Real quality

[Donald D. Markstein]

> I wonder if you've ever read Calvin & Hobbes? Now, *that*'s a comic I
> would definitely describe as 'real quality'. And as for Donald Duck: you
> know as well as I do that there are many Duck stories of 'very poor
quality'
> out there. (Without suggesting, of course, that your beloved Don Rosa
> calendar might be of 'inferior quality'. I haven't seen it.)
>
> Is it possible to define 'quality', or is it just personal?
> (I think it must be possible to define it, but I wouldn't know how.)

Calvin & Hobbes comes about as close to "objective" quality as it's possible
to come. It has the unique distinction of having won two Reuben Awards in
its first three years, and is almost as popular in reruns as it was when it
was first coming out -- and that's VERY popular.

For that matter, I'm a big fan of Ernie, too, and Beetle Bailey often gets a
laugh out of me as well -- certainly, its average quality is at least on a
level with that of Donald Duck, considering how many different hands have
gone into producing both over the years. I've never seen Pondus, but from
the company it's in here, I suspect I'd probably like it.

Quack, Don

Today in Toons: Every day's an anniversary.
http://www.toonopedia.com/today.htm