[ilds] Nobel to Dylan for literature

david wilde wilded at hotmail.com
Sun Oct 16 13:05:26 PDT 2016


<http://rmoa.unm.edu/docviewer.php?docId=nmu1995-06-25.xml#hit1>http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/10/13/bob-dylan-nobel-prize/?printpage=true
[http://www.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/bob-dylan-nobel-prize.jpg]<http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/10/13/bob-dylan-nobel-prize/?printpage=true>

Dylan's Time<http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/10/13/bob-dylan-nobel-prize/?printpage=true>
www.nybooks.com
Bob Dylan has accomplished something that few novelists or poets or for that matter songwriters 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.


________________________________
From: ILDS <ilds-bounces at lists.uvic.ca> on behalf of Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2016 10:01 AM
To: Sumantra Nag
Cc: Bruce Redwine
Subject: Re: [ilds] Nobel to Dylan for literature

Ken,

Yes.  Lawrence Durrell not getting the Nobel was the world's loss and a sure indication that the Nobel Prize Committee is swayed by popular opinions and prejudices.  Here's another great author who didn't get the recognition he richly deserved:  Nikos Kazantzakis.

Bruce


On Oct 15, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Kennedy Gammage <gammage.kennedy at gmail.com<mailto:gammage.kennedy at gmail.com>> wrote:

Bruce, you can understand the uncomfortable silence. If Durrell had won the Nobel back in the '70s the mean HH income on the listserv would probably be E25,000 higher - maybe more! Plus - no excuses. "Yes. Durrell studies. No, not Gerald. Lawrence!"

: > )

Durrells on Corfu debuts on PBS here in the US of A tomorrow night in a flurry of good publicity.

Cheers - Ken

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net<mailto:bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>> wrote:
I think Robin's description below is correct and irrefutable.  Which leads to the next question--why has the Nobel committee corrupted the definition of "literature?"

Bruce



Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 14, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Robin Collins <robin.w.collins at gmail.com<mailto:robin.w.collins at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> A good argument was given by (writer, also musician, also host to tribute/reading to/for Ian McEwan recently in Toronto) Dave Bidini in Globe and Mail today. He suggested a lyricist can rely on music and voice but a literature author has nothing but the words, which must survive alone. So in his view the category shouldn't include lyricists. I am a big early to mid era Dylan fan but many of his lyrics don't stand up well without the sounds behind them. Others stand very well. How does that feel? To be on your own? Like a complete unknown?
>
> Robin
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20161016/82458525/attachment.html>


More information about the ILDS mailing list