Like pretty much everyone, I’ll be taking the next two weeks off. Machiavelli will return in the new year, tanned, rested, and ready.

This is a page of a graphic novel draft.

The Goal

A 125 page draft of your graphic novel in script or thumbnails (depending on your preference.)

The Preparation

That’s what December is for. Hit the library, do your research, make some character reference pages: whatever you need to hit the ground running in January. I’m assuming you already have your paper, pencils, brushes, or Wacom tablets.

So is this.

The Background

Kelci Crawford and I are both in the planning stages of our next books. Last week, we were talking over Twitter and we thought it would be helpful to make a plan for a month kind of like NaNoWriMo. We thought it would be useful to be able to pace ourselves with others, kind of like marathon runners cluster together to avoid dropping off their pace. Or maybe cycling teams are a better analogy, as people are working together to help each other stay on pace.

Would You Like to Join Us?

I am willing to write critiques of work and otherwise give advice. I’ll post links to your site and give you shout outs in this space. You can talk to me (@don_macdonald) and Kelci (@KelciDCrawford on Twitter about your progress and how things are going in general. If you don’t do Twitter, you can always drop me a line via e-mail.

and this.

Your Reward

You will have your draft done. Of your entire book. Do not discount what a big step this is. You will still have work ahead of you, but you will have your canvas stretched and primed with a nice underpainting, ready for you to start really laying in the color. Now you’re in the game. I’ll link liberally to anyone that works with us and I’ll pimp your book when that time comes. Also, as convention season rolls around, there will be high fives, fist bumps, or bounty hunter nods all around (depending on preference).

-Don

Note: Eddie Campbell is the author of the autobiographical Alec books and the artist of From Hell, among many other things. You should know this. I had posted his manifesto to the old Movable Type site back in the day, but had neglected to move it over. Since comics manifestos seem to be making the rounds, I feel it my duty to bring it up again. You’re welcome. The manifesto was originally posted on The Comics Journal’s message board in 2004 during a discussion of Not Funnies, an article in the New York Times Magazine. Sadly, that message board has been deleted, so it is up to us to keep the flame alive. —DM

There is so much disagreement (among ourselves) and misunderstanding (on the part of the public) around the subject of the graphic novel that it’s high time a set of principles were laid down.

1. Graphic novel is a disagreeable term, but we will use it anyway on the understanding that ‘graphic’ has nothing to do with graphics and that ‘novel’ does not mean anything to do with ‘novel’. (in the same way that ‘Impressionism’ is not really an applicable term, in fact it was first used as an insult and then adopted in a spirit of defiance.)

2. Since we are not referring to the traditional literary novel, we do not hold that the graphic novel should be of the supposed same dimensions or physical weight. Thus subsidiary terms such as ‘novella’ and ‘novelette’ are of no use here and will only serve to confuse onlookers as to our goal (see below), causing them to think we are creating an illustrated version of standard literature when in fact we have bigger fish to fry, that is, we are forging a whole new art which will not be a slave to the arbitrary rules of an old one.

3. Graphic novel signifies a movement rather than a form. Thus we may refer to ‘antecedents’ of the graphic novel, such as Lynd Ward’s woodcut novels but we are not interested in applying the name retroactively.

4. While the graphic novelist regards his various antecedents as geniuses and prophets without whose work he could not have envisioned his own, he does not want to be obliged to stand in line behind William Hogarth’s Rake’s Progress every time he obtains a piece of publicity for himself or the art in general.

5. Since the term signifies a movement, or an ongoing event, rather than a form, there is nothing to be gained by defining it or ‘measuring’ it. It is approximately thirty years old, though the concept and name had been bandied about for at least ten years earlier. As it is still growing it will in all probability have changed its nature by this time next year.

