Calvin and Hobbes Ancillary Merchandise?
Eric Sheppard
My first nephew will turn five this June, at just the right time for him
and his parents to begin to appreciate the benefits of having a tiger for
a best friend. Hasn't any company begun to market the definitive Hobbes?
I've seen many stuffed tigers, but they don't even come close to looking
like Hobbes. Anyone seen them?
Eric
Enrique Conty
>
> Hasn't any company begun to market the definitive Hobbes?
Anyone can expand on this?
E. Conty
co...@faraday.ece.cmu.edu
Ivan Cavero Belaunde
>Hasn't any company begun to market the definitive Hobbes?
Nope, you're SOL (Shit Outta Luck), Eric. Watterson *adamantly* refuses
merchandising beyond book reprints. The Hobbes doll is his pet peeve, since
in terms of story elements it would take away from the strip, in his view.
Apparently he intentionally leaves it *undefined* whether Hobbes is actually
stuffed or not (ie whether Calvin's or Mom/Dad's world is the real one),
and having an actual Hobbes doll would take away that. He's said more than
that (the corrupting of the purity of his strip, etc, etc), but that's the
gist of it.
All of this, BTW, comes from issue 127(?) or so of The Comics Journal, which
has a beautiful painted Spaceman Spiff cover and an interview with Watterson.
Worth reading.
Later grizzly dudes,
-Ivan Cavero Belaunde
"Grad School - Some people *never* learn"
-Matt Groening, "School is Hell"
Internet: capt...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Hugh Moore
Funny, I know a lot of people who actually want them to sell CH stuff.
To the best of my knowledge, only the books and calanders have come out
or will come out. Will there are a fair number of T-shirts, I believe
that none of these are licenced.
"Wait, a cartoonist who won't sell out? HOW DARE HE?"
Mad Uncle
Robert allen Jung
>In article <81...@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ce1...@prism.gatech.edu (Eric Sheppard) writes:
>> Hasn't any company begun to market the definitive Hobbes?
>
>No. Word is Bill Waterson (the creator of the strip) doesn't want to.
>Anyone can expand on this?
"If you stick thirty Hobbes dolls on a drugstore shelf, you've transformed
him into just another overpriced knickknack. ... If I'd wanted to sell plush
garbage, I'd have gone to work as a carney.
"The idea of a Hobbes doll is especially noxious, because the whole intrigue
of Hobbes is that he may or may not be a real tiger. ... If _I'm_ not going
to answer the question of who or what Hobbes is, I'm certainly not going to
let Dakin answer it."
(Reproduced without permission from THE COMICS JOURNAL, #127)
Generally, Watterson feels that general C&H merchandising doesn't work for
his strip, because it's a continuing story of the characters. Something like
Gary Larson's THE FAR SIDE is fine, since each strip stands on its own, but not
C&H.
Personally, I admire the man for his views. Or is that just backlash from the
saturation of GARFIELD junk? (I used to enjoy the strip, but now it's a mass-
marketed factory-generated piece of garbage. Thankfully, CALVIN & HOBBES will
*never* get to this point)
--R.J.
B-)
(It's great to be back!)
==============================================================================
Send replies to rj...@nunki.usc.edu
(Generic .sig in construction)
Fortress of the Devil Worm Eaters
In the few interviews he's done, he's pretty much said that he doesn't
want merchandising, something to the effect of not turning the strip into
another Garfield.
More power to him, I say...
--
| Brandi Weed bw...@jarthur.claremont.edu !uunet!jarthur!bweed |
Eric Sheppard
>
> Generally, Watterson feels that general C&H merchandising doesn't work for
>his strip, because it's a continuing story of the characters. Something like
>Gary Larson's THE FAR SIDE is fine, since each strip stands on its own, but not
>C&H.
>
> Personally, I admire the man for his views. Or is that just backlash from the
>saturation of GARFIELD junk? (I used to enjoy the strip, but now it's a mass-
>marketed factory-generated piece of garbage. Thankfully, CALVIN & HOBBES will
>*never* get to this point)
I understand Watterson's viewpoint, now. I'm disappointed, though, that I
cannot directly make the Calvin/nephew connection through Hobbes...
Incidentally, I'm tired of seeing Garfield in every store window I pass on
the street. I stared with disbelief at one of my friend's "collections" of
Garfield kitsch. He's into collecting useless knickknacks. To each his own,
I guess. (And think, this friend is over 40 years old!)
