Sebastien's Reviews > The Complete Calvin and Hobbes

Great review

I think your point about Schultz is spot on.
I have all the Calvin and Hobbes books that were published before Watterson pulled the plug and I recently read a couple of them. They never get old. So very clever.

Lars wrote: "Great review"

Thank you Lars!

Jill wrote: "I think your point about Schultz is spot on.
I have all the Calvin and Hobbes books that were published before Watterson pulled the plug and I recently read a couple of them. They never get old. So..."

I think I'm going to reread them all soon! it's been a while and I've been missing them. I love how Watterson was able to put so much of himself into his comic, C&H truly channels his spirit and this shines through imo.

In terms of ideals I am closer to Watterson as regards his views on commercialization and branding of one's art. In terms of practicality and trying to live off one's work I am closer to Schultz. So in spirit I'm closer to Watterson, in practice Schultz. For me making money off art is not necessarily bad, and in fact making money can be what provides the subsidies for the more creative ambitious work that might not be as commercially viable. Money is a tool, and in this system, without it you will find greater challenges to keep creating art professionally if you don't make some money. Watterson was wildly successful, and while he did leave a lot of money on the table he had the privilege (by his success and talent) of being able to hold onto his ideals (which still took guts!). I respect it, but not every artist can hold onto their artistic ideals especially if they are struggling to put food on the table, compromise is often part of the picture.

For me the whole subject is just a great debate and good for artists to think about. What is their vision? what are their goals? what is worth compromising? I think commercialization of one's work is fine but there are situations where it might potentially cheapen the vision of the work, or the artist is put in straitjacket, or the artist has to relinquish control of their work/IP. But that is up to the artist, sometimes the projects that are the least fulfilling and least ambitious are the ones that pay the bills and subsidize the more interesting stuff... these decisions will come down to the particular artist, their vision, their ambition, their situation, their goals, their professional leverage, their responsibilities, their taste and stomach for risk in various realms like personal, professional, artistic. Not every artist needs or wants to be a "visionary," most are happy to practice their craft day in day out, even if they are challenged to create creating something even within certain limited confines. I don't think there are any right answers out there and each creative has to find what works for them.

Watterson made two decisions that most artists would not consider....pulling out when he was at the top of his game; and his views on commercialization of C/H which you spoke of so well. I don't think the fact that I can't buy a C/H t-shirt is the end of the world and obviously the income he would receive from products did not trump his convictions about the possible "bastardization" of his characters. or loss of control. He made his mark and kept his personal vision intact. I can't possibly add anything more to your very articulate and insightful comments....but I would like to have a C/H t-shirt!!!!!!

Jill wrote: "Watterson made two decisions that most artists would not consider....pulling out when he was at the top of his game; and his views on commercialization of C/H which you spoke of so well. I don't th..."

Thanks so much Jill!!! hahahaha, you know what I want?! I always wanted an officially sanctioned Hobbes plushy (actually I'll take 10)! Watterson left a heck of a lot of money on the table, that is for sure. It was a decision he felt was important for himself and his art, and I certainly respect it.

And it is incredible that he stopped at the top of his game. It takes a rare bird to do that. Of course I wish he had kept up creating comics in the public sphere, whether it was C&H or something else because I think he is so awesome and has talent of a rare nature and think he may have had many more wonderful things to share with us. This is more just selfish on my part because I love what he makes and it entertains me and makes me happy. But he owes me nothing! In the end I'm just grateful he gave us what he gave us because it is awesome! And maybe he felt he had said and created everything he needed to, maybe he felt had nothing more to say? maybe he was just tired/burnt out of drawing comics?! tired of being on the public stage? He strikes me as a guy who doesn't like the limelight, wants to be left alone. As much as he might appreciate people loving his work I imagine he kind of hates the attention it drew to himself personally.

And maybe after creating something as wonderful as C&H he may have felt that any other public artistic project would have been chasing the ghost of C&H, with the new work constantly being compared and overshadowed and belittled by C&H which to me was a confluence of so many wonderful things?! I'm fascinated by that idea, an artist's early work becoming like a terrible nemesis for them, a vortex and a sort of yoke, a bar that might never be reached again that constantly taunts hehe. For some artists I imagine it can feel like they morph into caricature, trying to mime and mimic what they had originally captured in a bottle previously, some artists will fight it others will run from it and others won't care and just keep cruising. Just interesting, I feel like this can happen with novels a lot, that first novel is the culmination of so much energy, time, personal fight. Then if one is lucky enough success (whether commercial, artistic, both) is achieved and people are like great. Now do it again. Only this time in 12 months!

But I'm quite certain he kept making art even after stopping the strip, just not in a public manner.