Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Bob Dylan Wins Nobel Prize in Literature

bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 5:16:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Bob Dylan has won the Nobel prize in literature "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition." Many have praised this elevation of songwriting to the level of poetry, journalism, novels, and so forth. Still others have criticized the decision. For instance, Jodi Picoult tweeted, "#ButDoesThisMeanICanWinAGrammy?"

[http://www.bbc.com...]

What are your thoughts on this decision?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Archaholic
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 11:43:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
What kind of message does the academia send to book lovers? I feel very disappointed. It seems like there are not enough writers in the world who deserve the prize. There are actually remarkable writers, though. What a pity!

BR
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 2:11:44 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 11:43:31 PM, Archaholic wrote:
What kind of message does the academia send to book lovers? I feel very disappointed. It seems like there are not enough writers in the world who deserve the prize. There are actually remarkable writers, though. What a pity!

BR

A fellow writer wrote "can I win a grammy" on twitter in response to this.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 2:37:54 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 11:43:31 PM, Archaholic wrote:
What kind of message does the academia send to book lovers? I feel very disappointed. It seems like there are not enough writers in the world who deserve the prize. There are actually remarkable writers, though. What a pity!

BR

Why should songs not be considered literature?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Archaholic
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 2:40:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 2:37:54 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:43:31 PM, Archaholic wrote:
What kind of message does the academia send to book lovers? I feel very disappointed. It seems like there are not enough writers in the world who deserve the prize. There are actually remarkable writers, though. What a pity!

BR

Why should songs not be considered literature?
Because they are music? What about novels? Are they music? LOL.

BR
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 2:41:37 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 2:40:23 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:37:54 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:43:31 PM, Archaholic wrote:
What kind of message does the academia send to book lovers? I feel very disappointed. It seems like there are not enough writers in the world who deserve the prize. There are actually remarkable writers, though. What a pity!

BR

Why should songs not be considered literature?
Because they are music? What about novels? Are they music? LOL.

Tell me something. Do you object to poets receiving the prize?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Archaholic
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 2:48:12 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 2:41:37 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:40:23 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:37:54 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:43:31 PM, Archaholic wrote:
What kind of message does the academia send to book lovers? I feel very disappointed. It seems like there are not enough writers in the world who deserve the prize. There are actually remarkable writers, though. What a pity!

BR

Why should songs not be considered literature?
Because they are music? What about novels? Are they music? LOL.

Tell me something. Do you object to poets receiving the prize?

So you are a Dylan fan. I am not against Dylan, I actually like his music and 80's music in general. Even though I consider unfair what happened there. He's a musician and he should be treated like this. There's a bunch of good writers out there waiting for an opportunity like this. I don't think Dylan diserves it. He diserves a gramy, or this kind of musical honors, but not a literature nobel prize.

BR
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 2:51:15 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 2:48:12 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:41:37 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:40:23 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:37:54 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:43:31 PM, Archaholic wrote:
What kind of message does the academia send to book lovers? I feel very disappointed. It seems like there are not enough writers in the world who deserve the prize. There are actually remarkable writers, though. What a pity!

BR

Why should songs not be considered literature?
Because they are music? What about novels? Are they music? LOL.

Tell me something. Do you object to poets receiving the prize?

So you are a Dylan fan.

Lol...Don't jump to conclusion. I could not even name a single song written by Dylan...and anyone who knows me knows that I am by no means a fan of rock music.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, how about you answer my question: Do you object to poets receiving a Nobel Prize in Literature?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Archaholic
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 2:54:28 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 2:51:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:48:12 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:41:37 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:40:23 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:37:54 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:43:31 PM, Archaholic wrote:
What kind of message does the academia send to book lovers? I feel very disappointed. It seems like there are not enough writers in the world who deserve the prize. There are actually remarkable writers, though. What a pity!

BR

Why should songs not be considered literature?
Because they are music? What about novels? Are they music? LOL.

Tell me something. Do you object to poets receiving the prize?

So you are a Dylan fan.

Lol...Don't jump to conclusion. I could not even name a single song written by Dylan...and anyone who knows me knows that I am by no means a fan of rock music.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, how about you answer my question: Do you object to poets receiving a Nobel Prize in Literature?

