"If you look back, far back, 2,500 years or so, you discover Homer and Sappho and they wrote poetic texts that were meant to be listened to, that were meant to be performed, often with instruments -- and it's the same way with Bob Dylan."
This is the justification that Sara Danius from the Swedish Academy gave for why the great lyricist should be given the literature award.
Let me give some historical perspective that should help people understand why, despite the fact that I am a Dylan fan, I think this is a mistake.
If we look back 2,500 years, literacy was not anywhere near as common as it is today, not even in Ancient Greece. Not only that, but books were very rare and very expensive. I have heard the comparison that one small book back then would cost as much as a car would cost a family today. If that is true, then even if you were rich, you wouldn't be going to the bookstore often to pick up the latest releases-- even if a bookstore existed. It was all just not very practical, not even realistic. If poets wanted to have their work appreciated by more than a select few, it was essential that they have it performed.
In comparison, today many more people can read; books are quite inexpensive and easier to get than ever. Yet, people spend their time on (mostly) mindless entertainment via the internet or TV. The only obstacle most people have to reading a book of poetry is their own will to do so. These days, poetry does not have to be performed to be accessible. People have the ability and means to read, but do so less and less.
So why did the Swedish Academy choose a musician that so many people have already heard of and hear often when instead they could shine a spotlight on a great writer that many don't know of and in the process maybe get a few more people to actually read a book? I can't think of a single reason for them to do so that isn't a mistake in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment