Hacker News Reader

Comment by fermigier | Hacker News Reader

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/30/the-mysteries-...

I've read, many times (it's a very short read), M. Watterson's (and his friend's John Kascht) latest work, "The Mysteries", and I very much like it. It's a multifaceted fable that explores, among other things, the tension between curiosity and control, and the allure and danger of technological progress. "The Mysteries" takes a more somber and philosophical approach, and its graphical style is radically different from C&H's, but I think it still shares with C&H a deep appreciation for the mysteries of life and the power of imagination to enrich our understanding of the world.

View on HN

There's a YouTube video with the two creators discussing their process on the book:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=HHND7L1wUl0

I was excited for the chance to finally see Watterson's face, as the only picture of him I've seen is from the 80s, but the interview only shows the hands of both of them.

It cracks me up how much he looks like “Dad” in the strip in those 80s photos.

That is the only photo of him!

I’ve read the “mysteries” book too, and would recommend. I think it’s the first book from Waterson since stopping Calvin and Hobbs.

It’s quite different from Calvin and Hobbs, heavier but really thought provoking. I found myself thinking about the story after the fact.

To each their own, but the book would never have sold any copies if Bill's name wasn't attached to it. I purchased a copy on Amazon and thought I was hoodwinked. It felt like a pure cash grab.

Imagine accusing a guy who could with a stroke of a pen have earned many millions of dollars in royalties and didn't for purely artistic purity reasons of a cash crab. What a silly thing to say.

And I admire him for his principles during that time. That said, regarding “The Mysteries”, I just feel that others wax poetic about it because of Bill. If anyone else was attached to this book, nobody would give a damn. I’m sorry I expected more and am hype resistant. And I say this as someone that loved Calvin and Hobbes.

To be fair to Bill… he didn’t hype up anything about it. The media did. It was heralded as the second coming and, much like Duke Nukem Forever, some things are best left in the past. It’s ok.

I think what the person who replied to you is primarily reacting to is the term “cash grab”. And that is what I will focus on.

You yourself mentioned that Bill did not hype up anything about it, nor did you really counter with any arguments to prove that it was financially motivated.

I myself have not read it, but just because it was not what you expected or what the media portrayed it to be does not make it a “cash grab”.

Can't believe someone would look at the art in The Mysteries and call it a cash grab. It oozes personality and thoughtfulness. It's true it wouldn't have sold any copies if his name weren't attached though.

The art certainly was sorta-interesting (if not weirdly AI-gen looking), but somehow I expected more for his out of the blue return after decades being off the radar.

Did you just, like, purchase it without having any concept of what it was? It's certainly different from Calvin and Hobbes, but there was no indication that it wouldn't be. Making a fairly artistic book with niche appeal is actually the opposite of a cash grab.

Perhaps. But I get the sense from folks here that anyone who once did massive hits (like Calvin and Hobbes) are simply beyond reproach, which is ridiculous to me. Even as an art book, the art feels weirdly AI-like to me and not particularly special. Again, personal opinion. I thought it was overrated for what it was.

Everyone is free to buy it to support him though if they feel differently about it.

I’ve replied to your other comment and I am replying again only after reading the other comments here, but I just realized here that I don’t think anyone is invalidating your experience of not liking it, but specifically reacting to the term cash grab.

Fair. I might have been a bit harsh with that point in hindsight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com