The main subjects of this paper are Bill Watterson of Calvin and Hobbes and Jim Davis of Garfield. I also inserted my opinions on merchandising.
Note: DO NOT TAKE THE DISCUSSION OF BILL WATTERSON'S OR JIM DAVIS' WORLDVIEWS AS CONDUCIVE. THIS WAS SPECULATION, INDUCTIVE REASONING, AND GUESSWORK.
Merchandising in the
Comic World
Julie Drohan
Merchandising
is one of the most popular and effective ways to increase revenue in the
entertainment industry. Characters from TV shows, video games, or movies can be
placed onto a product in order to sell it, from food to personal hygiene
products to clothing. Most consumers react to this positively- they enjoy a
tangible form of their favorite show or character that they can interact or
express themselves with. Producers, however, often have vastly different
perspectives on merchandising, showing a much broader spectrum of opinions. The
opinions are especially intense if the media being licensed is a person’s own
creation- enter the world of newspaper comics.
The
difference between newspaper comics and other media is that in comics, only one
or two people usually do all of the work to create the final product, as
opposed to the massive preproduction, production, and postproduction teams that
make movies, shows, and games. Cartoonists usually have a close, personal
connection to their creation as they imagine, develop, write, draw, ink, and
color their characters and their universe into being. Unfortunately, many
cartoonists do not hold the licensing rights to their characters (these usually
have to be bought or otherwise obtained from their syndicate), which are often
exploited by the syndicate in order to increase revenue. Some cartoonists therefore
completely reject the notion of merchandising and relinquishing control and
integrity of their creation, while others choose the extra publicity, money,
and fan-connection that comes with allowing one’s characters to endorse
products.
Bill Watterson on Calvin and Hobbes
Bill
Watterson, the creator of the much-beloved Calvin
and Hobbes comic, is of the (incredibly strong) opinion that merchandising
degrades the original creation and that nobody should be willing to sell out their
comic’s heart and soul. He said, in a speech given at Ohio State University:
“’[T]he comic world is much more fragile than most people realize…[W]onderful,
lifelike characters are easily corrupted and cheapened by having them appear on
every drugstore shelf and rack…Several fine strips have turned themselves into
shameless advertisements for products’” (Martell 128). In relation to worldviews,
Watterson seems to demonstrate a preference for meaning and integrity rather
than an objective. In another speech, he continues on: “’Characters lose their
believability as they start endorsing major companies and lend their faces to
bed sheets and boxer shorts. The appealing innocence and sincerity of cartoon
characters is corrupted when they use those qualities to peddle products’”
(Martell 131). Watterson fought with his syndicate for many years over
licensing his characters and never gave up until he gained the rights himself.
He asks, “’Why compromise my values now? Why tamper with what’s important to
me? The whole fun of doing this is I beat the odds. I beat the system. I get to
do what I want, the way I want to do it’” (Mertell 126).
Watterson
never publicly makes a statement on his worldview, but educated inferences can
be made by looking at this issue. He makes very strong, opinionated statements
on what he believes is “right,” suggesting that he must consider ethics or
personal value as legitimate or innate (at least inside himself), ruling out “objective”
naturalism and “meaningless” nihilism. This likely also rules out the cultural
relativism of postmodernism. His intense attitude against our materialistic
society mixed with his desire to “beat the system” sounds like it could come
from existentialism: “In full recognition of and against the absurdity of the
objective world, the authentic person must revolt and create value” (Sire 123).
The possibility that he believes in God is feasible. It is mentioned in The Universe Next Door that, in
Christian theism, “Human beings are created in the image of God and thus
possess personality, self-transcendence, intelligence, morality, gregariousness
and creativity” (Sire 32). Watterson seems to hold humans as capable of such
characteristics, especially personality, intelligence, and creativity. He could
also be a deist, though it is more likely that he’d be a “warm” deist, as he
appears to rely on emotions and intuition more than subjective, cold reality (in
which he probably wouldn’t care about sacrificing “dignity” of his characters).
Whichever
worldview Watterson actually holds, it seems to give him a strong sense of what
he feels he and others “need” to do to preserve the integrity of their art. He
believes in his convictions and believes that they have value, and that other
humans need to have values too. It seems that his worldview goes quite a bit
into his conclusions.
Jim Davis on Garfield
Jim
Davis, creator of Garfield, is on the complete opposite end of the spectrum
when it comes to opinions on merchandising. Jim Davis studied both art and
business in college before creating Garfield
and, a few years later, founded Paws, Inc. (a company he established a few
years after Garfield’s debut
specifically to handle merchandising). According to an interview done in 1982, the
character of Garfield was “’a conscious effort to come up with a good,
marketable character… And primarily an animal. … Snoopy is very popular in
licensing. Charlie Brown is not’”(Suellentrop). Garfield has endorsed numerous
products across every category imaginable- credit cards, cat food, toys, mugs,
toilet seats, and has had his own movies, TV shows, and books. When asked about
his enthusiastic embracement of licensing, he says, “’I still consider the
comic strip the most important thing I do…I didn’t put the pen to paper when I
first drew Garfield thinking, ‘Oh, now I’m going to ceate a licensing empire.’
It just evolved thanks to the books and the TV shows’” (Martell 122). Davis also
claims that the mediums of animation and such help him explore different sides
of the character, and that “I also happen to like the people I work with – if
Garfield wasn’t a commercial success, I would never have had the opportunity to
meet and work with so many nice, creative, talented, funny people” (Interview). Even with his defenses, many
cartoonists and enthusiasts look down upon him for what they say is “doing art
for the money,” often held as unethical or “selling out” in the art world. When
asked if the commercialization of Garfield
bothered him, Davis answered, “He’s really a character with many expressions
and attitudes, and I think it’s neat if someone can relate to the character
enough to want to demonstrate that by owning something “Garfield”... Garfield’s
success has opened up many doors for me, allowed me to live a comfortable life,
allowed me to travel and see things I might never had seen otherwise’”
(Interview). Davis doesn’t seem to mind being both an artist and a businessman,
though he does seem to be a bit more objective than subjective.
