Bob wins – but is it literature?

I guess you heard by now – Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize for literature.

It's something that's been much discussed here at the Watusi Country Club and, knowing my fondness for all things Dylan, many people have asked how I feel about the somewhat controversial award.

Because, yes, I am – as you've probably noticed during the years – a bit of a Bob devotee. A bit. I say that because I communicate online with many people who make me look like a dilettante in terms of Dylan following or collecting or whatever you call it.

Let me give you an idea of what I mean.

I've seen Bob live fewer than 20 times but have, in addition to his official music and a swag of books and magazines, audio recordings of around 800 Dylan concerts and DVDs of a further hundred or so. I also own two Bob Dylan paintings and recently ordered the upcoming limited edition set of 36 CDs containing his entire live output from 1966.

So, yes, I'm a fan. But, as I say, compared to others I'm just dabbling.

Anyhoo...

The world reacts

It's been interesting watching the worldwide reaction, some very positive, some not at all so.

There were the obvious comments. In the negative you had music journalist Everett True: "Bob Dylan winning a Nobel Prize for literature is like your third-rate English teacher at school, trying to look ‘cool'". And novelist Joanne Harris: "Is this the first time that a back catalogue of song lyrics has been judged eligible for a literary prize?"

And, more positively, Leonard Cohen: "To me it's like pinning a medal on Mount Everest for being the highest mountain". And writer Salman Rushdie: "From Orpheus to Faiz, song and poetry have been closely linked. Dylan is the brilliant inheritor of the bardic tradition".

But I think the better question is one posed by novelist Jodi Picoult, who tweeted: "I'm happy for Bob Dylan. #ButDoesThisMeanICanWinAGrammy?" That initially seems a little churlish but I think gets to the heart of things. Bob Dylan is being judged on song lyrics. People say his lyrics are poetic and they certainly are. But isn't there a big difference between something being poetic and something being a poem?

Category error?

I should ‘fess up right now. I have a real problem with the award. As novelist Jeff VanderMeer tweeted: "Category Error! Category Error! Alert! Category Error! Alert! Category Error!"

The problem is that literature – a poem, a short story, a novel – is a stand-alone art form. It is the artform. But song lyrics, however poetic, are only part of an art form. You only get the whole art when music is added. My two cents is that Bob Dylan's songs are absolutely art, but they're not literature.

But even that's not so clear cut. I've been rethinking my views after reading a – very rare – tweet from the inimitable Tom Waits: "It's a great day for Literature and for Bob when a Master of its original form is celebrated," Waits wrote. "Before epic tales and poems were ever written down, they migrated on the winds of the human voice and no voice is greater than Dylan's."

The man has a point...

The internet reacts

Reaction on the online Dylan forums has been intriguing. Obviously, everyone there already considers Bob a genius, so any criticism has been directed elsewhere. For instance: "He doesn't need the money or the recognition. Better to give it to some struggling author in order to bring his or her work to a wider audience".

Which reminded me of a lovely story about when William Butler Yeats won the Nobel Prize for literature 1923. He lived in a small Irish village so the news was received by the local post office who informed the mayor, and by the time the mayor arrived at Yeats' house half the village had joined them. Yeats, still in bed, opened an upstairs window – shades of ‘Life of Brian!' – to welcome the crowd. The mayor launched into a long congratulatory address. Halfway through Yeats impatiently interrupted: "How much do I get?"