Rating: 
Summary: Stretched too thin
Review: A colleague, influenced by reading this book years ago, posted a recommendation, and as I am interested in the Sociology of Art and being a for-profit composer, I thought it might be pertinent.Unfortunately, this book reminds me of that old joke, that there are two kinds of people in this world - those who believe there are two kinds of people in this world, and those who don't. In his general criticism of the limits of Capitalism, Mr. Hyde says things that will warm the hearts of any liberal. For example, "There is a place for volunteer labor, for mutual aid, for in-house work, for healings that require sympathetic contact or a cohesive support group, for strengthening the bonds of kinship, for intellectual community, for creative idleness, for the slow maturation of talent, for the creation and preservation and dissemination of culture, and so on." It's a great sentence, and deserves mulling. Compare that with this later nonsense: "We have, on the one hand, imagination, synthetic thought, gift exchange, use value, and gift-increase, all of which are linked by a common element of eros, or relationship, binding, 'shaping into one.' And we have, on the other hand, analytic or dialectical thought, self-reflection, logic, market exchange, exchange value, and interest on loans, all of which share a touch of logos, of differentiating into parts." Must Mr. Hyde equivalence everything? Must everything that the marketplace has difficulty in valuing be called a "gift"? Must the world be broken into Capitalism and gifts? How about Capitalism and lots of things not covered by Capitalism? And he definitely needs to read some Buber. As a poet, Mr. Hyde should understand the difference between saying that a person is "gifted"; i.e., has received a gift FROM GOD, and whether the work done is a "gift" to others. It's as if the entire first half of his book is based around a coincidental quirk of colloquial English - definition one and two in the dictionary. It's a shame, because in the last three chapters, Hyde writes about what he really wants to: Whitman's homosexuality, and Pound's politics. Unfortunately, Hyde confuses his approval of the former (which led to the care of Civil War casualties) and condemnation of the latter (which led to anti-Semitic tirades) with judgements of the worth of each's poetry during these times. It's a weak thesis, and bears little relation to all the "gift" theory in the beginning, which suffers from the same Jungian equivalence syndrome (all fairy tales are the same, blah, blah, blah). And then, in the last chapter, he throws away the theory and writes a conclusion which is observant, in its way. So there's much good in this book, but it's mixed in with so much bad (the soul, spirit, greatness - the usual hack work), that it's not worth a thorough read. And he completely ignores Warhol, conceptualism, performance art - all kinds of recent challenges to the old theory of "art" that in 1979-83 he should have been fully aware of.
Rating: 
Summary: Inspiring and full of life
Review: I read this book on the recommendation of a dear friend of mine, and after reading it i can understand why she recommended it. This philosophic and poetic book deals with a very important facet of human lives and societies that is all too often overlooked in economic analyis, namely the act of giving where no market is involved. This book is not your usual and often too facile critique of the market economy. The latter gets its proper due but not only in a negative sense; after all, market economic systems generate goods and choices in a particular area of scarcity in more efficient ways than tried out on other systems. Yes, it is certainly true, as the author points out, that the social act and economics of the commodity exchange is something else entirely than the social act of giving outside of the market economy, and both the analyis and implications in the book make that deservedly clear. As an economist i found the discussion on usury and the different categories of values that can be atttached to a product very interesting and basic. At the same time, I had not yet encountered such an interesting discussion on the act of giving as part of a society and the linkages with a commodity producing market economy. And as a person taking part of society I found the discussion on the creative act of giving and the trace of social bonds this engenders inspiring on a personal level as well. The writer here mixes analysis with what is for me enlightening poetic language, and the role of the artist here is also well put. As other reviewers, I found the first part very interesting while the further discussion on Whitman and Pound was harder going. Although certainly not always an easy read as a scholarly study, I can certainly recommend this unusual book on the abundance and generosity of spirit that living in society can bring, as a conscious act with magic of inspiration.
Rating: 
Summary: An unusually memorable book.
Review: I read this more than five years ago. It is scholarly but well written. When I finished it, I wondered how practical it would be. In the last five years, I have thought about it several times. I cannot say that about 90% of the books I have read. I believe it is a good example of "history of ideas" literature. It is a deconstruction of the notion of economics and commerce. By focusing on the narrow subject of gift giving, it opens the window to a critical understanding of common ideas like "interest," "usury," and "economic community." After all, what makes up a global economy? How do people bind themselves to "beliefs" that enable cooperation. The book is not prescriptive. Instead, it is provocative to the extent that it challenges assumptions. I recommend it to the reader who is looking for an intellectual escape into the historically possible.
Rating:
Summary: An unusually memorable book.
Review: I read this more than five years ago. It is scholarly but well written. When I finished it, I wondered how practical it would be. In the last five years, I have thought about it several times. I cannot say that about 90% of the books I have read. I believe it is a good example of "history of ideas" literature. It is a deconstruction of the notion of economics and commerce. By focusing on the narrow subject of gift giving, it opens the window to a critical understanding of common ideas like "interest," "usury," and "economic community." After all, what makes up a global economy? How do people bind themselves to "beliefs" that enable cooperation. The book is not prescriptive. Instead, it is provocative to the extent that it challenges assumptions. I recommend it to the reader who is looking for an intellectual escape into the historically possible.
Rating:
Summary: The Gift
Review: I would rank this book in the 10 most important I have read. His study of Gift giving throughout history and with different cultures changed my entire view of how we give and receive gifts.
Rating:
Summary: Why isn't this a classic?