Jim
Davis seems a bit harder to identify a specific worldview with because he
doesn’t appear to have very strong convictions. His comic doesn’t even send
very meaningful messages; it has a very broad appeal because it strives to be
completely inoffensive.
It
appears that Davis does believe that humanity and subjectivity are valuable,
and that there are human truths that he strives to represent in his comics. His
goal of making a character people can relate to shows this. He does not seem to
be coming from an existentialist point of view because he embraces both the
objective and subjective parts of the world, rather than trying to revolt
against a cold, hard world that existentialists already believe is there.
Rather, he enjoys life as it is- “I love the good things in life – food,
relaxing, TV, food… On the other hand, I’m pretty driven and a hard worker…”
(Interview). He does not regret merchandising at all, as it has opened up his
options (financially) and has allowed him to live such a life. Davis appears to
be a warm person with a warm view on life- His worldview does not seem to hold
a “cold,” objective universe as its foundation. It can be inferred that he is
likely a warm deist or a Christian theist.
Jim
Davis’ (assumed) warm worldview seems to influence his view on merchandising in
a positive way. The fact that Davis embraces marketing it in order to relate to
other people, meet people, and make money so that he can enjoy life seems to
show this. It does not sound like he only cares about making money; it sounds
like he enjoys exploring other media for Garfield
and also happens to be good at marketing him. (Others disagree.)
My Opinions on
Merchandising
Reading
both Davis’ and Watterson’s view on this controversial issue helped me form a
better explanation of my opinion on merchandising. I agree with Watterson’s
attitude about how merchandising has the great potential to destroy the heart
and soul of a comic or its characters, especially if they appear as innocent
and deep as in Calvin and Hobbes. If characters are meant to exist only
in a certain context, their believability can be destroyed if they are used to
endorse a product or placed into another context (a TV show, for example). Additionally, if the market ends up
saturated with a certain character, people get tired of seeing it. (For
example, I was a rather big fan of SpongeBob for a while, and I enjoyed being
able to buy, say, a T-shirt with him on it. But after 15 years SpongeBob is
still everywhere, and quite frankly, I’m sick and tired of seeing him.)
I
agree with Jim Davis (though I still think he’s gone a mite crazy with the
variety of products- toilet seats??) in his vision of creating and sharing a
versatile character with people in a tangible context that they can enjoy.
Garfield is a character that is simple and relatable, and people who do relate
can express this through owning or displaying a Garfield product. I don’t think the products denigrate the original
comic, because the comic wasn’t that spectacular to begin with anyways. To me, Garfield merchandise feels compatible
with the comic, as Garfield’s simple personality can be translated to almost
any product without losing much. However, I do feel like Calvin and Hobbes are
characters that should remain in their comic and I can easily see their essence
degraded by existing as a mug or a toy. (Watterson did end up releasing two
16-month calendars, and I see why he would allow this-it’s modest and the
characters still exist in the second dimension.)
For
me personally, some of my characters (I create comics too, though they are more
long-form than newspaper form) are more like Watterson’s- a personal outlet to
voice my opinions. They are deep and have complex backgrounds and
personalities. I could not see them on products, because that most definitely
would destroy their integrity. I believe they belong in their own complex
world. Some of my other characters are more iconic and simple- these are the
characters that I wouldn’t mind releasing a few products of (as long as these
were tasteful, and as long as there aren’t too many products released-this, in
my opinion, makes them less valuable). I’m not against trying to make more
money, but I don’t agree with any naked embracement of greed.
The
art world, I feel, has a unique set of ethics. Many artists see releasing
products of their characters as “selling out,” which appears unethical in a
world where the ethereal is generally what matters the most (or, subjectivity
matters more than objectivity). To one outside of art, this may or may not
appear like an ethical issue at all, more like a logical one: “Well, if you can
make money, why not?” It is simply not that, well, simple.
I
feel like my Christian theist worldview allows me to appreciate the personal,
human elements of art, and therefore I lean less towards the commercial side
and more towards the side of representation and artistic integrity. I believe
that God made humans to create and represent beauty, but he also made us so
that we can enjoy life by making money and working hard. If I can build relationships
or spread love through the use of licensing, this sounds acceptable too. If I held
any other worldview, I would likely care less about souls (even of characters) and
a bit more about money (I’m not saying anyone else of other worldviews do, this
is a personal prediction), but not necessarily by that much. The ethereal
(especially intuition and feelings) is a large part of who I am. I hope
humanity can benefit from my comics and I also hope that I can be a Christian
influence for God through them too. This is what I feel I was put on earth to
do.
Bibliography
"Garfield
& Friends | An Interview with Jim Davis." Garfield.com. Paws, Inc., N.p., n.d. Web.
03 Apr. 2014. <http://garfield.com/an-interview-with-jim-davis>.
Martell,
Nevin. Looking for Calvin and
Hobbes: The Unconventional Story of Bill Watterson
and His Revolutionary Comic Strip. New York: Continuum, 2009. Print.
Sire,
James W. The Universe next Door: A
Basic Worldview Catalog. 5th ed. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 2009. Print.
Suellentrop,
Chris. "Why We Don't Hate Garfield." Slate.com. Slate Magazine, 11 June 2004.
Web. 03 Apr. 2014. <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/06/garfield.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment