In the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, was there any moment where Calvin realised that Hobbes wasn't real?
Asked
Active
Viewed 3.6k times
133
-
Don't think so, but there are various versions by others that touch on this theme: https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-story-behind-the-fake-final-Calvin-and-Hobbes-strip – BCdotWEB Apr 04 '17 at 09:09
-
143But is he real... – Mithical Apr 04 '17 at 09:20
-
36@Mithrandir - Oh, the feels.. The feeeeeels. – Valorum Apr 04 '17 at 09:42
-
79On what basis do you presume that Hobbes isn't real? The comic strip was always deliberately ambiguous on that point, and Watterson maintained the ambiguity when asked about it. – user14111 Apr 04 '17 at 10:07
-
No. – Tot Zam Apr 04 '17 at 16:04
-
23I don't think this use of the word "real" is the best fit. Are you claiming there is no stuffed animal? Of course, all parties agree that Hobbes is real. The question is, what is his nature. – user151841 Apr 04 '17 at 16:50
-
2Someone made this comic recently. It's more commentary than anything, but it's relevant to the question – Machavity Apr 04 '17 at 17:15
-
2There's a meta discussion as to whether or not Calvin and Hobbes is on topic. – Null Apr 04 '17 at 21:40
-
13@user151841 For now, we should probably restrict ourselves to the question of whether Hobbes is alive. The question of what constitutes his essential nature is probably a bit too in-depth to resolve while not riding a toboggan. – Ray Apr 05 '17 at 00:35
-
2This question seems to have struck a nerve. To encourage dispassionate, on-topic responses, the question might be better phrased as "Does Calvin ever see Hobbes as a stuffed toy?". – Gaultheria Apr 05 '17 at 05:55
-
You should watch some magician show, "mindfXck" or some of the thousand or so optical illusions you can find on the internet. Human perception is extremely flawed. The brain cheats on us and takes short cuts to explain reality for us all the time. You simply can't know what is or isn't real. There is no reason to label anything that can cause a change in a person as unreal. Because it is real by the simple definition that it clearly matters (to someone). – mathreadler Apr 05 '17 at 21:20
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyXJfUPSQhM – Jason C Apr 06 '17 at 12:39
-
3Next you're gonna tell me that Woody & Buzz aren't real simply because Andy never sees them move. – Omegacron Apr 07 '17 at 13:07
-
What is "real"? How do you define "real"? – David Apr 07 '17 at 16:51
-
Sometimes, Calvin does realise that other people see just a stuffed toy, but Hobbes himself doesn't. http://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lswkj26hY81qdp8pko1_500.gif – Mr Lister Apr 07 '17 at 18:15
-
5As it turns out, none of the characters are "real" - they're characters in a comic strip. You're projecting your own perspective on reading the comics into the question, but that may not be real either. – Scott Apr 07 '17 at 19:09
-
@Scott If you mean that the question is lacking the phrase "in universe", just say so. Otherwise, let me state here for the record that the "fi" in "scifi" stands for "fiction" and that we're all aware of that. – Mr Lister Apr 08 '17 at 05:57
-
9Did the parents ever realise that Hobbes was real? – Golden Cuy Apr 08 '17 at 08:14
-
1It was never established "in universe" that Hobbes was not real or really alive. So the question presumes something else from the op's perspective. – Scott Apr 08 '17 at 12:47
-
1"The idea of a Hobbes doll is especially noxious, because the whole intrigue of Hobbes is that he may or may not be a real tiger. The strip deliberately sets up two versions of reality without committing itself to either one." -- Bill Watterson. (He repeats the same point in the 10th anniversary collection, as I recall.) – E.P. Apr 09 '17 at 19:59
-
I also noticed when re-reading the comics recently, that other people don't call Hobbes "a toy doll". They call him "a stuffed tiger", which is not quite the same, now is it! – Mr Lister Apr 10 '17 at 10:14
7 Answers
228
The assumption in the question is mistaken.
As @Mithical already linked above, it's a common assumption of adult readers that Hobbes couldn't possibly be real but that's just not how the actual comic works. Watterson intentionally left the entire issue unresolvable, with strips like this
where Hobbes should need to be real for Calvin to be in the situation he's in. The shift between how Calvin and his parents see the world is very real and part of what the comic explores, but Watterson didn't feel the parents were right and Calvin was wrong.
