Chapter 14: Hobbes

1.
Watterson has written of his strip, "My strip is about private realities, the magic of imagination, and the specialness of certain friendships." (1) The specialness of certain friendships. If Calvin and Hobbes has a theological core it is the friendship that sits at the center of the strip. More than anything, Hobbes is Calvin's best friend. Hobbes functions as companion, gadfly, antagonist, cheerleader, comforter, and conscience. Watterson goes on to say, "Hobbes is my idea of an ideal friend." (2)



2.
The "gimmick" at the heart of the strip is the ontological status of this ideal friend. Is Hobbes real? Or just a product of Calvin's imagination?

When we see Calvin and Hobbes alone we see Hobbes as "real." Not just alive, but having real effects in the world. A causal agent. But when Calvin and Hobbes are with other people we see Hobbes as a stuffed tiger.









Watterson is very playful with this blurring of the lines between the subjective and objective. One of my favorite examples of this is an early storyline when Calvin looses Hobbes:




Eventually, Susie finds Hobbes:



And plays "girl games" with him (which, by the way, as Calvin's alter ego, Hobbes always likes):



Calvin eventually finds (saves?) Hobbes:



Notice the ontological twist in the last frame. Who ate those cookies? The stuffed tiger?

3.
In his comments about the strip Watterson has refused to resolve the ontological issues surrounding Hobbes. Watterson has written,

I don't think of Hobbes as a doll that miraculously comes to life when Calvin's around. Neither do I think of Hobbes as the product of Calvin's imagination...Calvin sees Hobbes one way, and everyone else sees Hobbes another way. I show two versions of reality, and each makes complete sense to the participant who sees it. I think that's how life works. None of us sees the world in exactly the same way, and I just draw that literally into my strip. Hobbes is more about the subjective nature of reality than about dolls coming to life. (3)

4.
If we take Watterson at his word it is clear that he is discussing ontology in his strip. He shows "two versions of reality." He rejects the notion that the strip is "magical" or that Hobbes is just imaginary. Rather, Watterson is playing with the dual realities of subjective and objective experience. And, as he says, he draws these dual realities "into the strip."

There is a great deal of debate as to whether God exists or not. Is God real? Or is God imaginary? When believers gather it seems, like with Hobbes, that God is "alive," a real causal agent. But when unbelievers or skeptics arrive (metaphorically speaking) it seems, to them at least, that we are just talking about an imaginary friend. To borrow Watterson's words, there are "two versions of reality, and each makes complete sense to the participant who sees it."

People like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett, as skeptics of religion, clearly feel that they are talking about stuffed tigers. Comforting dolls believers cling to. Faith borders on the delusional. But believers, from where they stand, feel that they are talking, not about stuffed tigers, but about Hobbes. Something alive and real. One view is from the Outside and the other is from the Inside.

This disjoint can be frustrating. As it is for Calvin. It is impossible to experience the Inside if you are standing on the Outside. You have to stand in Calvin's shoes to experience Hobbes the way he does.

The experience of God, like the experience of Hobbes, is a lived experience. It is an Inside view. Consequently, it is difficult to communicate to those on the Outside. All such communication appears like talk about stuffed tigers and imaginary friends. And to be honest, I don't think there is much that can be done about this disjoint. It is what it is. And will always be this way. But just because the life of faith is an Inside experience doesn't mean it is a form of magical thinking. I think Watterson puts it well. The conversation isn't about "magical thinking" or "imaginary friends." Although the conversation may appear that way to non-believers, the conversation is actually about reality.

In the gospel according to John, Jesus said this: "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." In short, the "truth" of Jesus (Is his teaching from God?) cannot be ascertained from the Outside. The verification of Jesus's claims must be discovered from the Inside, by participating in the journey. Because from the Outside it's all just stuffed tigers. But on the Inside, well, it's Hobbes.

Notes:
(1) p. 11, The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book
(2) p. 22, Ibid
(3) p. 22, Ibid

Chapter 13
"All Shall Be Well."

1.
We all have our favorite Calvin and Hobbes moments and strips.

Being a Winter Christian I think this strip might be my all-time favorite:





But from a theological vantage, my favorite Calvin and Hobbes strips come from a storyline that Watterson gives us in September of 1995. Calvin and Hobbes ends in December in '95 and in the waning months of the strip we get a two week storyline, ten daily strips in all, devoted to the relationship between Calvin and his evil babysitter Rosalyn.

