Another thing that I thought would make an interesting class discussion is the question of the creative commons license. Nokuthula Mazibuko published her book under this license, which basically gives permission for anyone else to add to it as long as it’s not offensive in some way. She explained that her reason for doing this is that it’s not just a story that can be told by one person–many people are involved with stories, and they should be allowed (and encouraged) to add to this. Also coming into play is the idea of a South African tradition of storytelling. In oral traditions like this, stories go through many people and consequently many versions, but gain meaning rather than losing it by this experience. This is an interesting idea to apply to literature, or any form of art. Think of a piece of music under a creative commons license and the transformations it might undergo as various composers change it and build upon it. On the one hand, the original composer might feel a little resentful that his or her work is being taken away from its original form and intent. (Though if he/she puts it under creative commons, I’m assuming that this feeling wouldn’t actually be a factor.) On the other hand, consider what an amazing work of art it could become after scores (no pun intended) of musicians have their way with it.
I’m not sure if I’d be able to put any of my work under a creative commons license. However, I think that the decision to do that would be primarily based upon what type of work it was. If it’s non-fiction or biographical, or even opinion, then I probably wouldn’t have as many reservations in that area. But I’m not so sure how I’d feel about other people tampering with a work of short fiction or a piece of artwork. Does willingness to put something under a creative commons license simply depend on context and subject matter, or is it more a general frame of mind?