Bob Dylan Wins An Award

[MystyrMystyry]

And some award - not less than the 2016 Nobel Prize for Literature!

I'm not sure about this, not least because so much of his writing existed in lyric form, rather than even entire short stories, but also that shouldn't he be up for a Hall Of Fame Grammy Award instead? Or is that reserved for rock'n'roll?

But anyway, controversial congratulations Mr Zimmerman

[YesNo]

I am glad he won.

[Pompey Bum]

I won the Nobel Praaaaaaaaaaaaaze.
That just shows you what happens to a fellow who traaaaaaaaaaaze.

[tailor STATELY]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dylan
The Pulitzer Prize jury in 2008 awarded him a special citation for "his profound impact on popular music and American culture, marked by lyrical compositions of extraordinary poetic power."

Most worthy in my humble opinion. I remember having discussions in a HS English class eons ago on his lyrics.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Danik 2016]

Bob Dylan is a cultural icon, his songs and lyrics are universal, he is a voice of many generations.

But as there were also consecrated fiction writers in the running I wonder if the academy itself isn´t getting tired of fiction!

Good for Bob Dylan, bad for fiction!

[Pompey Bum]

Fiction is just a bunch of laaaaaaaaaaaaze.
Wonder where I'll put my Nobel Praaaaaaaaaaaze.

[Lokasenna]

I was flabbergasted by the decision - I thought I'd misheard it at first. Bob Dylan? Really?

When you consider that the hotly tipped nominees were Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Haruki Murakami and Philip Roth - all writers of great merit and artistry - it seems rather perverse that the prize should go to someone who is first and foremost a musician.

In an era where reading as a pastime is in decline around the globe, giving the Nobel to an ageing rockstar instead of a serious novelist or poet seems a poor choice.

Sure, some of his songs are quite good - but strip away the music, look at them purely as poetry, and hold them up to some of the greats. Do they really compare? Really? Or is that just nostalgia talking?

[stlukesguild]

"Literature" is not limited to "fiction". Poetry, plays/theater, essays, criticism... and yes, lyrics/librettos are forms of literature. The announcement of Dylan's award stated, 'The Nobel Prize in Literature 2016 was awarded to Bob Dylan "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition".' This seems a legitimate argument to me. Dylan is one of the few song-writers whose lyrics can and do stand on their own... and I say this as one who has argued that most song lyrics... even many within the realm of Classical Music... do not stand on their own as fine poetry. I understand Lokasenna's argument that there are many "pure" poets and novelists and short-story writers who were passed over in favor of Dylan. But there are many truly great writers who were ignored or passed over (James Joyce, Leo Tolstoy, Anton Chekhov, Marcel Proust, Henrik Ibsen, Henry James, Italo Calvino, J.L. Borges, etc...). Of course the prize "for Literature" is often awarded equally based upon non-literary considerations... socio-political and cultural issues. While Derek Walcott was not undeserving of recognition, he was clearly and admittedly selected for the award in 1992... the 500th anniversary of Columbus' "discovery" of the Americas... as a representative of the Americas (excluding North America which had already been recognized a good deal) who was not of Spanish heritage. Toni Morrison was selected for both her merits as a writer and as a representative of African American culture. Obviously, the Nobel Committee makes some attempt to recognize writers from an array of cultural backgrounds as well as writers working across a vast spectrum of what might be termed "literature". Personally, I'd like to see the Nobel Prize widen its scope of cultural recognitions further and include awards for Music, Film, and the Visual Arts among other areas.

[Pompey Bum]

Now, some are dumb and some are waaaaaaaaaaaaze,
But I'm the one with the Nobel Praaaaaaaaaaaaze!

*Harmonica*

[Ecurb]

"How many times must a man look up before he can see the sky?"

Hmmm. Let me guess. One?

[Helga]

I was surprised at first and for a second I thought to myself 'are they giving out Nobels for music now?' but no for literature.

I do think that many lyrics out there today are so much crap that this is positive and he is a brilliant artist. The writers on the 'short list' are brilliant too though so a part of me is a bit perplexed.

Happy in general

[desiresjab]

Tupac, Biggie and Kanye are all worthy of at least a Pulitzer. Many literary greats found their ways to senate and parliamentary seats once they were established icons. We can only hope these contemporary gentlemen of literature will impart some of their wisdom to the political process as well. Who wouldn't back Jay-Z, Bruce Springsteen or Half A Buck for a cabinet post?

[Emil Miller]

And some award - not less than the 2016 Nobel Prize for Literature!

I'm not sure about this, not least because so much of his writing existed in lyric form, rather than even entire short stories, but also that shouldn't he be up for a Hall Of Fame Grammy Award instead? Or is that reserved for rock'n'roll?

But anyway, controversial congratulations Mr Zimmerman

It says more about the Nobel Prize Committee than the pop singer.

[YesNo]

It says more about the Nobel Prize Committee than the pop singer.

That's true.

Although I don't mind seeing Bob Dylan win a prize, I don't think winning the prize is going to increase his brand's market share. I really don't care who wins the Nobel Prizes. I am not going to listen to Bob Dylan more so now than before and I haven't listened to any of his songs in years.

[Danik 2016]

It seems that Bob Dylan himself is very reticent of the Nobel. He is said to have taken the mention of the award out of his site. The fact is that there is no mention whatever on it:
http://bobdylan.com/

[Emil Miller]

That's true.

....... I haven't listened to any of his songs in years.

Perhaps a sign of maturity.

[Sancho]

I like this quote from a 1965 Rolling Stone magazine interview with Bob Dylan:

Rolling Stone: Do you think of yourself primarily as a singer or a poet?
Dylan: Oh, I think of myself more as a song and dance man, y'know.

[YesNo]

It is a good thing I am not a politician. I am flip-flopping on whether I am glad Dylan won that award or not. Not that it matters. If they picked someone who wrote a huge quantity of long novels, I would feel like I might be missing something when I realized that I would never read them. No worry about that this year.

