Random Thoughts

The hard line is the music.

The art of this form isn't in plain words on the page. It's in the sound of several different art forms coming together to make something new. I don't see it as dissimilar to screenplays, which nobody would claim as films.

Song lyrics aren't written to be read. They're written to be performed. Out of context, outside rhythm and tone and backbeats, they make less sense.

It's like they're giving him the prize for written words that represent maybe half that art, if that.

(This is aside from the committee giving people like Murakami, Atwood, DeLillo, and Pynchon a very noticeable slap in the face.)

Edit: I'll stop now. Reading articles about it and thinking about it is making me ranty.

Would you object to them giving the prize to a comic book writer?

No objection to comics--because all the art is there on the page. Yeah, half of it is purely visual. A lot of the power comes from the interplay between panels. But comics are primarily meant to be read.

Like, a screenplay isn't a film and a written song doesn't sing. If the art requires that you pull in something else from outside the page, it's not literature.

I'm definitely biased here--but I think I could make a decent argument that Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons deserve the prize more than Bob Dylan does, and that's based on Watchmen alone. (If we throw in Moore's entire body of work, it's a better argument. Especially since he's started writing novels.)

Edit: I'm not wild about giving it to non-fiction, either (as they did last year, and previously). But that seems like more of a semantic wrassle over the world "literature" itself. So when they do that, I'll make Marge Simpson noises of disapproval but won't starting yelling over it.

Edit 2: Like, if they really wanted to stick it to the literati and still nod toward the Americans, they could have given it to a genre writer (Ursula Le Guin, for instance) or journo populist (Tom Wolfe). If they wanted to do those things and set their institution on fire, there's Stephen King. (I'm only half serious with that last one though.)

The easy argument to that is that Harold Pinter won the same prize for plays.

Slippery slope!

Maybe just rename the thing to "Nobel Prize in Arts...Stuff."

That way, a YouTuber could win in 2050 for their modern dance reinterpretation of Don't Cry for Me, I'm Already Dead.

I'm probably actually more on Irvine Welsh's side. I think it's a little silly, though not necessarily due to medium.

https://twitter.com/IrvineWelsh/stat...39790560878592

And as you mentioned before, when a war criminal has won the peace prize a stretch of the definition of literature doesn't really seem so egregious.

Did he do something this year? Legit asking.

I agree that the distinction matters, of course — the one between fiction and non-fiction and the one between literature and lyrics. I also think any discussion about this recent win ought to be less about pedantry and more about dealing directly with the actual consequences of altering a specific avenue for a specific kind of recognition. I mean, this is a prestigious award with household cachet that was ostensibly "meant" for practitioners of a certain form (although, that idea was already contested before Dylan was chosen). So, you can argue that said practitioners are now being denied something valuable and meaningful: a chance at being evaluated among their peers and vis-a-vis their respective form (in a conspicuous way and with mainstream consequences). This is why I'd be most interested in hearing the authorial perspectives on this. Does Philip Roth care at all about this award, let alone the semantic statement made by this latest selection?

Another important dimension here is that this award can grant international recognition to great but, in certain quarters, unsung artists, which was the case with Patrick Modiano's win in 2014. That selection brought about big waves, as we surely wouldn't have seen as many English translations of Modiano's work, which are still being steadily distributed (the last release was in May of this year, I think, but others may have come out since). So, this is something that is also worth considering in relation to the significance and potential consequences of this "semantic statement."

Although, I really don't know enough about all of the prestige and the awards that are formally doled out for writers of fiction. So, I'm actually not sure to what degree this news guarantees an enormous change/loss for the authors whose fiction has surely been given many other honours already, and will receive many more in the years to come, along with enshrinement in critical and casual circles alike. This is not meant as a forcefully stated point, by the way, but more like tentative wondering. I just think that perhaps there is an argument to be made about the other means for conferring prestige and exposure, and how this might compensate for the subject of this one award becoming more…complicated. Again, these are tentative remarks, because I'm honestly not sure if any other avenues are quite as well-equipped to facilitate greater exposure for fiction writers?