We've already noted how Rosalyn functions as a kind of satan-figure in Calvin and Hobbes. Rosalyn embodies all the forces arrayed against Calvin. Rosalyn is an impersonal enforcer of rules. She represents the non-relational, non-empathic application of power. Thus, the Calvin/Rosalyn relationship is inherently antagonistic. And the final Rosalyn story in ‘95 begins on just that note:



But the story begins to take a different turn as Rosalyn becomes open to a "deal," a kind of quid pro quo in the relationship:



The game Calvin selects is, you guessed it, Calvinball:



Obviously, Rosalyn is a bit skeptical about this game:



But Rosalyn dons the mask and starts to play:





And soon the dynamic of Calvinball begins to affect her:







And by the end of the night the world is entirely different:



And with that, we say goodbye to Rosalyn. These strips were her swansong. Calvin and Hobbes would end forever three months later.

2.
Theologically, what are we to make of the final Rosalyn strips?

As we noted in the previous chapter, Calvinball represents a trusting, non-competitive, relational space. Calvinball is not governed by rules. Thus, only friends can successfully play Calvinball together.

So here in the final Rosalyn strips, Watterson shows us Rosalyn, the personification of rules, entering into the ruleless world of Calvinball. And by entering the relational world of Calvinball Rosalyn, and her relationship with Calvin, is transformed. This satan-figure becomes a friend.

3.
There are a variety of theological angles we might adopt to approach the final Rosalyn strips. One angle is to highlight the rules versus relationality dynamic, where relationality trumps rules in the end. For example,

Romans 13.9-10
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Galatians 5.14
The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

The point being that true community, with both God and Man, is not mediated by rules and rule keeping. The heart of true religion is loving communion. It is true, as it is in Calvinball, that such a notion is prone to abuse. As the Apostle Paul repeatedly warns, the freedom of love can be abused. Rule-following is a safer kind of religion. But as we see with the pre-Calvinball Rosalyn, a rule-based world is also cold and impersonal. Worse, rules are a form of power. Consequently, a rule-based religion is a fear-based religion. But perfect love is to cast out fear. The God-relationship is to be filled with love, not commandment keeping.

4.
But beyond these themes of love and law, I wonder if there is not an even deeper message in the final Rosalyn strips. Specifically, I wonder if this conversion of the satan-figure here at the end of Calvin and Hobbes might be sounding a universalist note. Beyond Mo (the bully), Rosalyn is the worst person in Calvin's world, the embodiment of evil for Calvin. And yet Watterson takes the time (ten strips in all) and loving care to redeem Rosalyn at the end. There are many visions of Christian salvation, but it will be universalists, who hold to a notion of universal reconciliation, who will resonate most strongly with the final Rosalyn strips. They will see in this redemption of the satan-figure the depiction of love winning out in the end. Of love having the final say. Of a vision of salvation best articulated by Julian of Norwich:

"All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well."

Part 5: Grace

Chapter 12: Calvinball

1.
In Part 5, the final part of The Theology of Calvin and Hobbes, we'll take a look at the soteriological themes of Watterson's strip. We've looked in Parts 1-4 at themes related to the human predicament. Here in Part 5 we will look at places in Calvin and Hobbes where moments of grace break into the strip. We begin with that game of all games:

Calvinball.

In the early years of Calvin and Hobbes we often find Calvin playing baseball. This is a theme Watterson clearly inherited from Charles Schulz's Peanuts. Like Charlie Brown, Calvin is a poor athlete. Thus, in the baseball strips we find Calvin, like his predecessor Charlie Brown, failing and becoming the victim of peer rage.

In March of 1987 we see this failure & rejection theme emerge once more:





But after this particular failure in March of '89 we see Calvin and Hobbes create a new kind of game. The game is called Calvinball. Here is the debut strip for Calvinball:



"No sport is less organized than Calvinball." That is the logic behind the game. The players of Calvinball play a game that is dominated by spontaneity and new rule invention. The rule of Calvinball is that there aren't any rules. Or, rather, that the rules are fluid and flexible. Made up on the spot. This, obviously, can create some disputes between the players:



But generally, Calvinball is a joyous, communal adventure:



(Oh yes, as you might have noticed, one wears a mask in Calvinball. As readers we are never told why.)

