# Bob Dylan Wins the Nobel Prize in Literature for 2016



## Bard_Daniel (Oct 13, 2016)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/arts/music/bob-dylan-nobel-prize-literature.html

Thoughts? Opinions? Comments?


----------



## Theglasshouse (Oct 13, 2016)

I am only familiar with his music. Knocking on heavens door is a very catchy song because of the good word play and the language he used. It is sad work but it is meaningful and shows the truth becuase people can appreciate it in his music. I admit I listen to his hits. Was this for his music? I think it is, because I don't know him that well outside of music. They commented he was a favorite for years to win a prize for his work and Stephen King, I guess as favorites. But that I don't know the  basis, and if I have nor criteria myself on why the gave him the prize. But I admire some of his songs which don't use his voice. Such as John Lennon was good with crafting songs. That is all I know about him, it just an impression for now of how good a musician he is. 

Personally I know he supposedly created new strategies and that is why they gave it to him. Last but important to mention in the news I did hear is that it is probably the last award given of the nobel, this category that is.

Would anyone be comfortable with Stephen King winning it? 

Also so it seems they must be pretty old and in mixed shape in health. Maybe this was a long forgotten reward that he deservered when he was prolific in music.

Imo music has been very subjective. But things for sure, his themes for his songs varied a lot and he wrote his own songs which took a lot of talent. Talk about a misjudging of morale for the person who could have been chosen or misunderstanding by the population maybe which don't know him as much now. But in the music world his lyrics are famous. Google the top songs of all time written and maybe you will see the like a rolling stone( need to look it up on Spotify) song by bob Dylan. But that is how I became more and more acquainted or in the know of who he is.


----------



## ppsage (Oct 14, 2016)

I wouldn't like it to become a habit, to give the literature award to a lyricist. To do it once in a great while is probably okay with me. If it is going to be done, I think Dylan is in the top tier of persons deserving the award that I know of. I don't know how true it is that the role of lyrics as literature is increasingly important, but I can see the argument, at least in English. One thing it doesn't do, that the award often does, is introduce me to an author with whose work I'm unfamiliar. So I lose in that respect.


----------



## Phil Istine (Oct 14, 2016)

I was very surprised by this even though I'm a great fan of his music.  I agree that Bob Dylan is talented and that many of his lyrics and songs deserve an award of some kind, but I'm just surprised it was the Nobel Prize for Literature rather than an award more specifically geared to music.  Still, it was given for the poetic aspects of his music, and it is poetry.  Also, at the time, some of it touched on subjects that were super-sensitive such as anti-war feelings, racial inequality and corruption within the justice system.  He sang about things that got some people shot.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Oct 14, 2016)

Instead of giving an award as the peace prize for fighting poverty these awards should make it an action and response to eliminate important problems. But instead they hand in awards that don’t address the problems and how to solve it. Instead it kind of ignores the sensitive issues. They need to make governments participate in the resulting actions after the awards if they want real change. Or in bob dylan's example promote research or creativity in freedom of speech and art with his award. That's for the social messages that could be in need of promoting. I'd imagine it would be too difficult at first glance to get all countries to agree on a treaty or agreement but not the majority. But the people who give the awards should make the world involved because, there is too much going on right now. Instead look at how they ignored global warming for instance. That speaks volumes. Mass extinction and the warming of the atmosphere could create future wars. They should create or foster the relations between countries, so that they cant ignore important issues. That does more than a prize ever could. The country's government is described as having autonomous or soverign authority, but you've got to make compromises or make the public smarter. If not why not coroperate on what they agree on, on the basis of merit? Instead make them give the awards to leaders in communities (this would make the world a democratic entity). This was what I was thinking. Look at past winners such as mother theresa who ran a charity but I believe a big organization (for purposes of this argument a big organization that isn't charity). Also sociology on a world scale has a lot to do with this and one day be important for peace as the world becomes more complex in its needs. Make people smarter by making countries share sociology programs, rather than awards. I've read essays saying charity is useless since it does not do enough to help causes. In addition government is far more important to people's day to day progress and futures. That is why helping educate people, and sharing these programs does a lot in the long run than an award could ever could. And I think some philosophers have mentioned what I already said "pablo freire" (might have mispelled that person's name). He said that the education system is a bank, and that people should be progresssively be in their own way smarter or progressing socially, and aware. Just an example, it is 3:00 here but, the transition from a gas economy to a renewable energy economy. Then give the model of how it works to other countries. Sell the information and profit by creating new jobs. But make it international cooroperation and competition to lower prices down of education for making sociology progress a need. Countries prevent more wars this way if there is justice, and people agree they are recieving equal treatment. Too much of the budget is focused on militray spending in many places. Or doling out money to causes. Education creates jobs, and this is a commitment to grow an economy everytime it grows and reduce costs while encouraging progress at the same time. Just my own opinion I know. I have a brother who majored in political administration, and sometimes I kind of get inspired to express my own opinions based on my experiences. (I'd probably need to make a philosophical dissertation just to express my ideas and major in sociology which is sad). Fortunes could be made in this field. If you get people a job after graduation. Especially if you create good solutions such as attracting investment. 