6. The goal of the graphic novelist is to take the form of the comic book, which has become an embarrassment, and raise it to a more ambitious and meaningful level. This normally involves expanding its size, but we should avoid getting into arguments about permissible size. If an artist offers a set of short stories as his new graphic novel, (as Eisner did with Contract with God) we should not descend to quibbling. We should only ask whether his new graphic novel is a good or bad set of short stories. If he or she uses characters that appear in another place, such as Jimmy Corrigan’s various appearances outside of the core book, or Gilbert Hernadez’ etc. or even characters that we do not want to allow into our imaginary ‘secret society’, we shall not dismiss them on this account. If their book no longer looks anything like comic books we should not quibble as to that either. We should only ask whether it increases the sum total of human wisdom.

7. The term graphic novel shall not be taken to indicate a trade format (such as ‘tradepaperback’ or ‘hardcover’ or ‘prestige format’). It can be in unpublished manuscript, in partbooks or other serialisation. The important thing is the intent, even if the intent arrives after the original publication.

8. The graphic novelists’ subject is all of existence, including their own life. He or she disdains the cliches of ‘genre fiction’, though they try to keep an open mind. They are particulary resentful of the notion, still prevalent in many places, and not without reason, that the comic book is a sub-genre of science fiction or heroic fantasy.

9. Graphic novelists would never think of using the term graphic novel when speaking among their fellows. They would normally just refer to their ‘latest book’ or their ‘work in progress’ or ‘that old potboiler’ or even ‘comic’ etc. The term is to be used as an emblem or an old flag that is brought out for the call to battle or when mumbling an enquiry as to the location of a certain section in an unfamiliar bookstore. Publishers may use the term over and over until it means even less than the nothing it means already. Furthermore, graphic novelists are well aware that the next wave of cartoonists will choose to work in the smallest possible forms and will ridicule us all for our pomposity.

10. the graphic novelist reserves the right to deny any or all of the above if it means a quick sale.

In the comments to yesterday’s BoingBoing piece, there was a bit of chatter in the comments to the tune that The Prince was a satirical work, not to be taken seriously, and Machiavelli was laughing up his sleeve at the Medici as he wrote it. Cracked was referenced.

While this theory is one that’s been kicking around in revisionist circles for a while, there’s not much evidence to back it up. Machiavelli was indeed a strident proponent of the republic, but he also believed that republics grew from principalities.

Machiavelli’s model was the Roman republic, not surprising in Renaissance Florence, passionate for all things Roman. His masterpiece on republics took the form of a meditation on the first ten books of Livy’s history of Rome. In Rome, of course, the republic grew out of the expulsion of the Tarquinian kings. Machiavelli envisioned a similar course for modern Italy. In machiavelli’s time, Italy was a playground in which nation states like France and Spain campaigned against one another and there was little the divided city states of Italy could do about it. Even the Idea of “Italy” as a political entity was the province of poets. Machiavelli was the first, in his exhortation at the end of The Prince, to take the idea seriously. He imagined a powerful prince could unite the peninsula by conquest, because he knew there was no way it would happen by treaty. If a prince could bring laws and stability to Italy, then a republic would grow out of that, as it had for the ancients. So Machiavelli was not an enemy of the princedom, but he viewed it as a necessary foundation to the creation of a republic.

The idea of The Prince as satire is also problematic because of motive. Why would Machiavelli do this? What could he possibly hope to gain? There was no freedom of the press in Renaissance Europe and Machiavelli in his exile lacked powerful allies to protect him in the event that the Medici took exception to his ‘satire’. His allies in the government like Vettori were so useless they couldn’t even procure for him a government office of any kind. If the Medici wanted his lifeless body tossed in the Arno, they wouldn’t lift a finger.

It has also been posited that Machiavelli despised the Medici for his mistreatment at their hands. But in fact, Machiavelli was done in by incompetent would-be conspirators who got together to plot against the Medici, came up with a list of potential allies they would try to recruit, and then wrote their names down on paper. Think about that. Machiavelli’s name was on that list and he was picked up by the authorities and subjected to some enhanced interrogation techniques. He was let go in the general amnesty when it was clear he had nothing to do with the conspirators.