2.
It is interesting to note the theological issues as Watterson contrasts "organized" sports versus Calvinball. Specifically,

Organized Sports
Competitive (Some win and some lose)
Rules structure the engagement
Scapegoating

Calvinball
Relational
Trust structures the engagement
Community enhancing

Let me unpack these lists. In contrast to organized sports, Calvinball doesn't create winners and losers. The fun is simply the game itself. There is no outcome other than joy.

Further, competitive games reguire rules. Why? Because we are dealing with opponents in a zero-sum interaction. Rules, thus, become necessary to create order. In contrast, Calvinball is predicated upon trust and friendship. You can't play Calvinball unless the person is a friend. Enemies can't play Calvinball. You'd have too much control over the other person.

All this adds up to the final point in each list. With winners and losers and adversarial zero-sum dynamics in play it comes as no suprise that people are scapegoated in the organized games. By contrast, the world of Calvinball fosters community. There are no losers and, thus, no scapegoats among friends.

3.
I'd like to make two related theological observations about our analysis of Calvinball. One in this post and one to follow. To start, I think we see in Calvinball a comment about what was observed in the early Christian church. The word I'm thinking of is the greek term koinonia which described the intimacy, fellowship, sharing, and community of the early church. The word first appears in this description of the church in Acts 2.42-47:

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

To this day, Acts 2 functions as the model and goal of all true Christian community.

It might seem to be a stretch to connect Calvinball with Acts 2, but let's go with it. The connection I'm making is this. Calvinball and the church represent a kind of "coming out of" a world of competition and zero-sum adversarialness. Calvinball and the church represent a place were a new kind of game is played. A game that is built around a different set of dynamics than the ones we find in the world. Specifically, it's a game that is built around koinonia rather than competition.

Like Calvinball, the church aims to create a game centered on trust, community, and joy.

1.
Matthew 18. 1-5
At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me."

2.
I noted in the last chapter that power sits behind the satanic influences in Calvin and Hobbes. In the character of Mo we see power as physical violence. This kind of power seems self-evidently satanic.

Yet Calvin and Hobbes also offers up a more subtle commentary on power. These forms of coercion and violence are more distributed and diffuse. Thus, as forms of systemic violence there is no "bad guy" to blame as there is in the Mo strips. And yet power is being deployed, coercion is in play.

In Calvin and Hobbes we see the world through Calvin's eyes. That is, we see the world through the eyes of a child. A great deal of this view is preoccupied with Calvin's immaturity (see the chapters in Part 1). Yet, because Calvin is a child he is also the least powerful person in the strip. Seeing the world through the eyes of the child allows us to see the world through the eyes of the powerless. This view from the bottom of the power hierarchy dominates much of Watterson's strips.

To begin, we often see Calvin struggling with his parents. This takes many forms, but here are a few of my favorite running themes:

First, I love Calvin's constant struggle with his mother about taking baths.



I also love Calvin's "Dad polls." Obviously, Calvin cannot, because of the power differential, make his Dad do anything. Thus, Calvin resorts to conducting polls to give his Dad feedback on parenting.



I enjoy these polls as they humorously illustrate how impotent Calvin is. Calvin can give feedback through these polls but, at the end of the day, we know his father is going to dismiss them out of hand.

Finally, there are the numerous strips where we find Calvin's parents forcing Calvin to conform to society's demands.



3.
Matthew 19. 13-15
Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.

Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

4.
Obviously, we aren't going to fault Calvin's parents for making Calvin take a bath, go to school, eat his food, or behave in public. But the view of the world from the child's point of view does offer a commentary upon power. That is, because Calvin is the hero of the strip we tend to identify with him over against the parents. It's not that we think the parents are wrong or evil. It's just that we identify with being forced or coerced to do something.

Generally, this coercion is for our own good. But Watterson ramps up the criticism of power by bringing in Rosalyn the babysitter. Here are the first Rosalyn strips:







Calvin's battles with Rosalyn become epic encounters. Some of the funniest stories in Calvin and Hobbes focus on Calvin's attempts to undermine Rosalyn's power. Here is one of my favorites:



These battles become so difficult for Rosalyn that she starts demanding more and more money from Calvin's parents:



Like Mo, Rosalyn functions as a satan figure for Calvin. She's the adversary. Here, in contrast with Calvin's parents, Watterson's commentary on power becomes clearer. Rosalyn doesn't necessarily use her power to help shape Calvin. Her use of power is more arbitrary and self-centered. There is no relationship between Rosalyn and Calvin. Well, there is a relationship, it’s a power relation driven by, as Watterson highlights, economics.

