|
Baa?21244 Posts
The Nobel Prize in Literature 2016 was awarded to Bob Dylan “for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition.” This will likely go down in history as the most controversial and polarizing Nobel award, if not across all the categories, then certainly in Literature. Most obviously it is a challenge of sorts to what the word “literature” really entails. Dictionary definitions and references to ancient oral traditions aside, the word “literature” carries with it connotations of the written word; of dusty tomes and erudite classics, and of a tradition stretching back thousands of years, connecting people across time and space in an attempt to intimate some sense of “the human condition.”
As Michael Orthofer points out, Dylan received a Pulitzer in the Special Awards category, and not the Letters/Music categories. There is little doubt that Dylan is one of the most celebrated and accomplished musicians of the past century, with an incredible legacy that "emanates directly from the North American post-Protestant gnosis" (according to Harold Bloom) and looking forward to the new era of rock and folk, connecting the past and the future. The Nobel Literature Prize purports to recognize individuals who have produced "in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction". It is certainly no stretch to argue Dylan’s work can be said to fit this definition, and as an artist and a creator he is more than qualified by pretty much any standards of taste and aesthetics one wishes to accord.
Nevertheless, the decision to award Dylan with the Nobel is a mistake. The Nobel prize, from its very description, is unavoidably and irrefutably ideological and political to some extent, at times more clearly than others. Its reputation and influence has moved it beyond a simple book award to something that dictates and sets the tone of cultural discourse. I’m sure the Swedish Academy is cognizant of this fact (more on this later), which is why I (and many others) are so surprised and understandably dismayed by the 2016 decision.
Outside of the Nobel Prize, literary awards are not particularly high profile events. The Man Booker gets a nod or two (and a prominent sticker in bookstores trying to entice potential customers), but names like the Neustadt, the Goncourt, the Akutagawa, etc. etc., tend to be low on the notoriety scale, and these are all very major awards within literature. The MacArthur Fellowship, colloquially known as the “Genius Awards,” often recognizes literary achievements, but is on the whole a general science and culture prize. For better or for worse, the Nobel Prize is the honor of the literary world that has widespread recognition. Who receives the Nobel Prize, then, is as much a matter of literary quality as it is of communicating a message about the state of literature to the world.
As this standard-bearer, the Swedish Academy has a duty to help guide, define, and cement literature’s position within society towards the “ideal direction.” I’ve been a staunch defender of the continued relevance and importance of the Nobel Literature Prize. The award has, over the years, come under fire from a variety of sources critical of its choices, and detractors like to cite the list of canonically celebrated authors (names like Proust, Joyce, Borges, and Nabokov among many others) who did not receive the award as evidence that the Nobel committee is out of touch and that the prize can be safely ignored. My go-to defense is to point out that the Nobel is not, as sometimes misconceived, setting out to award the “best” author (and this is ignoring the silliness associated with ranking authors on a one-dimensional list of quality), but rather to highlight and promote an author whose works offer a glimpse into what literature offers. Many (though not all) of these laureates have been decorated and celebrated prior to receiving the Nobel, but it’s also undeniable that receiving the Nobel doesn’t hurt in cementing and solidifying one’s accomplishments. How this is evaluated has understandably changed over the Nobel’s long and illustrious history, but I have always maintained that the committee has literature’s best interests at heart, and the intent is that the work of every single laureate brings something new and valuable.
But not this year. I’ve rambled for quite some time now, but perhaps more succinctly, my main gripes with the 2016 decision are:
- Bob Dylan doesn’t need this award. The Swedish Academy is trying to bring the Nobel “up” to Dylan’s level, as opposed to elevating an artist for his accomplishments.
- Dylan is an accomplished and celebrated artist. While the Nobel is certainly a great honor for him, it is not nearly as important to him as it would be to an author who does not have the same kind of multimedia exposure, for whom the Nobel would be the capstone of his/her career. For Dylan, it’s just another bullet point on an extensive list of awards. And in terms of expectations, I don’t think it’s outlandish to speculate that Dylan was not really expecting to receive a Nobel Prize, unlike a certain author who’s rumored to sit in his agent’s office on an October morning every year, anxiously awaiting a phone call from Sweden.