Sorry for switching the subject. I just wanted to say my own opinion on this.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Oct 14, 2016)

I was a little surprised of Dylan's Nobel Prize as well. I don't really think this will become a precedent; the literature award will still go to accomplished authors I'm sure. Still, I think it's fantastic. I do listen to Dylan and I think without a doubt he is the greatest lyricist ever in Rock and Roll, maybe all music. In fact my all time favorite line happens to be Dylan's...


_Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters.

Subterranean Homesick Blues- Bob Dylan- 1965_


----------



## escorial (Oct 14, 2016)

awards make the world go round...how important they are individually is for each person to decide but the great and the good/bad seem to enjoy them for the most part....not one award has ever made me look up an artist or changed my pov if they won one or not....would luff to go in a tux and get a Global WF award and make a speech infront of all the members....Paul Weller from The Jam era would be my nomination..Down in the Tubestation..ect


----------



## Cran (Oct 14, 2016)

I think they set the wrong precedent. Songwriting's contribution to social awareness and change deserved (and deserves) its own category in the Nobel Prize list. Bob Dylan is not the only songwriter to speak to a generation or express the people's concerns about social issues, write poetic lyrics or great songs, and reinvent himself. 

Lumping songwriting in with literature demeans both, and looks like a cost-cutting exercise. It is the equivalent of compressing the Nobel Prize for Medicine in with the Nobel Prize for Science.


----------



## aj47 (Oct 14, 2016)

I don't think the committee gets to do new prizes.  I think they have a list and have to follow the list and literature is the closest match for Bob Dylan.


----------



## dale (Oct 15, 2016)

let's face it...the nobel prize has become absolutely meaningless in all categories ever since obama won one.


----------



## Sam (Oct 15, 2016)

Cran said:


> I think they set the wrong precedent. Songwriting's contribution to social awareness and change deserved (and deserves) its own category in the Nobel Prize list. Bob Dylan is not the only songwriter to speak to a generation or express the people's concerns about social issues, write poetic lyrics or great songs, and reinvent himself.
> 
> Lumping songwriting in with literature demeans both, and looks like a cost-cutting exercise. It is the equivalent of compressing the Nobel Prize for Medicine in with the Nobel Prize for Science.



Agree 100%. 

It's not that Bob Dylan is undeserving of the award; it's that the award seems to be a one-off conferral for the lifetime achievements of Dylan. But there are other lyricists who have said as much, if not more, than Dylan and they will never receive this gong.

It needed to be a separate award that could be conferred on other lyricists as well.


----------



## ppsage (Oct 15, 2016)

Poets and playwrights have always been 'compressed' into the literature prize. I don't see why lyricists shouldn't be too. It's all words. --------------- The economics prize is the only one added since Nobel's will set up the categories in 1901 and that came from a separate endowment in 1968. At some point physiology was renamed medicine.


