Bob Dylan wins Nobel Literature Prize

[gurnemanz]

Re Highlands quoted above by Lat above: It was especially intriguing to have it as a kind of 30-years-later sequel to the classic Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands. Fascinating article here.
I know most of Goethe's poems. But the ones most firmly imprinted and uppermost in my consciousness are probably those which have been memorably set by Wolf, Schubert and others. I shall never be able to read Ganymed as just a poem on the page any more. Likewise Heine, Mörike and others. It is not a problem for me that a "folk-singer" (he's a bit more than that) should get the prize. Dylan has always seen his songs as only really existing in live performance, where they are recreated new each time. I suppose this happened at Schubertiad sessions as well. Aged 75 he is still touring, having clocked up 50 appearances this year already. He has performed All Along the Watchtower 2210 times. Over the decades we have seen him live five times and I wish I'd made more of an effort. The compelling experience of performed art offers insights not to be gained from the printed page or recordings. Stephen Dillane's rendition of The Four Quartets at the Donmar (with Beethoven's op 132 performed live on stage after it) and Fiona Shaw's Wasteland at Wilton's Music Hall (both delivered from memory) which we attended a few years ago were for me testaments to this.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

...and dynamite is not only used for war

Indeed.

as Blaster Bates explosive exploits show.

Good Lord! Now there's a (<ahem>) blast from the past that I'd really rather had stayed unexploded! (A former girlfriend and I parted company after my father played one of his LPs at her on one of her visits.) I wish you'd mentioned Fred Dibnah, instead!

[french frank]

No doubt. And while some might find awarding a literature prize to a folk singer-songwriter questionable, it surely pales into total insignificance next to awarding a peace prize on more than one occasion to a mass murderer.

But I think that puts both points of view in perspective: either both are "wrong" or neither is "wrong". All one is doing by accepting one and rejecting the other is imposing one's own 'correct' world view on the situation.

Neither would I see the current view as having anything to do with 'cultural relativism'. It doesn't mean that Bob Dylan is as 'great' a writer as Seamus Heaney or Samuel Beckett, any more than you can say that Beckett was 'greater' or 'as great as' Heaney, or vice versa. Or again, you're just imposing your personal opinion on the matter.

As for Dylan, his lyrics mean something, a lot, a very great deal or nothing to you (cards down, I'm in the latter group!): but that's all you can say. And you can quote as many of his lyrics with as much fervour as you like, and declare him to be a 'very worthy winner': but surely no one is so arrogant as to think that they speak from a godlike perspective on the matter, and that what they're saying is 'true'? Do they?

[Richard Barrett]

But I think that puts both points of view in perspective: either both are "wrong" or neither is "wrong".

I'm not quite sure what you mean there: whether someone is an important writer is up for discussion, whereas whether someone is a war criminal surely doesn't (except in a narrowly legalistic sense). So in this sense the peace prize "matters" a lot more than the literature prize. It certainly makes a much bigger difference in the world, for example in the case of Malala Yousafzai.

Returning to the topic though, I should say I'm really against prizes for any kind of artistic activity, whether literature or music or anything else, I don't think any useful purpose is served by them.

[jean]

...I'm really against prizes for any kind of artistic activity, whether literature or music or anything else, I don't think any useful purpose is served by them.

That's what I feel about the choral competitions people on this board are always lamenting our absence from!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That's what I feel about the choral competitions people on this board are always lamenting our absence from!

[Richard Tarleton]

As for Dylan, his lyrics mean something, a lot, a very great deal or nothing to you

Doesn't this apply to a great many, if not most, or even all, poets, ff?

Some interesting coverage in today's Times, inc. pieces by author and columnist Ben Macintyre, rock critic Will Hodgkinson and Times writer Ann Treneman who clearly has impeccable Dylan credentials - at the University of Oregon she took a class on Dylan's great epic song [and one of my favourite Dylan tracks, as it happens ] Desolation Row.

Interviewer: "Does Bob Dylan rerally deserve a Nobel Prize? Why?"

Sarah Danius [Swedish literature professor, and secretary to the Academy]: "Well of course he does. He just got it". She said Dylan albums should be read like poetry collections.

And you can quote as many of his lyrics with as much fervour as you like

Or...this might be a way to hint that his lyrics/poems might be worthy of further investigation, by those less familiar with them?

[Sir Velo]

And (in the "Peace" area at least) an uneasy conscience at having invented dynamite, perhaps?

Scientific discoveries don't exist in a vacuum, however. Someone else would have invented it very soon after, even if he hadn't (think of Fox Talbot and Daguerre's simultaneous and very similar inventions).

[doversoul1]

Doesn't this apply to a great many, if not most, or even all, poets, ff?

Few poets (if any at all) have the mass appeal that Dylan has and poetry does not usually come with music and performance. Would Dylan’s lyrics have moved so many people if they had not been songs that were sung by this particular singer? Where does ‘literature’ sit in this matter?

The Guardian. Somewhat reminds me of the day when David Bowie died.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/13/dylan-towers-over-everyone-salman-rushdie-kate-tempest-and-more-pay-tribute-to-bob-dylan

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

poetry does not usually come with music and performance.

Well, it doesn't in European culture between the 17th - 20th Centuries, perhaps, dovers - but the connection between the two is an ancient and reviving one (a glance up to my shelves shows the spine of my much-loved Mediaeval Lyrics, and goes on to other Elizabethan poems that would have been expected to have been connected to Music).

Would Dylan’s lyrics have moved so many people if they had not been songs that were sung by this particular singer? Where does ‘literature’ sit in this matter?

The only way that this can be constructively answered is to do what others have done and read the lyrics as poems (in the same way that we don't often listen to John Donne's Songs with Music - although that can be a marvellous experience). If we haven't done that reading, then we can't make any valid comment, perhaps?

