"No one can nominate himself or herself. Winners must be living; Nobel prizes are never given posthumously. In general, Nobel award winners are individuals whose work is disruptive in terms of influence on others working in the field and, especially, outside of the field."
There are a couple exceptions to the postumous award rule.
Posthumous Nobel Prizes From 1974, the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation stipulate that a Prize cannot be awarded posthumously, unless death has occurred after the announcement of the Nobel Prize. Before 1974, the Nobel Prize has only been awarded posthumously twice: to Dag Hammarskjöld (Nobel Peace Prize 1961) and Erik Axel Karlfeldt (Nobel Prize in Literature 1931).
Following the 2011 announcement of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, it was discovered that one of the Medicine Laureates, Ralph Steinman, had passed away three days earlier. The Board of the Nobel Foundation examined the statutes, and an interpretation of the purpose of the rule above led to the conclusion that Ralph Steinman should continue to remain a Nobel Laureate, as the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet had announced the 2011 Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine without knowing of his death.
It is worth reviewing the criteria and nomination processes for the Nobel prizes. For example, the following are the only individuals who can nominate for the Prize in Literature: 1.
Members of the Swedish
Academy and of other academies, institutions and societies
which are similar to it in construction and purpose;
2.
Professors of literature
and of linguistics at universities and university
colleges;
3.
Previous Nobel Laureates in Literature;
4.
Presidents of those
societies of authors that are representative of the literary
production in their respective countries. The Nobel Committee for Literature sends invitation letters to persons who are qualified to nominate for the Nobel Prize in Literature. No one can nominate himself
or herself. Winners must be living; Nobel prizes are never given posthumously. In general, Nobel award winners are individuals whose work is disruptive in terms of influence on others working in the field and, especially, outside of the field.
While I greatly prefer the words, poetry, and music of Leonard Cohen, he was less influential than Dylan. . . unfortunately. Plus, he had a huge hiatus in productivity.
This guy was just a country kid from Northern Minnesota doing his own thing who became the voice of a generation. Just imagine how difficult dealing with that level of "fame" must be. No wonder he frequently looks uncomfortable. No wonder he doesn't want to accept the award.
I’m playing with a guy who does a nice version of "Tangled Up In Blue", and I’m going to suggest adding "Watching The River Flow" to his repertoire. It’s a forgotten gem of a song from the early 70’s, performed in a blues shuffle feel. Real fun to play, I’ll bet.
There is a 7:55 minute video on YouTube, posted by what sounds like an academic who calls himself Nerdwriter1. It is entitled "Why Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize: All Along the Watchtower explored". Here are the author's opening lines, spoken over the song as it plays: "There are some novels, some trilogies in fact, with less actual content than Bob Dylan's All Along the Watchtower. It's really astonishing what Dylan achieves in 12 lines, 130 words, and 2-1/2 minutes."
In his exploration, the author dissects the song in terms of literature, the Bible, and the song's place in Dylan's evolution as a songwriter. Well worth eight minutes of your time.
I any case, he was given the prize because of his great influence not because he is a great poet - that he is not. But perhaps Peace Prize would've been more appropriate.
+1
It was a political gesture more than anything.....like giving Obama the peace prize. Dylan should never be confused for a poet.
Along these same lines, Cohen was/is a better wordsmith IMO (and an actual writer.....).
I would hazard that Bob Dylan doesn’t like honours.
Like Feynman and all true driven creative intellectuals - they don’t do it for a reward or medal. The reward is the journey of discovery and a deeper understanding. A medal or award is nothing compared to nature’s pattern of beauty and majesty!
Banquet Speech Richard P. Feynman’s speech at the Nobel Banquet in Stockholm, December 10, 1965
Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen.
The work I have done has, already, been adequately rewarded and recognized.
Imagination reaches out repeatedly trying to achieve some higher level of understanding, until suddenly I find myself momentarily alone before one new corner of nature’s pattern of beauty and true majesty revealed. That was my reward.
Then, having fashioned tools to make access easier to the new level, I see these tools used by other men straining their imaginations against further mysteries beyond. There, are my votes of recognition.
Then comes the prize, and a deluge of messages. Reports; of fathers turning excitedly with newspapers in hand to wives; of daughters running up and down the apartment house ringing neighbor’s doorbells with news; victorious cries of "I told you so" by those having no technical knowledge - their successful prediction being based on faith alone; from friends, from relatives, from students, from former teachers, from scientific colleagues, from total strangers; formal commendations, silly jokes, parties, presents; a multitude of messages in a multitude of forms.
But, in each I saw the same two common elements. I saw in each, joy; and I saw affection (you see, whatever modesty I may have had has been completely swept away in recent days).
