Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
what will people think about that?
but would be cool if he did
but I imagine people who place bets on Nobel Prize winners aren't really the sort to have insider information on the Nobel Prize. He's probably favourite because he's well known.
But then I've never really 'got' Dylan, so I'm not the best person to ask.
Bob Dylan was a massive inspiration and a gateway into many of the ways in which literary folk history, 'high culture' and mass culture danced a merry threesome into the middle of the 20th century
but hmm, we're supposed to consider the Nobel prize bestowed upon high-art only ... that's its value n'est-ce pas?
I make very little distinction between 'high' art 'low' art, there can be as much skill and intelligence and wit in graphic design as in fine art or as in comics as there is in a novel. I don't in principle have a problem with a popular lyricist winning a prize for literature.
And I know Bob Dylan has had a huge impact and is massively revered and his legacy will live on long after he dies.
But I don't get it. I mean, I like Mr Tambourine Man as much as the next guy, and Blowing in the Wind is a nice tune. But as he ever written a single couplet better than Robert Lowell, or a paragraph as well as James Joyce? Does he ever approach the genius of Nabokov? No, I don't think so. So I wouldn't give it to him.
But this is a committee that gave a Obama a peace prize before he'd even done anything.
If you're not drawing a line between high and low art, then comparing Dylan to Nabokov on the basis of one being 'better' than the other only works if you believe in that high/low distinction.
Dylan is widely respected for his lyrics and his poetry (the lines between the two are often unclear). Furthermore, his influence on modern lyricism is incalculable - he has produced verse in a huge range of styles, and has simply written such a huge number of songs that have entered the canon of American (and Western) traditional music, effectively. He has embraced both high and low art in his career, and it's hard to find any musician (and a fair few writers) these days who doesn't owe Bob a bit of a debt in some way. He's a behemoth, politically, socially, and culturally. When he dies we'll have seen the passing of a true genius, in the absolute sense of the word.
Still, he won't win.
You can get rid of distinctions between high and low but still differentiate between good and bad (not that I'm saying Dylan is bad).
Taste aside, of course.
It all comes down to taste I suppose. But taste matters, because otherwise we'll give the Pulitzer to Dan Brown.
I think it would easy to build a case for Nabokov as the more distinguished artist compared to Dylan. Do an exercise of practical criticism on a chapter of Lolita compared to a selection of Dylan lyrics. See which one makes contains more verbal dexterity, eschews more cliches, has more joy in the inventiveness of language, possesses more wit, has more staggering imagery, more insightful metaphors, a greater revelation of emotion, a more tender expression of the human condition. For me, I think, I would always come down in favour of Nabokov, and that's without consideration of how he shaped the novel form and experimented with the genre to the point where I think he pretty much ended the exercise of the novel in a serious sense.
But that's just me. I have no issue with Dylan, I enjoy his work, but I've never had that moment where it all clicked and I suddenly became aware of his genius.
I've forgotten where this was all headed, but rest assured, it was very clever.
You're still describing matters of taste, not empirical measurements of 'good' or 'bad'.
You CAN measure some things - that's why they wouldn't give a Pulitzer to Dan Brown, because he writes plots and that's it - but there is a point at which you just have to throw your hands up and say, "you know what, I might hate the way that this book fucks about and is all a bit postmodern, but it's clearly not a bunch of balls, someone else probably thinks it's the new Chaucer but what do I care?"
Once you get to a certain degree of literariness it's pretty much pissing in the wind trying to quantify why one book is better than another. Kind of defeats the point of literature.
I don't think there's any problem with rewarding someone for a lifetime of achievement, though. Especially artists, who are often starving.
but I hear what you're saying, but he isn't up against Joyce, Lowell or Nabakov
the baby boomers can get to fuck though aye
If you were going to establish a canon of international literature, you could do worse than using the list of Nobel winners as your starting point. And for Dylan to be in there rather than Lowell or Joyce or Nabokov seems, to me at least, a bit perverse.
Dylan's as much of a literary titan as Joyce or Nabokov. Seriously, he is. And just as many people hate Joyce or Nabokov as probably hate Dylan and think that his canonisation is unjust, that's always going to happen. I mean even Shakespeare pisses some people off with how mythologised his work gets.
Yes x 3
BUT YOU'RE MASSIVELY MASSIVELY WRONG. ;)
He's been nominated every year for decades but I can't see why he'd win it this year.
Would be justified if he did win it, though. The guy's contribution to literature is immense. There are few other contemporaries who you could put on the same level even if you dislike his music.
they gave a nobel peace prize to 'complicit in mass illegal killings (which = murders)' Dr Henry Kissinger
that were kept secret from congress/senate
would make the institutions judgement and integrity irrelevant/redundant
I mean he has made his own mark and influence, without some dubiously prestigeous organisation giving him the accolade.
Its true that for some things such as maths then previously unheard of mathematicians would be recognised as bing 'very significant' by those outside their field....but Bob Dylan has carved his own niche, he would in fact be lending credibility and relevance TO the nobel institution
when you can do four
(its like ....'and another thing')
but I am mentally challenged......something that I have come to realise, please accept me, I don't mean any harm, Im not dangerous.
they can hardly object to blowing things up
and he realised he would only be remembered for blowing shit up.
I mean, Murakami? -
Dylan is one of the few people to exist in a culture that he himself shaped. It is a rare phenomenon.
He makes the others seem small-fy, because, by comparison, they are.
Maybe it's the color of the sun cut flat
and coverin' the crossroads I'm standing at...
Inside the museums, Infinity goes up on trial
Voices echo this is what salvation must be like after a while...
Love me some Dylan couplets, the sheer range of his writing is spellbinding.
before you call him a man?
in which case, there are only three men that have ever lived
except that if he had won, I'd have got really pissed off with the broadsheet newspapers printing lyric-quoting letters from smug baby-boomer businessmen for weeks on end.
if you get rid of all the bs, ignore the 'peace prize' nonsense and just treat it as a overblown version of the richard & judy book club, this is why i quite like the nobel literature prize - not heard of Tomas Tranströmer, but his first collection was translated by Robert Bly who is pretty great...and yeh, so it's just a pretty arbritary but useful way of finding out, recognising sometimes great, sometimes average writers who are often easy to miss otherwise