Occam’s Razor is very useful here. Machiavelli wanted desperately to be back in the government. He wrote dozens of letters to Vettori and Guicciardini begging them for any assistance whatsoever to get him a government post. Whatever grudge he might bear the Medici was more than outweighed by his love of Florence and the knowledge that they were the only game in town. It’s a fallacy to believe that Because he believed the republic superior to the principality that he felt the principality was evil or useless. All evidence points to the Prince being just what Machiavelli claims it is: an earnest treatise of all he knows about the creation and maintenance of a stable princedom.

But the strongest argument to his sincerity is in his own words, from his letter of December 10, 1513 to Vettori. So I’ll close with that.

I have discussed this little study of mine with Filippo and whether or not it would be a good idea to present it [to Giuliano], and if it were a good idea, whether I should take it myself or should send it to you. Against presenting it would be my suspicion that he might not even read it and that that person Ardinghelli might take the credit for this most recent of my endeavors. In favor of presenting it would be the necessity that hounds me, because I am wasting away and cannot continue on like this much longer without becoming contemptible because of my poverty. Besides, there is my desire that these Medici princes should begin to engage my services, even if they should start out by having me roll along a stone. For then, if I could not win them over, I should have only myself to blame. And through this study of mine, were it to be read, it would be evident that during the fifteen years I have been studying the art of the state I have neither slept nor fooled around, and anybody ought to be happy to utilize someone who has had so much experience at the expense of others. There should be no doubt about my word; for, since I have always kept it, I should not start learning how to break it now. Whoever has been honest and faithful for forty-three years, as I have, is unable to change his nature; my poverty is a witness to my loyalty and honesty.

I had intended to do something like this for a while, but Timo Laine beat me to it and has done such a good, thorough job that I think I’ll just send you to him. I feel like framing this and putting it on my wall:

Much has been written about Machiavelli. However, there is a lot of unoriginal and superficial material on the web, and it takes time to go through it all. But eventually you end up with a few gems.

Can I have an amen? And that he includes my project as one of those “few gems” in his listing of secondary resources makes me profoundly grateful.

Timo Laine: Machiavelli on the Net

Thanks to everyone who stopped by my table at MICE and attended the publishing panel I was on. I thought it was a really successful show, with a great crowd from beginning to end. It reminded me a lot of SPX in the early days. Lots of minicomics artists and a real festival atmosphere. I’m sure we’ll do it again next year. If we do, I’ll be sure to be there again.

Tomorrow I’ll be at MICE from 10-6. You should come, it’s going to be fun. I’ll be bringing along a lot of original artwork and some preview type minicomics. It’s at he Art Institute of Boston in Kenmore Square. For more information, head over to the site: http://www.masscomics.com/

Here’s a short bit I did on Christopher Marlowe. It’s developing into something larger, but you’ll have to wait until Machiavelli is over for that. Enjoy!

Thanks for your patience. Got a new page going up in about an hour, then another three (at least) in the upcoming week.

The Separation of Thinking from Doing

Matthew Crawford’s excellent Shop Class as Soulcraft¹ is an impassioned defense of the value of manual work and the particular rewards of work that one is personally invested in. Although his focus is on the trades, his overall inquiry into the value of various kinds of work has a lot of relevance for the artist as well. He investigates the alienation of the “knowledge worker” from the results of their labor and argues that the greater the autonomy of the worker, the more intellectually stimulating the work is. He also argues that working with one’s hands provides a mental stimulation, a way of literally “getting in touch with the world” that layers of management and an over-reliance on process have removed from the office worker. This concept of literally thinking better by working with one’s hands has a particular resonance for an artist working in traditional materials.