----------



## Cran (Oct 15, 2016)

ppsage said:


> Poets and playwrights have always been 'compressed' into the literature prize. I don't see why lyricists shouldn't be too. It's all words. --------------- The economics prize is the only one added since Nobel's will set up the categories in 1901 and that came from a separate endowment in 1968. At some point physiology was renamed medicine.



Just because something has always been done doesn't make it sensible, fair, or right. So, playwrights too, huh? Where next? Film and television scripts? Video games writers? Speech writers?

Don't get me started on economics; that would lead way off-topic.


----------



## Phil Istine (Oct 15, 2016)

dale said:


> let's face it...the nobel prize has become absolutely meaningless in all categories ever since obama won one.



Bet you wouldn't say that if you won one


----------



## ppsage (Oct 15, 2016)

> Just because something has always been done doesn't make it sensible, fair, or right.


True enough. The dynamite man was perhaps a bit off-center. Or maybe it's just a nineteenth-century take on things. 'Literature' is perhaps the only art he valued, and 'Peace' the one diplomatic, against four (I think) sciences. However, following the legal authority customarily accorded wills and testaments has got the Nobel Foundation through 115 years of pretty much annual awards with plenty of dough heading into the future. So far it's always been played by the book, legally. (Maybe somebody will try challenging the choice of Dylan?) Interpretation of the will over time might make interesting reading.


----------



## felixm (Oct 15, 2016)

I question  how any of you can deny  Bob Dylan's effect on contemporary literature.  His style and poetry got right down to the inequalities of modern society and changed more than just song writing.   Look at the genre known as  "battle rap" if you want to see some contemporary literature.  Ye who condemn lyrics have your  head up your arse.

Literature began as the spoken word, only  to emerge later as the written word.


----------



## aj47 (Oct 15, 2016)

I don't see how suggesting lyrics be elevated to their own thing is condemnation.  To each their own.


----------



## dale (Oct 15, 2016)

Phil Istine said:


> Bet you wouldn't say that if you won one



seriously? lol. i'd love to win a nobel prize for literature. but only so i could eat a handful of morphine pills,
slam a 1/5 of rum and vomit on a world stage during primetime international television.


----------



## Winston (Oct 16, 2016)

It's not about merit.  It's all politics.


----------



## Sam (Oct 16, 2016)

felixm said:


> I question  how any of you can deny  Bob Dylan's effect on contemporary literature.  His style and poetry got right down to the inequalities of modern society and changed more than just song writing.   Look at the genre known as  "battle rap" if you want to see some contemporary literature.  Ye who condemn lyrics have your  head up your arse.
> 
> Literature began as the spoken word, only  to emerge later as the written word.



He's had no effect at all. Bob Dylan is not studied at _any _level of English literature, so how you maintain that he had some magical effect on contemporary literature is mystifying.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Oct 16, 2016)

Sam said:


> He's had no effect at all. Bob Dylan is not studied at _any _level of English literature, so how you maintain that he had some magical effect on contemporary literature is mystifying.




Should that matter? Who says you have to have a degree in Literature to be a great writer?

Look, I don't want to see this as a springboard for songwriters either. I'm a big Lennon fan so I could find myself wondering why he hasn't won the award. And it is true that the Nobel Prize has used the awards for their own political agendas over the years (and it predated Obama to be fair).

But I don't think they chose Dylan because of anything going on right now. I don't think they choose the literature award with their advocacy of peace in mind; that's what the Nobel Peace Prize is for.

So yes, I'm happy for Dylan, but I do hope this is a one shot award and they'll go back to awarding the literature prize for books.


----------



## Sam (Oct 16, 2016)

mrmustard615 said:


> Should that matter? Who says you have to have a degree in Literature to be a great writer?



Huh? 

I never said any such thing. Someone claimed that Bob Dylan had a significant effect on literature. No, he didn't. Bob Dylan's name is never brought up in a class on English literature, so he therefore had zero effect on literature. 