- Perhaps more contentiously, I believe this decision, intentionally or unintentionally, denigrates the inherent worth of what has traditionally been thought of as literature.
- The message can be easily as construed as “the written word alone is insufficient; a work requires multimedia integration and mass appeal to be relevant in the current year.” While I admit this formulation is a bit of a strawman, it could set a dangerous precedent. Make no mistake, I applaud and welcome continuous reevaluation and broadening of what is meant by “literature,” but I think jarringly including Bob Dylan within the literary canon like this can cause more harm than good.
- What it comes down to is, as per my early discussion, books only have the Nobel. This is the one and only prize that accords fame and prestige for an author to a mass audience. Every October, the world is reminded that, in a period with rapid shifts in media and the communication of information, literature – capital-L-Literature, with all of its archaic but nevertheless charming trappings – is still something worth celebrating, worthy of standing shoulder to shoulder with advancements in Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine, and as crucial towards the human ideal as Peace. In a world where literature has become increasingly less popular compared to film, TV, and music, the decision to award the highest award in all of literature to Bob Dylan communicates the message that perhaps literature, on its own, is not so worthwhile after all. It is an admission of defeat to the onslaught of contemporary mass media, and a departure of the quirky, unapologetically eccentric, somewhat aloof and elitist, but ultimately principled defense of literature that we have seen from the Academy in the past.
When Sara Danius was asked on if the committee expects criticism of the decision, she responded “I hope not,” with a smile. What a disingenuous comment! I refuse to believe the committee, comprised of so many brilliant and formidable intellects, would have zero inkling of the potential for controversy with this decision. In that case, I am perhaps forced to admit that the committee is not, as I always maintained, acting with complete conviction in its principles, but has rather become too concerned with its own relevance and popularity. Did years of criticism of decisions to award the prize to “nobodies” finally get to the committee? Are they so insecure in their own worth and reputation (when they really shouldn’t be, as discussed earlier), that they feel the need to kowtow to the “wider public?” Snobby, obstinate elitism is a vice, and the Academy has certainly been accused of similar things in the past, but they should have a clear conscience about what the award has meant for literature and culture. Is the Academy worried they’re not cool enough? Not hip enough to engage the youth? As one user on the World Literature Forums remarked:
Cleanthess:
“The cool kids have plenty of prizes that the rest of the world is interested in: the Oscars, Grammys, MTV and Brit awards, etc. Us, nerdy kids, only had the Nobels (because only nerds care about the many other book prizes).
So, when the SA gives its Literature prize to a "song and dance man" (his own witty words), it feels sad, like a brainy, unathletic, honor roll girl applying for a place in the cheerleading squad.”
 
|
United Kingdom50293 Posts
|
I'm not into literature but this looks ridiculous to me. This nobel prize is heading the same way as the peace prize.
|
United States15275 Posts
In that case, I am perhaps forced to admit that the committee is not, as I always maintained, acting with complete conviction in its principles, but has rather become too concerned with its own relevance and popularity. Did years of criticism of decisions to award the prize to “nobodies” finally get to the committee? Are they so insecure in their own worth and reputation (when they really shouldn’t be, as discussed earlier), that they feel the need to kowtow to the “wider public?”
I'm not sure how you can quote this and then post the most insecure, juvenile comparison between literature and the other 'arts' without a hint of irony. Besides that, you can argue literature has been kowtowing to the wider public for decades now. How else would you explain the critical and commercial success of Jonathan Franzen?
|
Before Leonard Cohen was a singer he was a poet. Poetry and music are nearly the same thing. The original poets were musicians who used lutes to compose songs and poems. It made remembering the poems and stories easier. All good literary writing is comparable to genuine poetry because it uses the music and cadence of language to take listeners or readers for a ride. In my mind there is no difference between Bob Dylan's music and poetry. There's no reason to distinguish the two.
Dylan's music is written in the minds of multiple generations. The surrealistic juxtaposition of images was, as far as I know, original. Lines such as "The guilty undertaker sighs/the lonesome organ grinder cries/ the silver saxophones say i should refuse you" give an idea of Dylan's image construction and aesthetic sensibilities as well as depicting his ability to portray aspects of his psyche interestingly and originally.
