I was pleased that Bob Dylan received the Nobel prize in
literature. I expected that if an American got the prize it would be Philip
Roth, among the greatest of our living writers. Don DeLillo was in the running
too, and he would have made a worthy recipient. I was surprised that it went to
Dylan. A lot of people might not regard what he does as poetry or literature. There
are significant reasons why he was an appropriate choice. There's no denying that
he has written his share of rotten lyrics. But he's also written some really
fine ones, and I wouldn't limit them to the three albums often cited as his
best--Bringing It All Back Home (1965), Highway
61 Revisited (1965),
and Blonde on Blonde (1966).
I would add to the list of his best albums The
Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan (1963), John Wesley Harding (1967--an
overlooked great album), Blood on the Tracks (1975), Desire (1976), Oh Mercy (1989), Time out of Mind (1997), Love and Theft (2001),
Modern Times (2006), and Tempest (2012). (Not all those albums are equally good, and not
all the songs on those albums are equally good). There are other songs
scattered throughout his work that are more than worthy. Some of his
lyrics may not read like poetry, but some do. I can't deny that some of his
lyrics work better set to music as opposed to being read silently or read aloud,
but to me that seems a small matter.
Calling what Dylan does "literature" may require a
certain expansion of the definition. And also an expansion of the definition of
"poetry." But not much of an expansion. Maybe no expansion at
all. Where are the standard universally
accepted definitions of literature, of poetry? Given the incredible
diversity of poetry and poetic forms abroad today, and widely divergent literary
tastes among readers, there is room for Dylan in the mix. The argument that the
orality of his songs links back to the oral origins of poetry holds some weight
for me--I wouldn't go back to Homer but might mention some of the songs from
Shakespeare, William Blake, and others (I read that Rabindranath Tagore, a
Nobel Prize recipient, wrote some musical lyrics). I'm not equating Dylan with
Shakespeare or Blake. I'm suggesting that some of his lyrics work musically in
the same way as Shakespeare's. There's a lot of poetry in the American folk
music tradition, even in the traditions of Tin Pan Alley. There's also an
argument to be made for regarding Dylan's lyrics as a kind of public poetry
that has made a tremendous impact on millions of people and that played a role
in movements for social change across the world. The sheer bulk of his
work--given these other factors--is worth considering too.
Having made the argument, I wouldn't expect composers
of rock or folk music to receive the Nobel Prize very often. I really can't
think of anyone else in that category who would merit it in quite the way that
Bob Dylan does.
All of that said, writers like Philip Roth and Don DeLillo
are far more deserving of the prize than some of the obscure winners of recent years.
1 comment:
I agree with all you say here, but would offer Leonard Cohen as another songwriter whose lyrics rival, and sometimes surpass, Dylan's for their effectiveness as poetry. A recent issue of The New Yorker contains an article about Cohen in which Dylan, our latest Nobel Prize laureate for literature, expresses his own admiration for Cohen and for the impressive body of his work as a lyricist and songwriter. Also, along with Roth and DeLillo, I would put forward Ursula K. Le Guin as a deserving American candidate for the same prize that Dylan has just copped.
Post a Comment