[AceOfSpaece]

Dylan, based purely on artistic merit and literary output, is deserving. More so than any other musical artist, his lyrics contain the depth, storytelling and wit of the proposed competitors, ie. Roth, DeLillo, Murakami, etc. The problem that I think many are having with the selection, which is a problem with another straight, white American male winning, is a legitimate one, I think. It's a toss up. Certainly controversial. Part of me wonders if, even now, the news has registered as "monumental" in Dylan's mind. He's not someone who cares even a sliver about awards, it seems.

[JCamilo]

The real issue (not the funny schizophrenia about this being some offense to novelists) is that Dylan is Pop. Not popular, Pop, as that kind of art that dealt with fast consumism. Now, people are trully afraid the "sacred award" will go mundane for other pop options, even those in the literary fields that are more traditional (albeit, few fields of literature are more traditional than writing for music)... people are scared to see real chance of Stephen King or J.K.Rowling winning. I am not sure if this will be, but perhaps there will be a chance that other fields, with pop appeal, can dream on, such as comic book writers.

Other than that, Dylan (as all winners) is bigger than the nobel. Simple as that.

[Danik 2016]

I think you have a good point there, Camilo! The question for me is: does the Academy really want to set new landmarks for the prize or is the board simply tired of reading novels.
And as I said above, Bob Dylan doesn´t seem too happy to find his production (which never depended on any awards to prosper) at the center of this polemic issue. That shows his good sense.

[Pompey Bum]

The real issue (not the funny schizophrenia about this being some offense to novelists) is that Dylan is Pop. Not popular, Pop, as that kind of art that dealt with fast consumism. Now, people are trully afraid the "sacred award" will go mundane for other pop options, even those in the literary fields that are more traditional (albeit, few fields of literature are more traditional than writing for music)... people are scared to see real chance of Stephen King or J.K.Rowling winning. I am not sure if this will be, but perhaps there will be a chance that other fields, with pop appeal, can dream on, such as comic book writers.

Yes, dream on is a good way to put it, JC. :)

All this is just a marginally funny cultural gaffe. Bob Dylan? Oh, great! He's that iconic American counterculture guy, right? And since we don't like Americans so much now, let's give him the award (Philip Roth would only encourage them). But the Nobel Committee lacked the cultural context to understand what fools they were making of themselves. Dylan's career (not his subsequent resale in Europe) came at a time in America when the highest praise one could receive was not that one was iconic but iconoclastic. And Dylan's early appeal was all about his iconoclasm. True, Dylan outlived his times and eventually produced some genuine mercantile crap (that is, "pop music"); but now that he's old and venerated by musicians (and doesn't need the Nobel Committee's $90,000 anymore), do you think he wants to be remembered as an iconic pop star or as the guy who got away with flipping off the system off when he was young?

I think it's great he's not tanking the Nobel Committee's calls. I hope he doesn't go to Stockholm at all, but that's his business. He's also said that they should have given the award to a struggling young writer who deserved it (so that leaves Stephen King and J.K. Rowling out :)). And the Nobel Committee has responded by calling him "impolite and arrogant." (Hee hee--dawn breaks on the fjords). But hey, you know what these Americans are. Next time will be ABBA's turn, I'm sure.

[JCamilo]

Yes, dream on is a good way to put it, JC. :)

All this is just a marginally funny cultural gaffe. Bob Dylan? Oh, great! He's that iconic American counterculture guy, right? And since we don't like Americans so much now, let's give him the award (Philip Roth would only encourage them). But the Nobel Committee lacked the cultural context to understand what fools they making of themselves. Dylan's career (not his subsequent resale fame in Europe) came at a time in America when the highest praise one could receive was not that one was iconic but iconoclastic. And Dylan's early appeal was all about his iconoclasm. True, Dylan outlived his times and produced some genuine mercantile crap (that is, "pop music"); but now that he's old and venerated by musicians (and doesn't need the Nobel Committee's $90,000 anymore), do you think he wants to be remembered as an iconic pop star or as the guy who got away with flipping off the system off when he was young?

I think it's great he's not tanking the Nobel Committee's calls. I hope he doesn't go to Stockholm at all, but that's his business. He's also said that they should have given the award to a struggling young writer who deserved it (so that leaves Stephen King and J.K. Rowling out :)). And the Nobel Committee has responded by calling him "impolite and arrogant." (Hee hee--dawn breaks on the fjords). But hey, you know what these Americans are. Next time will be ABBA's turn, I'm sure.

Not sure Pompey, not many years ago, he was in the Oscar Cerimony, getting his Oscar. True, part of Show busines and maybe the label "academic" is a burden to him and yeah, being a huge pop idol makes his reactions different. But the swedes ignored this or expected this? The promotion "See we consider popular options and americans after all" is done. Will work, either Dylan gets it or not. The message may be clear and they had to pay the price to rub the nobel on Dylan's fame.

ultimatelly, they cannot be that silly to not think about all this and yeah, had to be an american, the whole insular thing backfired (after all, a world-wide cultural industry being called insular is funny).

But anyways, those reactions from people (the whole it was an offense to america) is insane. People went comparing Dylan to Lady Gaga. That is missing a lot the target.

[JCamilo]

I think you have a good point there, Camilo! The question for me is: does the Academy really want to set new landmarks for the prize or is the board simply tired of reading novels.
And as I said above, Bob Dylan doesn´t seem too happy to find his production (which never depended on any awards to prosper) at the center of this polemic issue. That shows his good sense.

Well, novels/romance in prose is just a small part of literature. We see people in this forum who does not know they were written in verse and only think of the XIX century kind of novels. Literature is way more than this and however is from Brazil, the country of Vinicius de Moraes, must be finding the genre debate (and no, the Nobel didnt changed the boundary of what is literature. This boundary was never there in first place) out of order. It is just, imo, hiding the true fact. Bob Dylan means the nobel is no longer the toy of your rich neighbour. And funny, you think it is broken, but the rich neighbour think it is not.

[Pompey Bum]

Not sure Pompey, not many years ago, he was in the Oscar Cerimony, getting his Oscar. True, part of Show busines and maybe the label "academic" is a burden to him and yeah, being a huge pop idol makes his reactions different. But the swedes ignored this or expected this? The promotion "See we consider popular options and americans after all" is done. Will work, either Dylan gets it or not. The message may be clear and they had to pay the price to rub the nobel on Dylan's fame.

ultimatelly, they cannot be that silly to not think about all this and yeah, had to be an american, the whole insular thing backfired (after all, a world-wide cultural industry being called insular is funny).

