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

Calvin and Hobbes and the price of integrity

therepublicofletters.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 251 posts

Re: Calvin and Hobbes and the price of integrity

#241

Post by toss1 »

randallsquared wrote: post #240
toss1 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>quite stark Yes it is. If you are running a paper and are already under stress and trying to streamline operations and now some cartoonist demands you use a format that requires significant extra work, you'd probably complain too, even threaten to drop that content. Threats are free, and they might work, especially if a lot of papers made similar complaints and threats. But, when it came right down to the actual de…

My comment was not about what happened, which does not need to be justified, in my opinion, especially at this late date. My comment was about the contrast between "widespread" and the actual number that threatened, which was immediately stated to be 15/1800. The actual number that canceled was even smaller, but the characterization of one one-hundred-twentieth as "widespread" was interesting.

Yup, but I'd bet the number who complained approached 1800 and the number of complaints that verbally threatened, or alluded to "having to reconsider whether we run it" vs making a specific written threat was much higher. And yes, they could have been more clear about it.

Re: Calvin and Hobbes and the price of integrity

#242

Post by ASalazarMX »

TFNA wrote: post #206
dmurray wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But don't we all feel sure he could have rolled along for three or two or one more year? Surely it's not like his creativity ran out suddenly on Jan 1 1996 and he had no more comic strips in him. And it's not like the quality of the strips had started a slow decline, so... couldn't we have got one more year of cartoons? I'm kidding really. Bill Watterson doesn't owe us anything; if he was no longer enjoying creating…

> And it's not like the quality of the strips had started a slow decline We have had threads on HN before about C&H where people identify a slight but noticeable change in the strip in the last years. Watterson was naturally growing more ornery as he moved towards dad age, and that more dismal view of the world did grind against the strip’s basis in the wonder and magic of childhood.

Also, culture changes, and treatening a little kid with psychological or physical harm isn't as funny as it was back then. You had to grow up in that era to appreciate it. Despite loving and being loved by their parents, Calvin is frequently terrified of them.

I think this implies that Calvin is not as unruly as it appears, and he was raised with good values, so he still obeys his parents most of the time because he knows they want the best for him.

If we still had Calvin and Hobbes nowadays, it wouldn't be as well received if it didn't change with the times. I can't picture them going to family theraphy, for example, although I haven't read all the strips.

Re: Calvin and Hobbes and the price of integrity

#243

Post by ASalazarMX »

reddalo wrote: post #170
nargek wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't ever joke or trick your kids, they might develop a sense of humor

One thing is letting them develop a sense of humor; another thing is lying to them when they're clearly not able to distinguish between a lie and the truth.

Despite the downvotes, I'm with you in this hill. Kids are gullible because they instinctively trust adults, especially their parents. It's fine to prank them and teach them afterwards how not to be as credulous, it helps their growth. It's bad to abuse their trust for fun, specially long-term falsehoods. It stalls their growth.

Re: Calvin and Hobbes and the price of integrity

#244

Post by kbelder »

dTal wrote: post #136
blindriver wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were a trillionaire like Elon Musk, Bill Watterson would be one of those people I would anonymous gift enough money so that the rest of their lives would be comfortable. We need more people like him, and he should be rewarded for it.

Ah, I think it's safe to say you wouldn't. Nothing against you, but the personality required to acquire a trillion (!!!) dollars is incompatible with the kind of philanthropic thinking you clearly possess.

Most philanthropic spending is from rich people, believe it or not.

Re: Calvin and Hobbes and the price of integrity

#245

Post by pseudohadamard »

lproven wrote: post #193
pseudohadamard wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That surprisingly dark comic which suggested Garfield If you think that's dark you should see all the Zalgo Garfield comics Davis did...

> Zalgo Garfield Those were a fan parody, and were nothing to do with Jim Davis.

Whoosh.

Re: Calvin and Hobbes and the price of integrity

#246

Post by iamtedd »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #239
iamtedd wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only men?

Women who dress like Marlene Dietrich are also acceptable, but that's where I draw the line. More seriously, I should have capitalized the "M" to make clear that it was Men, as in Mankind, but this is the internet in 2026 and most people are only semi-literate. I'm not certain it would have helped. Especially if someone wants to be offended. You just can't stop them if that was their goal going into it.

There is a gender-indeterminate alternative: people.

Using "man" to refer to all people stopped being popular last century.

Re: Calvin and Hobbes and the price of integrity

#247

Post by gnabgib »

annzabelle wrote: post #56
all2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger of "more" is that it dilutes the purpose and voice of the original. "Cowboy Bebop" fits in this same realm, I think. It had a single season. They did a movie. They said everything they needed to say and left it at that.

Firefly is an interesting example of that. If it had not been cancelled so quickly, would anybody remember it these days? A lot of shows start out strong and then completely fall apart.

The show that happened before your fourth birthday? That is interesting https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48563354

Re: Calvin and Hobbes and the price of integrity

#248

Post by rbanffy »

lproven wrote: post #194
rbanffy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes everybody’s day a little bit more surreal. Certainly a worthy cause.

For those who do not know, this comment is itself a C&H reference. https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1986/09/27 https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F4...

Good to see you here, Liam.

This is why I love this community.

Re: Calvin and Hobbes and the price of integrity

#249

Post by wrongtrousers »

jeronimobomfim wrote: post #77

I once posted Bill Watterson's speech to the 1990 graduating class of his alma mater, but it never got to the front pages. I think I tried posting it again, no go. I just made this account so I can try it a third time. More than any comment I could write to some HN post, I wished people would click on the link and read it. Here's hoping some of you will do it, before it's wiped out from the net: https://web.mit.edu/j…

Inspiring and thoughtful! Thanks for sharing

Re: Calvin and Hobbes and the price of integrity

#250

Post by mapontosevenths »

iamtedd wrote: post #246
mapontosevenths wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women who dress like Marlene Dietrich are also acceptable, but that's where I draw the line. More seriously, I should have capitalized the "M" to make clear that it was Men, as in Mankind, but this is the internet in 2026 and most people are only semi-literate. I'm not certain it would have helped. Especially if someone wants to be offended. You just can't stop them if that was their goal going into it.

There is a gender-indeterminate alternative: people. Using "man" to refer to all people stopped being popular last century.

Popularity and correctness are unrelated concepts.

The word "Men" was gender neutral long before it became masculine, and Armstrong did not take "one giant leap for peoplekind".

Post reply on HN