He may have had a massive effect on people's lives through music and lyrics, but to say that he had a massive impact on literature puts him in the same category as Faulkner and Marquez and Kafka and Shakespeare and Dostoevsky (_et al_.). It is simply not true.  

The guy is one of the greatest songwriters and lyricists of all time, but he is not Shakespeare or any of the giants of literature. Students aren't reading and studying his lyrics in classrooms, so how anyone can maintain that he had a massive impact on literature is beyond me.


----------



## TKent (Oct 16, 2016)

ETA: itchy trigger finger. See post below.


----------



## TKent (Oct 16, 2016)

Since the Nobel Prize for literature covers poetry, it is fine for me. I think of him as a poet as much as a lyricist. One of my favorite bands right now is Twenty-One Pilots. Both of the leads are poets, and they smush their poetry into music in such an interesting way. But I'm not a poet and there are so many debates going on right now online about whether or not Dylan's work would should be considered literature and/or poetry, that it obviously has struck a nerve. Whatever his work is, I think that it has impacted me as much as Toni Morrison's literature and Yeats poetry in terms of impact, so by that measure it works for me.


----------



## TKent (Oct 16, 2016)

Sam, in US, he is taught in some literature classes, so perhaps it is a US-centric view based on him being from here. 

"College and university courses on Dylan are not only taught by music professors, but also teachers of English and cultural studies. At Dartmouth College, for example, English Professor Lou Renza has been teaching a version of a class on Dylan, analyzing his poetry, since the mid-1970s."


----------



## Phil Istine (Oct 16, 2016)

Maybe someone got mixed up with Dylan Thomas.


----------



## TKent (Oct 16, 2016)

Doh...we weren't talking about Dylan Thomas???  (JK)


----------



## dale (Oct 16, 2016)

TKent said:


> Sam, in US, he is taught in some literature classes, so perhaps it is a US-centric view based on him being from here.
> 
> "College and university courses on Dylan are not only taught by music professors, but also teachers of English and cultural studies. At Dartmouth College, for example, English Professor Lou Renza has been teaching a version of a class on Dylan, analyzing his poetry, since the mid-1970s."



but  i still think this was done "for all the wrong reasons". it was done simply because he's a cultural icon.
and considered a "politically liberal" icon. plus most  people, no matter who, do have respect for the man. 
i do. but  to me? this has a phoniness about it. i'm surprised they didn't hand the prize to prince. it  would have
made the emotional saps of the world oooo and ahhhh even more just because he died.. and i love  prince. but  i'm sorry. this  prize
should mean more than these purely superficial reasons. and it's the  same with  obama winning  the  peace prize.
what in the hell  did he  do to deserve that? and it's not just about me  disliking  obama. i think awarding a peace
prize  too any president would be a joke. they're commanders of a military  machine that slaughters countless
people. so yeah. it's stupid. and it takes away from the  people  who really deserve it. and that's how i see this
thing with bob dylan. it  was phony. others were more deserving of the LITERATURE prize.


----------



## Cran (Oct 16, 2016)

felixm said:


> I question  how any of you can deny  Bob Dylan's effect on contemporary literature.  His style and poetry got right down to the inequalities of modern society and changed more than just song writing.   Look at the genre known as  "battle rap" if you want to see some contemporary literature.  Ye who condemn lyrics have your  head up your arse.
> 
> Literature began as the spoken word, only  to emerge later as the written word.


*Who are you accusing of condemning lyrics here? Seriously. Back it up, or withdraw it. I don't take kindly to foul-mouthed trolls in my forum (in case you were wondering). *


Yes, Dylan has affected a generation or two of writers, but no more so than he was expressing the effects upon his generation. Far greater effects on contemporary and modern writers were the wars and social divisions and the fears of their consequences. Dylan was a part of that reaction, as were many others. The Asian wars (Korea and Vietnam), the Cold War (nuclear holocaust a mistake away), the oil wars (the global oil crisis of the 70s), the manufacturing war and the rise of automation and digital technology, class wars, faith wars, and the fear of a digital meltdown (1990s > 2000). I can see how post-apocalyptic and steampunk genres had to come from there, and I can see how the art and the message of Bob Dylan came from there.

Yes, Dylan deserved the highest recognition for his contribution to our collective experience. But the opportunity to set the appropriate precedent was lost. Literature will forever struggle to compete with popular performance culture. The world, and the expression of social conscience, has moved a long way from Alfred's time. We live our days in ways he never could have imagined. 

The times did indeed change.


----------



## SilverMoon (Oct 17, 2016)

Dylan's recent release of  "Shadows in the Night", covering Sinatra, has those who view him as a singular secular saint have been either up in arms or in mourning. Big deal. He did it "His Way". Now that he's won the Nobel Prize for Literature perhaps they can wipe their Ol' Blue Eyes. Granted, he's an iconic lyricist and singer but this is where the line should be drawn.

There's a great difference between lyricism and poetry. Poetry is delivered mainly to the eye whereas lyrics tend to the ear. Poets can depend on their readers being able to stop, go back and contemplate. Even look up words. A lyricist cannot provide this and they have an extremely limited space to work with. The comparison is nil, save reaching one on a visceral level.

Mind you, I "dig" Dylan. He's of my generation. But I've never dog eared any of his songs. (_Just a point. I don't dog ear literature)
_


----------



## Smith (Oct 17, 2016)

I see how lyrics and poetry can be connected. But they're also significantly different.

The awards should be updated with the times. A poet shouldn't stand in the way of the spotlight intended for a *musician*, so I don't understand why it happened the other way around.

If Bob Dylan were some kind of modern day Renaissance man and was renowned for his purely poetic ability with pen and paper *and also* his ability to craft a wonderful song and tune, I'd totally understand it. But the connection to Literature is tough, because you get from song-writing to "literature" via a middle-man.

In other words, Bob Dylan won the Literature award because... song-writing (including the ability to read sheet music, play instruments, and everything else that specifically goes into a making a song) = poetry = literature?

Sitting down and reading Tolstoy isn't the same as listening to a Bob Dylan track, in the same way that Tolstoy sitting down and writing Anna Karenina was not even similar at all to Bob Dylan sitting down and creating an album. They achieve similar goals through completely different mediums, both in how the information is presented, and how the information is absorbed.

But if we're going to needlessly and meaninglessly muddy the waters in yet _another_ area of life, Harambe should've won a Nobel Peace prize. Hell, painters tell a story with each brush stroke, so lets give some graffiti artist a Literary prize. I also want to see Canadian Molson win the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Cuz like, they mix different ingredientz and stuff.

P.S. To say he was extremely influential... guess that depends on who you ask. I mean, I'd heard of him, but my reaction is "yawn". Guess some people are rejoicing I'm not the measuring stick making these decisions.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 17, 2016)

Phil Istine said:


> Maybe someone got mixed up with Dylan Thomas.



I knew a man, his brain was so small,
He couldn't think of nothing at all.
He's not the same as you and me.
He doesn't dig poetry. He's so unhip that
When you say Dylan, he thinks you're talking about Dylan Thomas,
Whoever he was.
[FONT=Roboto, arial, Noto Sans Japanese, sans-serif]The man ain't got no culture,  -- from Simon and Garfunkel's A Simple Desultory Phillippic

[/FONT]If the best literature (from a Nobel perspective) is that which influences not just the art form, but culture and society as well, then Dylan's music is worthy. He was not the only songwriter giving his generation a collective voice, but he was one of the first, and the most influential.


----------



## Phil Istine (Oct 17, 2016)

Terry D said:


> I knew a man, his brain was so small,
> He couldn't think of nothing at all.
> He's not the same as you and me.
> He doesn't dig poetry. He's so unhip that
> ...



I was unaware of those lyrics when I posted that


----------

