Stupid Nobels-- Nobel for lit given to Bob Dylan :)

[KyriakosCH]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/arts/music/bob-dylan-nobel-prize-literature.html?_r=0

Well, Irvine Welsh said it ok, i think:

“I'm a Dylan fan, but this is an ill conceived nostalgia award wrenched from the rancid prostates of senile, gibbering hippies,” the Scottish novelist Irvine Welsh wrote on Twitter.

I think this is a downright stupid move by the Swedish academy. A lot worse than awarding the Peace prize to Obama and later on the EU. Remember that this is the prize (nobel for literature) never given to giants such as Borges and (the late) Umberto Eco. Moreover the usual "explanation" of why Eco never got the award was that his writing was just... detective stories and not serious lit Well, brains are a'changing, and turning to mud in the Nobel committee

-Do you think Bob Dylan was a good choice to get the nobel for literature?

[Mandle]

Well...on the one hand: The words he wrote did affect an entire generation.

On the other hand: It's the Nobel for literature not a Grammy... If he had just written the words in a book of poetry minus the music and concerts, would anyone even have noticed? Doubtful IMO...

[selmiak]

My thoughts exactly. So is the nobel committee screwed or are we screwed as there are less people on this world deserving some honours?

[Snarky]

It's a bit surprising at first, but I'm fine with it.

You can always find a long list of people who might have been worthy winners and were never honored (personally I think there are a lot of people who deserved it more than Eco). Whatever you think of Dylan, he's been extremely influential on modern songwriting and notions of poetry.

And the Academy has bestowed it on playwrights and poets before, so a songwriter isn't that much of a leap. Not to mention that Dylan's lyrics have been collected in numerous poetry anthologies.

[Danvzare]

Song writing is not literature. So yeah, definitely stupid.
That'd be like an actor on a play, getting an award for best movie actor.
They're similar, but too different to be classed in the same category.

But at the end of the day, it's just a meaningless trophy. I don't even know (or care) who has won that prize before. And even if I did know, it wouldn't affect the way I think about anyone or what they've written.

But I am now curious as to who you think should have won that prize?

[Radiant]

I don't see a problem with giving a lit prize to a poet or a songwriter, and the lit prize is one of the traditional five Nobel prizes. I have no particular opinion on Bob Dylan. Do bear in mind that this means that an adventure game designer can eventually also win the Nobel Lit prize.

Yes, the nobel peace prize is all kinds of silly, mainly because the other Nobel prizes all require that the recipient's contributions have been tried and tested over time, whereas the peace prize does not (and thus tends to get awarded on wishful thinking).

[KyriakosCH]

An AGS creator being awarded the Nobel for lit, likely won't happen (smiley meant here as in 'annoyed' ). But at least this Dylan nobel opens the road for an equally deserved nobel for Kanye

[Snarky]

Song writing is not literature. So yeah, definitely stupid.

Writing is not literature?

Bob Dylan has produced a series of texts. Those texts are primarily meant to be sung, but how is that different from the text of a play, which is primarily meant to be performed? And by the way, most traditional poetry was originally sung, from the Greek epics to the ballads and lays of the Norse skalds, Irish bards and Provençal troubadours.

[KyriakosCH]

Problem with song-writing is that it tends to be secondary to the music, and in the particular case of Dylan it is arguably so-called low art. Yes, every kind of writing is writing, and one can term as art just about anything. That said, there is some difference between a song by Dylan, and a short story by Borges, and it is not in Dylan's favour.

[Danvzare]

Song writing is not literature. So yeah, definitely stupid.

Writing is not literature?

Bob Dylan has produced a series of texts. Those texts are primarily meant to be sung, but how is that different from the text of a play, which is primarily meant to be performed? And by the way, most traditional poetry was originally sung, from the Greek epics to the ballads and lays of the Norse skalds, Irish bards and Provençal troubadours.

It's my limited definition of the word literature. Which in my mind, means prose not simply text or just writing.
Not a screenplay, not a song, but possibly a collection of poems though.

[Radiant]

It's my limited definition of the word literature. Which in my mind, means prose not simply text or just writing.
Not a screenplay, not a song, but possibly a collection of poems though.