Finally, I'm not…I'll say…wholly sympathetic to the strictly nominal side of this debate (if there is such a side?). It's productive and interesting to think about cross-pollination between forms, and the idea of using these imbrications as the basis for an entire award is actually pretty cool. With regards to this specific part of the discussion, I think the risk posed by semantic vagueness is how it might do harm to a colloquial understanding of what literature entails. Still, I think that any argument along those lines risks alarmism, not to mention shortchanging the way in which selecting Dylan models a kind of flexible, critical thinking (and why not help to perpetuate that kind of thing?).

[

Show Spoiler

For those interested, here's another take:

Quote:

---

And please: let’s not torture ourselves with any gyrations about genre and the holy notion of literature to justify the choice of Dylan; there’s no need to remind anyone that, oh, yes, he has also written books, proper ones (the wild and elusive “Tarantula,” the superb memoir “Chronicles: Volume One”). The songs—an immense and still-evolving collected work—are the thing, and Dylan’s lexicon, his primary influence, is the history of song, from the Greeks to the psalmists, from the Elizabethans to the varied traditions of the United States and beyond: the blues; hillbilly music; the American Songbook of Berlin, Gershwin, and Porter; folk songs; early rock and roll. Over time, Dylan has been a spiritual seeker—and his well-known excursions into various religious traditions, from evangelical Christianity to Chabad, are in his work as well—but his foundation is song, lyric combined with music, and the Nobel committee was right to discount the objections to that tradition as literature. Sappho and Homer would approve.

To keep dull explanation at bay and to maintain the distance of mystery, Dylan has spent six decades giving interviews that often deflect more than they explain—it’s part of the allure, the fun of Dylan fandom to follow this stuff—but there have been many other times when he has spoken for himself in the clearest way possible. He did so last year when accepting an award from MusiCares, a charity that helps musicians in need:

---

And another:

Quote:

---

Dylan, through his ambiguity, his ability to throw down puzzles that continue to echo and to generate interpretations, almost singlehandedly created a climate in which lyrics were taken seriously. And Dylan accomplished something that few novelists or poets or for that matter songwriters (pace Joni Mitchell) have managed to do in our era: he changed the time he inhabited. Through words, with music as the fluid of their transmission, he affected the perception, outlook, opinions, ambitions, and assumptions of hundreds of millions of people all over the world.

The Nobel Prize in Literature cannot ever be all things to all people, and while this year’s award failed to accomplish various possible objectives, it was not in any way misapplied.

---

]

It's prestigious because, unlike most other trophies:

- It's one of the oldest

- It isn't tied to a trade group or commercial organization

- It isn't bound by borders, language, or gender

- It represents an entire body of work

- It puts you in unquestionably good company

There's an old story that every year, Philip Roth would go to his agent's office and wait for the call. Everyone involved with publishing cares about this prize.

The longer i live, the less i give a shit about things like this.

Makes me wonder, if I ever get famous for asking a question at a presidential debate, how many of my MC comments would make me a piece of shit. Majority? Some? Little? None?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dukefrukem

Makes me wonder, if I ever get famous for asking a question at a presidential debate, how many of my MC comments would make me a piece of shit. Majority? Some? Little? None?

---

Relax, Duke. You don't need to be famous to be a piece of shit. Just ask Ezee E.

LOL. Speaking of which, I need to ask Eric what he does at these comedy shows. I can't picture him as an Improv guy.

Duke was alluding to this btw: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...e-thought.html

Good luck putting together a new Halloween costume, guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irish

It's prestigious because, unlike most other trophies:

- It's one of the oldest

- It isn't tied to a trade group or commercial organization

- It isn't bound by borders, language, or gender

- It represents an entire body of work

- It puts you in unquestionably good company

There's an old story that every year, Philip Roth would go to his agent's office and wait for the call. Everyone involved with publishing cares about this prize.

