Thanks, Brutus! Peggy Lee’s version is the one for me. :)
Never know how much I love you
Never know how much I care
When you put your arms around me
I get a fever that’s so hard to bear
You give me fever
When you kiss me
Fever when you hold me tight
Fever! in the morning
Fever all through the night
Sun lights up the daytime
Moon lights up the night
I light up when you call my name
And you know I’m gonna treat you right
Everybody’s got the fever
That is something you all know
Fever isn’t such a new thing
Fever started long ago
Romeo loved Juliet
Juliet, she felt the same
When he put his arms around her
He said, "Julie, baby, you’re my flame
“Thou giveth fever
“When we kisseth
“Fever with thy flaming youth
“Fever! I’m afire
“Fever, yea, I burn, forsooth.”
Cap’n Smith and Pocahontas
Had a very mad affair
When her daddy tried to kill him
She said, "Daddy, oh, don’t you dare!
“He gives me fever
“With his kisses
“Fever when he holds me tight
“Fever! I’m his missus
“Daddy, won’t you treat him right?”
Now you’ve listened to my story
Here’s the point that I have made
Chicks were born to give you fever
Be it Fahrenheit or Centigrade
They give you fever
When you kiss them
Fever if you live and learn
Fever! till you sizzle
What a lovely way to burn
Robot Chicken did a parody of C&H where Calvin brutally murdered his parents and blamed Hobbes for it.
Calvin has no real friends. He’s a loner.
“There are some moments like that which show that Hobbes remains alive after Calvin has left him but we can still see him.”
There’s no reason at all why Calvin can’t imagine Hobbes alone.
“Watterson didn’t see it that way.”
That means that Watterson contradicts himself. People do that sometimes, as I will show.
“in The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book, he includes two washing machine strips and explains that they are “one of the fuzzier blurrings of what Hobbes is”.
For you to cite Watterson in support of the idea that Hobbes’ existence is “fuzzy” or “blurry” is an admission that he has no hard reality, which is the same thing as saying he’s imaginary. Your citing of the Watterson quote also means you are contradicting yourself. You have said that the ACTUAL reality of the strip is that Hobbes IS a large living tiger whom only Calvin can perceive as such. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say Hobbes IS large and living while ALSO saying he IS small enough to fit in a washing machine. To claim he is “neither”, ie “fuzzy”, is a violation of fundamental logic, ie The Law of the Excluded Middle, and it would be an absurd use of the Argument from Authority Fallacy to claim that logic has no meaning if Watterson “says so” (something you are wont to imply). Furthermore, as I have pointed out, the washing machine has NO perception. It can only hold what is OBJECTIVELY small enough to fit in it. Even Calvin HIMSELF agrees that that Hobbes IS a small object, since HE perceives Hobbes fitting in the washing machine. We know that Hobbes being a small object is an objective fact because it fits the definition:
Objective:of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
ALL observers, INCLUDING CALVIN, agree that Hobbes is a SMALL object that fits in a washing machine. Therefore, Hobbes is objectively NOT a large living tiger.
“Watterson has explained that Calvin reflects his own immature side as an adult and has referred to Calvin as partly “an outlet for my immaturity”.”
That’s consistent with Calvin being an avatar for Watterson.
“He also doesn’t see Calvin as delusional as he has explained”
What he SHOWS IN THE STRIP is that Calvin is indeed delusional.
“you have told me that, although Watterson didn’t see Hobbes as part of Calvin’s imagination, you still see the strip as showing Hobbes to be part of Calvin’s imagination.”
I did more than tell you that. I demonstrated it with the newspaper photograph and washing machine examples. You acknowledged that my logic was sound, and could only respond by saying what Watterson says he “sees”.
“Among the many replies I have had have been a comment that I am very slow at making up my mind and another comment from a reader who claimed to have realized straight away that Hobbes isn’t part of Calvin’s imagination.”
I have responded that that person could no more refute what I said than you can.
I don’t think Calvin is meant to be a realistic kid (what actual kid is THAT delusional about a stuffed animal?). He obviously didn’t acquire that immense vocabulary by reading comic books, leaving it an open question as to how he did acquire it, given his laziness. I view him more as a conduit for Watterson commentaries on people (Watterson comes across as rather misanthropic) than as a child needing help.
I just wear reading glasses over my glasses.
And replace her with what? A teacher who couldn’t care less that students learn?