Real quality

[The Fenske's]

I'm with Don and Michiel regarding Calvin & Hobbes.  Bill Watterson is a 
brilliant cartoonist,
and his C&H drawings are among the most enjoyable to *look* at of any I've ever
seen.  They are certainly far more expressive and original than most Disney 
product, except
for Don Rosa, Carl Barks, and a number of other Duck artists of 
merit.  Couple that with
Watterson's wry commentaries on life (everything from the meaning of it all to
deep theological reflections and everything in-between), and you have a 
strip that bears
returning to again and again.  C&H is the only strip that ever had me fall 
off a chair howling
with laughter.

The fact that Sigvald would place C&H in the same sentence as *that* s-word 
leads me to
believe that he has never read any.  Am I correct, Sigvald?

And while we're on the topic of great non-Disney cartoons, let us not 
forget Bloom County,
Outland, and The Far Side.  Where have you all gone???

Dave Fenske
- drooling over the anticipated return of Rosa stories to the 
English-speaking world.

At 04:38 AM 12/5/02 -0700, Donald D. Markstein wrote:
> > 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml