Thoughts on Bob Dylan’s Win (And Defending Him Against Some Criticisms)

So, if you somehow missed the news, Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize in Literature last Thursday. To say this was unexpected would be downplaying it; his possible candidacy had long been treated like a joke, a way to throw away money at betting sites (because not only can you bet on the Nobel, it’s a prime way speculation works).

I admit, I’m not head over heels with the pick. My initial reaction when Sarah Danius, the permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy, aka the ones in charge of the decision, read out his name, I was shocked, wondering if I hadn’t misheard her—that “D,” did she mean DeLillo? After all, everyone was saying it looked like DeLillo’s year (based on odds movement on the betting sites). Nope, she repeated herself, and it was in fact Bob Dylan. Over the course of Thursday, I stewed over the news, and I got over my initial disbelief and came to listen to more Dylan, I accepted the decision as a good one. He’s still not the American I would’ve picked, maybe not even in the top 5, but I’ve stopped thinking of literary prizes as representing the best of the best and instead wonder if winners reach my vague idea of quality based on the standard from past laureates. On this basis, then yes, Dylan was a good choice. And, even better, I like the Swedish Academy’s ideas of songwriting as literature—surprisingly forward thinking from a committee often known for being too conservative.

Predictably, his win set off a ton of mixed reactions, even more so than usual. Gone were the articles about how no one knew the winner or that Philip Roth should’ve gotten it; pieces questioning whether Dylan deserved the Nobel instead took the center stage. While some of those that were pro Dylan had nonsensical arguments, it was the ones arguing against his win really annoyed me, and here I’ll be doing my best to defend Dylan against some of the ridiculous reasons he didn’t deserve the Nobel.

Songwriting isn’t literature.

I think this is one of the most common criticisms I’ve seen. It’s BS. Of course songwriting can be literature. Is all of it? No, but then not all books are literature, either. Poetry has been tied to singing for as long as there’s been poetry.

Some have said that because the lyrics don’t hold up as well on the page as other poetry and they rely on being sung to sound truly powerful, it doesn’t count. For whatever reasons, when I’ve seen this come up, plays are usually okay, because they’re still gripping when read, but movie scripts aren’t. I don’t see the logic. It seems like an arbitrary cut off so that it helps the argument. For starters, plays definitely lose something when they’re read. Then there’s also musicals which just do not work at all on the page. Hamilton just won one of the most acclaimed literary prizes in the U.S. Where was the outrage then? I haven’t come across any compelling reasons to exclude songwriting from literature; if you know of any, please let me know.

Who will they award next, a Youtuber?

Okay, first of all, ignoring that slippery slope, as far as songwriting goes, Dylan is not your typical one. Academics have been analyzing his work since the 70s and he’s been nominated for the Nobel since the late 90s. Compare that to a Youtuber, or even most other songwriters. Second, he’s just better than almost every songwriter out there. Eminem is not going to suddenly win 30 years from now; Dylan won because he’s produced a large body of literary and critically acclaimed songs and lyrics.

This is actually a quite conservative choice dressed up as a progressive one.

Okay…and? This is one of the oddest critiques I’ve come across. Dylan’s an American white male, so this is actually quite a conventional pick. I don’t see the problem with his ethnicity. Sure, it’s annoying the Swedish Academy doesn’t award more PoC, but Dylan still deserves his Nobel. And no matter how you look at it, awarding a songwriter for the first time is definitely a step forward. Sure, it might not be the radical choice you wanted, but it’s still something new, and anyway, I don’t see how this in anyway takes away from the decision to give it to Dylan.

If they were going to award it to him, why not give it during the 60s or 70s when he was still producing quality work?

This just displays ignorance about how the Literature Nobel works. Almost all winners are older. Getting it at 75 is pretty common. The youngest winners recently have been in their mid 50s, and those were close to being outliers. Also, you don’t win for a few hits; your entire body of work is awarded. In the 70s, he didn’t have nearly the body of work (nor the age) winners often have.

In addition, the Swedish Academy made a point to mention his memoir from 2004 and his album Modern Times, which debuted 10 years ago, when discussing his work. Not the most recent “masterpieces,” but longer gaps between last published quality works and winning have happened (see: Harold Pinter and Doris Lessing).

The prize should’ve gone to a lesser known writer who needed the money.

 Contrary to popular belief, most writers who win the Nobel aren’t just scraping by. In fact, a lot are bestsellers (just not in the U.S.). Mo Yan, Patrick Modiano and J.M.G. Le Clezio, despite being virtually unknown in the English speaking world, were all bestselling novelists in their home countries. Alexievich did say it would allow her to pursue one or two projects she needed to save for, but she’s also an exception, as her nonfiction work requires her to travel a lot. And, anyway, where was the outrage over this when Alice Munro and Mario Vargas Llosa won? They were both incredibly famous and didn’t need the Nobel to pin themselves into literary history.

Him over _____ (insert other writer here)?