The prize was a signal to permit them to express, and me to learn about, their feelings. Each joy, though transient thrill, repeated in so many places amounts to a considerable sum of human happiness. And, each note of affection released thus one upon another has permitted me to realize a depth of love for my friends and acquaintances, which I had never felt so poignantly before.
For this, I thank Alfred Nobel and the many who worked so hard to carry out his wishes in this particular way.
And so, you Swedish people, with your honors, and your trumpets, and your king - forgive me. For I understand at last - such things provide entrance to the heart. Used by a wise and peaceful people they can generate good feeling, even love, among men, even in lands far beyond your own. For that lesson, I thank you. Tack!
From Les Prix Nobel en 1965, [Nobel Foundation], Stockholm, 1966
I guess the number of my posts on the site are too few or too many for you? Whatever....
Neither the Pulitzer nor the Noble requires the nominated to submit an application, nor is the Pulitzer an equal to being knighted. I am not now nor was I ever a "fan" of Dylan with respect to those that are; the first record I ever purchased was "Blood On The Tracks," I'll turn sixty this year so that's rather a late arrival, don'cha think?
At least he wasn't nominated for an Oscar for Pat Garret.
bdp24, I remember that Grammy speech. I was watching him and I was thinking he was too far gone to even say something coherent. Then he sucker-punched me and knocked me out. It was a tremendous performance. Did no one check out the "Last Thoughts on Woody Guthrie" link posted earlier on this thread? It's worth the time.
Great posts, both dgarretson and Geoff, even if they come from divergent points of view. Though it’s true his lyrics were indeed considered almost the soundtrack for the counter-culture movement of the 1960’s, Dylan has stated (in the 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley I believe, as well as elsewhere. Perhaps in Chronicles Vol.1?) that he feels little connection with that culture. Though he was instrumental in it’s creation and development, he walked away from it in 1966 when he went into isolation in Woodstock, reappearing in ’68 with a Country music flavored album. Country, music of the "redneck" culture, the antithesis of the civil rights and counter-culture movements. Dylan was instrumental in the creation of not only the counter-culture, but also the counter-counter-culture! His partners in crime in that movement were The Band, who put a giant photograph of themselves surrounded by all their family members and relatives on the inside of the gatefold album cover of their 1968 debut album, Music From Big Pink. This at a time when the war between the generations was raging. They were having none of that.
Dylan’s speech at the Grammy Awards ceremony in which he accepted his Album Of The Year award (for Time Out Of Mind) is really, really funny. It is in typical somewhat abstract Dylan style, obtuse to those who don’t understand him. The point of the speech was that rewards (not awards) of this life may, if one allows them, corrupt one’s soul. The part starting with the line "Well, my Daddy, he didn’t leave me much....." is nothing less than spitting in the face of the Academy and it’s awards. It is a quite obvious reference to lines in the Bible, another thing that separates him from the generally atheistic belief base of the counter-culture and it’s members.
On second thought my previous post may be wrong. Perhaps the 2009 Nobel peace prize winner may be remembered as being in the eighth circle of The Inferno in Bolgia 5.
I certainly am no literary scholar, but I think I am safe in in agreeing with simao that Dylan is no Dante and will probably not be read in 2000 years or even be remembered. Will any Nobel winner, for literature or otherwise, be remembered in 2000 years, including the 2009 winner of the peace prize? I can't imagine so.
dgarretson 1,994 posts 10-19-2016 3:51pm If civilization survives to Y4K and historians remember the 20th century, they will likely underscore the significance of the counter-culture and its music that reified social and political currents during the first war lost by the USA. Dylan will be remembered above all other writers in this context.
Ironically perhaps Dylan would be the first to disagree with the counter-culture connection. Or being labeled a folk singer or representing the anti war movement or singing songs about or representing the counter-culture.
If civilization survives to Y4K and historians remember the 20th century, they will likely underscore the significance of the counter-culture and its music that reified social and political currents during the first war lost by the USA. Dylan will be remembered above all other writers in this context.
One could argue as well that this award distinguishes the resurgence of the bardic tradition as a popular art form, in the context of a declining general readership for traditional literature and poetry. Maybe next go-round Trump will win one for his Twitter feed.
The further question is whether Dylan will acknowledge the committee and appear at the award ceremony. Clues may be found in the lyrics to Day of the Locusts on New Morning-- a song about his honorary degree granted by Princeton.
Well, there was a lot less competition in Dante’s day. That’s for sure, eh?
Also I read Dante was significant for breaking with the tradition of writing in Latin, which only a few could read , but rather writing in teh vernacular which was accessible to more.
Hmm, Kinda sounds like the same story with Dylan, putting lyrics to music rather than merely writing poetry that few might read or know.
Maybe the two have more in common than we can even imagine.
