Quote:
Originally Posted by william z
If Bob Dylan had published those songs as poetry (assuming he could have found a publisher) I doubt very much if he would have ever had a very big fanbase or following
or ever been considered for a Nobel Prize.
|
Well, but you're lumping together two entirely different things here - aren't being a poet and having a big fanbase mutually exclusive these days? So the fact that Dylan might perhaps only have sold a few hundred copies of his lyrics if he had published them as poetry cannot be a measure of their quality.
I do agree that in modern times there is a difference between poetry written to be read and song lyrics written to be sung, but, firstly, why shouldn't the latter be considered literature if they are well written and have something original to say? I like the Swedish Academy's argument that originally all literature was made for performance.
However, even if one accepts the argument that "proper" poetry must hold up without any accompanying music (and I do see the merits of this argument: there are - and even Dylan has written - lots of lyrics that are an embarrassment if read out loud), I contend that Dylan has written quite a few lyrics that are great poetry and work very well without the music. I read somewhere that Christopher Hitchens and Salman Rushdie used to play a little game of reciting Dylan lyrics to each other as poetry and being surprised how many of them actually worked. Then there's Christopher Ricks' book, which is terribly boring, unfortunately, but isn't nearly all academic analysis of poetry?
I could go on and on. In the end it's all a matter of taste. Personally, I read quite a bit of poetry, and I have read a lot that certainly qualifies less than something like this:
Relationships of ownership
They whisper in the wings
To those condemned to act accordingly
And wait for succeeding kings.
And I try to harmonize with songs
The lonesome sparrow sings.
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden.