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.