-
14
-
But see this and the previous strip where Calvin imagines he is a tiger but he actually isn't, and both his parents can see that he's just imagining things. – user21820 Apr 04 '17 at 16:33
-
56@user21820 - That is in no way different than Calvin seeing Hobbes as a real tiger and everyone else seeing him as a toy. Calvin has his reality in the comic, and everyone else has a different reality. You are demanding that the adult reality is the "true" one. But in the zeitgeist of the comic, this isn't the case. They simply coexist side-by-side. You are free to adopt one as your own, but that is you putting in an interpretation that Watterson clearly says he didn't intend. – Paul Sinclair Apr 04 '17 at 16:57
-
8
-
6I don't know if I would go as far as to say it was impossible for Calvin to get himself in that situation. I see that as a playful reminder of how some kids can get themselves into crazy, seemingly incomprehensible situations. – Casey Kuball Apr 04 '17 at 17:28
-
@PaulSinclair: Where in my comment did I say that Calvin's reality is not real, even if it is in the mind? – user21820 Apr 04 '17 at 17:33
-
5@user21820 - You said so right here: "Calvin imagines he is a tiger but he actually isn't" and here: "both his parents can see that he's just imagining things". Mind you, there is nothing wrong with taking this interpretation - just as long as you keep in mind that it is your interpretation, not the author's, nor one that others necessarily should share. – Paul Sinclair Apr 04 '17 at 23:16
-
28I think the storyline where Calvin duplicates himself (and the duplicate makes several more copies) is an even better example of the two realities than Hobbes tying up Calvin. Think about where the worms came from in the adult reality. Then think about Calvin's reality. Here, the disconnect is much stronger, but it's also subtle because the adults never investigate where Calvin got the worms. – Wildcard Apr 05 '17 at 02:04
-
2Although not by Watterson, I like this old man Calvin story. Once he's grown up and left imaginary friends behind. http://www.tickld.com/x/this-guy-just-changed-the-way-we-seecalvin-and-hobbes – Darren Bartrup-Cook Apr 05 '17 at 11:10
-
-
2@MissMonicaE: Here's the strip. Here's the book. If you haven't read it already, do. – lly Apr 05 '17 at 12:55
-
-
3Calvin doing things which seem to be impossible to pull off alone are not necessarily proof that Hobbes is real. It can be a joke of how many surprising and unexplained things a 5 year old child can do. I've seen small children find hidden things and crawl into places I wouldn't have thought possible before. – vsz Apr 05 '17 at 21:46
-
1@vsz And that's the "he doesn't think Calvin is right and his parents are wrong" side of the same coin. – lly Apr 06 '17 at 12:10
-
3I don't know if anyone will click through to see all this, but someone posted a follow-up question: Does Hobbes ever do anything that Calvin himself could not do? [The short answer is 'yes', but mostly within Calvin's perspective so you can handwave it if you like being adult about the whole thing.] – lly Apr 06 '17 at 12:11
-
There is always Bacon and Hobbes: http://www.pantsareoverrated.com/archive/2011/05/10/hobbes-and-bacon/ – MichaelF Apr 08 '17 at 03:21
87
No.
Calvin's parents mostly play along with his belief Hobbes is real. But when Susie directly points out that Hobbes is a stuffed toy, Calvin simply ignores her:
In the very last panel of the comic, we see Calvin as convinced as ever that Hobbes is a real tiger:
Mithical
- 38,898
- 17
- 178
- 229
Royal Canadian Bandit
- 36,854
- 8
- 120
- 142
-
1Surely I'm not the only one that expected Calvin to start "writing" in the snow at the end... – NotMe Apr 05 '17 at 14:09
-
2Somewhere, in one of my boxes of old work stuff, I have a framed copy of that last panel. I should dig it out and hang it up here at home. – Hot Licks Apr 06 '17 at 20:55
-
I think this is more conclusive proof that Hobbes is not real: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ba/88/34/ba8834c5302faf4ae1bc649ecdafe72e.jpg – Navin Apr 08 '17 at 22:49
-
2Conversely, here is more proof that he IS real. Calvin often imagines things, often lives in his own fantasy world. And the strip's format is so that the whole comic is set in this fantasy world of his, except for the last panel, which is set in the real world. And sure enough, Hobbes is real in the last panel more often than not. Example. So Hobbes is not part of Calvin's imaginary world. – Mr Lister Apr 10 '17 at 10:11
30
What makes you think that he's not real?
First, consider what you mean by "real." If you mean "could you put a video camera there and record Hobbes doing the things that the comic strip has him doing with Calvin?", that's deliberately left ambiguous in the comic strips. In fact, even in a strip where Calvin takes photographs of Hobbes, Calvin and his dad just see the pictures differently, so it resolves nothing - it's not clear what the pictures "really" look like.