@onhwy61 That many of the writers you mentioned, particularly Nabokov, did not win a Nobel, but Dylan has, is testament to the myopia of the Committee.
It's as if, in a desperate bid to appeal to the masses, they chose a good lyricist. Kind of like an inverted analog of when Jethro Tull won the Grammy for best metal album in 1989.
again, I'm not faulting Dylan himself, nor am I diminishing the import of his work in contemporary pop culture (and counter-culture), but I'm skeptical his Nobel worthiness.
And Harvard professor notwithstanding, @dgarretson , I doubt Dante would want Dylan to accompany him down to Hell in lieu of Virgil, just as I doubt Dylan will still be read and listened to in 2000 years.
"Prepare the table, watch in the watchtower, eat, drink: arise ye princes, and prepare the shield./For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Go set a watchman, let him declare what he seeth./And he saw a chariot with a couple of horsemen, a chariot of asses, and a chariot of camels; and he hearkened diligently with much heed./...And, behold, here cometh a chariot of men, with a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground."
~ Book of Isaiah, Chapter 21, verses 5-9
the last stanza of Dylan's All Along the Watchtower,
All along the watchtower Princes kept the view While all the women came and went Barefoot servants, too Outside in the cold distance A wildcat did growl Two riders were approaching And the wind began to howl
I was going to compare it to a beauty contest. I think its an even better analogy to demonstrate that its merely another popularity contest with a few simple rules in a totally different realm.
Marcel Proust, Vladimir Nabakov, James Joyce, John Updike, Primo Levi, Virginia Woolf and Leo Tolstoy all never won the Nobel. I don't think it effected anybody's thinking about these writers. The Nobel is a contest fundamentally no different than an Academy Award. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes it's questionable, but only the passage of time reveals the divide. If Mr. Dylan is still relevant fifty years from now, then the Nobel committee probably got it right.
Dylan is great because of the words he writes, nothing else. That’s literature. People can read the words to his songs without the music and have the same experiences as reading any other comparable short work.
There are also many to read, quantity as well as quality.
I understand the argument that putting the words to music provides an advantage. Perhaps an unfair one assuming certain rules that apparently do not exist. But one can also argue that the music makes the words even more powerful and hence of greater impact which is what I think the Nobel is mostly about.
Its an interesting development for sure. I can understand why traditional writers might not be happy. The game was just upped in a sense.
And professor, thank you for the list of writers, I am only familiar with Borges and Murakami. I’ve got some reading to do, I guess, it’s not all music.
This award will not please anyone who understands literature. Mapman, why is it so difficult for you to accept that? Dylan is not among the best at anything, and that's exactly why so many like him. He is a lot like those "so many".
Apparently they just liked Dylan best. Just like we get to pick the audio products we like best based on their merits as we see them. Others will see something different most likely. It's an art not a science. So I guess you'll never please everyone.
What Dylan has done cannot be undone, at least not right away. He exposed the stupidity and dishonesty of the Committee. Professor, I fully agree with you.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not well-versed in either prose or poetry. But I have noticed that Salman Rushdie and Lawrence Ferlinghetti, among others, are pretty pleased that Dylan was chosen. But I'm sure Simao knows better...
That's a logical fallacy. My saying that Dylan is less deserving than
other authors is not the same as my saying my judgment is superior to
the Nobel committee's ... On another level, as a
literature professor, I feel safe in saying that the literary merit of
the authors I mentioned, as well as their influence on literature
throughout their career, far surpasses what Dylan has done.
You just committed another logical fallacy: Call to Authority.
@bdp24 That's a logical fallacy. My saying that Dylan is less deserving than other authors is not the same as my saying my judgment is superior to the Nobel committee's. Besides, there is no committee or cabal anywhere that's impervious to second guessing or to flawed reasoning.
One one level, I'm disagreeing with the Nobel committee for its choosing of an author who used the medium of music as a channel for his poetry - something no other Nobel authors have done.
On another level, as a literature professor, I feel safe in saying that the literary merit of the authors I mentioned, as well as their influence on literature throughout their career, far surpasses what Dylan has done.
Everyone who feels their judgment is superior to the members of the Nobel committee, stop being so selfish and apply for the job. It's not right to keep all that wisdom to yourself; share it with the world.
I agree with @jesusa0 and others. Look, I appreciate what Dylan has done for culture, for zeitgeist, for capturing and creating and extending through his lyrics what culture could only embody as an inchoate creation without him.
But really? Dylan over Borges, Cormac McCarthy, Philip Roth, Oates, Murakami?
Without the stage and the studio as his media, his lyrics would never have had the impact they had. He had tools at his disposal these other far more deserving writers never had.
I vote next year the Nobel Committee consider Springsteen, Ice Cube, and Neil Peart among their shortlist for the Nobel Prize in Literature.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
