Cage match: Watterson vs Schulz; and the selling out of the comic strip

Comments ⁹

1. Tom Falco

   If the quality of the comic strip does not go down, what’s the difference if it’s commercialized or not? I know the article said that Schulz went downhill after the 1970s and whether that is true or not has nothing to with the commercialization.

   Now current day: I do have a problem with the new movie. His family should let the strip remain the way it is without trying to capitalize on it after Schulz’s death. That doesn’t sit right with me.

2. Pete McDonnell

   Luke Epplin’s essay is the best thing I’ve ever read that discusses Schulz & Watterson’s diametrically opposed viewpoints on cartooning vs. commerce. It’s very well reasoned and written…I highly recommend that you read it!

3. Keith Brown

   Man….I would sell out in a heartbeat!

4. Carl Moore

   I concur with Pete McDonnell. This is an excellent article, clearly written and stuffed with content.

   I’m with Schulz. Cartooning is a craft, a commercial craft, not fine art. Calvin and Hobbes was a terrific strip, but it was not fine art and no amount of Watterson’s trying to push the round peg of cartooning into the square hole of fine art will change that obvious fact. As much as one can admire Watterson’s great talent, it’s hard not to detect a whiff of snobbery in his anti-money, anti-commerce, hey-look-at-me-how-free-I-am-of-you-money-grubbing-slobs rants. Unfortunately, it detracts from an otherwise great strip… By the way, since when is Calvin not a “cute” character? And Hobbes too. The Calvin and Hobbes strip – though from a far different angle – has every bit the cuteness in its DNA that Peanuts does. Sorry, Mr. Watterson, your strip was a least 75% successful due to its cuteness factor.

5. Charles Brubaker

   In the end, it really boils down to how much the creator wants to control how their work is exploited (or not exploited). Both creators were within their rights to do what they please.

   Personally speaking, if anyone expresses interest in commercializing “Ask a Cat”, I’d agree to it.

6. Dan Rosandich

   At the very least, why didn’t Watterson foresake those earnings and have that stream of money put into a foundation named after him where that cash could have been dispersed for underprivilged
   youth, i.e. college funds, educational programs, art school and the list goes on. He certainly didn’t think it through clearly enough and had no foresight or leap logic. His snobbery trumped his logic.

7. Alyssa Martin

   The article completely overlooks a crucial aspect of Watterson’s position:

   When he made most of the more aggressive anti-licensing comments, was entrenched in a long battle with his syndicate, despite having very legal basis for his standpoint.

   If you actually go back, and look at the way he felt before licensing was an issue for him, and his more RECENT comments on the subject (see the book about his exhibit at the Billy Ireland Cartoon Museum), he’s actually not that against licensing. Heck, before they wanted to give Calvin and Hobbes the Garfield treatment, he actually approved two wall calendars. (He has also approved of a children’s textbook, and a MoMa t shirt.)

   What Watterson is against- is having a total lack of control over the licensing done with one’s work. Before he had that fight with Universal- most cartoonists did not own their own work. They didn’t get any say over what their characters were used for.

   But if he’d have taken the moderate position in his fight with the syndicates, he’d have lost. He had to take an all-or-nothing stance, otherwise his position would have been seen as weak and the syndicate would have been able to manipulate him into approving products he wasn’t happy with. Watterson didn’t have a choice- he had to turn it into a moral argument, and then stick to it.

8. Dan Rosandich

   Alyssa: Your insight gives a different perspective. The “no control” aspect puts a completely different spin on it.

9. Anne Morse Hambrock

   As good as the original article is, I was equally interested in Jason Chatfield’s take on it. I learned a lot about Ginger Meggs and it’s place in the firmament of commercialized comic properties.

   When I attended the 2010 toonfest and listened to the presentation given by Marcus Hamilton I learned that Hank Ketcham had been using gag writers as early as the 3rd year of production of Dennis The Menace. In essence, for most of his cartooning career, Ketcham was simply an illustrator of other people’s jokes. He illustrated the jokes in his own way with a character of his own creation, but he was hardly a one man shop like Schulz or Watterson.

   And the more deeply you dig into the business of producing comics the more you find how unusual the “one man shop” model is. Many, many comic strips are produced by teams – something that, during the heyday of strips like L’il Abner was the norm. Heck, Li’l Abner and The Spirit were produced by an entire staff.

   Are comics art? Of course they are. They are drawn by artists, some of whom have the artistic talent to rival almost any fine artist you can name. But are they also a commercial product? Unless the creator of the comic is independently wealthy and never takes a dime, either for the original content or for ancillary properties, every comic is produced for commercial use – print or web.