Crawford traces “the separation of thinking from doing” to the beginning of the 20th century and the movement to systematically observe and study work. Originally called “Scientific Management”, the stated goal was that “all possible brain work should be removed from the shop and centered in the planning or laying-out department.” The most influentual proponent of scrientific management is Frederick Winslow Taylor, who writes: “It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone.”² The principle of scientific management finds its first triumph in the assembly line. Ford discovered that the assembly line “provoked a natural revulsion” when it was first introduced: craftsmen simple walked off the job. He found it was necessary to hire 963 men just to retain 100 of them. He found a solution by doubling wages. Paradoxically, this enabled Ford to triple its output because the workers were now so anxious to keep their jobs: “anxious workers were more productive.” In other words, although the workers still didn’t like it, the prospect of getting twice what any other carriage maker was paying was too much to pass up. Thus, keeping workers in a state of anxiety increased efficiency. Good for Ford, and good for the workers’ wallet, but not so great for their state of mind.

He then draws a line to a similar degradation of white-collar work in the present day. The intention is still to transfer knowledge, skill, and decision making from employee to employer. He makes an excellent observation when he notes that the modern corporation’s enthusiasm for process has it’s roots in the same desire to separate thinking from doing and to create efficiencies by taking unpredictable individual decision-making out of the equation and making sure that everyone’s job is very specifically delineated. Just as in the assembly line, each knowledge worker has his or her assigned role and one is expected not to deviate from that by too much.

The White-Collar Assembly Line

This creates much of the cognitive dissonance familiar to anyone who has worked in an office setting. Companies want employees productive and they want processes streamlined and set down in charts. But they also want their employees to show a certain amount of individual initiative. These motives are at odds with one another and create many of the philosophical absurdities that characterize office culture. Unfortunately, Crawford doesn’t make this connection, as he veers off instead at the shibboleth of multiculturalism (perhaps a vestige of his days at the think tank.) The reason that companies place so much value on teamwork is not because they have been infiltrated by liberals, but because in the office, the assembly line is made of people. Unlike Ford’s assembly line where the conveyor belt did the work of moving the project along, in the office any significant project is passed from one person to the next, and it’s important that people are able to communicate and get along to insure that the hand-off goes smoothly. In a human conveyer belt, if the workers are at odds with one another, the work goes more slowly; the conveyor belt breaks down and the knowledge worker assembly line becomes unproductive. It has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with productivity.

Self Esteem? Kind of Irrelevant, Actually

He gets it right when he writes on page 149 that “workers must…exhibit a high level of ‘buy-in’ to ‘the mission'” and that this is important to the corporation’s goals for the reasons of productivity stated above. But he fails to draw that conclusion, instead going off on a tangent about the evils of self-esteem. Although he draws on some real-life examples of new-agey team-building coaches and seminars, he doesn’t realize that such activities occupy a miniscule amount of the knowledge worker’s time: perhaps 3 weeks in a decade? (I would actually say less, but I am being charitable. Perhaps it depends on the company.) The corporation does not promote team-building and self-esteem out of some sense of squishy altruism. They do it because they don’t want their workers to slow productivity with disagreements.

Mastery is a By-product of Creativity Cultivated through Long Practice

He writes “creativity is a by-product of mastery of the sort that is cultivated through long practice.” I happen to think that he has it slightly backward: I would say that mastery is a by-product of creativity cultivated through long practice. But it is really a disagreement over semantics, we are essentially in agreement that mastery requires a lot of hard work and master craftsmen and artists do not spring fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus. But why do you start? Because you have to. Because you are compelled. So it begins, not ends, with creativity. But this is coming from a sketcher and painter of pictures—a person whose work is by its very nature useless (although human beings seem to need art for unknown reasons…eh, perhaps there is some use after all.) We are arriving at the same place by different directions: for the master, both creativity and mastery are needful. Perhaps the craftsman must master his craft before he can become creative, whereas the artist begins with the creative impulse and masters his materials to enable that impulse to manifest itself in the way he desires.

1. The book is based on an essay published in The New Atlantis in 2006. The essay gives a good overview of the book’s thesis and is well worth the read.
2. Frederick Winslow Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management, 1911.