This is not a school assignment. I just did it for personal study. Thanks.
Dylan opens the song with the line of experience:”the man in me will do nearly any task.” This line indicates that the song's protagonist (Dylan?) is experienced. It illustrates that the protagonist has an experienced knowledge of the Jungian Self. That is because it shows that the protagonist knows his psyche is not just one entity but rather an ego, complexes and archetypes because he has singled out one part, which is the man.
The “man in him” is a special part of him as it will do almost any any task for very little in return. The ego of the protagonist has realized that there is an elusive part of himself. He has realized that not everyone can get through to the man in him.
The third line, “take a woman like you– to get through to the man in me” tells the listener how the man can be found, which is by one single type of woman. The rhythm of this line is significant. Dylan hesitates before saying what the woman can accomplish for him. This hesitation portrays the significance, creating a tone of disbelief and astonishment. The protagonist will do any task for her because she is the one who can reach his inner lover, which is his inner man.
Dyan uses weather as a metaphor for the psyche. He uses the metaphor of storm clouds, storm clouds he has found that require the qualities of the woman to find him through. The storm clouds ma represent an inner turmoil and a sense of being lost. Is it the woman's inner light or is it her courage? The protagonist does not seem to care. His celebratory tone “... just to know that you are near...” illustrates this point.
The marriage of a special woman with the inner special qualities of the man gives this song a quality of profound contentedness and gratitude.
The final stanza finds the protagonist opening up about the motives of the man in him: “the man in me will hide to keep from being seen/ but that's just because he doesn't want to turn in to some machine.” This line illustrates how the protagonist has opened up emotionally. It also gives facts about the protagonist, namely that he is a good man. The man in him hides not because of fear, but instead in an attempt to preserve goodness. The object of Dylan's metaphor, a machine, does n ot feel (usually) and he wants his inner man to feel.
The protagonist expresses his love in a way that is free of pretense and over-romantic sentiment. TO him it is strictly a stroke of good fortune so good that he sings lalala...
I have to say, the line “the man in me will hide to keep from being seen/ but that's just because he doesn't want to turn in to some machine.” still baffles me.
If it means he wants to preserve his feelings, it's kind of odd... because it suggests he looks like a machine, right? I.e. that part of him that feels is hidden. So his emotions are hidden. So he looks like a machine in order not to be a machine. That sounds odd.
It certainly seems clear that the self is fragmented here.
I often wonder with Dylan whether he writes meticulously or more just by instinct. A writer like T.S. Eliot, for instance, produces such dense complexity there is 0% chance the lines are spontaneous riffs bubbling jazz-like from consciousness. But Dylan's brilliance is to be folksy, familiar, full of suggestive resonations and not, therefore, dense. I'm not saying that is bad or easy. One of the most difficult things Dylan accomplishes is simplicity. But I wonder how much Dylan means something, and how much we are meant to just drift down the foggy lyrics as we ride the rhythm and notes - pregnantly inarticulate?
I am also just generally skeptical about always translating art into philosophy/psychology. Art need not contain philosophy. Some does. Hamlet is full of philosophy, but... this is just what the characters in a play are talking about. If you see only the philosophy, and not the play (i.e. the art of the language and the drama of the plot), you can't explain why Hamlet is a play and not an essay. Not, of course, that it is illegitimate to talk about that philosophy in the context of Hamlet! But here in the context of Dylan... I am not sure if there is a philosophy to find here...
What I'm saying is, 1) I am skeptical Dylan means much, 2) meaning little detracts nothing from the art.
Still... talking about Jung through Dylan is interesting... and maybe that simple point undermines everything I've said above.
On March 02 2018 11:58 Baneour wrote: Very interesting. I love reading criticism.
I have to say, the line “the man in me will hide to keep from being seen/ but that's just because he doesn't want to turn in to some machine.” still baffles me.
If it means he wants to preserve his feelings, it's kind of odd... because it suggests he looks like a machine, right? I.e. that part of him that feels is hidden. So his emotions are hidden. So he looks like a machine in order not to be a machine. That sounds odd.
It certainly seems clear that the self is fragmented here.
I often wonder with Dylan whether he writes meticulously or more just by instinct. A writer like T.S. Eliot, for instance, produces such dense complexity there is 0% chance the lines are spontaneous riffs bubbling jazz-like from consciousness. But Dylan's brilliance is to be folksy, familiar, full of suggestive resonations and not, therefore, dense. I'm not saying that is bad or easy. One of the most difficult things Dylan accomplishes is simplicity. But I wonder how much Dylan means something, and how much we are meant to just drift down the foggy lyrics as we ride the rhythm and notes - pregnantly inarticulate?
I am also just generally skeptical about always translating art into philosophy/psychology. Art need not contain philosophy. Some does. Hamlet is full of philosophy, but... this is just what the characters in a play are talking about. If you see only the philosophy, and not the play (i.e. the art of the language and the drama of the plot), you can't explain why Hamlet is a play and not an essay. Not, of course, that it is illegitimate to talk about that philosophy in the context of Hamlet! But here in the context of Dylan... I am not sure if there is a philosophy to find here...
What I'm saying is, 1) I am skeptical Dylan means much, 2) meaning little detracts nothing from the art.
Still... talking about Jung through Dylan is interesting... and maybe that simple point undermines everything I've said above.
Yeah basically anything through the lenses of Jung and the Jungians will interest me. I'm not much of an art guy. More into philosophy and psych/
On March 03 2018 13:34 IgnE wrote: So you like JBP
Clueless, I googled "JBP".
Top result is urban dictionary, "A word that describe people with fat balls." I assume that's not it.
Next "Jean-Baptiste Prashant More, also known as is a Tamil born French Historian, Author and Teacher. His father was of Marathi descent. His area of expertise is South Indian History." Still sounds wrong.
Next "JBP. Japanese Black Pine (plant species)" hmm... getting closer. Still not quite it.
Next "JBP. Journal of Black Psychology. " Maybe?
Next "JBP - Jordan B. Peterson" Aha... that makes sense.
EPT
