The Anarchist Cookbook

[Fritz]

Some of you older folks (and perhaps some younger ones) may have read the Anarchist Cookbook at some time in your life. The popularity of the book seems to come in waves.

Anyhow, when looking at amazon for it (to come up with a reply to Easy Mac's "I coun;t be much of a terrorist on $375 post) I came across this letter from the author. Perhaps you will be interested.

Editorial Reviews
From the Author

I have recently been made aware of several websites that focus on The Anarchist Cookbook. As the author of the original publication some 30 plus years ago, it is appropriate for me to comment.

The Anarchist Cookbook was written during 1968 and part of 1969 soon after I graduated from high school. At the time, I was 19 years old and the Vietnam War and the so-called \223counter culture movement\224 were at their height. I was involved in the anti-war movement and attended numerous peace rallies and demonstrations. The book, in many respects, was a misguided product of my adolescent anger at the prospect of being drafted and sent to Vietnam to fight in a war that I did not believe in.

I conducted the research for the manuscript on my own, primarily at the New York City Public Library. Most of the contents were gleaned from Military and Special Forces Manuals. I was not member of any radical group of either a left or right wing persuasion.

I submitted the manuscript directly to a number of publishers without the help or advice of an agent. Ultimately, it was accepted by Lyle Stuart Inc. and was published verbatim \226 without editing \226 in early 1970. Contrary to what is the normal custom, the copyright for the book was taken out in the name of the publisher rather than the author. I did not appreciate the significance of this at the time and would only come to understand it some years later when I requested that the book be taken out of print.

The central idea to the book was that violence is an acceptable means to bring about political change. I no longer agree with this.

Apparently in recent years, The Anarchist Cookbook has seen a number of \221copy cat' type publications, some with remarkably similar titles (Anarchist Cookbook II, IIIetc). I am not familiar with these publications and cannot comment upon them. I can say that the original Anarchist Cookbook has not been revised or updated in any way by me since it was first published.

During the years that followed its publication, I went to university, married, became a father and a teacher of adolescents. These developments had a profound moral and spiritual effect on me. I found that I no longer agreed with what I had written earlier and I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the ideas that I had put my name to. In 1976 I became a confirmed Anglican Christian and shortly thereafter I wrote to Lyle Stuart Inc. explaining that I no longer held the views that were expressed in the book and requested that The Anarchist Cookbook be taken out of print. The response from the publisher was that the copyright was in his name and therefore such a decision was his to make \226 not the author's. In the early 1980's, the rights for the book were sold to another publisher. I have had no contact with that publisher (other than to request that the book be taken out of print) and I receive no royalties.

Unfortunately, the book continues to be in print and with the advent of the Internet several websites dealing with it have emerged. I want to state categorically that I am not in agreement with the contents of The Anarchist Cookbook and I would be very pleased (and relieved) to see its publication discontinued. I consider it to be a misguided and potentially dangerous publication which should be taken out of print.

William Powell

[Franklinnoble]

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the copyright for the Anarchist's Cookbook has basically been usurped from the author by a corporate publishing establishment?

[WussGawd]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the copyright for the Anarchist's Cookbook has basically been usurped from the author by a corporate publishing establishment?

Take a look at the title page of any 20 books on your bookshelf. This is the case far more often than people outside of publishing would like to believe.

[JPhillips]

Or look at your CD cases. In general artists don't own the rights to their work. You only get that when you get famous enough to make it worthwhile for the publisher/producer.

[clintl]

That won't happen if you get an agent to negotiate your contract or, as an author, understand the business side of writing.

[clintl]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Or look at your CD cases. In general artists don't own the rights to their work. You only get that when you get famous enough to make it worthwhile for the publisher/producer.

Dola...

The music business is different. Record companies have historically classified musical works as "works for hire" in their contracts. Professional writers won't touch a "work for hire" contract.

[JPhillips]

clintl: Thanks. I only really know playwrighting where the play often is not the property of the writer after it gets published.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by clintl
Dola...

The music business is different. Record companies have historically classified musical works as "works for hire" in their contracts. Professional writers won't touch a "work for hire" contract.

You're right, they're vastly different industries. Musicians basically make all their money on touring and merchandise, with only a small percentage of their income actually coming from the record deal. This is why you see very few artists come out against piracy. It's really only a few here and there. Some popular artists have flat our said they don't care if people download their music or buy the CD... because they really make their money touring.

Clearly there is nothing comparable in writing. Authors don't make a majority of money doing book signings or readings.

[Drake]

Clint's right. This is an odd situation for book publishing. I'm confused, howevery, by how the original publisher could continue to pay him royalties if it actually owned the copyright. Usually in cases like this, what you see is a contract where in the publisher has purchased the book as a property for a one time fee.

Very odd.

[JPhillips]

This is where I messed up, because its standard with plays. The publisher owns the script, but the writer gets royalties with each performance.