So this question got me thinking that, except for pure Calvin fantasy (i.e. Spaceman Spiff, where nothing is real), is there ever a comic where Calvin claims Hobbes did something and Calvin could not have possibly performed himself? This one comes close, but Calvin could have tied himself up

Note that we don't have to see Hobbes having done it, just that it would have very difficult or impossible for Calvin to have done it.

  • 26
    does having tea w/ Suzy count? – NKCampbell Apr 5 '17 at 19:28
  • 25
    @Machavity - Putting mom's shoes on a high shelf; i.stack.imgur.com/TSEAw.png – Valorum Apr 5 '17 at 20:08
  • 18
    Leaving Hobbes's true nature purposely ambiguous cuts both ways: Just as Bill Watterson never wrote in anything proving Hobbes was only a stuffed animal, he also never wrote in anything proving he was something more. – MartianInvader Apr 5 '17 at 21:06
  • 11
    Calvin 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 5 '17 at 21:45
  • 9
    @Valorum That's actually a much better answer than the current one. – Drew Apr 5 '17 at 21:56
up vote 132 down vote accepted

A pretty compelling one is this strip, where Calvin had no opportunity to take the cookies without Susie noticing:

enter image description here

I also find it interesting that "real" Hobbes appears in the second pane.

Then there's this one, where Calvin would probably have some serious difficulty getting that high up a tree while holding a water balloon on his own, but more convincingly, Calvin is shown leaving the water balloon at the base of the tree before he climbs:

enter image description here


There's also a few where it's unlikely Calvin did something. There's the tied up one in the OP, for example. There's also this one, where Hobbes probably stole a piece of cake:

enter image description here

There's this one, too, which, assuming it happened as shown, would be very strange if Hobbes wasn't involved:

enter image description here


There's some honorable mentions as well, although I didn't feel they were strong enough to explicitly mention above. They hint at things done by Hobbes to Calvin but one could imagine Calvin doing them to himself:

But Watterson left it intentionally vague, so as with all questions related to Hobbes' existence, we can never be 100% sure.

  • 55
    I also find it interesting that "real" Hobbes appears in the second pane. At that instant Susie is actually looking away from Hobbes. He's a stuffed toy in pane 3 where he's arguably within her field of view again. : ) – Grimm The Opiner Apr 6 '17 at 9:13
  • 10
    Well, I'd argue that in your 2nd example, anything between "C+H+ballon on the ground" and "C+H+ballon on the branch" could be Calvin's imagination. Still, it does not explain how he climbed that high with two things in his hands. Also, in the 3rd one, it could be Calvin eating a piece, so I believe this one does not qualify. – yo' Apr 6 '17 at 10:34
  • 8
  • 6
    I'd argue that there's a minute or two not shown between panels 3 & 4 of the first example, and the fourth example is Calvin blaming a wipeout on Hobbes (and blowing it out of proportion in his imagination). – Matthew Read Apr 6 '17 at 15:27
  • 4
    In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that if you ever found a Calvin & Hobbes strip that showed, without a doubt, Hobbes doing something that could not be explained with any number of assumptions (barring the catch-all that the comic itself is fiction, of course), then this would have been a rare mistake on Watterson's part that we could almost just discount as an error. Even in my examples in this answer, I could not definitively argue that Hobbes must have intervened / performed an action, I can only argue that it strongly appears as such within the confines of the panes. – Jason C Apr 6 '17 at 15:36

No.

In the examples provided, as well as every other strip that I can find, there's nothing inconsistent with a young child who has a very vivid imagination. My personal opinion is that when Hobbes does many of the things that Calvin credits (or blames) him for, Calvin is actually pretending that he's Hobbes.

The issue in the comic strips is that, when we see the "living" Hobbes, we're either seeing the other reality that nobody else sees (in which case Hobbes really is alive and is Calvin's active co-conspirator), or we're inside Calvin's imagination, in which case, how much of the rest of the scene is also his imagination? Note that the fact that it's his imagination doesn't make it any less real, but it's a subjective reality, rather than an objective one.

image

We don't know that Calvin didn't have the opportunity to take the cookies; he could just be very very sneaky.

image

I've watched children, while pretending, do things equally as elaborate to set up a simple scenario and then maintain that their imaginary friend helped them, they "flew up here," or given any of a dozen other explanations. Again - if Hobbes is real, then he helped. If Hobbes is pretend, then what else is pretend in the scene?

image

Simple deflection. Who's to say that Calvin didn't sneak in for a piece of cake earlier and then pretend (even to himself) that Hobbes did it.

image

Somebody else commented that this could just be an elaborate explanation for a wipeout. Makes sense.

image

Rationalization for falling down, or what he imagined (wished?) would happen to Suzy.