[french frank]

I'm not quite sure what you mean there: whether someone is an important writer is up for discussion, whereas whether someone is a war criminal surely doesn't (except in a narrowly legalistic sense).

I think that most things are "up for discussion", though I agree with you in one sense on competitions for artistic activity - at least on creative activity: it's difficult to 'compare', like with like. But there are practical advantages in most cases for the winners which probably makes them feel prizes/competitions are worthwhile.

So in this sense the peace prize "matters" a lot more than the literature prize. It certainly makes a much bigger difference in the world, for example in the case of Malala Yousafzai.

Yes, though it's still hard to 'compare' in many cases. In the case of the peace prize, a narrowly defined contribution is often considered. A single novel or one collection of poetry may crown a wider achievement but is less likely to win a prize on its own.

[french frank]

Doesn't this apply to a great many, if not most, or even all, poets, ff?

Exactly. So what criteria are you using for singling out individuals?

Interviewer: "Does Bob Dylan rerally deserve a Nobel Prize? Why?"

Sarah Danius [Swedish literature professor, and secretary to the Academy]: "Well of course he does. He just got it". She said Dylan albums should be read like poetry collections.

That seems to state what I said before: he won the prize because the judges decided to give it to him. But what were their criteria on 'deserving'?

Or...this might be a way to hint that his lyrics/poems might be worthy of further investigation, by those less familiar with them?

Well, anyone who talks enthusiastically about anything is likely to convey the message that what they enthuse about is worth investigating. Whether someone else is inclined to investigate will depend a lot on the general information that, er, they have already gathered. In the case of Dylan this may be a fair amount for people of a certain generation. But we can't all follow up everyone else's every enthusiasm, and certainly not with guaranteed profit for ourselves.

[Richard Tarleton]

Thanks...just seeking clarification, as ever - I was steered towards history rather than Eng lit when it came to choosing what to do at uni (I have resisted the temptation to quote my favourite bits )

In fairness, several generations, 1960s till now (how long is a generation - but there are Dylan enthusiasts today who weren't even born in the 1960s, or even 70s, or even more recently). Paul Hewson, aka Bono, whom I saw on stage with Dylan in 1984, was born in 1960. Not sure what that proves. I think Dylan has cross-generational appeal. As Will Gompertz said on the news yesterday (more or less), unlike some of the more obscure Nobel laureates he has touched the lives of millions.

Ben Macintyre says: "While the Nobel panellists have frequently awarded the prize to giants of literature, too often they took refuge in obscurity, or writers with strictly regional appeal...."

My neighbour (who went to a recent gig in Cardiff), commenting on the preponderance of men d'un certain age in the audience - it was the first concert he'd been to where the queue for the gents in the interval was longer than the queue for the ladies. Which probably proves your point, generation-wise.

[Conchis]

I have been a Dylan admirer from the age of 15: in the early 80s, he was widely considered a busted flush, someone whose time had passed. It's good that this once generally held opinion seems to have been reversed.

Hst, I have reservations about the award: his work as a lyricist/songwriters had great resonance and he single-handedly made 'rock' music intellectually respectable. But his lyrics, considered as poetry, don't really cut the mustard and aren't especially innovative, as he has largely worked in established patterns of meter and verse.

For all that, it's a great and important body of work (even though I hardly ever listen to anything he did after Street Legal in 1978) and I can't think of any other living 'writer' who is more deserving (Margaret Atwood has been mentioned, but I'm sure her turn will come).

No: prizes for artistic endeavour mean nothing at all. It probably makes sense to accept one, though, if you are awarded one. It's hard to believe but, prior to 1969, Beckett had as many detractors as he had cheerleaders. The Nobel Prize, which he accepted reluctantly, had the effect of silencing most of his mainstream critics. Nobody seriously questions Beckett's importance today. The Noble Prize may have a similar effect on Dylan's critics, who whinge on about how he can't sing (not true) and steals his best ideas (partially true, but he's in good company).

Part of me thinks this prize is political, anyway: a coded message to America not to elect a bilious billionaire property developer as its next CEO and focus instead on its better side (though Hillary Clinton may not represent that).

Dylan has been resolutely 'non-political' for most of his career (he was a Greenwich Village leftist in his early years) and has never endorsed a candidate for office. Interestingly, in Chronicles (which I think is a work of fiction, anyway) he cites the right-wing Republican Barry Goldwater as his 'favourite politician.'

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It might be useful to be reminded/informed about how the laureates for Literature are chosen.

First, nominations are suggested by

1. Members of the Swedish Academy and of other academies, institutions and societies which are similar to it in construction and purpose;
2. Professors of literature and of linguistics at universities and university colleges;
3. Previous Nobel Laureates in Literature;
4. Presidents of those societies of authors that are representative of the literary production in their respective countries.

(nice to think that Tomas Tranströmer might have nominated Dylan!)
From this resulting list of nominees, five members of the Swedish Academy (the establishment responsible for selecting the Laureates since 1901) elect a winner. This year the selection group consisted of:

Members
Per Wästberg (Chairman)
FD, Writer

Kjell Espmark
FD, Emeritus Professor, Writer

Anders Olsson
Professor, Writer

Kristina Lugn
Writer

Horace Engdahl
Professor, Writer

... with assistance/contributions from

Sara Danius (Professor, Writer) and Katarina Frostenson (Writer).

Members of the committee are elected to serve a term of three years, so at least some of those who have chosen Dylan also were on the Committees that elected Svetlana Alexievich last year and Patrick Modiano in 2014.


(Information from the Nobel Prize website: https://www.nobelprize.org/ )