But anyways, those reactions from people (the whole it was an offense to america) is insane. People went comparing Dylan to Lady Gaga. That is missing a lot the target.

The Oscar was for a song. He has also won the Pulitzer Prize and many Grammys for music. The issue is not if he accepts awards (he does) but whether he's going to accept the Nobel Prize for Literature when he believes it should have gone to an unknown, deserving writer. And he very well may accept it. As I said, that's his business. What I find funny is the Nobel Committee's reaction to his reluctance. There was nothing wrong with Dylan's being "impolite and arrogant" when American culture was the target, but impolite and arrogant to the Nobel Committee is quite another matter. Heh. Fielding was right: there's nothing funnier than pr*cking a pompous balloon.

And you know they're eating their livers, too, because the only other people to have refused the Nobel Prize for Literature were Boris Pasternak and Jean Paul Sartre. How dare this has-been American folk singer they were trying to use for their own smug purposes place himself in that company? Why doesn't he just fawn like he's supposed to? Only they are the ones who put him there. They did--if he doesn't accept. And again, who knows?

They also called him grumpy. Heh heh. Grumpy.

Go Dylan!

[stlukesguild]

The real issue (not the funny schizophrenia about this being some offense to novelists) is that Dylan is Pop. Not popular, Pop, as that kind of art that dealt with fast consumism. Now, people are trully afraid the "sacred award" will go mundane for other pop options, even those in the literary fields that are more traditional (albeit, few fields of literature are more traditional than writing for music)... people are scared to see real chance of Stephen King or J.K.Rowling winning. I am not sure if this will be, but perhaps there will be a chance that other fields, with pop appeal, can dream on, such as comic book writers.

Other than that, Dylan (as all winners) is bigger than the nobel. Simple as that

I was thinking the same thing. But then a decade ago... or so... I attended the Pittsburgh Bienale... which had a long tradition as one of the great art exhibitions. Figures such as Max Beckmann, Pierre Bonnard, and Henri Matisse had attended, won awards, and even been upon the jury. This particular year, R. Crumb was among the artists featured.

http://i.imgur.com/joXcB.jpg

Personally, I had no problem with Crumb being recognized. His work fit within the long tradition of satire that included "serious" artists such as Bosch, Breugel, Rowlandson, Hogarth, Daumier, Otto Dix, George Grosz, etc... An art historian as esteemed as Robert Hughes compared Crumb with Breugel... and quite honestly, I found many of his drawings far more interesting and visually innovative than many of the works by the art school trained painters and installation artists included in the exhibition. But the inclusion of Crumb outraged purists and the PC crowd alike who were offended by his work... and admittedly, Crumb is an equal opportunity offender, mocking everyone and everything... himself as much or more than anyone else.

[JCamilo]

In another forum, I half joked about Alan Moore winning next nobel and there was someone reaction "a man writing comics". Needless to say, it is someone who thinks the odds of winning the nobel is more important than talking about any aspect of Dylan victory, that called the prize holy and said about his 10 years dedication to follow it. I found hilarious (in a pathetic way), because those people would deny Shakespeare a nobel, for he was popular, wrote for another medium, etc. Yet, in his rant against the non-traditional view of novels as the only acceptable genre, he tried the old list of poets which he considered obscure to shut me down, but he mentioned Shuntaro Tanikawa, which funny enough, is not a traditional writer, working in several different forms of literature, translating Peanuts comics and writing lyrics too... oh, well, having to deal with the notions of high/low art at this time of my life...


USA being not insular at all and open to the popular culture (and I guess the fact bienale being something with a commercial side that keep them close to society dynamics) the reckognition of new expressions (which sometimes are not new at all, but a new medium, oh, ok, Marshall McLurham said the medium changes all) faster than the Nobel people. In the 80's Maus already broke the barrier and funny enough, there was a critic in a newspaper that needed to claim "it is not a comic book" so his praise wouldn't be "wasted" in such "genre".

[Danik 2016]

As Bob Dylan himself sung wisely some decades ago:
"Times are a changing"!

[Pompey Bum]

In another forum, I half joked about Alan Moore winning next nobel and there was someone reaction "a man writing comics". Needless to say, it is someone who thinks the odds of winning the nobel is more important than talking about any aspect of Dylan victory, that called the prize holy and said about his 10 years dedication to follow it. I found hilarious (in a pathetic way), because those people would deny Shakespeare a nobel, for he was popular, wrote for another medium, etc. Yet, in his rant against the non-traditional view of novels as the only acceptable genre, he tried the old list of poets which he considered obscure to shut me down, but he mentioned Shuntaro Tanikawa, which funny enough, is not a traditional writer, working in several different forms of literature, translating Peanuts comics and writing lyrics too... oh, well, having to deal with the notions of high/low art at this time of my life...

It sounds funny. I'll have to try to find that thread. I do think that the issue is a bit of a red herring where Dylan is concerned. Poetry is a kind of literature, song lyrics are a kind of poetry--what's the big deal? Doubting that Bob Dylan's song lyrics DESERVED to win the Nobel Prize for Literature--wondering, for example, why Woody Guthrie wasn't honored posthumously if the committee was so keen on American folk music traditions--or considering (as I do) the whole thing to be a ham-handed political stunt that backfired is not the same as saying that only novelists should win. The idea that non-traditional types of literature that should win (non-traditional for the award, that is) seems important to you, which is fine, but it is not the only aspect of the debate.

I just found a YouTube BBC interview with Margaret Atwood in which she agrees that the award was a political gesture. She sees it as being broadly directed a the American electorate vis a vis the Trump candidacy. I suspect she's overthinking things a little (although Europe certainly fears Trumps feints at economic isolationism). I think it's just self-satisfied (and clueless) European anti-Americanism. (Trust me, the American electorate doesn't give a rat's *ss what Stockholm thinks).


In the 80's Maus already broke the barrier and funny enough, there was a critic in a newspaper that needed to claim "it is not a comic book" so his praise wouldn't be "wasted" in such "genre".

