I’ve been reading Lewis Hyde‘s book The Gift, (subtitle: Creativity and the Artist in the Modern World), and despite the title and this cover -

- it’s an amazing discussion of property and commerce. It confirms a lot of my ideas about ownership and what it means and how it affects the way we create art, Still, it’s edifying to see it presented so coherently by Hyde. This book was written twenty-five years ago, but it’s difficult to imagine a time when it’s value is more apparent than right now, when we’re witnessing a thriving literary and artistic community supported primarily by gift, not market, economies.
Hyde writes:
“Bad faith … is the confidence that there is corruption, not just that the covenants of men may be severed, but that all things may be decomposed and broken into fragments (the old sense of “corruption”). Out of bad faith comes a longing for control, for the law and the police. Bad faith suspects that the gift will not come back, that things won’t work out, that there is a scarcity so great in the world that it will devour whatever gifts appear. In bad faith the circle is broken.” (page 167)
I think about this in terms of the independent publishing world, which, in general, I’m quite enthusiastic about these days. I think the plurality and uncentered nature of the literary landscape that we are experiencing is not irresponsibly called a renaissance, but there are still some common practices, overtures to the centralized, hierarchical, once powerful corporate publishers, that indie presses seem dedicated to maintaining, and I’m not sure why. Ideas such as number book runs (“This is a FIRST printing.” “Look at me, I SOLD enough books for a third printing!” “We invested a ton of cash and material resources in printing an arbitrary number of books for our sweet first RUN.”), and the big one is the support of the archaic, abusive copyright system that has been so oppressive to the kinds of literature that they are trying to disseminate. The molasses-walking speed at which small presses are adopting healthy policies like using reasonable and arts-supportive Creative Commons licenses is baffling to me. The insistence on reserving all rights and subscribing to American copyright policy seems completely antithetical to the purpose of so many of these presses – encouraging dialogue, challenging systems, inventing new norms. I mean, I even see people putting “all rights reserved” on their blogs. Really?!
The best I can come up with that is not so much a choice, but an imitation of the institutions that they are in many ways opposing. Applying copyright is a decision of default, I think, usually made in ignorance of the harm of the system. I don’t know … maybe some small press editors could shed some light for me?