Now that the dust has settled, did he really deserve the Nobel Prize?

Now that the dust has settled, did he really deserve the Nobel Prize?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VIR5ps8usuo.
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

"No."

- No.

All awards are pseudo events.

Good evening, everyone. I extend my warmest greetings to the members of the Swedish Academy and to all of the other distinguished guests in attendance tonight.

I'm sorry I can't be with you in person, but please know that I am most definitely with you in spirit and honored to be receiving such a prestigious prize. Being awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature is something I never could have imagined or seen coming. From an early age, I've been familiar with and reading and absorbing the works of those who were deemed worthy of such a distinction: Kipling, Shaw, Thomas Mann, Pearl Buck, Albert Camus, Hemingway. These giants of literature whose works are taught in the schoolroom, housed in libraries around the world and spoken of in reverent tones have always made a deep impression. That I now join the names on such a list is truly beyond words.

I don't know if these men and women ever thought of the Nobel honor for themselves, but I suppose that anyone writing a book, or a poem, or a play anywhere in the world might harbor that secret dream deep down inside. It's probably buried so deep that they don't even know it's there.

If someone had ever told me that I had the slightest chance of winning the Nobel Prize, I would have to think that I'd have about the same odds as standing on the moon. In fact, during the year I was born and for a few years after, there wasn't anyone in the world who was considered good enough to win this Nobel Prize. So, I recognize that I am in very rare company, to say the least.

I was out on the road when I received this surprising news, and it took me more than a few minutes to properly process it. I began to think about William Shakespeare, the great literary figure. I would reckon he thought of himself as a dramatist. The thought that he was writing literature couldn't have entered his head. His words were written for the stage. Meant to be spoken not read. When he was writing Hamlet, I'm sure he was thinking about a lot of different things: "Who're the right actors for these roles?" "How should this be staged?" "Do I really want to set this in Denmark?" His creative vision and ambitions were no doubt at the forefront of his mind, but there were also more mundane matters to consider and deal with. "Is the financing in place?" "Are there enough good seats for my patrons?" "Where am I going to get a human skull?" I would bet that the farthest thing from Shakespeare's mind was the question "Is this literature?"

When I started writing songs as a teenager, and even as I started to achieve some renown for my abilities, my aspirations for these songs only went so far. I thought they could be heard in coffee houses or bars, maybe later in places like Carnegie Hall, the London Palladium. If I was really dreaming big, maybe I could imagine getting to make a record and then hearing my songs on the radio. That was really the big prize in my mind. Making records and hearing your songs on the radio meant that you were reaching a big audience and that you might get to keep doing what you had set out to do.

Well, I've been doing what I set out to do for a long time, now. I've made dozens of records and played thousands of concerts all around the world. But it's my songs that are at the vital center of almost everything I do. They seemed to have found a place in the lives of many people throughout many different cultures and I'm grateful for that.

But there's one thing I must say. As a performer I've played for 50,000 people and I've played for 50 people and I can tell you that it is harder to play for 50 people. 50,000 people have a singular persona, not so with 50. Each person has an individual, separate identity, a world unto themselves. They can perceive things more clearly. Your honesty and how it relates to the depth of your talent is tried. The fact that the Nobel committee is so small is not lost on me.

But, like Shakespeare, I too am often occupied with the pursuit of my creative endeavors and dealing with all aspects of life's mundane matters. "Who are the best musicians for these songs?" "Am I recording in the right studio?" "Is this song in the right key?" Some things never change, even in 400 years.

Not once have I ever had the time to ask myself, "Are my songs literature?"

So, I do thank the Swedish Academy, both for taking the time to consider that very question, and, ultimately, for providing such a wonderful answer.

My best wishes to you all,

No

Only if Kanye wins next year.

No, he's a fucking hack.
Cohen is a better lyricist.

Of course not.

Who does ?

not before Joyce, Nabokov, and Pynchon.

Of course he did, just listen "It's alright, ma". This guy is objectively a genius.

Compared to the literary world no but if they wanted a songwriter for diversity, and Dylan seems like the immediate choice.

A novelist

Honestly, you're likely more deserving. Give it to Laszlo, give it to someone who writes Veeky Forums. It's a tedious teenager mentality to grant an award for such an obvious idea as "dude, maybe literature isn't just in books".

>compares himself to shakespeare
>wins argument

no no non no no no no no
what a piece of shit

But he wasn't arguing with anyone?

Sure. The award is insignificant, anyway: to him, to me, and to most of the world.

I love Dylan but it'd have been nice if they'd given it to someone who needed the money and publicity.

no, the committee has been overrun by zog-loving kikesuckers.

i think if you weren't a brainlet you'd realize that he's saying the people who care about this kind of thing are retards

haha

This.

no

100% this

It's a prize for literature. They gave it to songwriter... Somehow no Opera librettist was ever good enough, but one songwriter suddenly deserves it.

And you need to ask this question?

Well, he is a retard to imply that. Playwriting is literature. Nobody ever pretended that it isn't, for him to think otherwise he must truly have a narrow view of the world.

Well, that's not worse than giving Peace prize to Obama for being a mulatto.

Murakami

hey reddit!

yes

I agree, a Nobel prize usually means a bump in sales for a writer who really writes literature.

He's pointing out that Shakespeare wasn't exactly in the middle of high art, which was reserved for poetry.

Still, even that's no match for Cervantes, who did the equivalent of lowering himself into a pool of shit in order to make it smell nice.

buddy have you heard Blonde on Blonde?

Bolaño doesn't have a Nobel. They should at least give him a Grammy for this monstruosity they have done.

yepyep and dylan for sure didn't need the cash

Posthumous to Bolaño.

i mean if you look at who got awards before dylan the last few years he look like a pretty good choice but i agree Joyce and Pynchon are well overdue

Absolutely. Singing isn't literature, but written songs are, and Dylan is an amazing and revolutionary songwriter. The width and depth of his lyrics are amazing.