There's a great story from the days of Maus' early history. It got to be a New York Times bestseller, and the newspaper listed it as fiction. That led to charges of holocaust denial, and a tempestuous meeting during which the following policy was proposed and carried: Okay, here's what we do. We go over to Speigelman's house and ring his bell. If a giant mouse comes to the door we'll change it. Heh.

[JCamilo]

You misunderstood me Pompey, I do think the only relevant aspect is if Dylan is worth or not. (if we should even disagree with something that is only an opinion from a bunch of guys). What I am sayng is exactly that the discussion focused on the red herring (and since, it is rathe diffiicult to challenge an opinion), the aspect of what it meant for the future this decison should have been followed.

It is political, it is a matter of opinion. It is not a revolution.

[Pompey Bum]

Thanks for the explanation, JC. My bad. Please note also that my I can't use italics because of a technical problem with the site, so it sometimes looks like I'm SHOUTING when all I'm doing is emphasizing. :)

There is something you wrote, though, that I don't completely understand. I get the general idea, but I'm not sure who the referents were.


Bob Dylan means the nobel is no longer the toy of your rich neighbour. And funny, you think it is broken, but the rich neighbour think it is not.

Who is the rich neighbor here? And what is broken? The toy? I just didn't quite process the metaphor.

[JCamilo]

Well, i have seen some of the reaction around with people taking it personaly. Because they follow the nobel, or buy the books of the nobel winners or just think they belong to the club (people who read) they think the nobel is somehow related to them. It is personal. It is not, it is a toy by a narrow group of people, hardly representative of the scope of the subject of their prize (literature in the world). Those people are like the poor neighbour who loved to see the rich neighbour playing with his little colored cars. So the rich neighbour broke one of them (and does not care) and the poor neighbour is crying bitter tears about the toy they never could play with.

[mortalterror]

Murakami can wait another year.

[mortalterror]

How dare this has-been American folk singer they were trying to use for their own smug purposes place himself in that company? Why doesn't he just fawn like he's supposed to? Only they are the ones who put him there. They did--if he doesn't accept. And again, who knows?

They also called him grumpy. Heh heh. Grumpy.

Go Dylan!

Can you really call him a has been if he's won 4 Grammies in the last ten years, his albums top the charts in both America and the UK, his biography is a bestseller, and his commercials air during the Super Bowl? It's not the 60s anymore, but some of his recent stuff is actually pretty good.


In another forum, I half joked about Alan Moore winning next nobel and there was someone reaction "a man writing comics". Needless to say, it is someone who thinks the odds of winning the nobel is more important than talking about any aspect of Dylan victory, that called the prize holy and said about his 10 years dedication to follow it. I found hilarious (in a pathetic way), because those people would deny Shakespeare a nobel, for he was popular, wrote for another medium, etc. Yet, in his rant against the non-traditional view of novels as the only acceptable genre, he tried the old list of poets which he considered obscure to shut me down, but he mentioned Shuntaro Tanikawa, which funny enough, is not a traditional writer, working in several different forms of literature, translating Peanuts comics and writing lyrics too... oh, well, having to deal with the notions of high/low art at this time of my life...


USA being not insular at all and open to the popular culture (and I guess the fact bienale being something with a commercial side that keep them close to society dynamics) the reckognition of new expressions (which sometimes are not new at all, but a new medium, oh, ok, Marshall McLurham said the medium changes all) faster than the Nobel people. In the 80's Maus already broke the barrier and funny enough, there was a critic in a newspaper that needed to claim "it is not a comic book" so his praise wouldn't be "wasted" in such "genre".
Alan Moore is a great author, whatever his genre. I wouldn't object to him winning a Pulitzer or a National Book Award, but a Nobel is stretching things a little too far. The top level of comicbook writing is actually respectable, but it's not at the same level as the top novelists. I'd put the best comicbooks near to or just beneath the best science fiction and fantasy writing. I'm not talking about all comicbooks. Most of them are trash. But Brian K. Vaughan, Grant Morrison, Garth Ennis, Mark Waid, Brian Michael Bendis, Mark Millar, or Ed Brubaker have hit homers often enough not to call it chance.

It's not like comicbooks don't have their own pretentious, artsy, intellectual side: Maus, Persepolis, Epileptic, etc. You have guys trying to push the boundaries of the media, developing new methods of avant-garde storytelling, playing with pictures and text, experimenting with daring and innovative layouts. I'd describe Grant Morrison's The Invisibles as profoundly philosophical, wildly creative, psychedelic, transformational, eclectic, and thoroughly unlike anything else I've ever read. Alan Moore's work on projects like Watchmen or Miracleman where he subverts genre expectations, engages in metafictional narratives, while simultaneously deconstructing and commenting on the medium he's working in are pretty impressive too. Then you have guys like Joe Sacco trying to revolutionize journalism writing non-fiction about war zones such as Bosnia or Palestine. Harvey Pekar writes autobiography and is beloved by the alternative/underground comics crowd.

[Pompey Bum]

Can you really call him a has been if he's won 4 Grammies in the last ten years, his albums top the charts in both America and the UK, his biography is a bestseller, and his commercials air during the Super Bowl?

You really need to get better at spotting irony, Mort.

[JCamilo]

Alan Moore is a great author, whatever his genre. I wouldn't object to him winning a Pulitzer or a National Book Award, but a Nobel is stretching things a little too far. The top level of comicbook writing is actually respectable, but it's not at the same level as the top novelists. I'd put the best comicbooks near to or just beneath the best science fiction and fantasy writing. I'm not talking about all comicbooks. Most of them are trash. But Brian K. Vaughan, Grant Morrison, Garth Ennis, Mark Waid, Brian Michael Bendis, Mark Millar, or Ed Brubaker have hit homers often enough not to call it chance.