I'm not convinced that the "video-camera approach" is the best way to view this, though. Try to view it through the characters' POV. From Calvin's POV, yeah, he's real. From the other characters' POV, he's a stuffed tiger. I don't think that it's really important (or provable from the comic strip) which one is "correct" in the video camera sense.
EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine
- 5,763
- 5
- 25
- 59
-
10I hope you recall the strip where Calvin takes pictures of Hobbes making goofy faces? Video cameras prove absolutely nothing, either. – Wildcard Apr 05 '17 at 01:59
-
4
-
@Wildcard That's true, it had slipped my mind :) - weren't his parents looking at the pictures at the time, though? – EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine Apr 05 '17 at 03:12
-
23Calvin and his dad both look, with different results. See for yourself. – Wildcard Apr 05 '17 at 03:24
-
1
-
3There is one strip where Calvin takes a photo of Hobbes pouncing as the front door is opened. His dad accuses him of throwing Hobbes up in the air and taking a picture of it. – Perkins Apr 06 '17 at 18:07
-
@Perkins: that's feb 27 1994: https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1994/02/27 – jmoreno Jul 08 '18 at 20:10
8
As far as I understood when I read Calvin and Hobbes, the situations Calvin finds himself are always ambiguous. One could choose to believe that Calvin just has a high imagination in his role play with his stuffed toy or one could believe that Hobbes is some kind of magical toy that comes to life only for Calvin and is a stuffed toy to the rest of them. something like Perry in "Phineas and Ferb" (just the concept not the stuffed part).
And I always read these comics from the second point of view because it makes it that much more fun. Especially since we never hear dialogues from Hobbes when there are other people around. All his interactions are mostly done when they are alone.
-
I seem to remember Calvin arguing with Hobbes in front of Suzie Derkins. Calvin obviously hears Hobbes' comments, but Suzie doesn't, and they don't appear in the comic panel. – Wildcard Apr 05 '17 at 23:56
-
-
1In all the ones i remember, calvin is generally caught reacting by others to something hobbes has already done when others were not observing. So it appeared as though calvin was talking to his toy. – Dev Apr 06 '17 at 06:37
-
Sorry, I don't really know of an easy way to find the strip online. I'm about to reread the books, though, so I'll say what book and page if I find it. – Wildcard Apr 06 '17 at 06:47
-
-1
I'd argue yes, in this strip (May 20, 1986):
Mithical
- 38,898
- 17
- 178
- 229
Simon Zuckerbraun
- 123
- 1
-
9Hey, welcome to the site! Could you add any explanation as to why you'd argue yes on the basis of this strip :S Really looks like he's playing a trick on the tiger he thinks is there by pretending he can see another one which he knows isn't there – Au101 Apr 07 '17 at 19:31
-
3@Au101 I think this is meant to imply that Hobbes is not a real tiger, because there's almost no reason a real tiger would be so startled when he is notified of another tiger. – Gallifreyan Apr 07 '17 at 20:22
-
5@Gallifreyan It could also be because hobbes is a tame tiger who lives with calvin and is afraid of a more carnivorous tiger especially living in wild. So this is NOT a proof that Calvin realized Hobbes was not a real tiger. – Dev Apr 08 '17 at 10:38
-
4Sure, the obvious implication here is just that Hobbes is a "housecat" so he jumps at wild tigers. – Fattie Apr 09 '17 at 14:24
-
7I find it really interesting that everyone else reads this differently - I've always interpreted that strip as him pointing at Hobbes, because he knows Hobbes will instinctively assume he means another, wild tiger. – tardigrade Apr 10 '17 at 06:24
-
-5
The simple answer is: No, he hasn't.
All the answers stating the ambiguity of Watterson's writing are over-thinking the concept of Hobbes, which is that he is real in the eyes of Calvin and Calvin alone.