Here then, with Rosalyn, we begin to see a subtle form of commentary upon the economically driven power relations governing modern society. Our market economies created Rosalyn-type interactions where money dictates who's in charge. And, too often, the powerless get trampled beneath these market forces.

5.
Mark 9. 33-37
They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."

He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, "Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me."

6.
In might seem a stretch to see in Rosalyn a critique of market-based power structures. However, when we confront Watterson's school strips such an interpretation grows more plausible.

Beyond Calvin's parents and Rosalyn, we see power dynamics depicted while Calvin is at school.





As with Calvin's parents, we might not always see these student/teacher power confrontations as all bad. Calvin, as a child, needs to learn some things. But Watterson goes further than this. In many strips Watterson uses "school" to portray the world we live in. A world of violence, rules, coercion, and constriction.



We begin to see Calvin as a small mouse caught in a cage. His smallness, his powerlessness, is tragically highlighted. We feel him getting ground down by the system.





Sometimes we see these forces bring Calvin to despair:



7.
If the evil of the world is violence, from physical assault to distributed social structures, then the Kingdom of God is found by standing with the child, the powerless one. We see in Calvin and Hobbes much of the tragedy of life. How people without status or power are pushed around, beaten down, ignored, abused, or crushed. Through Calvin and Hobbes we begin to identify with the child, to empathize with his experience. And, by standing in solidarity with Calvin, we begin to enter the gospel story. As Jurgen Moltmann has written:

The crucified Christ became the brother of the despised, abandoned and oppressed. And this is why brotherhood with the 'least of his brethren' is a necessary part of brotherhood with Christ and identification with him. Thus Christian theology must be worked out amongst these people and with them...in concrete terms amongst and with those who suffer in this society.

Part 4: Satan
Chapter 10: Bully

1.
As most are aware, our English word “satan” comes from the Hebrew ha-Satan which is variously translated as "accuser” or “adversary.” The satanic, therefore, is that which functions as our moral opposition, the forces arrayed against The Good. Theologians and church-folk offer up a variety of notions as to what “satan” might be. Some think of satan as “Satan with capital S”, the personification of the ontological existence of Evil. By contrast others have suggested, such as liberation theologians, that “satan” is less a demonic Other than the misuse of power in human affairs. That is, the satanic Powers of the Age are less demonic than sociological, the politics and economies of oppression and injustice.

2.
Where is satan in the world of Calvin and Hobbes? I’m going to suggest that satan resides in the power dynamics we find in Watterson’s world. Power differentials are what produces the violence in Calvin and Hobbes. Sometimes this violence is overt and physical. While in other cases the violence is diffuse and subtly dehumanizing. I’ll devote a chapter to each case.

3.
The physical violence in Calvin and Hobbes takes its cue from the peer violence we observe in the world of Peanuts. Violence was common in Peanuts. Generally, it is Charlie Brown who absorbs both the physical and verbal violence.



As I’ve written about before, Charlie Brown functions as a kind of scapegoat in the world of Peanuts.

But there is an interesting contrast between Peanuts and Calvin and Hobbes. Charles Shultz was very intentional in Peanuts in allowing only the girls to hit the boys. Never in Peanuts did a boy hit a girl. As much as we want him to, Charlie Brown never hauls off and decks Lucy. For Schulz this power-reversal (girl hitting boy) kept the violence comedic. A boy hitting a girl wouldn’t be funny.

But this is dramatically changed in Calvin and Hobbes. The violence is very egalitarian. Sometimes Calvin gets Susie. And at other times Susie gets Calvin.







It is this egalitarian stance (tinged with the romantic overtones we noted in Chapter 6) that allows the Susie/Calvin violence to be comedic rather than tragic.

4.
The true tragic side of violence in Calvin and Hobbes comes from the character of Mo, the school bully. Being large, Mo has power. And throughout the run of Calvin and Hobbes we observe Mo repeatedly hit the smaller, and weaker Calvin.









5.
Mo, as an embodiment of brute power, is a menacing, satanic figure in the world of Calvin and Hobbes. The Mo strips clearly critique how mishandled power disrupts the world, infusing it with satanic menace. As such, the satan theology of Calvin and Hobbes closely fits notions of the satanic in liberation theology. The satanic is "man's inhumanity to man."

In short, in Calvin and Hobbes satan isn’t Satan. The satanic is, rather, us--you and me--and how we treat each other.