It's not like comicbooks don't have their own pretentious, artsy, intellectual side: Maus, Persepolis, Epileptic, etc. You have guys trying to push the boundaries of the media, developing new methods of avant-garde storytelling, playing with pictures and text, experimenting with daring and innovative layouts. I'd describe Grant Morrison's The Invisibles as profoundly philosophical, wildly creative, psychedelic, transformational, eclectic, and thoroughly unlike anything else I've ever read. Alan Moore's work on projects like Watchmen or Miracleman where he subverts genre expectations, engages in metafictional narratives, while simultaneously deconstructing and commenting on the medium he's working in are pretty impressive too. Then you have guys like Joe Sacco trying to revolutionize journalism writing non-fiction about war zones such as Bosnia or Palestine. Harvey Pekar writes autobiography and is beloved by the alternative/underground comics crowd.

Why not Mortal? The expectations of a given genre change with time. If the Nobel was awared in XVIII or XIX century, this same speech could be uttered to tell novelists prose writers to sit on their place while all prizes would went to philosophers, playwritters and poets.

Now, it is not like I disagree about having novelists better than Moore. I think there is (Not Murakami, however), but usually the prize is not about the best writer, it is about a specific genre/form of literature and someone who represents this form and they are more political guidade than anything else.

When I say Moore, I must say, it is because what he represents. Could be Art Spielgeman, could be Bill Watterson or Quino, could be anyone working with the variation of the comic strip genre. Moore would be more funny because he would probally curse the Nobel to Hell or something. I am not fan of lists, so I will not make one, but I think some stuff written for comics was among the best stuff published in the XX century, I wouldn't say they were good as Joyce, Kafka, Borges (but they didnt won the nobel, did they?) but then, it is very hard to be good as those guys.

And comic book is a pop art, there is this different appeal that mix with a rock star appeal. It is different from just a popular writer. Maybe some genre specific writers could dream on, some of them in the past wrote stuff better than several nobel winners, they just were considered apart because of the label "Popular, pulp fiction". And for once, Fantasy for me is a genre with a lot of diversity and not exactly about elves and orcs. (And I know, in the end, you also think something similar, I recall your horror list with Browning for example, stretching the horror genre beyond lovecraft and poe)

[Danik 2016]

With Bob Dylan refusing to dance to the tune of the Academy (even if he is still going to accept the award) I expect a more conventional choice next year.

[Pompey Bum]

Definitely Kim Kardashian.

[Pompey Bum]

Just heard Keith Richards say, "I want mine for chemistry." Hee hee.

[Lendo]

For me, it's a bit strange to think that Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize, and than think that authors such as Umberto Eco, Franz Kafka, Liev Tolstoi or Mark Twain didn't.

[JCamilo]

it would be very weird Eco winning and Twain, Kafka and Tolstoi didnt

[YesNo]

As far as strange things happening, Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Although I voted for him, twice (separate elections), I still don't understand what was going through the minds of those Norwegians. Maybe Trump will win one of those prizes next year?

[tailor STATELY]

... or Hillary.

[Lendo]

it would be very weird Eco winning and Twain, Kafka and Tolstoi didnt

Obviously, i was not comparing Umberto Eco to Franz Kafka or Liev Tolstoi. What i meant to say was that both in more distant times or in recent years there were authors that deserved the Nobel Prize, and they would be much more fair receivers of the honour than Bob Dylan. In more distant years, Kafka and Mark Twain would deserve it, in more recent years Umberto Eco, Philip Roth or António Lobo Antunes were always names that would probably be distinguished with the prize. Never Bob Dylan.

So, i'm not comparing Eco to Kafka. I could never do it, because as much as i like Eco's work i like Kafka's even more. But if i compare Eco's contribute to literature to Dylan's, it's just behond my comprehension that Dylan won the Nobel Prize and, for example, Eco didn't.

[Lendo]

As far as strange things happening, Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Although I voted for him, twice (separate elections), I still don't understand what was going through the minds of those Norwegians. Maybe Trump will win one of those prizes next year?

Threw out the years, the Peace Nobel Prize became a political statemente and a political message. That's why Obama won it. Not because his actual work as President.

[JCamilo]

Obviously, i was not comparing Umberto Eco to Franz Kafka or Liev Tolstoi. What i meant to say was that both in more distant times or in recent years there were authors that deserved the Nobel Prize, and they would be much more fair receivers of the honour than Bob Dylan. In more distant years, Kafka and Mark Twain would deserve it, in more recent years Umberto Eco, Philip Roth or António Lobo Antunes were always names that would probably be distinguished with the prize. Never Bob Dylan.

So, i'm not comparing Eco to Kafka. I could never do it, because as much as i like Eco's work i like Kafka's even more. But if i compare Eco's contribute to literature to Dylan's, it's just behond my comprehension that Dylan won the Nobel Prize and, for example, Eco didn't.

Eco is just not that great (unless you consider his input in semiology, linguistic, medieval studies which are far superior to his fiction, but most people dont. I am not pointing fingers at you as I do not know you well enough. ).

I doubt Eco, Tolstoy, Kafka, Twain, Roth, Antonio could write verses better than Dylan. I am not talking about singing, but writting verses. I also doubt Dylan could write a novel or a short story like Tolstoy or Kafka (but then, very few could). In the end, they are all deserving (or undeserving). The nobel is not exactly about awarding the best writer, but the writer that best represents a model and the political intentions of the Swedes.

I suggest you to look at your list: prose writers, mostly novel writers. You, for example, being portuguese do not mention Fernando Pessoa or Carlos Drummond de Andrade. Those novels, the modern novel, is only one form of literary expression. Perhaps not even the most notable. Dylan wrote for another expression and he was quite talented at that.

[Lendo]

Eco is just not that great (unless you consider his input in semiology, linguistic, medieval studies which are far superior to his fiction, but most people dont. I am not pointing fingers at you as I do not know you well enough. ).

I doubt Eco, Tolstoy, Kafka, Twain, Roth, Antonio could write verses better than Dylan. I am not talking about singing, but writting verses. I also doubt Dylan could write a novel or a short story like Tolstoy or Kafka (but then, very few could). In the end, they are all deserving (or undeserving). The nobel is not exactly about awarding the best writer, but the writer that best represents a model and the political intentions of the Swedes.

I suggest you to look at your list: prose writers, mostly novel writers. You, for example, being portuguese do not mention Fernando Pessoa or Carlos Drummond de Andrade. Those novels, the modern novel, is only one form of literary expression. Perhaps not even the most notable. Dylan wrote for another expression and he was quite talented at that.