I would like to point out this strip:
AncientSwordRage
- 81,809
- 110
- 444
- 892
Nonagon
- 226
- 1
- 6
-
5Can you offer any evidence that this is the case? As written it seems like your personal opinion – Valorum Apr 05 '17 at 11:31
-
As is evident by Panels such as @Royal Canadian Bandit's example. It is not an opinion, it is clearly shown that it is how Calvin sees Hobbes, same with Spaceman Spiff – Nonagon Apr 05 '17 at 11:35
-
2As has been pointed out (by me, in the cross-site duplicate) there are also instances where Hobbes appears to have undertaken actions that Calvin couldn't have managed on his own. Reaching high objects, for example, or tying up Calvin with ropes. – Valorum Apr 05 '17 at 11:40
-
-
Not as far as I can recall, but then I haven't read every C&H comic ever written – Valorum Apr 05 '17 at 11:53
-
Haha, that is a very fair point! Although its sad to think we eventually will – Nonagon Apr 05 '17 at 11:56
-
I don't understand the previous three comments at all, from Nonagon and @Valorum. – Wildcard Apr 06 '17 at 02:34
-
Fwiw, Hobbes is shown as a real tiger, alongside a real bunny, at a tea party with Susie. It's more about childish imagination than Calvin's magic/personal imagination/psychosis. – lly Apr 07 '17 at 17:40
-
I joined this SE for the sole purpose of upvoting your answer and writing this comment. I won't bother to downvote the other ones. I'm just feeling that I'm living a very bad nightmare right now. What is the chance of humankind ever resolving its problems if educated individuals with the means to access the internet give the answers above and upvote them? And I'm extremely serious. There is always hope that political and psychological differences can be worked out through logic, persuasion and reality testing - until one sees the reality testing that takes place in this no-stakes discussion. – Apr 09 '17 at 13:50
-
1
-
@Nonagon isnt that the whole point of mystery with the tiger? the fact that he could be coming alive only when he is alone with calvin is itself magical/unexplained. So it could be that its temporaray scientific achievement and calvin changes back to himself when he finally finds others as is the case in many comedic scenes of other fictions where some great achievement gets conveniently destroyed just to fit it in real world scene. – Dev Jan 16 '18 at 10:32
-
@Dev I always saw it as the world through the eyes of a child with a great imagination. But people seem to want it to be literal – Nonagon Jan 18 '18 at 10:53
-
@Nonagon if some people seem to want it to be literal, then some people think its just his imagination. That is why the plot is always written in such a way that both sides could be absolutely true which is what makes it fun to read. – Dev Feb 23 '18 at 10:59
-
I've locked this to prevent a rollback/edit war, and rolled it back to the more accessible version. – AncientSwordRage Dec 14 '23 at 11:46
-7
Some answers are stating what the comic's author intended which is the characters never actually state this. Some may claim Susie does, but the conversation is between Calvin and her so from the reader's perspective it's a he said/ she said scenario and can't reliably answer the realness of Hobbes. Also, what an author's intent for their work doesn't matter. If what they write leads most readers to interpret the words differently, then they are horrible writers and couldn't convey the meaning they intended. What we can say to answer this question, at no time is it illustrated in the comics that Calvin views Hobbes as anything other than a "real" tiger. Anything else outside those panels is pure speculation including the author's intent.
user99448
- 15
-
4Take a look at our [tour], you will find we prefer answers supported by facts rather than opinion based "rants". Feel free to [edit] your answer to make it more factual. – Edlothiad Apr 05 '17 at 06:41
-
10An author's intent most certainly does matter. This idea that a work of art, once free into the world, is a wholly separate entity from the creator is revisionist bunk, designed to allow poseurs to contradict the obvious – Valorum Apr 05 '17 at 07:12
-
3Intent doesn't matter. What does matter is what the reader understands when he reads the words you choose to put down. Suppose I wrote you a note that says "I will meet you on Thursday". I give the note to you on Monday. On Wednesday, I see you and ask "Where were you yesterday?" You wouldn't have any idea what I was talking about. If you point that out to me and I respond with "I intended to say 'Tuesday'". It won't change what you actually wrote and what you understood when you read it. – user99448 Apr 06 '17 at 12:45
-
1Fact: Calvin and Susie have an adversarial relationship. Fact: Calvin treats Hobbes as real. Fact: At no point I have seen does Calvin state he understands Hobbes is a toy. Fact: If you what your understanding from the words that are written are different from what the author intended, the author needed to choose different words. I'm not sure what you think is opinion or a "rant". – user99448 Apr 06 '17 at 12:48
-
If I understand correctly what you're saying in the comments, you will need to change the words of the answer. – Mr Lister Apr 06 '17 at 17:37
-
4@user99448 Intent does matter. Your Tuesday/Thursday analogy is a result of incorrectness, not ambiguity. Watterson went out of his way to leave this ambiguous, that does not make him "a horrible writer." Ambiguity and leaving room for interpretation is horrible in a reference manual, but can be a powerful tool in fiction. – Will Apr 07 '17 at 15:10
-
2Y'all, the discussion over whether the author's intent matters or doesn't stems back as far as The Death of the Author if not further (and it almost certainly does extend back further). There isn't an objectively correct answer, so this "yes it does" / "no it doesn't" argument as if there's a factually correct stance is a waste of all of your time. Whether the intent matters or not are two different analytical lenses which can both be valid when applied well. – doppelgreener Apr 08 '17 at 11:06