So you're basically saying that the Nobel committee should award the prize based on your personal definition of the word "literature", rather than on what the term actually means. Yeah, that's totally gonna fly

[cat]

It's a bit like giving a movie director a photography award. Not sure if this is a good or bad thing.

[Mandle]

how is that different from the text of a play, which is primarily meant to be performed?

I would say a key difference is that the playwright is not performing their own work.

For example: I could handle a movie script winning a literature award, but not the movie itself.

You also mention that Dylan's lyrics have been compiled into written prose and released as books of poetry.

But this is not what he won the award for: He won it for his performance of his lyrics which changed the hearts and minds of a generation, but would not have done so in purely the written form.

Definition of literature

Spoiler

    : written works (such as poems, plays, and novels) that are considered to be very good and to have lasting importance

    : books, articles, etc., about a particular subject

    : printed materials (such as booklets, leaflets, and brochures) that provide information about something

[close]

So maybe the name of the award is at fault and they should expand it to include all forms of art that involve language?

[Danvzare]

So you're basically saying that the Nobel committee should award the prize based on your personal definition of the word "literature", rather than on what the term actually means. Yeah, that's totally gonna fly

Exactly!
Everyone should do everything based on my definition of words.

[Snarky]

It's my limited definition of the word literature. Which in my mind, means prose not simply text or just writing.
Not a screenplay, not a song, but possibly a collection of poems though.

You may have your own definition of literature, but I'm not sure under what definition "a collection of poems" could possibly qualify as prose.

As pointed out several times already, the Literature prize has gone to both poets and playwrights many times before. I think awarding it for screenplays would be perfectly within its scope as well. (William Faulkner and Harold Pinter won the prize and had written some screenplays, though that's not what they won for.)

You also mention that Dylan's lyrics have been compiled into written prose and released as books of poetry.

But this is not what he won the award for: He won it for his performance of his lyrics which changed the hearts and minds of a generation, but would not have done so in purely the written form.

In fact, the jury's rationale for him winning the prize is "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition".

And actually, many of Dylan's songs first became hits, or are more famous, in other singers' interpretations. ("Blowin' in the Wind" was first a hit for Peter, Paul & Mary, "Mr. Tambourine Man" for The Byrds, and "All Along the Watchtower" is best known in Jimi Hendrix's version, for example.) Dylan is someone you can make a strong case for as a songwriter first and foremost, rather than a musician or performer.

Problem with song-writing is that it tends to be secondary to the music, and in the particular case of Dylan it is arguably so-called low art. Yes, every kind of writing is writing, and one can term as art just about anything. That said, there is some difference between a song by Dylan, and a short story by Borges, and it is not in Dylan's favour.

I don't know in what sense Dylan is "low" art other than that he's fairly popular, but that's a charge you could make against Hemingway or Kipling as well. And sorry, but the ship has sailed for Borges: he is no longer eligible, having been dead for thirty years, so he was in no way competing with Dylan for this award.

[Babar]

And actually, many of Dylan's songs first became hits, or are more famous, in other singers' interpretations. ("Blowin' in the Wind" was first a hit for Peter, Paul & Mary, "Mr. Tambourine Man" for The Byrds, and "All Along the Watchtower" is best known in Jimi Hendrix's version, for example.) Dylan is someone you can make a strong case for as a songwriter first and foremost, rather than a musician or performer.

I was going to make this point as well .
As a singer, I find Bob Dylan's nasally voice infuriating, and feel his insistence on using a harmonica everywhere really annoying. As you mentioned, I find a lot of the best versions of his songs are covers, so much so that I end up looking for covers of songs of his I almost like .

[Radiant]

I was going to make this point as well .
As a singer, I find Bob Dylan's nasally voice infuriating, and feel his insistence on using a harmonica everywhere really annoying. As you mentioned, I find a lot of the best versions of his songs are covers, so much so that I end up looking for covers of songs of his I almost like .

As I recall, a question in Trivial Pursuit is "who is generally considered the worst performer of the music by Bob Dylan?" to which the answer is "Bob Dylan"

Still, that underlines he's more of a writer than a singer, making him more suited to this prize.

[KyriakosCH]

It is just a very nasty choice, in my view.
If people are focused on the writing itself, it doesn't make sense for them to be musicians.
Can't really see any way in which Dylan's writing is in the same league as any high literature. Yet there is also the (mentioned) added issue that a song is heard; you listen to the words being said. That robs a text already from the experience of the reader reading it in their mind. A bit- obviously not a full parallel- like a scene in a book is not the same as its presentation in a movie adapted from the book.