There's a question which is crucial to this discussion: can the work of Bob Dylan be considered Literature? The answer to this question decides if we can actually compare Dylan's work to the work of all the names we have mentioned so far, or if there's not even the possibility of comparing Dylan to them. We other agree that what Dylan does is Literature, and than we argue if it has the quality to win a Nobel Prize, or we don't consider Dylan's work Literature, which means that not only his work can not be compared to Tolstoi's or Twain's work, but he wasn't even qualified to be considered to the Nobel distinction.

And, in my opinion, Bob Dylan's work, Bob Dylan's art, as good and special as it is, as great and admirable as it is, it's not Literature. For me, Dylan winning the Literature Nobel Prize is like, in simple and clear terms, like a baseball player winning the NFL MVP Award. It just doesn't fit the principles that have been followed for more than a century. Dylan's work regards to music, not to Literature. And people who say it is Literature, in my opinion, give a very very big range to the word Literature.

But, for the sake of argument, let's consider Bob Dylan's work as Literature. Can his work be compared to the work of other writers, like Dostoievski, Camus or Gabriel García Marquez? I don't think so.
Let's narrow it down even more, and put it in the way you did, just comparing Dylan's work to other poets: can Dylan's work be compared to Fernando Pessoa's work? I don't think so. Can Dylan's work be compared to Drummond Andrade's work (Drummond de Andrade was brazilian, not portuguese)? I doubt it. Can Dylan's work be compared to Rimbauld's work? I seriously doubt it. Dylan won the Nobel Prize as a "poet", when most of the greatest poets alive or not were never distinguished with the honour. This is behond my comprehension.

Above all this comparisions, the most relevant of this decision by the Swedish Academy is the change of criteria and range of avaluation, and still over look to some of the best writers of the last decades. The Academy talked about the contribution of Dylan to the American culture... how does the Academy justifies the prize with that argument, when a writer named Philip Roth, considered one of the best american authors of the last decades, is considered a candidate every year to the Nobel Prize and than not only doesn't receive's it, but the prize is given to another american, who's not even an ortodox author or writer?

Finally, concerning to Eco: i like his fiction. I found his book "Number Zero" a very intelligent and meaningful book, even if it's written in a light way. But, of course, i do not compare Eco to Tolstoi, Camus or Fernando Pessoa.

[JCamilo]

There's a question which is crucial to this discussion: can the work of Bob Dylan be considered Literature? The answer to this question decides if we can actually compare Dylan's work to the work of all the names we have mentioned so far, or if there's not even the possibility of comparing Dylan to them. We other agree that what Dylan does is Literature, and than we argue if it has the quality to win a Nobel Prize, or we don't consider Dylan's work Literature, which means that not only his work can not be compared to Tolstoi's or Twain's work, but he wasn't even qualified to be considered to the Nobel distinction.

And, in my opinion, Bob Dylan's work, Bob Dylan's art, as good and special as it is, as great and admirable as it is, it's not Literature. For me, Dylan winning the Literature Nobel Prize is like, in simple and clear terms, like a baseball player winning the NFL MVP Award. It just doesn't fit the principles that have been followed for more than a century. Dylan's work regards to music, not to Literature. And people who say it is Literature, in my opinion, give a very very big range to the word Literature.

So, Lord Byron collection of poems from Hebrews Melodies are not literature? They are exactly the same: lyrics for songs. The entire genre Lyrics are first for music, not for writting/reading. Wagner is for example, considered among the german canon by Harold Bloom for his libretos. Also material intended for music. The number of poems that were written for music from past poets is huge. Are we dismissing them?

And if we start rulling out as Literature works that were crreaed for another medium (not just oral) or even other art forms (such as Theatre, Oral Literature, Music) we are going to be rulling out from the literature genre Homer (who wrote for Oral Perfomance), Shakespeare plays, Sophocles (Yeah, none of them wrote and published their work thinking of readers, but a audience listening the perfomance)... Are you sure I need to continue? The thing is, the very first time a person sit to determine literary genre, he already considered a genre which included the verses written to be sung. So, Dylan, who wrote verses to be sung is doing a literary genre that is described almost 2500 years ago. The question was never if what he did was literature.

Since you understand portuguese (I suppose you are not Brazilian, because brazilian literature already recognizes Patativa do Assaré or Catulo da Paixão Cearense as canonical poets and they were writting for music) I will give you someone who totally makes this question be lost in the space: Vinicius de Moraes. He is, in my opinion, one of the best sonnet writers of portuguese language. But he is also a huge name for music, as the main lyricist of Bossa Nova. Here is he with great Tom Jobim. When the literature ends? When it starts. Can you tell if he wrote those words for music? Or for a book? There is several lyrics of Vinicius which you cannt tell the difference. Maybe because there is no difference and we have to accept the idea Literatura is sometimes the support to another art form (and Music is a great artform, no shame of that. Ruskin would agree with that).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHgU4ERc7Nc



But, for the sake of argument, let's consider Bob Dylan's work as Literature. Can his work be compared to the work of other writers, like Dostoievski, Camus or Gabriel García Marquez? I don't think so.

Wait, let's compare them. Dylan use verses. Dostoievisky, Gargia Marquez, Camus use prose. We should start there. Often in the forums the proposition "lets compare" is actually an attempt to have no analyse or discussion. First then: who said those 3 are parameters we should consider for literature so we have to measure other writers by it? I do not think I can compare their works with Pablo Neruda, can we? (we can, but the same distinction applies to Dylan).

Sure, Camus or Marquez are in the nobel list, but the Nobel list has a variety of writers: Churchill, Yeats, Faulkner, Dario Fo, Shaw, Saramago, Neruda, Pearl S.Buck... How they compare among themselves?



Let's narrow it down even more, and put it in the way you did, just comparing Dylan's work to other poets: can Dylan's work be compared to Fernando Pessoa's work? I don't think so. Can Dylan's work be compared to Drummond Andrade's work (Drummond de Andrade was brazilian, not portuguese)? I doubt it. Can Dylan's work be compared to Rimbauld's work? I seriously doubt it. Dylan won the Nobel Prize as a "poet", when most of the greatest poets alive or not were never distinguished with the honour. This is behond my comprehension.

