Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear Mr. Watterson

dearmrwatterson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–45 of 45 posts

Re: Dear Mr. Watterson

#41

Post by breadbox »

raldi wrote: post #8

When Calvin & Hobbes shut down in 1995, Bill Watterson wrote a letter explaining why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Watterson#End_of_Calvin_an... His two stated reasons were the pressure of coming up with seven strips a week and a distaste for the tiny space newspapers gave him to work with: " I believe I've done what I can do within the constraints of daily deadlines and small panels. I am eager to work at a mor…

I think you have mistakenly assumed that sharing his work with the public was not Watterson's absolute least favorite aspect of being a creator. I have no doubt that he is still pursuing creative activities, but I'd be surprised if he decided to share any of it with the world anytime soon. (I figure it will come out either after his death, or once enough decades have passed for him to feel up to facing the public.)

Re: Dear Mr. Watterson

#43

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

fusiongyro wrote: post #34
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment reminds me of the Simpson's Treehouse of Horror episode where an omnipotent Bart is forcing Crusty to perform 24 hours a day. He made people happy for a decade (and longer with reruns and memories) and you've decided he's an asshole for not doing it for longer. I think that's harsh - ultimately you're saying you want him to do work he isn't happy with and causes him stress for your entertainment.

Your version of me is detestable, but it isn't what I'm really saying. I think you should be able to appreciate the nuances of my point. When a person in a particular line of work says they're going to work on different projects, you interpret that differently than if they say they're going to retire. If someone is not retiring but simply choosing not to exercise their talents, they're being selfish. I am not saying…

It seems there is a reasonable but incorrect assumption here - that the next thing he did would also be public. As I say, that assumption is perfectly reasonable, but it was still an assumption rather than something he said and it turned out to be incorrect.

If you think he knew for sure that he wouldn't do anything similar again yet said this then you'd be justified in saying that he'd mislead people (which wouldn't make him a hypocrite, rather an outright liar) but there's no evidence that that's the case. The guy worshipped cartoons and had worked for years to become then remain a cartoonist. As stressed as he'd been by it all I suspect he felt there was a chance he'd return to it at some point (and may still do, though that seems unlikely now).

But at the time he quit, like many people ending a long term, all consuming project which has left them financially secure, all he really knew was that he was going to take some time out then do something different without really knowing what.

Sure it would have been great had he felt that he had another great, public venture in him but he didn't and I don't think there's anything at all to criticise in what he did or how he did it. That's not saying he's a saint (I think he unwillingness to speak about almost anything since is slightly off, though it is his right), just that I don't think he's done anything to deserve criticism in the way you're suggesting.

Re: Dear Mr. Watterson

#44

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

techtalsky wrote: post #38
Tyrannosaurs wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly Jim Davis stopped doing Garfield ages ago - he just had a team of people doing it on his behalf so he could keep making the money... Obviously it diminished any legacy Garfield has had but he's still got to go and do what he wanted (Orson's Farm). But it's not clear that Waterson's something else would ever be commercial or public - just that he was going to go and do something that wasn't Calvin and Ho…

I wonder how he managed to be "financially secure for life" without any merchandising. Just from book sales and syndication money? That seems amazing.

As of January 2010 it had been featured in 2,400 newspapers worldwide and there are 18 books with combined sales of nearly 45 million... Reruns of the strip still appear in over 50 countries.

He's married but has no children and seems, from what you can read, to live a relatively modest life.

I'm assuming that adds up to being secure and I suspect if it were to go one way or another from secure it would go towards being very well off indeed.

Post reply on HN