Hacker News Reader

Comment by omgsean | Hacker News Reader

That being said, I would have loved a Hobbes stuffed animal when I was a kid, and I'd love to be able to give one to my kids someday (provided the hours I spend with my laptop hasn't rendered me completely infertile).

View on HN

I actually had one. I'm about the same age as Watterson, and had a stuffed tiger that was identical to the one in the strip. I have a sneaking suspicion that he did to, since he captures the odd proportions of the original so perfectly. In any case, it adds a whole 'nother level when I read the strip, allowing me to relate to it eerily well. That tiger was threadbare after years of being my constant companion (my mom had to sew the tail back on several times).

Everyone in the world would have loved a Hobbes animal. He could have made a mint off of that. Which makes his decision not to merchandise one of the most impressive displays of artistic integrity I know of.

How is that artistic integrity? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they never went the way of Garfield or The Simpsons, but a couple of simple stuffed animals would have been great.

It's not really about what we think would or wouldn't have been great. Watterson felt that a Hobbes toy wouldn't be true to the spirit of the strip - I'm sure he had his reasons, though I don't know what they are. And to choose that faithfulness to his vision over the millions he could have raked in by simply signing a piece of paper and sending it off to his syndicate - that's what I am calling artistic integrity.

I suppose. I would guess (or hope at least) that he simply wasn't given the choice to just release a few tasteful products. It was probably either release nothing or go whole hog into Lady Krusty Moustache Removal System territory.

So it couldn't possibly be that he's against merchandising, but rather it wasn't classy enough for him.

"Actually, I wasn't against all merchandising when I started the strip"

I think you've got a really good point here. Speaking from the syndicate's point of view, it's highly inefficient and a poor bargaining position if you have to get authorial approval for each and every item. Watterson probably never had a choice, it was either authorize BOTH the Hobbes doll AND the peein' Calvin doll, or neither at all.

Part of the magic of Hobbes is that Watterson never resolves the issue of his true form. To Calvin, he is a real tiger. To his parents (and everyone else), he is a stuffed animal. To sell a plush-toy version of Hobbes would make this dichotomy less compelling. It would be like knowing the Secret of Monkey Island.

I personally think that a perfectly normal Hobbes stuffed doll would be an incredible incitement to a child's imagination. Instead of a talking Dora the Explorer doll that can replay the voice of the actress from the cartoon, the child (or child at heart) would be compelled to imitate Calvin and use their imagination.

And as to killing the magic, I'd think it's safe to presume that anyone with the agency and means to obtain a Hobbes doll could also can handle the fact that Calvin lives inside a comic strip with his Hobbes, but the one you've got is different

Reply on news.ycombinator.com