Tldr : This choice sucked, Dylan is not a great writer. The swedish academy should be repopulated with people of better taste

[Problem]

If people are focused on the writing itself, it doesn't make sense for them to be musicians.

So if you're writer, you're not allowed to perform your works, because it disqualifies you from being a real writer?

Yet there is also the (mentioned) added issue that a song is heard; you listen to the words being said. That robs a text already from the experience of the reader reading it in their mind.

If that's a problem, stage plays should be excluded as well, because they are supposed to be performed in a theatre. But still, they are considered literature.

The swedish academy should be repopulated with people of better taste

better taste = your taste?

Maybe there would have been better candidates, but that doesn't mean Dylan doesn't deserve it. Pretty much every year some people complain that whoever has won the prize doesn't deserve it and that others should have won instead. Why is it so hard for people to just accept that someone gets honoured for his or her work? Is this a question of having a "superior" taste or something? I don't really get it.

[KyriakosCH]

^Well, different type of issue; it is one thing to claim one writer was crap yet won, and another to note that one who writes songs won the lit prize.

I think it is a bad precedent which will further erode the worth of this category of nobel.

Not seeing what your first question is there for. I suppose you don't think writers won nobels for how they read their books.

[selmiak]

Bob Dylan shouldn't get this years literature nobelprice but he should rather get obamas peace nobel price, then I could sleep a little better. Of course it should be taken from mr obama in a peaceful way. Obama is in no way a peacemaker with all the wars the us is involved in and guantanamo still active and doing some semigood things at the end of his period. Does bob dylan get the literature award rather than the peace award because all his songs of freedom and peace and understanding are just fictional thoughts of a dreamer that wants to escape his time and not because he means what he says and sings when he wants to make people think and question decisions of the awarded peacemakers...

[selmiak]

and just because!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxjIBEZvx0

[Problem]

Not seeing what your first question is there for. I suppose you don't think writers won nobels for how they read their books.

Exactly, and that's why I don't think Dylan has won the prize for how he sings his songs, but for his writing.

I think it is a bad precedent which will further erode the worth of this category of nobel.

In my opinion it's quite the opposite. A songwriter winning in this category is first and foremost an acknowledgement that literature is a rich category that spans a wide spectrum of works. And it's not like this will happen again any time soon. The worst thing that could happen is what always happens - most people don't remember who has won the prize in 2015, 2014... and not even Bob Dylan will change that. Some people are getting mad, because for whatever reason they feel insulted by the decision... but again, this happens every year. Business as usual.

[KyriakosCH]

Not seeing what your first question is there for. I suppose you don't think writers won nobels for how they read their books.

Exactly, and that's why I don't think Dylan has won the prize for how he sings his songs, but for his writing.

I think it is a bad precedent which will further erode the worth of this category of nobel.

In my opinion it's quite the opposite. A songwriter winning in this category is first and foremost an acknowledgement that literature is a rich category that spans a wide spectrum of works. And it's not like this will happen again any time soon. The worst thing that could happen is what always happens - most people don't remember who has won the prize in 2015, 2014... and not even Bob Dylan will change that. Some people are getting mad, because for whatever reason they feel insulted by the decision... but again, this happens every year. Business as usual.

Not exactly. Point obviously was that a writer doesn't tie his text with any presentation of it by himself. Dylan sung those stuff, and he isn't Homer either; he is merely a pop song-writer. There already exist a great many contests/awards for songwriters, including special category for the lyrics themselves. Having this spill over to the nobel lit contest only makes the latter even less respectable now imo.

[Stupot]

It's hard to think of song lyrics as poems. However, though I'm not a massive fan myself, Bob Dylan is the one of a few songwriters who I have heard referred to, by people who admire their work, as poets. No one is questioning whether he deserves recognition for the body of words he has written on pieces of paper over his carreer, just whether they can be classed as literature. But I think if you can class his songs as poems, and people do, then you have to class them as literature (I certainly remember poetry making up a certain percentage of my English Lit. Classes at school). Maybe students of the not-too-distant future will even be studying Bob Dylan in high schools (just after their History 101 class entitled 'WW3: lesson 1 - Trumps rise to power.')