Yeah, Drummond is brazilian, but wrote in portuguese. We still have to make people accept to change the language to brazilian :D

Anyways, no, if you are comparing the quality, Dylan is not as good as Pessoa/Drummond/Rimbaud. But you know what? Rimbaud is not as good Pessoa and Drummond either. Thinking well, how many poets in the XX century are as good as those two? Elitot? Rilke? Yeats? (Two winners and most likely runners up for best poets of the Nobel period). All poets of Nobel list were as good? No. But the point, Dylan is winning when those guys were dead (Pessoa and Drummond were not even considered for the Nobel) and Dylan is not just a poet, it is a poet that was able to achive a notable reckongning in a art form (rock and roll) while none of those did. Perhaps Leonard Cohen could say : hey, i am better than this guy. But Leonard actually praised the choice. You have to consider Dylan huge influence in the genre, which pushed the limits of what a good lyric should be and added literary vallue to them.

Another thing: does not matter the Nobel when the topic is: this is literature? It is good? While their prize is already a form that the members are saying yes, with or without the nobel (Dylan name is suggested since the 90's), dylan lyrics appear in poetry anthologies, there is decades that the reading of his work is considered a literary experience of vallue and even if we do not compare him with other poets (even if they are the best poets possible, which is like saying Busquets is not a football player because he is not comparable in quality terms with Pele), this wouldnt change.


Above all this comparisions, the most relevant of this decision by the Swedish Academy is the change of criteria and range of avaluation, and still over look to some of the best writers of the last decades. The Academy talked about the contribution of Dylan to the American culture... how does the Academy justifies the prize with that argument, when a writer named Philip Roth, considered one of the best american authors of the last decades, is considered a candidate every year to the Nobel Prize and than not only doesn't receive's it, but the prize is given to another american, who's not even an ortodox author or writer?

Great. The idea the only literature that should be vallued is the same old literature based on Romance and Novels is one of the most anti-literary ideas ever. May we have 20 years without a traditional novelist winning the prize, so they stop flogging the dead horse of this aged genre.


Finally, concerning to Eco: i like his fiction. I found his book "Number Zero" a very intelligent and meaningful book, even if it's written in a light way. But, of course, i do not compare Eco to Tolstoi, Camus or Fernando Pessoa.

I like Eco. I read his books, but his literature is just the old best-seller formula with a nod to high brow culture. It is not inovative, that challenging or stylized. As a fan of Borges, Eco should have learnt that less is more while writting.

[Lendo]

an a person be good at more than one form of art? Of course. That's the definition of a versatile artist.

But a versatile artist is someone who's good at more than on form of art, which doesn't mean that everything he does is the same type of art. Vinicius de Moraes is a very good poet, and a good musician. Which doesn't mean that every work made by him is Musical and Literary. The fact that Almada Negreiros was one of the most proeminent artists of european realism of his time doesn't mean that everything he did was, for example, an Painting work of art. He painted, he wrote, he directed, he sculptured, etc.

There's Writing, and there's Composing. Just because something is written, it doesn't mean that it's Literature. A poem is not the same as a lyric. A book is not the same that a lyric. The context of the productions also define what they are. Because if everything that is written and reproduced is a type of Literature, than a political speech iss Literature. A newspaper article is Literature. The thing with your argument is that, if we went on that path, everything that is written would be considered Literature. Just because is written and has a certain elegance and genious behind, it doesn't mean it's Literature. Otherwise, there wouldn't be the need for the Pulitzer Prize, Grammy Awards and Tony Awards. The Nobel Prize for Literature would cover it all.

And let's get one thing clear: a poem can be sung. A theatrical book can be played. Yes. But i don't understand how someone doesn't understand the difference between writing a Poetry book or writing lyrics to sing them. I don't understand how you compare a book that is written under the form of play to a music lyric. A play is just one variety of Literature. Poetry, Prose, Narrative, Play... they are all types of Literature. But music is not a type of Literature. Is a completely different form of art. "Ivanov" is a great book by Tchekov, written according to the style of play. "Come Rain or Come Shine" it's a song lyric, it fit's the category of Music. The form, the context define's things. Otherwise, everything it's just a group of letters and sentences, so everything would be... everything. Dylan could have been a great poet, if he worked under the form of Literature. He prefered to work on Music. Good for him, and for everyone who listen's to their songs.

And just so you know... in Portugal, there was always the tradition of Fado singers singing poems from the best writers of the country. Amália Rodrigues would sing poems from Homem de Mello, Mourão Ferreira, Marques do Amaral, etc. Amalia even sung poems from a Portuguese medieval king, Dom Dinis. But that's the thing: a singer singing a poem does not mean that the poem becomes a lyric, just like a lyric doesn't represent necessarily a poem.

Finally, and getting over with the debate if Dylan's work is or is it not Literature, what i meant by refering Pessoa and Rimbaud was as simple as this: poetry was never considered by the Swedish Academy as probably would deserve. Pessoa, one of the most brilliant poets of all time never got a Nobel Prize (and he died a long time after the creation of the prize). Allen Ginsberg, for many people the best poet of the XX century in America, never won the Nobel. And i could mention many other name's. And when the Academy decide's to distinguish what consider's a poet, it distinguishes... Bob Dylan. The criteria, the overall criteria, and the history of the Nobel Prize, specially concerning to poetry, make's the 2016 decision absolutely mind blowing.

[JCamilo]

an a person be good at more than one form of art? Of course. That's the definition of a versatile artist.

I do not believe I am talking about versatile artists, for example, I didnt mention Micheangelo, who was also a great poet, to say his sculptures were literature. I am talking about a artwork that belongs to more than one artform. It is something completely different.


But a versatile artist is someone who's good at more than on form of art, which doesn't mean that everything he does is the same type of art. Vinicius de Moraes is a very good poet, and a good musician. Which doesn't mean that every work made by him is Musical and Literary. The fact that Almada Negreiros was one of the most proeminent artists of european realism of his time doesn't mean that everything he did was, for example, an Painting work of art. He painted, he wrote, he directed, he sculptured, etc.