Couple of years ago, I might have gotten a Bill the Cat doll (the Opus doll is
as overmarketed as Garfield), but the markups priced the thing beyond the
threshold of pain...
Eric
--
Eric Sheppard Georgia Tech | "Of course the US Constitution isn't
Atlanta, GA | perfect; but it's a lot better than what
ARPA: ce1...@prism.gatech.edu | we have now."
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!ce1zzes
Peter_...@cup.portal.com
wouldn't be any "Bloom County" merchandising. Indeed, Bill the Cat was
created specifically to make fun of all the Garfield merchandising.
Hey, I got *my* stuffed Bill the Cat.
As for how one would make a definitive Hobbes doll, that's easy--
one of two ways. Either you manufacture one of each version, giving
audiences their choice (chances are they'd by both--merchandise wise,
so much the better). Or you make one doll that's double sided with a
vertical split--on one side he's the talking Hobbes, on the other side
he's the plainer Hobbes.
Welcome to Exercises in Licensing 101.
Boy, I sure would like a Hobbes doll. I'll be interested to see if
Watterson holds out--especially when Dakin (or whoever) ups the stakes
in terms of money offers and Watterson's kids have to go to college.
Though the way the books are selling he probably doesn't have to worry
about it.
PAD
"Play *deep* left field."
Hugh Moore
>I'll be interested to see if Watterson holds out--especially when Dakin
>(or whoever) ups the stakes in terms of money offers and Watterson's kids
>have to go to college. Though the way the books are selling he probably
>doesn't have to worry about it.
I read somewhere (sorry, I can't remember where) that Watterson refuses
to have children, using kids like Calvin as his excuse. So that, at
least isn't a factor.
**Please don't sell out**
**Please don't sell out**
**Please don't sell out**
Mad Uncle
Lazlo Nibble
fashion" stores has prominently displayed Calvin T-shirts in the front
end of the store. The things are obviously bootlegs -- black-on-white
with no copyright notices or anything, and (as y'all already know) there
*are* no authorized C&H tees.
So what I'm wondering is . . . if I decide to be a *real* penis and
tattle on these guys, who do I call about the things, and what's their
phone number? (Folks asking me to buy them one and send it to them
will be laughed at -- the way I figure it, until BW decides to license
C&H legitimately, y'all ought to just make your *own* tees and dolls
and stuff.)
Lazlo (la...@ariel.unm.edu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone in the world has a deep-seated self-hatred.
Except possibly Grace Jones.
Paul A. Estin
[sees bootleg C&H T-shirts in a store]
>
>So what I'm wondering is . . . if I decide to be a *real* penis and
>tattle on these guys, who do I call about the things, and what's their
>phone number? (Folks asking me to buy them one and send it to them
>will be laughed at -- the way I figure it, until BW decides to license
>C&H legitimately, y'all ought to just make your *own* tees and dolls
>and stuff.)
I don't know, but I have another question (or rather, I need a
confirmation). If you make up a T-shirt, just for yourself and not to
make a profit, with the likeness of a copyrighted character, is that
legit? (I'm pretty sure it is, and I've used Akbar and Jeff in a design
before, but I'd like to be certain.)
---
"Akbar and Jeff's Airport Bar and Grill -
Where the elite meet to eat reheated meaty treats."
Paul Andrew Estin-- minor net deity, V.P. of the UC SF Club, Keeper of
the Slinky, and Fictional Friend of Wesley. Blue eyes. Twenty-one.
es...@tank.uchicago.edu 5454 S. Shore Dr. Apt. 707 Chicago, IL 60615
Tovah Hollander
>Or you make one doll that's double sided ... on one side he's the
>talking Hobbes, on the other side he's the plainer Hobbes.
Nah. There is only one Hobbes *doll* -- the plainer one. What Hobbes
looks like when he's talking and moving is the product of Calvin's
imagination. What *your* Hobbes would look like when *he*'s talking and
moving would, of course, be the product of *your* imagination.
--
Tovah Hollander cepu!to...@seas.ucla.edu
{pyramid,ucla-se,ncar}!cepu!tovah
Woogywoogywoogy!