[Radiant]

Having this spill over to the nobel lit contest only makes the latter even less respectable now imo.

Even less? LOL, you're talking about one of the most prestigious and respectable awards in the world. (That's not counting the politics prize, which as stated before is fundamentally different from the traditional Nobel prizes).

Because yes, the standard definition of literature includes both poetry and drama. If you're not aware of what the word means, well that's on you. Here, have some background info.

It's hard to think of song lyrics as poems.

That depends entirely on what kind of music you listen to.

[Mandle]

In fact, the jury's rationale for him winning the prize is "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition".

Hmmmm... that's an interesting point: The word "within" suggesting that he won for his poetry, but not via the medium it was created in.

In that case I can accept it as the same case as a playwright winning based on their writing, not that me accepting it or not means anything. But I can understand now why you said you are good with it.

The matter of whether or not Mr. Dylan deserves to win even in this case is a matter of opinion though. I have none.

[KyriakosCH]

Having this spill over to the nobel lit contest only makes the latter even less respectable now imo.

Even less? LOL, you're talking about one of the most prestigious and respectable awards in the world. (That's not counting the politics prize, which as stated before is fundamentally different from the traditional Nobel prizes).

Because yes, the standard definition of literature includes both poetry and drama. If you're not aware of what the word means, well that's on you. Here, have some background info.

Very genius reply. Yes, i happen to know that poets have won this award loads of times. In fact only two nobels here in lit are to poets.

Anyway, giving an award to someone who seems a terrible choice is bound to make the award less respectable. The nobel in lit has been given for political reasons as much as any other one, btw.

[Snarky]

The matter of whether or not Mr. Dylan deserves to win even in this case is a matter of opinion though. I have none.

Yeah, I have no strong opinion on the merits of Bob Dylan's work as poetry/literature. He's not my favorite (I like "Tangled up in Blue" and "Subterranean Homesick Blues", for example, but loathe "Hurricane"), but poetry can be challenging to appreciate, and he's certainly well respected by many people who are actually experts in the field. Beyond that it comes down to personal taste. This whole "it's not literature because he writes songs" thing, though... That just strikes me as misdirected snobbery.

Anyone wanna post some favorite Dylan lyrics so we can see what the ruckus is all about?

BTW, about adventure games (or adventure game scripts) winning in the future... well, it'd have to be one hell of a script! Some sort of literary IF experience could very well qualify, though.

Anyway, giving an award to someone who seems a terrible choice is bound to make the award less respectable.

Just because you don't like his work doesn't mean he's a terrible choice. And there are always people who complain about the winners: there's just more of them this year because more people have heard of Bob Dylan than most other winners.

[Stupot]

It's hard to think of song lyrics as poems.

That depends entirely on what kind of music you listen to.

Absolutely. And it's also going to vary person to person what kind of songs they may or may not consider poetry. Songwriters I have heard referred to as poets include Bowie, Cobain, Stevie Nicks, Eminem. I think what people mean when they say 'X is a poet' is not 'X writes poems' but that 'X's songs touch me in a way that a beautiful poem might.'

I guess the question is where to draw the line between a song and a poem. Is it the writer's intention? I coukd write something, publish it in a volume, say it out loud with no music at a poetry recital and call it a poem. Or I could take that same piece, write a few guitar riffs around it, get a band together, put on an album, perform it at a rock show and call it a song.

But regardless of the distinction between songs and poems, it's all the same words. So if you're judging solely on the written words of a song then it just as equally deserves to be considered 'literature' as any poem does.

[RickJ]

As Richard Feynman says, when you accomplish something you already have your prize, honors are meaningless.

[Ali]

None of William Blake's contemporaries though he was a poet either. But he was - a poet and a painter far behind his rightful times.

[Snarky]

Blake also used to perform some of his poems as songs.

[KyriakosCH]

I am of mixed view about Blake's poems. On the one hand he clearly has passages of very very striking intensity ("some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night" etc), on the other those poems as a whole don't seem to me to be particularly engaging. Parts are featuring a raw kind of power, as with that tiger poem. Not that this -seeming or not- inconsistency is only a Blake thing, of course.

