Geoff > Status Update

It is not so much that, just that (and I know this is entirely unfair, and not supported by the Nobel in the past) I had hoped it would go to someone whose work needed and deserved the bump in attention.

I suppose part of the point re Dylan is his cultural effect etc, which is certainly much greater than any of his contemporaries.

Also if one was going to award the prize to a songwriter, I would have thought he would have to be the obvious choice, so I have no real problem with that (despite my views on his work, which you know well!).

Anyway, there are going to be millions of column inches on this from everyone anyway so no point hashing it out here.

Dylan Goes Electric Again

I think it's important to distinguish - and I'm sure that almost inevitably no distinction will be made in the press - between objecting to Dylan qua Dylan winning the Nobel, and objecting to Dylan qua popular songwriter winning the Nobel. The former is of course debateable, and I don't know him well enough to debate it; but that shouldn't be used as a reason to confirm the latter, which, like you, I think is quite a silly thing to do.

Wastrel wrote: "I think it's important to distinguish - and I'm sure that almost inevitably no distinction will be made in the press - between objecting to Dylan qua Dylan winning the Nobel, and objecting to Dylan..."

Yes, you can argue against Dylan winning it, (my personal opinion is that he is a better writer than 99% of contemporary scribes in any genre) but I've seen some pretty petulant remarks this morning concerning the validity of popular songwriting as literature - which, just voicing those words, seems so utterly silly to me. If you want me to start rattling off the contributions popular songwriting and the oral tradition have made to the history of literature, well, we would be going down a very long road. But for some reason, if it's contemporary, or non-canonized or whatever, it's not worthy...

Like, some commenter on GR this morning said something absurd like, "Who's next, the Spice Girls?" If you can't distinguish between Dylan's writing and the Spice Girls, I have serious concerns about your critical faculties.

These folks need to like, think outside the bun for a minute.

While unconventional, choosing Bob isn't just choosing any musician with some pop appeal. Bob is in many ways the embodiment of the artistic response to the woes of the latter 20th Century. If he ended up being popular, it's because those woes were televised. An excellent choice by the Swedish Committee.

ATJG wrote: "These folks need to like, think outside the bun for a minute.

While unconventional, choosing Bob isn't just choosing any musician with some pop appeal. Bob is in many ways the embodiment of the ar..."

Totally agree. I can't really see how his project is "less literary" than countless others who take it on themselves to write of and through their times. Just that he sung his words and got popular.

Songs of social unrest and alienation, along with a strong affinity for the outcasts and the wronged? Can't imagine why those Swedish and Norwegian bastards might have felt there was something of an enduring legacy in his work.

What Anthony said +1

I think the committee's message here is less in who got the prize than who didn't. They can't *not* give it to an American indefinitely so they gave it to Dylan. Don't you feel it's a sly indictment of the American literary establishment ?

I had 't thought of that - I can definitely see it being a barbed award, a bit of a give-no-give. But, I think Dylan is an utterly brilliant writer. So, whatever.

The jokes on those Swedish and Norwegian bastards if they think they pulled a fast one on us Americans. USA! USA!

There was a 2013 NYT columnist who argued for Dylan receiving the prize. Details in the NYT cover story today.

The good folks over at the Cormac McCarthy Society seem to support the decision:

http://www.cormacmccarthy.com/topic/b...

Just to be clear - it's not like I think Dylan is some ideal choice for a Nobel in literature - I'm sure he didn't even really want it - but it's just the weird response of open mockery and outrage that accompanied the award that bothered me. It, in oblique ways, reminded me of the Elena Ferrante thing - artists spend, expend, sometimes at great personal cost, their lives because they feel the need to create, to create beautiful things that give meaning to our otherwise toil-filled, worry-filled, anxiety-filled, oblivion-filled lives - they give and give (and creating things, new beautiful things, this is not easy, this is hard, hard work - like I said yesterday - you try - you write a song, you write a book, you make a painting - let's see what you come up with) and then the public feels some sort of ownership, or worse, contempt for them. Dylan didn't choose this award, he wasn't out there lobbying for it - it was given to him. And all of a sudden the air is filled with this petulant mockery about not only his work, but the man himself. Elena Ferrante only desired anonymity and the space to create literature - but the world decided their desire superseded hers, so they went and found her out and made her a spectacle. These are people drawn to do beautiful things with their lives - and yet we respond with ugliness and selfishness. It's doesn't make much sense to me. But it feels familiar.

Well said, Geoff

So Dylan gave the absolutely perfect, Dylanesque response to the Nobel - last night, his first concert after winning, he didn't acknowledge the award, barely said a word to the audience, but closed the show out with a cover of Sinatra's Why Try To Change Me Now. Fucking perfect.

haha

Geoff: as to your Spice Girls vs. Bob Dylan comment, this might be an interesting read for you—Kathy Acker interviewing the Spice Girls in '97:
http://ilovecatparty.blogspot.com/201...

Sweet, what? Thanks!

So we need a greater endorsement?

http://pitchfork.com/news/68994-tom-w...