In article <90...@tank.uchicago.edu> es...@tank.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) writes:
>
> I don't know, but I have another question (or rather, I need a
>confirmation). If you make up a T-shirt, just for yourself and not to
>make a profit, with the likeness of a copyrighted character, is that
>legit? (I'm pretty sure it is, and I've used Akbar and Jeff in a design
>before, but I'd like to be certain.)
>
>
>Paul Andrew Estin-- minor net deity, V.P. of the UC SF Club, Keeper of
> the Slinky, and Fictional Friend of Wesley. Blue eyes. Twenty-one.
Yeah, you're on safe moral ground - and reasonably safe legal ground.
Copyrighted material is copyrighted material is copyrighted material
whether you're using for fun or for profit.
Now it's unlikely that someone will come down on you for making a
couple of shirts for friends and family, but if (for someone unknown
reason) you make up 30,000 of these puppies and take them down to your
local mall (or drop them from a low-flying helicopter, or whatever);
you can bet your bippy that *they* will be on you like flies on
euphemism.
Copyrights aren't there to prevent you from making money off of other
people's stuff (all right, not solely there), but to protect creators.
Pirating software is a perfect example; you're not hurting anybody by
copying your friend's copy of "Spud Wars: potato combat in the 25th
century", but you are violating copyright law. Another good example
is something that happens around here every once in a while, posting
copyrighted written materials (Columns or whatever). Even
distributing written material for free electronically is a violation
of copyright law - and not very fair to people who try to make their
living by writing (Am I right P_A_D?)
Woosh. Didn't mean for this to get so long....To sum up. Morally,
make that "in reality" - I pass no judgements, you can put whatever
you want on a t-shirt; legally, you can't use copyrighted characters,
even not for profit, without permission of the copyright holders.
This Public Service Announcement brought to you by Mindgame, makers of
the exciting "Spud Wars: potato combat in the 25th century" game.
All this stuff is, naturally, (c) 1990 by me.
--troll
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The history of the world is the record of a man in quest of his daily
bread and butter."
- H.W. VanLoon "The Story of Mankind"
Karen Williams
>In article <90...@tank.uchicago.edu> es...@tank.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) writes:
>> I don't know, but I have another question (or rather, I need a
>>confirmation). If you make up a T-shirt, just for yourself and not to
>>make a profit, with the likeness of a copyrighted character, is that
>>legit?
>Copyrighted material is copyrighted material is copyrighted material
>whether you're using for fun or for profit.
You can use Cerebus as long as you add "(c) Dave Sim" on the design.
--
Karen Williams
"One never knew when humans would get religion and start killing."
-- WYRMS, Orson Scott Card
john s nunnemacher
> If you make up a T-shirt, just for yourself and not to
> make a profit, with the likeness of a copyrighted character, is that
> legit? (I'm pretty sure it is, and I've used Akbar and Jeff in a design
> before, but I'd like to be certain.)
I'm no lawyer, but the few situations I've been in and the stories I've
heard seem to point to ...
It's not really "legit," or legal, I don't think. But the point is,
whether it's legal or not, I don't think anyone's really going to notice
or care.
Big businesses care about big infringements on their copyright. If
Hess's (just to pick a name) started marketing a full line of Calvin &
Hobbes T-shirts nationwide, I think there'd be some trouble.
But if they went around nosing out every two-bit college student or
otherwise who makes a few T-shirts, they'd be wasting more time and
money than it would really be worth.
At least, this is from my opinion and observation. I could be totally
wrong. :-)
Just my $.02,
john
--
John Nunnemacher ------------------------------------ nunn...@moravian.edu
Box 435 Moravian College ...!rutgers!liberty!batman!nunnemaJ
Bethlehem,_PA_18018 ___________/ "We are the music makers, and we are \___
*Disclaimer: I'm only human.* \ the dreamers of dreams." -Willy Wonka /
J. Kenneth Riviere (JoKeR)
>Regarding the legality of bootlegs et c.
>
>However, the Copyright laws were designed
>to allow creators to get money from every possible exploitation of their
>creation.
This is a gross distortion of the intent of the copyright laws! This is
certainly what publishers and others who stand to benefit from strong
copyright and other intellectual property laws would like everyone to
believe, but that doesn't make it so!
There is a clause in the Constitution which grants Congress the right to
pass laws concerning intellectual property but states that this is for
the benefit of the public! If the point were to give creators all possible
monies then why do copyrights expire?
There were no copyright laws before the invention of the printing press
(which makes sense when you think about it, why bother before that?).