Personally i am also not particularly fond of his painting. Again similar position as with his poems.

[Stupot]

Seems like the man himself doesn't want it :-/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/nobel-prize-committee-gives-up-trying-to-contact-bob-dylan/

[Mandle]

Seems like the man himself doesn't want it :-/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/nobel-prize-committee-gives-up-trying-to-contact-bob-dylan/

Well, from reading that article it mostly seems that Bob Dylan just isn't that interested in self-promotion, but that he will show up briefly to do what he is expected to do and then duck out quickly again...

LOVE the quotes from Obama about how Bob dealt with the whole White House appearance...

I sense a serious touch of class about the dude from reading the whole article...

I hope he shows up at the Nobel Awards dinner, eats a few bites, talks to a few people, grabs his award and then just says he needs to take a leak before his speech, and then sneaks out the bathroom window to be whisked away... And then donates the prize money to some poetry scholarship...

Sounds like his style... And I can totally dig it!

[Cassiebsg]

Yeah, I kind of got the vibe that those "mundane" things are beyond him, and he might be a shy and reserved person, that just happens to love writing and singing, but hates being a celebrity with all that's attached.
He's not in it for the fame and glory.

[Radiant]

Seems like the man himself doesn't want it :-/

Well, that's exceedingly nobel of him! Yeeaaaahh!

[KyriakosCH]

Maybe he is a cool person, but i was only speaking against the nobel committee

Besides, isn't Dylan roughly 100 years old?

[MiteWiseacreLives!]

he is merely a pop song-writer.

I object to this. Pop != Rock & Roll.
I agree with the notion that others really performed many of his songs the best, therefor he is primarily a writer/poet.
Also, Tweeter and the Monkey Man performed by The Headstones. (I have also referred to Hugh Dillon as a poet )

[Cassiebsg]

Okay, let me get this strait, cause it might be a bit confusing... if he wrote and sang his own songs, without others singing them better, then it wasn't okay, but since others are singing his songs better than himself, it's okay?
Does it really matter who sang them? What matters is who wrote them. That's what he's been awarded a nobel for, not because "well, he can't sing them that good anyway, so he's just a writer..."

[MiteWiseacreLives!]

Okay, let me get this strait, cause it might be a bit confusing... if he wrote and sang his own songs, without others singing them better, then it wasn't okay, but since others are singing his songs better than himself, it's okay?
Does it really matter who sang them? What matters is who wrote them. That's what he's been awarded a nobel for, not because "well, he can't sing them that good anyway, so he's just a writer..."

OK fine! It's not the best logic, it just goes to show that his primary talent was writing. None the less good songs can be considered poetry.

[Blondbraid]

When I first heard Bob Dylan would get the Nobel prize, I thought it was a joke. I can understand why many people would want to award him, but the Nobel prize in literature?
It would be like giving an Oscar to a video game developer...

And as someone told me, Dylan have already received the Polar music prize, while the Nobel prize in literature is the probably and most greatest award a writer can get, and if they start handing it out to songwriters and any other artists whose works have words in them, they take the prize away from writers and authors.

[KyriakosCH]

^Which is why the decision erodes the importance of this nobel, like similarly bad decisions did with the peace nobel.

I'd have zero problem with [a songwriter] winning the award for a book he wrote, meant to be read as a book, not lyrics for a song, and deemed to be of high quality.
Imagine someone getting a math prize for writing code in a computer game; yes, it is fine as long as the prize isn't reserved for something you present in a math journal/academic setting. Using this parallel to highlight that this nobel lit decision was bad in way of opening the award to other artists using words as well, in addition to the (obviously more subjective) bad opinion re Dylan as a 'writer'. He is average at best.

[Snarky]

It clearly comes down to the question "Are song lyrics a form of literature?"

This is a question that doesn't have a set answer: it depends entirely on your definition. If songwriting is a literary form, then you're not "taking it away" from "real" writers by awarding it to someone who is eligible. An argument for considering song lyrics to be literature is that it has a lot in common with poetry (and you can't really draw a sharp distinction between the two), and poetry has always been accepted as literature. The Nobel committee has also recognized speeches as a form of literature in the past (Churchill got the Nobel Prize in literature in part for his "oratory"), so there's precedent for an expansive interpretation of the scope.