  • 1
    It would be tricky for Calvin to tie himself up. – Molag Bal Apr 7 '17 at 19:16
  • 4
    Agreed. But not impossible. When I was around 10, I used to manage to do it to try to teach myself how to be an escape artist. Not quite THAT elaborately, of course. Note that I'm not saying that Calvin ISN'T real, just asking whether,if Calvin is pretending, what else in the scene is pretend? – Doug R. Apr 7 '17 at 19:23
  • 3
    I like this counter-analysis very much. See this comment and the following ones for discussion precisely along these lines. As I mentioned there, the best we can do is essentially rank them by the amount of out-of-pane assumptions we need to make about the universe to explain them. All the strips have potential explanations if you make assumptions, worse case you can default to "Calvin imagined the whole thing". This was part of Watterson's magic. – Jason C Apr 8 '17 at 3:15

In the following cartoon strip Hobbes presses the button on the outside of Calvin's Duplicator.

Given the position of the button, there's simply no way that Calvin could have pushed it himself, from inside the machine.

enter image description here

  • 44
    ^_^ Ah, but was the button actually pushed? – FuzzyBoots Apr 5 '17 at 19:04
  • 60
    @FuzzyBoots - Of course it was. Or else how could the Duplicator have worked? – Valorum Apr 5 '17 at 19:06
  • 97
    An interesting spin on Schrodinger's Paradox -- the cat is outside the box for once! – Wossname Apr 5 '17 at 20:30
  • 29
    I think this falls in the realm of "pure fantasy" that is explicitly to be ignored per OP. – Engineer Toast Apr 5 '17 at 21:11
  • 22
    Sorry Mr Valorum, but Hobbes pushing a drawn-on button doesn't answer the question for me. It's all in Calvin's mind. What we need is something more physical, like Hobbes lifting Calvin into a tree, and then others wondering how he got up there. Savvy? – Tim Apr 6 '17 at 3:41

Eating Tommy Chesnutt:

enter image description here

Calvin could not have eaten his classmate.

  • 23
    Since this cartoon describes an event that clearly didn't happen, I think it would be ruled out by the "except for pure Calvin fantasy" clause in the question. – Harry Johnston Apr 6 '17 at 1:56
  • 15
    @HarryJohnston it seems to me that a great deal of the point of Calvin and Hobbes is that the distinction between made up and real is blurry to nonexistent at best. – Leliel Apr 6 '17 at 2:28
  • 8
    Suffered amnesia? He's playing make-believe. As for the blurred line between make-believe and reality, that's a reasonable interpretation, but not really compatible with the premise of this particular question. You're welcome (as far as I'm concerned) to directly attack that premise, but it seems to me that your answer just ignores it. – Harry Johnston Apr 6 '17 at 3:08
  • 27
    The problem I have with this strip is that it's not evident that anybody ate Tommy Chestnut. He could be just fine. – Jason C Apr 6 '17 at 3:29
  • 21
    I mean obviously Calvin really ate Tommy Chestnut, the little weirdo. But it's okay, Tommy Chestnut never existed. – fluffy Apr 6 '17 at 5:26

Yes. Hobbes unlocks the front door of the house and leaves without Calvin's mom noticing.

comic strip from http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1992/03/29

Notice the last panel - Calvin sneaks home from school and does not enter the house, as evidenced that his mother has not yet noticed him. It is strongly implied from the wording as well that Calvin has just arrived back from school and has not yet entered the house. Yet, HOBBES IS OUTSIDE.

  • Can someone please download the comic and add it to the answer as an image? I cant figure out how to do it. Thanks – TheAsh Apr 4 at 2:32
  • The comic you linked doesn't include the scene you describe. – ApproachingDarknessFish Apr 4 at 2:39
  • @ApproachingDarknessFish Ouch! hanks for pointing that out. Fixed. – TheAsh Apr 4 at 2:43
  • Added the panel as an image. – ApproachingDarknessFish Apr 4 at 2:47
  • @ApproachingDarknessFish ty! – TheAsh Apr 4 at 3:28

protected by Aegon Apr 7 '17 at 11:30

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.