MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Bob Dylan wins Nobel Prize for Literature

william z · 10-23-2016, 02:16 PM

[QUOTE=doubleshuffle;3415469]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.[/QUOTE

But why do you assume Bob Dylan is a great poet? Judging by the comments here it seems many people do, but aren't they Dylan fans who presumably bought and listened to his records because they like his music?
Most of Dylan's fans are in fact products of the "counter culture" that came into being in the USA in the 1960's. I doubt if even Bob Dylan thinks of himself as a poet.

I am no big fan or judge of poetry, I only know what I like. My son (who has a PHD in literature) is a published poet and has written many reviews on modern poetry, laughed out loud when he heard Dylan won the Nobel Prize for Literature.

When I want to read, I pick up a book (or rather e-reader). When I want to listen to music I listen to it. I do both just about every day. They are not the same thing. If the Nobel comittee wants to make a category for popular music, that is their decision. But in my opinion, lyrics of popular songs are NOT literature.

10-23-2016, 02:16 PM	#179
william z Connoisseur Posts: 56 Karma: 4622408 Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: B.C., Canada Device: Kobo Touch	[QUOTE=doubleshuffle;3415469]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.[/QUOTE But why do you assume Bob Dylan is a great poet? Judging by the comments here it seems many people do, but aren't they Dylan fans who presumably bought and listened to his records because they like his music? Most of Dylan's fans are in fact products of the "counter culture" that came into being in the USA in the 1960's. I doubt if even Bob Dylan thinks of himself as a poet. I am no big fan or judge of poetry, I only know what I like. My son (who has a PHD in literature) is a published poet and has written many reviews on modern poetry, laughed out loud when he heard Dylan won the Nobel Prize for Literature. When I want to read, I pick up a book (or rather e-reader). When I want to listen to music I listen to it. I do both just about every day. They are not the same thing. If the Nobel comittee wants to make a category for popular music, that is their decision. But in my opinion, lyrics of popular songs are NOT literature.