I also think that the mere fact that we can discuss whether Dylan is a good or a bad writer tends to prove that he is in any case a writer.

I strongly suspect that underlying the objections is a feeling that good songwriting is not as great an accomplishment as good prose or poetry, that it's not "worthy" to qualify for the same award. If that's actually the rub, I think the critics should come out and say so directly.

Imagine someone getting a math prize for writing code in a computer game; yes, it is fine as long as the prize isn't reserved for something you present in a math journal/academic setting.

It's not a very good analogy, since math prizes are given almost exclusively for proofs, not for impressive calculations. In principle you could certainly imagine that a games programmer could make significant contributions to various mathematical fields â€" compare Claude Shannon, who worked for the Bell Telephone Co. when he made his seminal contributions to information and communications theory â€" but the closest thing I'm aware of is the Fast Inverse Square Root estimation algorithm implemented in (though not originally invented for) Quake III Arena, which doesn't come close to something you might win a Fields Medal or Abel Prize for (though they have been awarded to people working in physics and computer science).

[KyriakosCH]

^There is another angle to how problematic giving a songwriter a lit nobel is: it is really not ever going to expand (in a way which would make it at least equally reasonable as the Dylan one -- already not reasonable arguably) to people writing songlyrics in other languages and not english. At least books can realistically get translated to other languages if deemed significant, and that is part of the book business. Lyrics, on the other hand, rarely get official translation in any manner not very closely tied to the music franchise.

[Radiant]

I strongly suspect that underlying the objections is a feeling that good songwriting is not as great an accomplishment as good prose or poetry, that it's not "worthy" to qualify for the same award.

Nah, I think that the underlying reason is a general dislike of Bob Dylan, and people trying to come up with a stronger reason that he shouldn't have been enNobeled than that

[Snarky]

^There is another angle to how problematic giving a songwriter a lit nobel is: it is really not ever going to expand (in a way which would make it at least equally reasonable as the Dylan one -- already not reasonable arguably) to people writing songlyrics in other languages and not english. At least books can realistically get translated to other languages if deemed significant, and that is part of the book business. Lyrics, on the other hand, rarely get official translation in any manner not very closely tied to the music franchise.

Seriously, man? Come on! There's a looong tradition of translating songs from one language to another. Plenty of Dylan-songs have been translated into Swedish (which happens to be the Nobel Committee's native language, not English), for example. It may not be quite as common as it used to be, but that's more of a cultural/industry issue than some eternal truth about the genres.

Besdies, I'm pretty sure the committee has competence in other languages too, at least some of the major ones.

[KyriakosCH]

^There is another angle to how problematic giving a songwriter a lit nobel is: it is really not ever going to expand (in a way which would make it at least equally reasonable as the Dylan one -- already not reasonable arguably) to people writing songlyrics in other languages and not english. At least books can realistically get translated to other languages if deemed significant, and that is part of the book business. Lyrics, on the other hand, rarely get official translation in any manner not very closely tied to the music franchise.

Seriously, man? Come on! There's a looong tradition of translating songs from one language to another. Plenty of Dylan-songs have been translated into Swedish (which happens to be the Nobel Committee's native language, not English), for example. It may not be quite as common as it used to be, but that's more of a cultural/industry issue than some eternal truth about the genres.

Besdies, I'm pretty sure the committee has competence in other languages too, at least some of the major ones.

Maybe they'll give the nobel to Conchita Wurst or how he/she was called

[Andail]

How was that a response to Snarky's comment?

I don't quite get how so many people cam be instinctively against Dylan getting the Nobel prize without even discussing, let alone having read, his works.

We've had plenty of culture panels and TV programs discussing this prize in Sweden, and oftentimes it turns out that a majority haven't even read much of his lyrics. It's apparently enough to have a strong feeling about the general concept of Dylan. A number of Swedish female debaters are opposed to the idea because they don't like "Dylan men" which is a subset of "culture men", and while I can sympathise with some of the resentment held against such despicable beings, I hardly think that should reflect on Dylan himself.

It would be quite remarkable if, say, last year, a panel of cultural commentators discussed Svetlana Aleksijevitj without ever having read her texts, but resented the notion of awarding her because they were annoyed with female reportage writers or whatever.