Review: In many aspects this is an exceptional book. It not only discusses the history of gift in culture but through the work of Walt Whitman and Ezra Pound it discusses the gift in poetry and art as well. The book focuses on the importance of gift, the flow and movement of gift, and the impact that the modern market place has had on the circle of gift. From the opening pages when Hyde amuzingly discloses the premise of gift by juxtaposing the Indian Giver with White Man Keeper, the book progresses gift through community, folktale and art. If you have ever been dismayed by the modern or postmodern. If you have ever wanted to make your money, cash out and leave the madness, you should read this book. Not only does it give you hope, it may rejunvenate your idea of community. Gift is a tremendous piece of scholarship and for it to lay, largely undiscovered, is a shame indeed.
Rating: 
Summary: The excerpt alone is full of faulty reasoning.
Review: In the excerpt we are immediately asked to imagine a scene where a boorish colonist mistakes an Indian loan for an Indian gift. In the scene it is noted that when the Englishman receives this gift he immediately says to himself, "What a nice thing to send back to the British Museum!". When the Indians later demand to know where their gift is, the Englishman is so astounded they would voice this demand he invented the term, "Indian giver" to ridicule it. We are then given the author's definition of gift as a gift that keeps on giving.. i.e. the gift doesn't stop with the receiver but must be passed on to keep it true; "whatever we have been given is supposed to be given away again, not kept." Except we learn in the next paragraph that actually the material gift is not important if it is replaced with another gift of equal or greater value. He even goes on to state that the gift need not be returned to the original donor but can be passed along to another member of society. Well, isn't that what the Englishman intended to do upon first receiving it? What we are actually witnessing is a clash of presuppostions based on two parties coming from completely different methodolgies of trade and social discourse. What gifting is to the Englishman is always an expression of gratitude or good will with no strings attached. What gifting is to the barter-centered Indian is the exact opposite. The Indians were not giving anything away but their trust. Under a barter economy transactions are conducted in goods with gifts given as a prelude to NEGOTIATION. The Indians were not being generous with their goods but were instead being generous with their credit! Under a barter economy how do you suppose a new-comer would be greeted? Remember there is no currency, only capital. Well, if you are a savvy trader you will attempt to determine your new neighbor's credit worthiness by offering something of value and then waiting for the return. If the object itself is returned it means the newcomer is relatively poor and has nothing of equal value. If something of relatively equal value is returned then a certain equity can be assumed. If something of greater value is returned then the tables have been turned and negotiations can continue untill all parties are comfortable with each other, i.e. each has gotten to know one another via this custom. The fact is, under this system nothing is given freely. It is understood by all that this is all negotiation. Polite negotiation. The Englishman walks into this world from a completely different background. His economy is revolving not around constant negotiation with everybody he meets. Things are much more regulated. The art of negotiation is lost on him. The Englishman's immediate desire to give the pipe to a museum completely undermines the author's contention that the Englishman wanted to keep it for himself. The Englishman actually is more in tune with the author's description of a gift than the Indians. What actually is happening here is the exact opposite of what the author wants us to believe. The Englishman will give the gift to a British museum where he will in effect be circulating this gift throughout the world. The Indians want it back or something back to communicate to them the newcomers relative wealth and hence further credit worthiness. It can be assumed that the Englishman is also working under similar ideologies but under a more protracted and sophisticated methology. He is giving to a museum from which he has taken in the past free of charge. He is returning to the museum an obligation he feels which is the same obligation the author is describing as existing only in the Indian world. But wait a second. It seems that this exchange is simply a protracted settling of accounts between the colonist and the museum. It is the same settling of accounts the Indians expected but to which the Englishman simply transferred to his own set of books which actually preffered to assume all gifts were eventually to be repaid without ever the contention that it would be otherwise. The Indians simply had a much more LOCAL and IMMEDIATE need for retribution. The term "Indian giver" can be seen an accurate description of a type of gift that contains an immediate retribution. As opposed to gifts within a monied economy where barter has been replaced with retail, gifting has simply become less important as a means of character assessment. In a monied economy, the entire barter system is replaced with a much more convenient marketplace. The disparity between the two views of gifts has nothing to do with framing the colonists or the Indians as being more or less generous but instead has everything to do with simple misunderstanding. Misunderstanding that may have been reconcilable if the colonists had not been so eager to view the Indian as anything more than savage.
Rating:
Summary: The other half of economics
Review: The first essay in this compilation of three is one of those pieces that can potentially change a person's life. Any student of the social sciences becomes aware that there are many important exchanges made in society which are not and cannot be valued in market transactions. Hyde offers a thoughtful analysis of the social function of goods and services exchanged outside the structure of the market. These arguments are essential as a counterbalance to the positivism expressed in most economic thought today. A good deal of the material from which Hyde draws can be found in Marcel Mauss's book, also called in English, *The Gift* (Essai sur le don). Anybody who has loved Hyde's book will want to read Mauss's as well.
Rating: 
Summary: Quite illuminating
Review: The first seven chapters of this book are great. After reading them, I realized a number of things that I had never even considered before. The remaining three chapters (with extensive discussion of Ezra Pound and Walt Whitman) were not nearly as interesting or helpful to me. Nevertheless, the beginning of the book makes it more than worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent writing about a central human experience: gifting.
Review: The other reviewers have captured the essence of THE GIFT -- itself a gift, from the author to his readers. It has not lost any relevance since its first appearance in 1977: gifting is still the most important type of transaction, more fundamental than marketplace selling and buying. I'm beginning a book on the gift economy. THE GIFT is my foundation. It boosts me easily into the stratosphere, so strong is Hyde's presentation. Thank you, Lewis.
| 