It is as challenging to listen to poetry and concentrate as it is to read a page of Hemingway. That is literary value. There is nowhere it is proven that literature has to be about character or reading.
I agree that Bob Dylan does not need this award. He deserves it though, and it does serve literature well in my humble opinion.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On October 14 2016 03:52 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +In that case, I am perhaps forced to admit that the committee is not, as I always maintained, acting with complete conviction in its principles, but has rather become too concerned with its own relevance and popularity. Did years of criticism of decisions to award the prize to “nobodies” finally get to the committee? Are they so insecure in their own worth and reputation (when they really shouldn’t be, as discussed earlier), that they feel the need to kowtow to the “wider public?” I'm not sure how you can quote this and then post the most insecure, juvenile comparison between literature and the other 'arts' without a hint of irony. Besides that, you can argue literature has been kowtowing to the wider public for decades now. How else would you explain the critical and commercial success of Jonathan Franzen?
The Nobel has never awarded any highly esoteric, experimental, "high literature" types. The bulk of the Nobel recipients can be described as having "middlebrow" leanings.
Perhaps the best illustration of what the Nobel means, and how successful it is in attracting the attention of the "other arts," is Bob Dylan's response: "No comment."
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 14 2016 03:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:52 CosmicSpiral wrote:In that case, I am perhaps forced to admit that the committee is not, as I always maintained, acting with complete conviction in its principles, but has rather become too concerned with its own relevance and popularity. Did years of criticism of decisions to award the prize to “nobodies” finally get to the committee? Are they so insecure in their own worth and reputation (when they really shouldn’t be, as discussed earlier), that they feel the need to kowtow to the “wider public?” I'm not sure how you can quote this and then post the most insecure, juvenile comparison between literature and the other 'arts' without a hint of irony. Besides that, you can argue literature has been kowtowing to the wider public for decades now. How else would you explain the critical and commercial success of Jonathan Franzen? The Nobel has never awarded any highly esoteric, experimental, "high literature" types. The bulk of the Nobel recipients can be described as having "middlebrow" leanings. Perhaps the best illustration of what the Nobel means, and how successful it is in attracting the attention of the "other arts," is Bob Dylan's response: "No comment."
You missed my point. If one claims the Nobel committee suffers from insecurity and desperation to remain relevant in contemporary culture, then seriously quotes an individual who frames literature vs the other arts as high school politics with a straight face, which party is truly insecure? Or is the literary community so resentful and self-loathing that this quote is what an outsider should expect as the norm?
I brought up Franzen as an author who critics adore and is cited as tackling big ideas yet being accessible through his prose. You can argue he lacks precision and imagination compared to his primary influences, uses hoary cliches as a crutch, and stuffs his book full of the mention of themes while only momentarily addressing them; his style is great at making you think you are reading something profound and insightful without being profound and insightful. Some people have made a similar case for later McCarthy works, where his terse, pseudo-archaic prose style makes ridiculous, asinine "insights" seems like God's gift to the reader. Nevertheless they are celebrated as great writers of our era without the Academy's consent.
The Academy, like any institution, will seek to preserve its own relevance first and foremost. It may be supremely disappointing to those who thought it would continue to uphold its ideals until the end of time, but the Academy is conscious that they have very limited influence outside of a niche interest. As you mentioned in the OP "the Swedish Academy has a duty to help guide, define, and cement literature’s position within society", but do they possess such power beyond the most staunch bibliophiles? Or were they relying on the supposed prestige of the award to attract those who lack the ability to make independent judgments on what constitutes quality i.e. the very people who would be incapable of appreciating literature's importance?