In English law (upon which much of our law is based), the first copyrights
were granted as an exclusive monopoly to the printers guild. In exchange
the King was granted the right to censor anything they published. As
the monarchy lost power the Houses let the grant of monopoly expire as
they had no love of the printers. After a few years where anyone could
legally copy everything the printers went back to the Houses, hat in hand,
begging for restoration of copyright protection. Not wanting to restore
the monopoly to printers they gave copyrights to written works to the
creators.
Over the years the applications of copyrights have changed considerably.
There was once a Supreme Court ruling that a translation of Uncle Tom's
Cabin into another language was not a copyright infringement because
there was no literal copying from one page to another. For that matter,
the original laws didn't mention copying but merely printing. It was
later expanded to include performance (so that a playwrite could benefit
from productions of their plays, same for music) and eventually copying.
However, copying was included in the law when they were trying to give
sculptors protection. It has always been legal to copy things for your
own use.
When Xerox made photocopy technology widely available they were sued
for aiding in copyright infringement since people would simply photocopy
articles and books at the Library instead of buying them. The Court
ruled that since the law would allow a person to go to the library
and copy such a work by hand using pencil and paper (which the publishers
did not argue with) then using more advanced technology for the same
purpose was legal and fair. Eventually the laws were even changed so
that "fair use" was included as a legitimate reason for copying something
which cannot be denied by publishers/creators.
Getting back to the intent of copyright laws: the creators are given the
exclusive right to publish their works so that they can realize benefits
by profitting from such publishing. However, the benefit to the public
is that the work is available for others to read (if the creator refused
to publish on the grounds that others would copy and the creator would
get nothing then the public would be the poorer for that). Over the
years the actions which are covered have been expanded so that creators
have more rights than in years past, but the intent of the law is still
to benefit the public by encouraging the creators to make the creation
available. The ever-enlarging scope of intellectual property protection
has lead to a lot of confusion over what is protected and what is not,
but it has never been the intent of the laws (except in the minds of
jealous creators) to give the creators all possible monies derived from
their creations.
(Many of the points made in this article are based on readings, especially
from "The Impact of Technology on Intellectual Property Rights" published
by the Office of Technology Assessment, fascinating reading.)
--
J. Kenneth Riviere (JoKeR)
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!iadt1kr
ARPA: iad...@prism.gatech.edu
Timothy Whalen
1) The Federal Law Enforcement officers are interested in any violation
of Copyright law. There is a superseding Federal statute, although states
can enact laws to supplement or broaden the rights of creators. A friend
of mine worked for a while in the Justice Department, and was involved in
a prosecution, along with the US Marshalls and the Fan Belt Inspectors, of
certain folks for selling "counterfeit goods."
2) Home use- Bear in mind that we do not live in a world of infinite law
enforcement resources. (You can all breathe a sigh of relief) Nobody's
going after home-brew t-shirts. However, the Copyright laws were designed
to allow creators to get money from every possible exploitation of their
creation. (See "Batman" [tm] brand gas-assisted shock absorbers) If they
could have sold the right to you, they could sue you. However, the
measure of damages is likely to be lidicrously low. Unless you walk by
Watterson when he's in a very bad mood, I doubt they'd even confiscate
you shirt.
But if you're making some up, I'll take one. b*)
TWTW
Jym Dyer
> want to. Anyone can expand on this?
|W|ell, folx already have. I'll just add a little more background
`-' information.
.-.
|I|t has to do with the _Robotman_ comic strip. That strip was
`-' designed with merchandising in mind---you have this strip and
all these Robotman dolls and make lots of money. When Bill
Watterson was trying to develop a strip, a syndicate offered
to let him have one if he incorporated Robotman into it. All
part of a package deal, you see, with big bucks for everyone.
.-.
|I| personally think _Robotman_ turned out okay in spite of these
`-' origins, probably because Jim Meddick has a good sense of
irony. (I also think _Bloom_County_ handled the situation
rather well for the same reason.) But this kind of nonsense
probably turned Watterson off to the idea more than he'd
already been.
<_Jym_>
Hugh Moore
>looks like when he's talking and moving is the product of Calvin's
>imagination. What *your* Hobbes would look like when *he*'s talking and
>moving would, of course, be the product of *your* imagination.
You, sir, are obviously an adult.
Pbbbbbtttt.
