Bob Dylan wins Nobel Literature Prize

[Richard Tarleton]

Is Dylan, as a poet, the equivalent of someone like Robert Burns?

Um - the question of what sort of poet Dylan is, is a complex one. The similarity to Burns is, I'd suggest, a superficial one, prompted perhaps by some of the apparent naivety of the rhyming and versification. I'm just re-reading Christopher Ricks's "Dylan's Visions of Sin", which is a poetry professor's exploration of Dylan's poetry/songs.... Ricks has written books on Tennyson, Keats, Milton and TS Eliot, some of whom are among the literary influences he traces in Dylan (along with, most importantly, Blake, Swinburne and others). Ricks subjects Dylan's rhymes, structures, imagery etc. in a selection of songs to minute examination, using the full armoury of literary criticism.

Dylan does channel Burns in one obvious homage (Highlands) and performed a Burns song (Phillis the Fair) in 1988, for which factoid I'm grateful to Michael Gray's monumental "Song and Dance Man lll . Burns was an extraordinary original genius, from a simple background, home-schooled at least to start with...Dylan, also an original genius IMV, was, rather, well-educated and a voracious mopper-up of literary influences. Not a plagiarist - rather, a lot of what he had read or absorbed was forged anew in the extraordinary crucible of his particular genius. Not being a professor of poetry myself I'd merely suggest further reading, see above

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

From the lyrics that have been posted in various places by his fans, the person who comes to my mind is William McGonagall.

No doubt - but this association does not occur to the different mind of the former Oxford Professor of Poetry.

[french frank]

Professor Ricks, referred to earlier in this thread, has warned against calling his songs literature. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/wha...terature-is-d/

I doubt Professor Ricks wrote the headline - but I'm sure he'd approve of it, especially the implications of 'reducing his songs to 'literature'' '. I don't think it's particularly 'scholarly' to talk about 'genius' in the context, nor about 'great art', without defining 'great'.

Beatles, Dylan, Bowie - yes, even Harry Potter - are certainly 'social phenomena' in having captured the imagination and admiration of huge numbers (and a wide range) of people. But so far they are living on in the memory of people who remember them. I don't know that the Beatles, Dylan or Bowie are 'great' now in the way they were during their heyday, or whether, without that heyday to continue to give impetus to a certain popularity, they would be remembered - or would they be able to reinvent themselves with equal success?

The OED definition of literature 'without defining word': written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit. Compared with Beowulf, Shakespeare, Keats, &c. Dylan has not yet proved to be of 'lasting artistic merit', but maybe he will. As for superior, superior to what? Comparable 'stuff'? There might be a point there …

[french frank]

The similarity to Burns is, I'd suggest, a superficial one, prompted perhaps by some of the apparent naivety of the rhyming and versification.

That was NOT what I was thinking of at all! I was thinking more of the slightly 'wild boy' image, educated certainly but wearing his education lightly, the speech more obviously of the people rather than of a, cough, more removed metropolitan elite. Simplicity or naivety, if you like, but not in a disparaging way. And 'popular' as in 'of the people', rough rather than polished. Yet Burns is still rated - that was the point.

[johncorrigan]

No - he's made it very clear that he ain't gonna work on the haggis farm no more.

Nice one, ferney!

[Richard Tarleton]

That was NOT what I was thinking of at all! I was thinking more of the slightly 'wild boy' image, educated certainly but wearing his education lightly, the speech more obviously of the people rather than of a, cough, more removed metropolitan elite. Simplicity or naivety, if you like, but not in a disparaging way. And 'popular' as in 'of the people', rough rather than polished. Yet Burns is still rated - that was the point.

Thank you for that! In which case....yes

Re still being rated - I wonder if it will be harder for a whole range of 20th century artists who are highly thought-of today (writers, musicians, visual/plastic arts) to be rated in 200 years time, given the way the cultural landscape has - what's the word, multiplied, diversified, fragmented, over the last half century? Easier in Burns's day for someone to take in much of the cultural scene.

[subcontrabass]

No doubt - but this association does not occur to the different mind of the former Oxford Professor of Poetry.

Possibly a question of whether one is looking at what goes in or at what comes out.

[Richard Tarleton]

Possibly a question of whether one is looking at what goes in or at what comes out.

Er...no. Probably no use suggesting you read Prof Ricks's oeuvre, as I don't expect it would appeal, but he subjects "what comes out" to the close scrutiny of literary criticism.

[Conchis]

This prize must represent the greatest turnaround in an artist's reputation in living memory. I can recall a time - late 80s to early 90s -when Dylan was almost universally regarded as a busted flush, who was missing out on the later career 'second wind' afforded to contemporaries like Neil Young and Paul Simon. It took a while, but the tables have turned decisively.

[Serial_Apologist]

Beatles, Dylan, Bowie - yes, even Harry Potter - are certainly 'social phenomena' in having captured the imagination and admiration of huge numbers (and a wide range) of people. But so far they are living on in the memory of people who remember them. I don't know that the Beatles, Dylan or Bowie are 'great' now in the way they were during their heyday, or whether, without that heyday to continue to give impetus to a certain popularity, they would be remembered - or would they be able to reinvent themselves with equal success?

Since we're taking of words and music, the issue of greatness is not seen to arise in the cases of, for instance, Schubert, whose greatness as a song setter is not questioned or put down to relevance to the present, but is ascribed to his having enriched the art of song writing - and that is without ever (as far as i know) written his own lyrics.

[Lat-Literal]

If it is ultimately derailed, perhaps they could give it instead to Ferlinghetti.

He's still alive.

Mind you, at 97 he is also very well placed to be parachuted in as President.

"........If you would be a poet, create works capable of answering the challenge of
apocalyptic times, even if this meaning sounds apocalyptic.

You are Whitman, you are Poe, you are Mark Twain, you are Emily Dickinson and Edna St. Vincent Millay, you are Neruda and Mayakovsky and Pasolini, you are an American or a non-American, you can conquer the conquerors with words...."

— Lawrence Ferlinghetti. From Poetry as Insurgent Art [I am signaling you through the flames].

[Richard Tarleton]

Nice little third leader in the S Times ("Don't thank at once, it's all right") asking what the etiquette is when receiving the phone call from Sweden, comparing the responses of Yeats, Sartre and Heaney, and reminding us that Dylan is the only figure in history to win a Grammy, an Oscar, a Pulitzer and a Nobel. "With that many awards, it's no wonder it takes him a while to say thank you".

[french frank]

Since we're taking of words and music, the issue of greatness is not seen to arise in the cases of, for instance, Schubert, whose greatness as a song setter is not questioned or put down to relevance to the present, but is ascribed to his having enriched the art of song writing - and that is without ever (as far as i know) written his own lyrics.

Writing music, words and performing is very much a recent development - in effect, since very early examples may supply words but no authentic record of the music/performance.

I assume that Dylan's contribution to 'literature' is through his words, not his musical composition - though I don't imagine a slim volume of his words only would have had the same success among that generation. The problem with placing his work as 'poetry' is that was his persona, his personal image that captured their imagination as much as any detachable element - words, musical composition, performance. In Schubert's day, setting even an indifferent poem still left the musical setting as the primary element.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Writing music, words and performing is very much a recent development - in effect, since very early examples may supply words but no authentic record of the music/performance..

Machaut? The Trobadours?

[french frank]

Machaut? The Trobadours?

We have the music of Machaut, but not a record of performance (as far as I know). Similarly (probably moreso) with the troubs. Which was what I meant by 'no authentic record of music/performance'.