|
@cosmicspiral
maybe instead of reducing the Academy here to an institutional taste maker for the vegetarian sheep out there, unable to form opinions of their own, it would be better to characterize the Academy as a participant in an ongoing conversation about literature and its role (a constitutive role at that) in society. not just any participant, but a valued participant with some extraordinary (in the mundane sense) insight. Csheep, then, might be lamenting the exit of this participant from the conversation and the diminution of literature as a consequence, the conversation itself being part of what constitutes literature in the first place by defining and elaborating its relations in society
i think Csheep gets it right when he says the academy is trying to get some of the public attention that reflects off dylan, and thereby abandoning its role in constituting literature per se by using its own light to shine on another subject
|
I refuse to believe that the Nobel Committee awarded Dylan the award for any reason other than pure memes
|
you might even think of bob dylan as an invasive species. he is the wild dog let loose in the habitat of literature that will kill off an exquisite loon, now even closer to extinction.
a "colonization" of literature by more capital-friendly species
|
Is Patti Smith gonna get it next year then, she's probably not gonna live much longer. Or is she too experimental like Virginia Woolf, cuz it's ok for the committee to fuck with literature but not ok for the recipients.
|
On October 14 2016 05:40 IgnE wrote:
you might even think of bob dylan as an invasive species. he is the wild dog let loose in the habitat of literature that will kill off an exquisite loon, now even closer to extinction.
a "colonization" of literature by more capital-friendly species
this is good, feels like a nice little addendum to csheeps piece.
|
What this piece lacked was any clear discussion of Dylan's body of work and any clear definition of literature.
In my eyes poetry has always been the crowning jewel of the literary, the crème de la crème. And Dylan is arguably poetry.
|
It's fine for you to have an opinion on this. I don't think your opinion is well-developed. Do you care about the singer / songwriter in question?
Most readers of your piece will not know anything about the history of this prize, but will at least know Dylan. It feels offsetting to juxtapose Dylan and the Nobel in literature (or this year's pick).
It doesn't really matter what the committee were thinking politically but whether Dylan was a good pick for any reason (politics notwithstanding). If he wasn't then it wasn't a good choice and that anyway reflects on the motivations and politics.
|
They should give an author a grammy and call it a day. I've personally never read an author because he/she won a nobel prize. They might not be as glamorous but I find the Booker and Pulitzer to be much better ways to keep up with contemporary authors as far as prizes go anyway.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On October 14 2016 03:55 imgbaby wrote:
Before Leonard Cohen was a singer he was a poet. Poetry and music are nearly the same thing. The original poets were musicians who used lutes to compose songs and poems. It made remembering the poems and stories easier. All good literary writing is comparable to genuine poetry because it uses the music and cadence of language to take listeners or readers for a ride. In my mind there is no difference between Bob Dylan's music and poetry. There's no reason to distinguish the two.
Dylan's music is written in the minds of multiple generations. The surrealistic juxtaposition of images was, as far as I know, original. Lines such as "The guilty undertaker sighs/the lonesome organ grinder cries/ the silver saxophones say i should refuse you" give an idea of Dylan's image construction and aesthetic sensibilities as well as depicting his ability to portray aspects of his psyche interestingly and originally.
It is as challenging to listen to poetry and concentrate as it is to read a page of Hemingway. That is literary value. There is nowhere it is proven that literature has to be about character or reading.
I agree that Bob Dylan does not need this award. He deserves it though, and it does serve literature well in my humble opinion.
It's not about whether or not he deserves it. It's about how the Academy chooses among numerous deserving candidates every year. Thus far, it has bee a mix of people who are famous and acclaimed to those who are relatively unknown (I stress the relative part; every author who wins the Nobel is more or less acclaimed to some extent, with few exceptions).
By choosing Dylan, the Academy is, to me, saying that literature cannot stand on its "own" merits and needs to look elsewhere. It's a disheartening decision for the future of the literature.