Having said that, I'm a bit divided myself. I happen to be both a Dylan fan and a rather pretentious snob when it comes to literature. While Dylan's lyrics are diverse, immensely influential and uniquely evocative, I can't help but feel that other laureates' literary accomplishments have a vastly different scope. I love much of his lyrics, but when I read e.g. "The feast of the goat", "Waiting for the barbarians" or "The slaves", each one a novel by different Nobel prize winners, the literary experience was something quite different in terms of sheer magnitude, of world building. Then again, I can listen to "Changing of the guards" over and over again and always be swept away by the dreamlike figures, so that experience is more direct and bears repeating, and his folk/protest songs are poignant and powerful, and his stream of consciousness songs superbly suggestive, and his love songs intimate yet universal, so yeah I probably lost my train of thought here but the point is he kind of mastered it all.

[KyriakosCH]

Sometimes one not focusing on the guest in the house being an elephant in a human costume... is particular by itself

Anyway, it isn't like the nobel lit means that much by now. Ultimately it is never going to reflect the best living writer in the first place, but it did leave a very bad taste that Dylan got the nobel a few months after Eco died, one who famously was deliberately not given the nobel for dubious reasons

[Andail]

Sometimes one not focusing on the guest in the house being an elephant in a human costume... is particular by itself

Anyway, it isn't like the nobel lit means that much by now. Ultimately it is never going to reflect the best living writer in the first place, but it did leave a very bad taste that Dylan got the nobel a few months after Eco died, one who famously was deliberately not given the nobel for dubious reasons

I have no idea what half of that means.

The prize means neither less or more because you have a personal opinion of it. The prize is what it is; the committee votes and then awards it. It has been given to various types of writers for various reasons, popular and accessible, aloof and opaque, novelists and poets, playwrights and reportage writers. journalists and even speakers. In retrospect, some of them don't seem particularly worthy, but it's subjective so what are you gonna do?

I think you need to be less rigid about what constitutes literature, and also less hung up on specific cases of perceived unfairness. A prize awarded once a year cannot reasonably cover all the most prominent writers, and especially not the exact ones you favour.

I love Foucault's Pendulum, but I'm not gonna be forever grumpy about Eco not getting the prize. I don't know what you mean that he "famously deliberately" didn't get it. The committee doesn't publicly motivate why they don't nominate someone; that's proably something they imagine people will just accept.

There are tons of good writers who never got the prize. Proust, Joyce and Virginia Woolf have probably all survived better than a majority of the laureates, but then again, this isn't long jump, you can't objectively be right about it.

[KyriakosCH]

Well, i think it should go without saying that most of those who won the lit nobel have faired far worse than many who didn't get it. I mean, Borges was likely the last of the really great authors of the (mostly) first half of the 20th century (he wrote far past that, but arguably none of his best works were written after that point). It is a bit farcical that he never got the nobel for lit if we suppose this award reflects merit.
Eco is somewhat similar (i don't view him as being as good as Borges). Moreover Eco was likely the most influencial/important living european writer. Many were annoyed he never got the nobel. Compare with how many (zero? literally) would be annoyed if Dylan did not get the nobel. No one would.

When discussing with people online, it helps to not imagine that the more platitude-like arguments are something your fellow person discussing things happened to miss. Remember that none of us here would write a full treatise just so as to post in a thread

[Radiant]

Moreover Eco was likely the most influencial/important living european writer. Many were annoyed he never got the nobel. Compare with how many (zero? literally) would be annoyed if Dylan did not get the nobel. No one would.

[citation needed]

[Snarky]

Like Andail says: There will inevitably be omissions. You could extend his list almost indefinitely: Conrad, Chekov, Strindberg, Ford, Bulgakov, Forster, Dos Passos, Burroughs, Nabokov, Lindgren, Heller... Borges was probably passed over (wrongly) for his association with the Argentine junta. Others were missed for various other reasons - some would probably have got it if they had lived longer.

This is not because the committee is bad at its job (though certainly there have been some bad decisions), but because there's no objective way to pick the greatest, and not enough prizes to go around. The only way to ensure that everyone who might deserve the prize actually got it would be to hand out so many that their value would be entirely devalued. It's hopeless.

Also like Andail, I liked Foucault's Pendulum, but fifty years from now, will people be saying it's a disgrace that Eco didn't win a Nobel? I doubt it.