Can you explain what's so great about Queen Jane Approximately aside from being a catchy tune?

Idk OP. Did Obama deserve it?

Since in reality there are no criteria for the Nobel Prize in literature: sure, why not.

Can you explain what's so great about Joyce's dirty letters?

Not only no opera librettist, but no screenwriter as well.

Bergman, Orson Welles and even Woody Allen had a much, much superior literary talent than Bob Dylan.

Dylan is a bad poet for a variety of reasons. I could describe it at length, but it's very late in the night here where I live (Brazil), so I will just list a few important points:

1 - he doesn't know meter, which is like not knowing how to draw when you are a painter, or not knowing how to play an instrument when you are a composer;
2 - he has no trustworthy aesthetic taste and, therefore, doesn't know how to discriminate: whenever he writes something that is actually good, there will always be a few disgraceful mistakes floating around it;
3 - his lyrics are mostly incoherent, which is supposedly a virtue among modern-minded critics, but which in Dylan's case seems very much to be a mere sign of laziness;
4 - he spends much of the time saying blatantly obvious vacuities (time is a jet plane / it moves too fast / oh, what a shame / that all we've shared can't last!);

I don't think he's a bad writer. He certainly has a very strong natural talent for imagery, and could have become a canonical poet if he had dedicated himself to learning the craft and writing seriously. However, being a good poet means a lot more than not being bad and having talent. In a language which has recently been worked on by the likes of Richard Wilbur, Geoffrey Hill, Anthony Hecht and many others, the presence of Dylan is absolutely irrelevant.

Oh, and I forgot:

5 - he doesn't actually know English all that well.

In order to prove that, one just has to point to his many interviews. Dylan's words are incoherent and his prose is not superior to that of the average journalist. When writing in Portuguese, I can easily write better stuff than his Nobel acceptance speech.

Compare that with Leonard Cohen, who was a perfectly kind man who knew how to express himself in very eloquent and decent common speech: youtube.com/watch?v=VIR5ps8usuo.

Shakespeare became famous because of his poetry before he became famous as a dramatist, tho.

No. 3 gave you away my friend. The only people who being up the incoherent meme are the ones who don't really listen to Bob.

I listen to quite a lot of Dylan. Maybe even more than you do.

Dylan uses image sequences that rarely have any particular necessary relation to each other. If you take a look at all the characters who appear on Desolation Row, they really don't seem to be necessary. What is that song anyway? Basically a bunch of famous cultural figures who have become desolate for one reason or another. I see the beauty of the images, but I don't seen the importance of meaning. It seems to me to be a little trivial study on how to create a proper list of characters, and it does this job very well, but it ends there. Again, I don't think this is bad and I love the song, just like I love Dylan, but it cannot be considered relevant in the age of Hill and Hecht.

I'm a Dylan fan and think he was deserving of the award but still think it shouldn't have gone to him. Everyone and their grandma knows who Bob Dylan is, his place in history and culture is pretty much set at this point. The award should've gone to someone without so much recognition.

Being alive is a qualification for the award...

>Queen Jane
>catchy

No no no no no no no no no no no

He writes lyrics, and lyrics require music to work. Dylan's borderline gibberish is just that without the atmosphere that instruments bring to them.

>I Shall Be Released
>Mississippi
>Ring Them Bells
>Tomorrow Is A Long Time
>gibberish
Dylan isn't just the electric trilogy.

I honestly don't know the thinking behind the academy for this choice. With most of the other winners you can see why they chose them, but this just made no sense.

>He's pointing out that Shakespeare wasn't exactly in the middle of high art, which was reserved for poetry.

Except that he's wrong in that aspect also. Theatre maybe wasn't a well respected art form overall, but the plays Shakespeare wrote about. He wrote for kings and queens, often shown disdain for general public in his plays.

Their even. Dylan is the better musician too. Cohen only has three albums worth listening to

Dylan is a bad poet for a variety of reasons. I could describe it at length, but it's very late in the night here where I live (Brazil), so I will just list a few important points:

1 - he doesn't know meter, which is like not knowing how to draw when you are a painter, or not knowing how to play an instrument when you are a composer;
2 - he has no trustworthy aesthetic taste and, therefore, doesn't know how to discriminate: whenever he writes something that is actually good, there will always be a few disgraceful mistakes floating around it;
3 - his lyrics are mostly incoherent, which is supposedly a virtue among modern-minded critics, but which in Dylan's case seems very much to be a mere sign of laziness;
4 - he spends much of the time saying blatantly obvious vacuities (time is a jet plane / it moves too fast / oh, what a shame / that all we've shared can't last!);

I don't think he's a bad writer. He certainly has a very strong natural talent for imagery, and could have become a canonical poet if he had dedicated himself to learning the craft and writing seriously. However, being a good poet means a lot more than not being bad and having talent. In a language which has recently been worked on by the likes of Richard Wilbur, Geoffrey Hill, Anthony Hecht and many others, the presence of Dylan is absolutely irrelevant.

No

But pic related does

Oh, and I forgot:

5 - he doesn't actually know English all that well.

In order to prove that, one just has to point to his many interviews. Dylan's words are incoherent and his prose is not superior to that of the average journalist. When writing in Portuguese, I can easily write better stuff than his Nobel acceptance speech.

Compare that with Leonard Cohen, who was a perfectly kind man who knew how to express himself in very eloquent and decent common speech: youtube.com/watch?v=VIR5ps8usuo.

Give the cash to his kids since they released 2666 as one book.

What?

Roth and Thion'go

Kilgore Trout.