On October 14 2016 04:24 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On October 14 2016 03:52 CosmicSpiral wrote:In that case, I am perhaps forced to admit that the committee is not, as I always maintained, acting with complete conviction in its principles, but has rather become too concerned with its own relevance and popularity. Did years of criticism of decisions to award the prize to “nobodies” finally get to the committee? Are they so insecure in their own worth and reputation (when they really shouldn’t be, as discussed earlier), that they feel the need to kowtow to the “wider public?” I'm not sure how you can quote this and then post the most insecure, juvenile comparison between literature and the other 'arts' without a hint of irony. Besides that, you can argue literature has been kowtowing to the wider public for decades now. How else would you explain the critical and commercial success of Jonathan Franzen? The Nobel has never awarded any highly esoteric, experimental, "high literature" types. The bulk of the Nobel recipients can be described as having "middlebrow" leanings. Perhaps the best illustration of what the Nobel means, and how successful it is in attracting the attention of the "other arts," is Bob Dylan's response: "No comment." You missed my point. If one claims the Nobel committee suffers from insecurity and desperation to remain relevant in contemporary culture, then seriously quotes an individual who frames literature vs the other arts as high school politics with a straight face, which party is truly insecure? Or is the literary community so resentful and self-loathing that this quote is what an outsider should expect as the norm? Well, you'd think this wouldn't be the case, but here we are. I don't know why this seems so ridiculous a notion to you.I brought up Franzen as an author who critics adore and is cited as tackling big ideas yet being accessible through his prose. You can argue he lacks precision and imagination compared to his primary influences, uses hoary cliches as a crutch, and stuffs his book full of the mention of themes while only momentarily addressing them; his style is great at making you think you are reading something profound and insightful without being profound and insightful. Some people have made a similar case for later McCarthy works, where his terse, pseudo-archaic prose style makes ridiculous, asinine "insights" seems like God's gift to the reader. Nevertheless they are celebrated as great writers of our era without the Academy's consent. Franzen and McCarthy are largely "commercial" authors in any case, so they're not exactly proving your point about literature finding a thriving audience outside of the Academy/academia. The Academy, like any institution, will seek to preserve its own relevance first and foremost. It may be supremely disappointing to those who thought it would continue to uphold its ideals until the end of time, but the Academy is conscious that they have very limited influence outside of a niche interest. As you mentioned in the OP "the Swedish Academy has a duty to help guide, define, and cement literature’s position within society", but do they possess such power beyond the most staunch bibliophiles? Or were they relying on the supposed prestige of the award to attract those who lack the ability to make independent judgments on what constitutes quality i.e. the very people who would be incapable of appreciating literature's importance? The Academy can preserve its own relevance by continuing to do what it has always done. Despite decades of criticism of its aloofness, elitism, snobbery, and picking "literally who?"s for recipients, the Nobel has nonetheless remained quite relevant and important. While it is not as popular as the Olympics or the Oscars or what have you, within its field it is the highest honor, and is one that is recognized and appreciated by those outside of staunch bibliophiles. It serves an important role in reminding the public that "serious literature" is still a thing, and that thing has its place in literature.
Awarding it to Bob Dylan is not conducive to that goal, and will win the Academy no favors. It is at most an amusing footnote to those in music, and a slap in the face for its core audience. People will not suddenly flock to the Nobel more than they already have just because they're "hip and cool and with it" enough to give the award to a songwriter.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On October 14 2016 04:59 IgnE wrote:
@cosmicspiral
maybe instead of reducing the Academy here to an institutional taste maker for the vegetarian sheep out there, unable to form opinions of their own, it would be better to characterize the Academy as a participant in an ongoing conversation about literature and its role (a constitutive role at that) in society. not just any participant, but a valued participant with some extraordinary (in the mundane sense) insight. Csheep, then, might be lamenting the exit of this participant from the conversation and the diminution of literature as a consequence, the conversation itself being part of what constitutes literature in the first place by defining and elaborating its relations in society
i think Csheep gets it right when he says the academy is trying to get some of the public attention that reflects off dylan, and thereby abandoning its role in constituting literature per se by using its own light to shine on another subject
Yes I would agree with this generally.
On October 14 2016 08:45 imgbaby wrote:
What this piece lacked was any clear discussion of Dylan's body of work and any clear definition of literature.
In my eyes poetry has always been the crowning jewel of the literary, the crème de la crème. And Dylan is arguably poetry.
Deliberately so. I'm not particularly interesting in discussing whether or not Dylan is "deserving". Assume he is for the sake discussion.
What I'm arguing is that the decision to highlight Dylan's work sets a dangerous precedent for an already challenged medium. As Igne implied, literature is not exactly something that's making anyone super rich, and frankly, needs all the help it can get.