This reaction comes up almost every year. It’s how prizes that can only pick each winner a year work. Someone has to win, and plenty of others have to lose. Sorry the Swedes’ taste in literature doesn’t exactly line up with yours, but then it doesn’t perfectly line up with anyone’s, not even individual committee members (there have been some nasty disputes over past winners).

I don’t think Dylan’s lyrics (poetry) compare to the work of other poets.

This is actually one of the few arguments circulated against Dylan’s win that I feel really holds merit. True, it’s subjective, but then all literature is. And it’s not some weak protest that crumbles under closer scrutiny. If you don’t like Dylan, you don’t like Dylan, nothing wrong with that. But don’t dress up your dislike and pretend it’s something that it’s not. “Oh, I like Dylan, but he’s a musician not a writer. He shouldn’t win.” “He’s so rich and won so many other prizes, did he really need this one?” etc.

And at the end of the day, it’s just another literary prize. Granted, it’s one of the oldest ones around, but the Nobel has made almost as many missteps as it has awarded true greatness. Only time will tell if Dylan is a great choice or a gimmick winner best forgotten, but if you ever find yourself arguing over the Nobel, just remember that’s it’s far from the end all be all in books.

Advertisements

Bob Dylan Wins the Nobel Prize

In a very unexpected move, the Swedish academy, the group in charge of awarding the Nobel, gave this year’s award to American singer-songwriter Bob Dylan “for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition”.

Dylan had been nominated before, had even shot up in the odds on Ladbrokes before, but his candidacy was usually treated as a joke. This morning, his odds went from 50/1-16/1. Like I said, he had risen before, I think most prominently in 2010 when he was in the top 5. Most people assumed that since he was such a familiar name, people were betting on him, but now it seems like he might have been a serious contender then.

It’s a real surprise. Although I like Dylan’s music and the academy’s rationale that a songwriter should win (comparing the occupation to Homer and Sappho of the Greeks), I’m still not sure how I feel about Dylan winning. I’m sure I’ll warm up to it, and it is nice to see an American nab it. It’s such a difference with the usual little-known and little-translated author.

I think this will be met with negative reception, but time will tell. I’m sure the general public will be happier with this.

Book Review: An Angel Walks Through the Stage and Other Essays by Jon Fosse

I wouldn’t recommend anyone start with Jon Fosse here. Although he is a famed playwright, novelist and poet in Norway, he’s never been renowned for nonfiction. He actually published two books of essays totaling something like 600 pages early in his career before giving it up, and the present volume is a selection from those with one or two speeches that he gave later on. The pieces aren’t bad, in fact I really enjoyed them and gave the book 5 stars on Goodreads. It’s more that unless you’re already acquainted with Fosse’s work, you won’t get much out of them.

A lot of the essays here are about theory, but none are so dense as to be bogged down in academic prose. Instead, Fosse comments on philosophy and figures like Derrida, discussing more their impact on his thinking than any scholarly interpretations. There are also flashes of his biography here and there, like his schooling or his music-loving teenage years, nowhere hear anything comprehensive but, given the lack of information on Fosse in English, fans should delight in what’s here.

Many of the essays here are short, small thoughts rather than comprehensive arguments, just a page or two, with topics ranging from plays to Beckett to Bernhard.

If you already like Fosse and enjoy Literature with a capital “L” (I can’t imagine there are many from the first category that don’t fall in the second), then this is another great addition to Fosse’s oeuvre available in English. If you’re looking for a good place to start with him and neither Morning and Evening or I Am the Wind appeal to you, don’t worry, more reviews of his novels and plays are forthcoming.

Book Review: Danube by Claudio Magris

Though marketed in some editions as a novel, this is anything but. Taking a trip down the Danube River from its source down to its end as a springboard, this unorthodox travelogue (in which Magris himself barely figures) examines landmarks, historical events, and philosophical and literary ideas based around the waterway. Topics vary from Celine and Hegel to beer and Bulgarian bandits, from well-knowns to people obscure even to those with PHDs.

It’s impossible to discuss all the themes and ideas presented in here, as it’s basically a cultural biography of the region, but if pressed to identify one, identity plays a huge part. Identity is one of those big themes in literature, and many a writer has set out to record on it in all kinds of manners. But this is a wholly original book. Historical stories on ancient peoples migrating and assimilating throughout the ages populate it, and as far as writers go, it seemed like Elias Canetti and IB Singer came up the most regardless of the specific areas Magris finds himself in, two once great giants of literature who lived all over Europe and America. This is one of those rare books where subject and theme align perfectly, like they were made for each other.

It’s slow going at times. There is no real plot or conflict to motivate the reader to read on. And yet, each day, I would pick up this book and read a few pages (it’s so dense, expect to take your time with this). The prose is beautiful, poetic, but this is definitely not for everyone, especially those who just want escapism from their reads.

Encyclopedic in scope, I’d like to recommend this book but I can’t actually think of anyone in real life I know who would like it. DANUBE is not the kind of book you can pick up and quickly power through; it needs to be read slowly, let your attention meander like the river, look up some other books as you make your way through this one. If you are the kind of reader look past the lack of a traditional story into the history or philosophy or literature, the type of reader who likes to be challenged, this is for you.