I think Calvin and Hobbes is used as a very useful illustration of how childhood can die -- but it not necessarily the LAW of Creativity -- it's just what the lowest common denominator grasps as the death of creativity; the death of child's imagination. Unfortunately, that's just one of the ways it works. But only one of.

I think part of the argument is that making kids grow up to fast, putting aside childish things, kills their eagerness to learn and grow because it's forced. They forget what it's like to have and have a tiger for a pal. In that line of thought, Calvin doesn't grow up to be anything other then a boring drudge in a regular day job who doesn't think beyond what the TV tells him to. But this is potential for banality.

...or maybe he does put aside's Hobbes as a toy, but goes on to write comics or children's book about a noble tiger, or maybe he becomes an artist, or a photographer that pursues elusive images of big cat's for National Geographic, who despite it's scientific base is probably one of the most Glamour laden magazines in print-- exploration of both future, past, and present! Wild animals! New discoveries! But... I bet, I bet there are people who think anything scientific is... banal.

What's banal to one person's imagination might not be to another. Stifling of creativity is just one aspect. But imagination comes in many flavors, and I think it was one of the failings of Dreaming that is simply couldn't capture them all with equal measure. Too many people only saw the surface, and didn't look any deeper then Calvin growing up... And too many people thought that was all there was too it, thought the game was stupid for that reason and set it aside. Neither viewpoint is correct, but -- hey, you can't dictate what the players are gonna take away from your game or book or any other media.

The only thing I remember Watterson saying about Calvin as he might grow up was "I bet Calvin's going to have some trouble getting dates in high school." (This was an editorial comment on one of the "Calvin grosses out Susie at lunchtime again" strips.) Part of that is, yeah, he's building a reputation — but at the same time, it's also acknowledging that he's probably still going to be Calvin, and Calvin will probably be an interesting guy as he grows up (one way or another).

You definitely have a point where the concept of making kids grow up too fast is bad stuff, and certainly Calvin hates school. It's just... okay, here's a theory. Part of the reason that we don't fire on all cylinders with the limiters off like we did as kids is that we learn to self-analyze. We take any idea that comes into our head and do a gut-check of "Is that actually cool?" In some cases this gets perverted, such as when you say "no" because you're learning to avoid what your friends or classmates think is uncool without actually analyzing if they have their heads up their asses or not. But at the same time, that ability to self-analyze is what drives the core of improvement. So if you no longer think the thinly veiled reptilian Superman dude who was your "best hero ever" would hold up as an idea, you do have limits on your creative process that weren't there before. On the other hand, if you're clever about it, you can identify what was great about that idea and use the core of it elsewhere.

I dunno. Maybe I have a lot invested in the whole "imagination is stronger if it's refined with critical thought" philosophy, it being related to my paycheck and all. I definitely see the problem with over-harsh criticism, be it internal or external, stifling creativity. But it also bugs me to see people acting as though any reliable source of critical thought is anathema, including the lens of experience. So when I see people positing something like "Calvin grows up and tosses out Hobbes/stops being creative," I wind up asking "Is that a logical outcome, or is that just you trying to tug at our heartstrings? Because I'm not convinced that the scene you depicted is in character."

(If I had to make a guess about what would be in-character for an adult Calvin, I would posit a scene with him telling his kid the same kind of outrageous, imaginary fabrications about how the world works that his father told him. I'd be tempted to show the kid with Hobbes. I wouldn't, though, because Watterson admitted he deliberately kept it ambiguous whether Hobbes could be "real" or not, and showing Hobbes as unambiguously one or the other would be missing the point. That's part of why I trigger badly on these non-Watterson interpretations in the first place, I guess.)

The cartoon in question speaks more to me of people's cruelty than banality, but that's probably the "metaplot" behind the strip's creation. That strip is meant to hurt people, so I try not to give it much thought.

I like what you're talking about with Calvin as an adult, passing on Wonder almost virally, perhaps as others would pass on Banality. Perhaps Banality, in terms of C:tD could be classified as the opposite of whatever Calvin had going on in the comics.

So Changeling: The Dreaming was a game about imagination and not meant for people with none.

Hmm. That's one way of looking at it, though I think people with no imagination whatsoever aren't likely to trigger on the game in the first place. (Or even roleplaying games, for that matter.)

Honestly, I think it's that to some people, Banality and Glamour as presented in the book became a kind of dogma, tyrannically adhered to even when they didn't make a lick of sense. "Growing up is bad because you lose your imagination" is the example here, though it's obviously not true. You do become more cynical, but at the same time you might be able to create dreams that will inspire thousands, even millions of people, which you couldn't have done as a kid.

One of the problems with Glamour vs. Banality as a concept was that it kind of hazily blended together "imagination versus the lack thereof" and "sense of wonder versus lack of emotion." A good example of where it got confusing was science: the scientific process is full of the sense of wonder and discovery, even if it does disprove superstitions. At that point it becomes unclear whether science is Banal (because it disproves belief in faeries) or if it's Glamourous (because it's full of the heady emotion of discovery). If you got a little too dogmatic about definitions, it was easy to wind up with an interpretation of Glamour or Banality that didn't make sense — like my example.

In my view of things, people who adhere to dogma (in whatever form) lack imagination. It's easy to adhere to dogma, it eases the difficulty of thinking by yourself, of being creative. Dogma is Banality.

Well, I agree with you about the difficulty of defining Glamour, Banality and Nightmare (a latter concept to the game). Even today, as I still continue to run my Winter game for Changeling, it's a tough thing to define these concepts in relation with one another. I finally opted for this:

Dreams coming from the Light Glamour (dreams* associated with or born from positive emotions: love, joy, hope, etc.), Dark Glamour (dreams associated with or born from negative or painful emotions: fear, pain, anguish, anger, etc.), Nightmares (dreams coming from deep ancient terrors linked to the primal instincts of men), Banality (use of reason, of the neocortex or logical brain to negate all the precedent).

* Dreams are here considered as any mental activity associated with imagination in the literal sense, e.g. "put images on the world around us."