Comment by EnKopVand | Hacker News Reader

Comment by EnKopVand | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I do think the “selling out” argument is still a thing in the modern world. Here in Denmark we’re going back and forth on how to regulate things like influencers, and I’m not sure there would be a push back against it if being forced to tell people that you’re advertising a company that pays you money to advertise them wasn’t still seen as negative. Even here on HN it’s not like the buy of Red Hat by IBM was revived with a lot of love.

So I think user deng has a point about “selling out” still being a thing.

That being said, I think there is a big difference between selling out and wanting to remain in control of your creation. I have no idea whether George Lucas likes what happens with Star Wars or not, and I hope I’m not going to start a debate over it either, but by selling it he lost the creative control in a way the Bill Watterson didn’t.

My guess is that being “seen” as a “sell out” isn’t actually something that comes into play when people consider what to do with their creations very often. Because honestly, why would you ever care? So maybe there is less of it today, but to state that our public discourse has changed on the subject? I’m not convinced it has.

Charles Schulz commercialized Charlie Brown. He’s the opposite of Bill Watterson but at the same time he wasn’t Mickey Mouse.

The whole concept of selling out is both particular to a person or in group and also cultural. A related concept is ‘poser’ or ‘poseur’. I think it’s more about fans thinking they’re losing their importance vis a vis the performer or artist. The artist is no longer “exclusive” to them, so to speak as well as no longer an idealized representation of them, the fans.

I feel like Watterson’s stance about licensing was in no small part a direct response to the way Schulz never met a deal he didn’t like. At the time Calvin & Hobbes was becoming successful, there was Peanuts stuff everywhere. Snoopy was in commercials selling life insurance, and it really did feel like this was taking something important out of a small-scale, moody strip about disillusionment and failure.

> I feel like Watterson’s stance about licensing was in no small part a direct response to the way Schulz never met a deal he didn’t like.

Was it his choice? I swear one of the introductions in The Complete Peanuts talks about how Charles Schulz spent much of his life trying to buy back the copyright to his strip.

It has been a long time since I last read any bio material on Schultz so that could certainly be the case! In which case Watterson's lack of licensing becomes more of a triumph of the artist's wishes that's similar to the way Eastman and Laird learnt from the way Marvel fucked over Jack Kirby, and made sure they retained ownership of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

(Which let them do things like "buy Heavy Metal and run it at a loss for a while" and "start a publishing company that became infamous for handing out huge advances to their comics buddies that let them spend a couple years on passion projects instead of turning the Superhero Crank for Marvel/DC", both of which I feel are perfectly delightful ways to deal with making the kind of money they made off the Turtles. The history of Tundra Press is a hell of a ride, if you can find it.)

Didn’t Schultz also criticize other illustrators (including Watterson) for taking sabbaticals as he thought it was unprofessional?

I don't remember that but I don't feel like it's something out of character for Ol' Sparky. Been a heck of a long time since I last read his bio.

Well he's on sabbatical now ...

This was in the early 90s.

Well, both Charles Schulz and Watterson placed immense value in craftsmanship, in that they both valued that their work was untampered by anyone else. Schulz maintained that the strip was unaffected by licensing.

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/selling-newspaper-comic-...

Of the various things you may condemn Walt Disney for, he placed an immense value in craftsmanship as well.

That’s true no doubt. I think when most people criticize Walt it’s about his empire building. Obviously he also had an iron grip on his IP but leveraged that to amplify his empire and to expand into all sorts of other areas. Whereas Bill wanted to limit exposure. So the focus of their visions were markedly different.

Yes, I was commenting on the distinction the above poster was trying to Walt Disney and Charles Schultz (of Peanuts) to move Schultz closer to Watterson.

Schulz did protect his legacy, as can be demonstrated by what has been done with his creations since he passed away. For example, the Peanuts movie from a few years ago was wonderful, and every bit as much in the spirit of what Sparky did when he was working on those things directly. Yes, Peanuts was heavily merchandized, but I still feel that the property has its dignity.

Unlike what happened with Dr. Seuss. Of course, no one can totally control what happens with his or her creations after he or she passes away. Look at how the vultures descended the moment Christopher Tolkien passed away.

> I’m not sure there would be a push back against it if being forced to tell people that you’re advertising a company that pays you money to advertise them wasn’t still seen as negative

Hmm, is this really about “selling out” though? Or is it about trust, and the deception inherent in taking money to say something that people could reasonably believe are your own words?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com