On October 14 2016 12:57 YokoKano wrote:
It's fine for you to have an opinion on this. I don't think your opinion is well-developed. Do you care about the singer / songwriter in question?
Most readers of your piece will not know anything about the history of this prize, but will at least know Dylan. It feels offsetting to juxtapose Dylan and the Nobel in literature (or this year's pick).
It doesn't really matter what the committee were thinking politically but whether Dylan was a good pick for any reason (politics notwithstanding). If he wasn't then it wasn't a good choice and that anyway reflects on the motivations and politics.
I'm glad I have your permission to have an opinion.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
|
On October 14 2016 04:24 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:56 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On October 14 2016 03:52 CosmicSpiral wrote:In that case, I am perhaps forced to admit that the committee is not, as I always maintained, acting with complete conviction in its principles, but has rather become too concerned with its own relevance and popularity. Did years of criticism of decisions to award the prize to “nobodies” finally get to the committee? Are they so insecure in their own worth and reputation (when they really shouldn’t be, as discussed earlier), that they feel the need to kowtow to the “wider public?” I'm not sure how you can quote this and then post the most insecure, juvenile comparison between literature and the other 'arts' without a hint of irony. Besides that, you can argue literature has been kowtowing to the wider public for decades now. How else would you explain the critical and commercial success of Jonathan Franzen? The Nobel has never awarded any highly esoteric, experimental, "high literature" types. The bulk of the Nobel recipients can be described as having "middlebrow" leanings. Perhaps the best illustration of what the Nobel means, and how successful it is in attracting the attention of the "other arts," is Bob Dylan's response: "No comment." You missed my point. If one claims the Nobel committee suffers from insecurity and desperation to remain relevant in contemporary culture, then seriously quotes an individual who frames literature vs the other arts as high school politics with a straight face, which party is truly insecure? Or is the literary community so resentful and self-loathing that this quote is what an outsider should expect as the norm? I brought up Franzen as an author who critics adore and is cited as tackling big ideas yet being accessible through his prose. You can argue he lacks precision and imagination compared to his primary influences, uses hoary cliches as a crutch, and stuffs his book full of the mention of themes while only momentarily addressing them; his style is great at making you think you are reading something profound and insightful without being profound and insightful. Some people have made a similar case for later McCarthy works, where his terse, pseudo-archaic prose style makes ridiculous, asinine "insights" seems like God's gift to the reader. Nevertheless they are celebrated as great writers of our era without the Academy's consent. The Academy, like any institution, will seek to preserve its own relevance first and foremost. It may be supremely disappointing to those who thought it would continue to uphold its ideals until the end of time, but the Academy is conscious that they have very limited influence outside of a niche interest. As you mentioned in the OP "the Swedish Academy has a duty to help guide, define, and cement literature’s position within society", but do they possess such power beyond the most staunch bibliophiles? Or were they relying on the supposed prestige of the award to attract those who lack the ability to make independent judgments on what constitutes quality i.e. the very people who would be incapable of appreciating literature's importance?
Your style of writing is so pretentious. You should tone it down a little.
|
I wonder if there's a cornucopia of intertwined layers, which very much so influenced this decision, that smoke up transparency to laymen, and click only in the minds of insiders.
If indeed the committee, the prize needs people like Dylan, as the OP's hypothetical mention suggests, then we need to figure out the agenda, expectations and overarching blueprint of this stunt.
What makes sense to me to think about is that literature demands pillars of accessibility into its ever-increasing, telescopic vastness. A skeletal structure of relevance evaluation which a board of people who carry that function officially can no longer maintain, hence the new generation of laureates are given not so much an award for achievement but a job offering, highly prestigious nonetheless.
What Bob Dylan has proven is his capacity to connect with those of us who probe for art; therefore if he was to be given this status of newbie elevator into the Yggdrasil -- to reference something from Norse mythology, what up Sweden -- literature is soon to become hopefully, i.e. a comprehensible starmap to literary greatness in the shape of a holographic tree, which unfurls as new awesomeness is being charted, and materializes as naturally as a plant to newcomer seekers and aficionado travelers alike, in our dreams. Let Bob Dylan be your dream guide then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