Mad Uncle
Tovah Hollander
>>Nah. There is only one Hobbes *doll* -- the plainer one. What Hobbes
>>looks like when he's talking and moving is the product of Calvin's
>>imagination. What *your* Hobbes would look like when *he*'s talking and
>>moving would, of course, be the product of *your* imagination.
Hugh Moore wrote back:
>You, sir, are obviously an adult.
>
>Pbbbbbtttt.
(a) I fail to see what was so stuffy and grown-up about what I wrote
in the first place, so 'pbbbbtttt' back to you and nyah nyah nyah.
(b) I am not a sir. You must be thinking of Dani Zweig, who is not a her.
Hugh Moore
>>>Nah. There is only one Hobbes *doll* -- the plainer one. What Hobbes
>>>looks like when he's talking and moving is the product of Calvin's
>>>imagination. What *your* Hobbes would look like when *he*'s talking and
>>>moving would, of course, be the product of *your* imagination.
>Hugh Moore wrote back:
>>You, sir, are obviously an adult.
>>
>>Pbbbbbtttt.
>(a) I fail to see what was so stuffy and grown-up about what I wrote
> in the first place, so 'pbbbbtttt' back to you and nyah nyah nyah.
>(b) I am not a sir. You must be thinking of Dani Zweig, who is not a her.
a) Hobbes is real. Only the adults think he's a toy. They're stupid.
Hahahahahaha
b) Ooops, sorry.
Mad Uncle
Brent David Goldberg
understands that in our world, Hobbes could not possibly be real, and is
thus a delusionary hallucination of Calvin.
Me -- I'm a kid at heart. Hobbes is indeed real, and only Calvin can
see him (probably a result of some genetic mutation caused by Spaceman
Spiff contacting accidently a radioactive martian element).
Oh, and by the way, YOU are obviously an adult. 'Pbbbbtttt.' The
genius of Calvin and Hobbes is wasted on your type, but at least you can
appreciate it to a favorable extent in your own way.
The Darkness Unfolding
What's so surprising to me is that I used to have a Hobbes doll back when I
was a little tyke... this was something like 18 years ago, aproximately...
And I remember it very clearly... plus, I still got the doll.
So I think Waterson must have been inspired by one that he saw in the toy
store...
As for what a Hobbes doll would look like, well there is actually only one
DOLL... The other one is a REAL Hobbes, not just a doll...
+--------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
| GARY%MAPLE....@PINE.CIRCA.UFL.EDU | Spare the rod and spoil the child,
+--------------------------------------+ Daddy's boy has been too wild.
His discipline's taught with a strap, no sweet song on father's lap.
He always said that Men don't cry, but burns and bruises seldom lie.
Dad learned Grandpa's lesson well, spitting image of a man in Hell.
The pattern of hurting began generations before.
David Adrien Tanguay
>Oh, and by the way, YOU are obviously an adult. 'Pbbbbtttt.' The
>genius of Calvin and Hobbes is wasted on your type, but at least you can
>appreciate it to a favorable extent in your own way.
Our local newspaper recently ran a survey on newspaper comics. Several schools
used the survey in class as a writing assignment. One of the interesting
observations out of the survey is that Calvin and Hobbes is not popular
with younger children. They think Calvin is mean and rude, and don't like
him. He's more popular with adults. E.g., I wish I was like Calvin when I
was his age (ignore what my mom says!).
--
David Tanguay Software Development Group, University of Waterloo
Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt
data...@watmath.waterloo.edu (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:
> Our local newspaper recently ran a survey on newspaper comics. Several
> schools used the survey in class as a writing assignment. One of the
> interesting observations out of the survey is that Calvin and Hobbes is not
> popular with younger children.
He's popular with *my* younger children. I get asked to read C&H to them
whenever they see me reading the paper.
Just the other day, my daughter and her cousin were playing animals: one was a
kitty and the other a bunny. They asked Alex what he wanted to be. He got a
*perfect* Calvin-look on his face and said, "A Komodo Dragon".
--
Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,
Chris Jarocha-Ernst
UUCP: {ames, att, harvard, moss, seismo}!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!cje
ARPA: JAROCH...@CANCER.RUTGERS.EDU
CCIS, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855-0879
Gary Lewandowski (TA of Doom)
My brother is ten and absolutely loves Calvin. My mother doesn't
read the strip so she doesn't know where he gets all those strange
ideas. I have a bunch of nieces and nephews and all of them
express delight in Calvin and Hobbes, so I'm not convinced by the
survey.