Again, you dodging the question. The point is can you put apart the musician Vinicius and the poet Vinicius? It is not that you can say he was multitalented, it is something simple: Soneto da Felicidade ís literature? Or is Music? Can you tell? It is even funny,because Vinicius recites the first 2 stanzas of the sonnet and sings the other 2. You can see poetry and music together.



There's Writing, and there's Composing.

Do you understand how many of the poems from the past were "composed". Hymms meant to be sung in the churches, ballads to be sung to nobles, Milongas by cumpadritos, etc?



Just because something is written, it doesn't mean that it's Literature.

No? I even can play with that with the sense that it must also be able to communicate something and be written in a recognized written idiom. But what supports this claim of yours?


A poem is not the same as a lyric.

Indeed, because an epic poem is not a lyric. But It is not open to discussion, the lyrics written to put to music belong to the genre lyricall poetry. That is why you will find Sappho deciped with a lyre. She was a rock star and sung her poems and wrote her poems to be sung.


A book is not the same that a lyric. The context of the productions also define what they are.

Really? The context of Homer was registerign an oral poem. So, is it not literature? The context of Shakespeare is producing a play, not a book. Hamelt is not literature? Keep in mind how irrelevant the context can be: to some artists, like Da Vinci, the notion of making art could be weird. Inside their context, it was a craft, mechanical almost, which never stopped them to fill the products with aesthetic vision.


Because if everything that is written and reproduced is a type of Literature, than a political speech iss Literature.

Churchill won the nobel for his political speech. Literature nobel.


A newspaper article is Literature.

And why it would not be?


The thing with your argument is that, if we went on that path, everything that is written would be considered Literature. Just because is written and has a certain elegance and genious behind, it doesn't mean it's Literature.

Great. What is literature then?


Otherwise, there wouldn't be the need for the Pulitzer Prize, Grammy Awards and Tony Awards. The Nobel Prize for Literature would cover it all.

What about the Oscars which give awards for Musical performance. It makes the Grammy useless (The jury do not even need to watch the movie for the songs they award and the song hardly is analysed because the movie merits). Beside the Pulitzer covers several fields.

No award however defines what is an artform and they are irrelevant for this definition. Specially 3 prizes aiming the north-american market.


And let's get one thing clear: a poem can be sung. A theatrical book can be played. Yes. But i don't understand how someone doesn't understand the difference between writing a Poetry book or writing lyrics to sing them.

I understand quite well. All examples I gave to you were of works who are created to be sung (or in the drama case, to be performed) and then they were written. They are not the same as Iron Maiden covering Coleridge Ancient Mariner. Those examples were not primary literature, they were not aiming writers, but a listening aundience. Just like Bob Dylan.


I don't understand how you compare a book that is written under the form of play to a music lyric.

I didnt. The artistic manifestation justify itself. The question is "Dylan is good" and not "Dylan is better than Tolstoi".


A play is just one variety of Literature.

First, plays weren't written to be in a book. They were written to be perfomed. Shakespeare for example, didnt exactly worked hard to print as book his plays. Second, year, Drama (play) is a literary genre. Just like Lyric poetry.


Poetry, Prose, Narrative, Play... they are all types of Literature.

and Lyrical Poetry. By the way, there is narrative in music.


But music is not a type of Literature. Is a completely different form of art.

Nobody said Music is a type of Literature. Lyrics are. Lets repeat, Shakespeare art is Theatre. Hamlet belongs primary to theate. Right now, either you accept that the same artwork can be perceived as something that belongs to 2 different artforms (or more) or you will just have to admit, Hamlet is not literature.


"Ivanov" is a great book by Tchekov, written according to the style of play. "Come Rain or Come Shine" it's a song lyric, it fit's the category of Music.

This is silly. It is written in form of lyrics.


The form, the context define's things.

The context does not define anything. Already dealt with that. But Dylan lyrics? They are in verses, stanzas, have metric... you know like what else? Poems.


Otherwise, everything it's just a group of letters and sentences, so everything would be... everything. Dylan could have been a great poet, if he worked under the form of Literature. He prefered to work on Music. Good for him, and for everyone who listen's to their songs.

Everything canno be everything. There is no such claim, but literaure is not the same as novels and romances. And what about Dylan worked with both?


And just so you know... in Portugal, there was always the tradition of Fado singers singing poems from the best writers of the country. Amália Rodrigues would sing poems from Homem de Mello, Mourão Ferreira, Marques do Amaral, etc. Amalia even sung poems from a Portuguese medieval king, Dom Dinis. But that's the thing: a singer singing a poem does not mean that the poem becomes a lyric, just like a lyric doesn't represent necessarily a poem.

First, you need something else to try to argue that a lyric is not a form of lyrical poetry. Second, this example is not like the examples i gave: we consider as poem what was written for music.


Finally, and getting over with the debate if Dylan's work is or is it not Literature, what i meant by refering Pessoa and Rimbaud was as simple as this: poetry was never considered by the Swedish Academy as probably would deserve. Pessoa, one of the most brilliant poets of all time never got a Nobel Prize (and he died a long time after the creation of the prize). Allen Ginsberg, for many people the best poet of the XX century in America, never won the Nobel. And i could mention many other name's. And when the Academy decide's to distinguish what consider's a poet, it distinguishes... Bob Dylan. The criteria, the overall criteria, and the history of the Nobel Prize, specially concerning to poetry, make's the 2016 decision absolutely mind blowing.

Obviously there is a hindsight by the academy, but this does not prove anything if Dylan deserves or not recognition or if lyrics are literature or not. But Ginsberg? He was defending Dylan literary merit since the 80's. I am sure the guy would be very happy with Dylan's nobel.

[OrphanPip]

Song lyrics are clearly literature, the only relevant question is whether or not they are good literature read on their own. A great song can be a mediocre poem without the music. Much like the sources for Schubert's lieder, some are well regarded poems while others are forgotten.

Also, song lyrics have long been accepted as literature and are even included in modern editions of the Norton Anthologies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj0k9WyU50c

Campion is studied as a lyricist and JC has already pointed out Sappho.