Some years ago, one of the guys in the office, who was a proud father again, put an uncensored picture of his newborn daughter outside his cubicle. Some of the women objected in the office objected and put a diaper on the picture.
“it’s all in Calvin’s mind, because that’s the only thing that makes sense to them from a rational perspective.”
It’s what makes sense of what Watterson shows in the strip.
“this is a not some case study being reported by a psychiatrist”
Strawman argument. I never said it was a “case study being reported by a psychiatrist”. It’s a depiction of a kid with an extraordinarily fertile and creative imagination. Did you never imagine anything as a kid? Does any kid need to be “reported by a psychiatrist” for doing so?
“You don’t NEED an explanation that Calvin is delusional or role playing.”
Calvin is shown as simultaneously in class and on a distant planet in a three foot spaceship that is capable of interstellar travel and can tow whole planets, he grows to the size of a galaxy, he time travels in a cardboard box, etc etc, yet you claim there’s no need to explain these things and Hobbes via his imagination. That makes no sense.
“the artist himself has indicated that it is NOT all in Calvin’s mind”
You’re making an argument from authority. Watterson claimed that he “saw” Hobbes as neither real nor imaginary, which means he was trying to violate the fundamental logical principle of the excluded middle. Watterson is flat out wrong, regardless of him being “the author”.
“the only people who have access to Hobbes’ living, thinking “real” self are Calvin… and us, the readers.”
Which exactly fits the definition of an imaginary character.
I could easily read the 280 pages in one day.