>
>--
>David Tanguay Software Development Group, University of Waterloo
--
gary
lewa...@cs.wisc.edu
"But I *want* my outs to count" -- Christine Lavin
The Napoleon of Crime
>used the survey in class as a writing assignment. One of the interesting
>observations out of the survey is that Calvin and Hobbes is not popular
>with younger children. They think Calvin is mean and rude, and don't like
>him.
My God... we're raising a nation of weenies.
"Who IS this mysterious masked man?? And why has
he never been photographed together with handsome,
6-year-old millionaire playboy Calvin?"
-- CALVIN AND HOBBES
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: mori...@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, microsoft, hplsla, uiucuxc}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
David Adrien Tanguay
|In article <1990May14....@watmath.waterloo.edu> data...@watmath.waterloo.edu (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:
|>They think Calvin is mean and rude, and don't like
|>him.
|
|My God... we're raising a nation of weenies.
You're safe. This is Canada: a kinder, gentler America.
As long as you're not "black boys on mopeds" in Toronto :-(
Tovah Hollander
>a) Hobbes is real. Only the adults think he's a toy. They're stupid.
Brent David Goldberg writes:
>Simply put -- a kid would believe Hobbes to be real, and the ault
>understands that in our world, Hobbes could not possibly be real, and is
>thus a delusionary hallucination of Calvin.
First of all, I didn't say "delusionary hallucination," I said "product of
the imagination" -- if you can't see the difference, you're not dear and
child-like, you're just infantile, so there, nyah.
[Sorry for that last, I'm just trying *so* hard to prove I'm not an adult.]
More to the point, can't you guys see that I'm saying essentially the same
thing that you are: that Hobbes is real to Calvin and, by extension, your
Hobbes and my Hobbes would be real to us? The only difference is that you
keep implying that there's only one real Hobbes, one who looks and acts just
like Calvin's Hobbes; whereas I say that your Hobbes and my Hobbes would each
have their own individual and unique personalities.
Now, I ask you: which of us is showing more imagination?
Brent goes on:
>Oh, and by the way, YOU are obviously an adult. 'Pbbbbtttt.' The
>genius of Calvin and Hobbes is wasted on your type, but at least you can
>appreciate it to a favorable extent in your own way.
Yes, indeed, Brent, being patronizing [i.e., acting like a father] is one
sure way of proving your status as a "kid at heart." Right.
Hugh Moore
>thing that you are: that Hobbes is real to Calvin and, by extension, your
>Hobbes and my Hobbes would be real to us? The only difference is that
>you keep implying that there's only one real Hobbes, one who looks and
>Hobbes would each have their own individual and unique personalities.
Well there IS only one Hobbes. It doesn't matter what the parents see,
because they don't understand anything. Don't be silly, there is only
one Hobbes.
Mad Uncle
Doug Moran
>Brent David Goldberg writes:
>>Simply put -- a kid would believe Hobbes to be real, and the ault
>>understands that in our world, Hobbes could not possibly be real, and is
>>thus a delusionary hallucination of Calvin.
>First of all, I didn't say "delusionary hallucination," I said "product of
>the imagination" -- if you can't see the difference, you're not dear and
>child-like, you're just infantile, so there, nyah.
But Suzy Derkins sees Hobbes as a stuffed animal, not a Tiger. And so
does the class bully. As far as I can see, the *only* person who sees
Hobbes as real in the strip is Calvin.
Whether Hobbes is delusionary hallucination or a product of Calvin's
imagination, I will not speculate.
--
Doug Moran | "Hand over all your money in a paper bag!"
pyramid!ctnews!sparky!dougm | "Yes yes I know the procedure for armed robbery.
do...@sparky.Convergent.com | I do work in a convenience store you know."
The Napoleon of Crime
There is a strip in C&H (it's within the Great Car In The Ditch Disaster
arc) where we see Calvin's Mom sitting in a chair by the window. As we look
out the window (with Mom in the foreground), we see a car go by the window
backwards. A following panel after that, with Mom *still* in the
foreground, shows Calvin and Hobbes chasing after the car. Hobbes is
clearly in his animated, non-doll form. MOM IS STILL IN THE FOREGROUND.
It's as clear to me as a One-Eyed Jack's poker chip decayed by stomach acid.
