrote: | > _In the current world of Web2.0 / Web3 hype and catastrophe, | much of the Waterson ethic resonates fairly strongly with me._ | | You get shanghaied into a way of thinking. I recently wrote a | simple 1998 style (flask.py + mongodb) web thing for someone | hosted on the other side of the Atlantic to me. | | A domain.com/search page with results below the search box | loaded on a page refresh | | Even before adding pagination the clicking a search->query with | 10k rows of results->return and render on a different page with | a full page refresh was faster than any other site i had used | recently doing a fraction of the information display. I was | shocked that i was able to do all that in less than a second... | because my brain had been conditioned by the modern web | | I had become used to news website which take 15 seconds to | fully render the content using 25MB of data or react apps or | wordpress sites with dozens of fade in animations and the like. | | I am fully blackpilled on the present state of the web. Outside | HN it is basically unusable | DoingIsLearning wrote: | The problem is advertising. | | The reason we have come to this is because there is real FOMO | in Megacorp marketing departments across the globe. | | The way to solve it is to bring forward evidence that despite | the info graphics and impression statistics and dashboards, | targeted advertising by tracking users does not bring in more | sales than say showing your ad on a relevant content page. | | Showing me ads for bicycle helmets because from my profile | you know I bought one on another site is idiotic. However, | showing me an ad for fishing rods when I'm looking for | fishing supplies stores would probably be a good idea. | | If you can prove that than all of ad words and facebook non- | sense and user tracking is busy work with no value added. | | Then maybe we could go back to a saner web. | selimthegrim wrote: | Bloom County was revived in 2015 - when I saw Breathed speak at | the National Book Festival the next year he indicated Trump's | resurgence was "not unrelated" | dredmorbius wrote: | I'm aware of that. | | I was speaking more to the aversion to commercialising the | comic or its characters. | agumonkey wrote: | I also feel very strongly about the failure of the digital era. | Understanding that society moves in weird curves and is rarely | self aware enough to do good things in one shot. Maybe it will | have to crash and rebuild using some valuable bits and a better | insight (or hindsight). | daniel-cussen wrote: | No, but there's always someone listening in from the outside. | Woodstock wasn't pure, like...some people were just there to | sell bad weed. There is no purity. | | This is purity, like a gold coin is .999 pure, that's what you | get, this. Hacker News was created with the intent of avoiding | the Neverending September that happened when Usenet was opened | up in ?1993 was it? So that led to a series of attempts to | cling to a more beautiful time, until Reddit, and in response | to Reddit getting massified, this pretty small forum that lost | a lot of its inertia it had seven years ago, and it's cool, | it's a joint that's out of the way and few know about but it's | a cool place. I'm rate-limited on here, which I embrace as a | way of spending less time saying my words. I say a lot of | things that make people's head hurt. Like there's stuff I only | tell friends if there is aspirin on hand. | | And the other thing is it has to be subsidized in some way. So | this forum is subsidized by Y Combinator Management LLC (I | think that's what it's called) and even though it is very | synergistic, like...it's not as synergistic now. Well I don't | know. I didn't do winter during Covid, until now which I | regret, winter sucks. But there has to be a winter for there to | be a spring...I'm losing conviction in what I just wrote as I | continue writing. Like why lose when you can win and win | forever? | dredmorbius wrote: | It's less that Woodstock was _pure_ and more that it was | _idealistic_ , and ... mostly, the idealism held / didn't | break. | | Altamont wasn't necessarily bad. But reality intruded to an | extent it hadn't at the earlier festival. | | The idealism of the 1960s stumbled heavily when it hit the | Real World. Communes often proved to be unsustainable, | tremendously unequal, and microcosms of the outer world of | The Man that they were intended as an antidote / counterpoint | to. Collective and cooperative organisations folded. Or | evolved --- Whole Foods didn't simply out-compete many local | and regional "natural food stores", but often bought them | out. | | It's not possible to simply wish (or mission-statement) away | human behaviour and it's darker nature. I'm not sure if Mark | Zuckerberg really believed that most people are good and | privacy was obsolete, though those are principles he said and | promoted aggressively ... which haven't worked out so well. | | Part of me regrets tremendously that the idealism didn't | deliver. Another part recognises _that the idealist model of | reality was fundamentally flawed_. The questions of _how_ and | _why_ it was flawed, if there 's some way to redeem or | resurrect parts, or if there are alternative ways to deliver | on some of those principles or goals ... I'm not sure of. | | Looking at the present state of things, its systems and | organisations and institutions, I'm strongly disinclined to | participate at all. Watterson's very few public comments | don't seem to indicate he feels this way, and I don't want to | put words in his mouth. The commentary on selling out ... | suggests at least some alignment with this philosophy. | | Among the things I've focused on over the past decade or so | has been trying to _understand_ media, its interactions with | society (there 's a bidirectional feedback), and both its | capabilties and limitations. If I'd known then (in the late | 1980s / early 1990s) what I know now ... I don't know how my | activities would have differed, though I suspect my outlook | would have been vastly less idealistic.[1] As I've come to | hold that view myself it seems also to have become far more | prominent generally, I don't know if I've led or followed | that path to any particular extent. | | Understanding who was promoting what visions of the future of | technology, and what their own motiviations, beliefs, and | priors were, has also been illuminating. | | HN has been extraordinarily durable for an online forum, even | by historical standards. Usenet's heyday was about a decade | (mid-1980s -- mid-1990s), Slashdot only about 5 years (1999-- | 2004). Reddit and Facebook both grew far too large for | meaningful discussion (as well as suffering numerous other | failings[2]). A large part of HN's success has been in | remaining reasonably small, and it is of course dilligently | moderated. Despite that, there are topics HN really can't | discuss, and I'm often frustrated by the shallowness with | which meatier topics and articles are addressed. But | _relative to other general online fora_ it really does excel. | Applying my lens, perhaps it has the right ballance of ideal | vs. pragmatism. | | PSA: Don't take the brown acid. | | ________________________________ | | Notes: | | 1. The "light reading list" I've occasionally linked in | earlier HN comments gives a pretty good grounding in my | thinking / reading. It's incomplete and probably always will | be, but should give good initial vectoring and velocity. http | s://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/7k7l4m/media_a... | | 2. I don't, and never have, participated in Facebook, so | can't comment on its dynamics. I was an active participant on | the conceptually similar platform Google+ where a "salon- | style" form of discussion emerged around a few dilligent | hosts. I've discussed Reddit's issues numerous times at my | now all-but-entirely-defunct subreddit, with several of those | addressed / linked here: https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius | /comments/8rq08y/i_wont_... | bedhead wrote: | I say this to people frequently: don't confuse the way | things are vs the way you wish things were. It seems to be | the source of so much poor decision-making and misery. | dredmorbius wrote: | I'm not entirely sure I'm following. | | There's the is-ought fallacy. | | There's also wishful thinking: believing that what you | want / would prefer is what should be, or that a | realistic but unpleasant appraisal is wrong or false | because it is painful to consider. (Truth and reality | don't much care about your preferences.) | | Or are you referring to something else? | mbg721 wrote: | Breathed was always hyper-conscious of selling out in the | comics industry and elsewhere; his approach was just to create | Bill the Cat as an anti-Garfield. It was only later that irony | became the only thing that sells. | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-16 23:00 UTC)