---

This is appreciated, thanks. It helps to define the nature of the loss that I was asking about in my post, but it doesn't directly address the larger question I posed about whether or not this level of recognition and exposure might be facilitated through other avenues (collectively, if not individually). Are there enough points of continuity between this award and others to at least reduce any severe blowback? The Neustadt International Prize for Literature is one alternative, but that considers fiction, poetry and non-fiction, so I guess that's out. The Man Booker International Prize is well-esteemed, isn't it? Feel free to school me on this, as I'm not someone who keeps up with awards with any regularity.

Another point: isn't there a storied history of constant debate about the selection of recipients? If so, can we straightforwardly claim that "unquestionably good company" is what is crossing the minds of the folks who have been tempted to contest the judgment of the Swedish Academy for certain selections?

Since the Academy hasn't turned their back on fiction, we are also not talking about fiction writers being denied recognition in the future. At any rate, it seems problematic to place too much weight on the value of one authoritative award outside of the personal meaning for the author and exposure-inducing effects (which are undoubtedly valuable, but those possibilities are not wholly eliminated because of Dylan). The process of literary canonization is always going to be a multifaceted, contested, pluralized process involving word-of-mouth, commercial success, many other types of awards and forms of recognition, critical appraisals, and academic discourse. This is a good thing.

At the same time, I don't want to diminish the consequences of broadening the scope of the Nobel Prize in Literature since it's important for the reasons that I discussed in my earlier post (like its once specific focus on a particular type of writing) and the aspects you noted (like its age and legacy). I'm just trying to think of the other angles and nuances at play here rather than reduce the conversation to one firm conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dukefrukem

Makes me wonder, if I ever get famous for asking a question at a presidential debate, how many of my MC comments would make me a piece of shit. Majority? Some? Little? None?

---

A potential lede for myself: "The questioner has now been revealed to be a truculent, long-winded bloviator who frequents a movie forum and recently defended the virtue of an upcoming Power Rangers film."

Heh. I'm not sure I defended a film more than Prometheus on MC.

If I recall correctly, you have made other remarks that were decidedly less…palatable than simply expressing affection for Prometheus (I kind of like that movie, too). I'm wary of opening up that can of worms, though. I would only hope they'd see also see some of your good qualities — like your decent temperament (i.e., no grudges) and your admiration of Half-Life 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by number8

Duke was alluding to this btw: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...e-thought.html

Good luck putting together a new Halloween costume, guys.

---

Quote:

---

"It turns out that Bone was a regular participant in several NSFW forums, including one devoted to pregnant women in swimsuits, who he referred to as "beautiful human submarines."

---

ಠ_ಠ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gittes

If I recall correctly, you have made other remarks that were decidedly less…palatable than simply expressing affection for Prometheus (I kind of like that movie, too). I'm wary of opening up that can of worms, though. I would only hope they'd see also see some of your good qualities — like your decent temperament (i.e., no grudges) and your admiration of Half-Life 2.

---

Oh you mean like how I don't agree with free Healthcare and higher taxes. Oh Yeh... that stuff can totally label me as a piece of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dukefrukem

Heh. I'm not sure I defended a film more than Prometheus on MC.

---

Let's not forget your Inception fetish. That might be the most scandalous thing about you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irish

Let's not forget your Inception fetish. That might be the most scandalous thing about you.

---

Shit yeh. That whole thread is gold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dukefrukem

Oh you mean like how I don't agree with free Healthcare and higher taxes. Oh Yeh... that stuff can totally label me as a piece of shit.

---

Or maybe they'll hit you for being overly defensive. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead & Messed Up

Or maybe they'll hit you for being overly defensive. ;)

---

Guilty!

Ha. I joined an improve class on a whim a few months ago, and we did our performance last night. For our first time, I'm quite happy about how we were received. Lots of laughs, no dry moments of quiet awkwardness within the group, and it absolutely flew by. Lots of applause after and while in the Comedyhouse afterwards. Very cool.

I'll be doing level two class, and another performance in December.

Improv is a strange beast to me. You can prepare, but you have to be ready for all that to be thrown in the dumpster at a moment's notice and go with something new. There's a lot more teamwork to it too, so you're relying pretty well on the chemistry with your partner/team... It's quite fun.