[Besides, Waterson has been quite careful not to answer whether Hobbes is
"real" or not. As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of personal conscience
and choice; some people think Hobbes is real, and some don't. The latter,
of course, will live shallow, meaningless lives ending in a lonely unmarked
grave.]
"Harry, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret.
Every day... once a day... give yourself a
present. Don't plan it; don't wait for it;
just... let it happen. Could be a new shirt at
the men's store, a cat-nap in your office, or...
two cups of good, hot, black coffee."
---
David Goldfarb
)There is a strip in C&H (it's within the Great Car In The Ditch Disaster
)arc) where we see Calvin's Mom sitting in a chair by the window. As we look
)out the window (with Mom in the foreground), we see a car go by the window
)backwards. A following panel after that, with Mom *still* in the
)foreground, shows Calvin and Hobbes chasing after the car. Hobbes is
)clearly in his animated, non-doll form. MOM IS STILL IN THE FOREGROUND.
Yes, but her back is to the window. She can't *see* Hobbes.
There's another strip, in the relatively early arc in which
Hobbes gets stolen by a big dog and found by Suzie. When Calvin finds
Hobbes at Suzie's tea party, we see him in non-doll form for one panel.
But Suzie is looking at Calvin, and away from Hobbes.
)[Besides, Waterson has been quite careful not to answer whether Hobbes is
) "real" or not. As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of personal conscience
) and choice; some people think Hobbes is real, and some don't. The latter,
) of course, will live shallow, meaningless lives ending in a lonely unmarked
) grave.]
Pooh. It's quite clear to me that Hobbes is *both* real and
unreal, just as an electron is both a wave and a particle. There's too
much evidence for both sides to dismiss either.
Let me remind you of two particular Sunday strips.
For those who say he's real:
Calvin is sitting in the car, waiting for his mom to come out
of the supermarket. He's in the driver's seat, and while he's fanta-
sizing about his driving skill Hobbes is playing with the controls.
"Calvin the race-car driver skillfully passes another car at the Indy
500!" "Hobbes honks the horn."
For those who say he's not real:
Calvin is sitting on a sled under a tree. There is no snow on
ground. Calvin waves his fist and shouts, "Well? Let's have some snow!"
Instantly white flakes start to drift down around him. He runs off,
excitedly shouting, "It's snowing! I can make it snow! I'm psychokinetic!
Hey! Hey!"
Last panel: Hobbes sitting on a limb of the tree with a feather
pillow, grinning. "Ooh, he's gonna hate me for this when he finds out!"
) Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
David Goldfarb gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (Insert standard disclaimer)
"We don't just *borrow* words; on occasion, English has pursued other
languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets
for new vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll
Doug Moran
Hey, relax: He's a dessert topping *and* a floor wax.
Robert allen Jung
> For those who say he's real:
> Calvin is sitting in the car, waiting for his mom to come out
>of the supermarket. He's in the driver's seat, and while he's fanta-
> [Rest of strip deleted, C&H fans know this one by heart]
> For those who say he's not real:
> Calvin is sitting on a sled under a tree. There is no snow on
> [Rest of strip deleted, C&H fans know this one by heart, too]
Seems to me both strips illustrate that Hobbes is "real", eg, has a physical
existence. How can Hobbes dump the fake snow or play with the controls if he's
not real? If you want a strip that proves he's not real, look at all the
times Hobbes has refused to eat/beat up Moe the bully for Calvin. Instead of
eating Moe and making life easier for his friend, the nonreal Hobbes sneaks
out of the (impossible-for-a-doll) task with excuses like "fat kids are high
in cholesterol".
And earlier, the Napoleon of Crime wrote:
> some people think Hobbes is real, and some don't. The latter,
> of course, will live shallow, meaningless lives ending in a lonely unmarked
> grave.
Well, I personally think Hobbes is real, all right (what about the strip
where Calvin wants to practice escape-artist-magic, and Hobbes ties him up
so tight he can't have dinner? Or Hobbes-gives-Calvin-the-lousy-haircut?).
My only question is, does this ensure me that I'll have a happy and fulfilling
life?
--R.J.
B-)
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone. If you want them, go for it!
Send replies to rj...@nunki.usc.edu
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Ron Prine
I think that Calvin + Hobbes are real and the rest of the strip is
stuffed animals!!! Or....
Calvin is lying in a hospital bed and imagining the who comic strip.
