From: mbraun@neptune.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Matthew Braun)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics.strips
Subject: Re: C&H:  Merchandising (was Re: HOBBES (of C&H) Bumper Sticker)
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:01:36 GMT
Reply-To: mbraun@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Followup-To: rec.arts.comics.strips
Distribution: usa
Organization: Somewhere in Motorola


In article <kub95aINNl9j@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, kallen@cs.utk.edu (Karl
Allen) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr10.071810.11703@athena.mit.edu>
anjyii@athena.mit.edu (anjyii) writes:
|> >>>>Please do NOT support anyone you see hocking C&H material.
But when your sister gives you one, and expects you to wear it, and
yet you support Mr. Watterson's position... This is known as an
"ethical dilemma". :-) 

Someone else writes:
|> >>>     Gotta love his ethics.  Nice one, Bill.  

|> I dunno, personally, I think watterson's kind of foolish for not
|> cashing in.
He's facing a mountain of money on one hand, and his ethics on the
other.  I'm pleased that he's made the choice he has.

|> While I do respect the fact that he thinks it would be ethically wrong to do
|> so, and standing by that belief, I question the idea that having Calvin
|> and Hobbes dolls, or whatever, would somehow taint his work.
 Mr. Watterson sees himself as an artist(e), and his work as art.
(Hence his "demand" for C&H to be run on an entire half page of the
Sunday paper, and NOT chop off the first two or three panels to make
room for another strip.  Papers who wouldn't meet his demand (that the
strip be left intact) face the unenviable task of rearranging the
(intentionally) irregularly shaped panels.  

Watterson sees Calvin and Hobbes as a means to entertain people and
possibly make a statement or two.  They aren't "products" to help sell
mugs, lunch boxes, stuffed animals, towels, or life insurance.  By
refusing to merchandise, he has very absolute control over what
happens to the characters.  That's the way he wants it.

|> (And a lot of people wouldn't mind making those mega $$$ even if it
|>*did* taint their work!) 
You're right.  He's not one of them.

|> Years from now, when C&H isn't so hot, I wonder if he'll regret not
|>pulling down those extra millions. Could be money is not important
|>for him, so he won't. That's his decision to make.
Yep.  (Hopefully, the time when it's "not so hot" is a *long* way off.)

|> I know that sounds sort of, well, materialistic, but it doesn't
|> have to be.  If he wanted, he could make all profits from dolls or
|> whatever go to some worthy cause, like keeping tigers alive in the
|> wild. <They are endangered, as he points out a lot.> 
Well, the point isn't the money--it's what selling out, er, I mean
"merchandising" does to your strip.  Watterson believes it would hurt
his and his strip's integrity.

|> My point is that I disagree with the widely held assumption that
|> having spin-off products necessarily makes the comic strip
|> 'impure.'
 His point seems to be that they do, hence his unwillingness to
merchandise it.  Garfield *really* brings in the bucks for Jim Davis.
Really, really.  There's a lot of Garfield merchandise out there.  I
don't think that Davis sees all of the products with Garfield's
name/image on them, nor do I think that just one person could keep up
with the business of merchandising Garfield as well as do a strip.
Thus other people have some say as to what the characters represent,
and how people see them.  Watterson doesn't use art assistants (as
Davis does) and has indicated that he doesn't want to.  I think it all
comes down to control over the characters and their use.  The way
things are now, he has control.  We see C&H the way Bill wants us to
see them.  They say what he wants them to say, and that's it.

|> I would say it depends on the cartoonist. If he gets satisfied, and
|> lazy, and hires others to draw his strip or whatever, then it
|> probably does hurt the strip. If the cartoonist is careful, though,
|> he can maintain the strip's value. As an example of this check out
|> Charles Schultz.  Never had others do his work, doesn't do all
|> sorts of other things that might distract him from his cartooning
|> <like direct movies, or write science fiction> and IMHO Peanuts is
|> as good now as ever. <I know, there's a lot of disagreement on that
|> point. Hence the IMHO.>
Yes, you'd receive a lot of argument without the IMHO. ;-)  Peanuts
borders on the cliched at times, but it occasionally surprises me,
and comes up with a funny strip.  The reason, however, that it seems
cliched is that *he* was the one who came up with the (current day)
cliches back when they were original jokes!  I get the feeling all too
often when I read the strip that he's repeating himself.  

|> Anyway, that's how I see it. Of course, I wouldn't buy a Hobbes doll 
|> anyway. 
 I would.  In a second. ('cause when no one else is looking, they
spring to life, right?! :-) )

A lot of Watterson's views were expressed in an interview he did with
"The Comics Journal" back before he took his sabbatical.  I could post
the issue number if anyone's interested in looking it up.

					m@

+-mbraun@urbana.mcd.mot.com-+--I watch the TV every night --------------------+
|   Matt Braun -- Motorola, |    I stay awake by satellite                    |
|  Urbana, IL Design Centre |  I hope and pray the nightmares                 |
+---------------------------+--- stay away today...   ------------------[DD]--+
Xref: sparky rec.arts.comics.strips:214 soc.culture.canada:3236 soc.culture.usa:2828