He will wake up after being hit in the head with a golf ball and tell
his real mother that he just had the weirdest dream. And it lasted 8
years!!! Whoops wrong board!!! :-) Forgot to say that a stuffed
Hobbes doll will be on the bed the whole 8 years!!!
later
Ron
Bill
In one strip Calvin wants to demonstrate his prowess at being an Escape
Artist. He 'has Hobbess tie him up'. Later the dad finds out and later
still wonders how he tied himself up so tight. How did Calvin do this?
Did he tie himself up? The dad spanked Calvin for saying that Hobbes
did it, but he clearly (I think) didn't believe that Calvin could've
done this. So what's up?
- Bill
Jym Dyer
|I| find it endlessly fascinating that a group so concerned with
`-' continuity consistency in stories about people who eat planets
and fart fireballs would argue so mightily about whether or not
Hobbes is real.
.-.
|U|se those fanboy and fangirl talents of yours! Trace continuity
`-' back to the Hobbes Origin Story, and all will be revealed. You
will find that Hobbes was caught in a trap baited with a tuna
sandwich, not purchased at Toys 'R' Us. Ergo, he is real.
"I knew you wouldn't be
antagravated. You're made
out of the same ingreeni-
ents as The Lady." (32)
:::.-----.::: <_Jym_> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.-----.:::
::/ | \:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer ::/ o o \::
::\ /|\ /::::::::::::::::::: j...@mica.berkeley.edu ::\ \___/ /::
:::`-----':::::::::::::::::: Berserkeley, California :::`-----':::
Jym Dyer
}} of course, will live shallow, meaningless lives ending in a
}} lonely unmarked grave.
|H|ow true.
`-'
} Well, I personally think Hobbes is real, all right . . . . My
} only question is, does this ensure me that I'll have a happy
} and fulfilling life?
|I|t's a start. Your grave will be marked, at least. For full
`-' happiness and fulfillment, you have to join a cult. Or start
one.
Ted Ying
>Use those fanboy and fangirl talents of yours! Trace continuity
> back to the Hobbes Origin Story, and all will be revealed. You
> will find that Hobbes was caught in a trap baited with a tuna
> sandwich, not purchased at Toys 'R' Us. Ergo, he is real.
>
wasn't bought that day and Calvin had just gotten him? That strip
could have been Calvin's explanation for the new toy.
Remember, when Calvin told his parents about Hobbes, they weren't
surprised and they didn't wonder where he got that tiger...odd
unless they knew about it.
I happen to agree with David Goldfarb that he is both real and
not.
Ted Ying t...@welch.jhu.edu
#include <std.disclaimer.h>
Tommy: "Gee Captain Buffalo, did you see that?"
Captain Buffalo: "Well Tommy, it looked like he got his man."
Tommy: "Yeah, he oozed all over him. When I grow up I want to
be just like him. Oozing everywhere! He can't be hurt 'cause
he's made of DIRT! Mud-man! MUD-Man!"
Ted Ying
> back to the Hobbes Origin Story, and all will be revealed. You
> will find that Hobbes was caught in a trap baited with a tuna
> sandwich, not purchased at Toys 'R' Us. Ergo, he is real.
>
Jim DePorter
Many years ago, when my daughter was five years old, my wife made some
stuffed toys. One was a beaver and I named him Billy. Anyway I was
holding Billy and I started talking to her as Billy, the 'Hi little
girl, what's your name' type of questions. My daughter would answer
the question then look at me and smile (a neat joke), then..., then
there was this click, this cosmic something and she locked into
talking with Billy. As far as she was concerned I wasn't there, it
was just Billy and her talking. Every time I read C&H I sense some
of the same interactions. Not as intense, not as personal but the
thread is still there.
What's really funny, is the talk about if Hobbes is real or not.
He's as real as Calvin, or as Sam Kinison would say...
HHHEY, HEY, THEY'RE BOTH COMIC BOOK CHARACTERS!!!!!
I believe,
jimd
Brandi Weed
What seems to have been forgotten in the arguments and meta-arguments...
Why should there even be a Hobbes toy mass-marketed in the first place?
Look what happened to Bloom County when the merchandising machine started
cranking up bigtime...
[yeah, I know-- it's not quite June 1st yet.]
--
| Brandi Weed bw...@jarthur.claremont.edu !uunet!jarthur!bweed |