I've already told you, Dylan is not a poet, he is a musician. What people buy from him are discs, not books with poetry.

BR
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 2:55:24 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I'm happy with the decision, to be honest
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 3:10:48 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 2:54:28 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:51:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:48:12 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:41:37 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:40:23 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:37:54 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:43:31 PM, Archaholic wrote:
What kind of message does the academia send to book lovers? I feel very disappointed. It seems like there are not enough writers in the world who deserve the prize. There are actually remarkable writers, though. What a pity!

BR

Why should songs not be considered literature?
Because they are music? What about novels? Are they music? LOL.

Tell me something. Do you object to poets receiving the prize?

So you are a Dylan fan.

Lol...Don't jump to conclusion. I could not even name a single song written by Dylan...and anyone who knows me knows that I am by no means a fan of rock music.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, how about you answer my question: Do you object to poets receiving a Nobel Prize in Literature?

I've already told you, Dylan is not a poet, he is a musician. What people buy from him are discs, not books with poetry.

Why is there necessarily a distinction between poetry and music? Some of the greatest poems ever written, like the Odyssey, were meant to be presented orally, often in a manner that we might describe as "singing." The epic poems, which any credibly scholar of literature will verify are poems, were, in essence, long ballads. Even more recent examples like Beowulf subscribe to this tradition. Do we stop calling these poems because they are sung and sometimes put to music? No.

In the modern era, we often write poetry designed to be read aloud. Even poetry no read aloud is often delivered orally to allow for audiences to experience the writing in a different manner than by mere visual inspection. Some poetry could even be put to music and sung. Just because I sing a piece of poetry does that mean it is no longer poetry but music? No.

Bob Dylan did not receive his prize for writing notes or for his vocal talent or for his instrumentals. He won the prize for the actual words he wrote and nothing more. The words are literature. Why does it matter how those words are delivered? It is not the delivery mechanism that is what the prize is for. The prize is for the words. You cannot conflate the words with the means by which they are conveyed.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Archaholic
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 3:25:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 3:10:48 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:54:28 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:51:15 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:48:12 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:41:37 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:40:23 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:37:54 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:43:31 PM, Archaholic wrote:
What kind of message does the academia send to book lovers? I feel very disappointed. It seems like there are not enough writers in the world who deserve the prize. There are actually remarkable writers, though. What a pity!

BR

Why should songs not be considered literature?
Because they are music? What about novels? Are they music? LOL.

Tell me something. Do you object to poets receiving the prize?

So you are a Dylan fan.

Lol...Don't jump to conclusion. I could not even name a single song written by Dylan...and anyone who knows me knows that I am by no means a fan of rock music.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, how about you answer my question: Do you object to poets receiving a Nobel Prize in Literature?

I've already told you, Dylan is not a poet, he is a musician. What people buy from him are discs, not books with poetry.

Why is there necessarily a distinction between poetry and music? Some of the greatest poems ever written, like the Odyssey, were meant to be presented orally, often in a manner that we might describe as "singing." The epic poems, which any credibly scholar of literature will verify are poems, were, in essence, long ballads. Even more recent examples like Beowulf subscribe to this tradition. Do we stop calling these poems because they are sung and sometimes put to music? No.

In the modern era, we often write poetry designed to be read aloud. Even poetry no read aloud is often delivered orally to allow for audiences to experience the writing in a different manner than by mere visual inspection. Some poetry could even be put to music and sung. Just because I sing a piece of poetry does that mean it is no longer poetry but music? No.

Bob Dylan did not receive his prize for writing notes or for his vocal talent or for his instrumentals. He won the prize for the actual words he wrote and nothing more. The words are literature. Why does it matter how those words are delivered? It is not the delivery mechanism that is what the prize is for. The prize is for the words. You cannot conflate the words with the means by which they are conveyed.

I see your point, but I disagree. Do you know how much musicians there are in this world who are considered as poets, even better than Dylan? A lot, from different languages. Again, I like music, but it should remain like this, no matter how much we regard them as poetry.

This is a bad precedent for the literature novel prize, because writers don't just have to compete each other, but they have to compete with musicians. The world turned upside down!!

BR
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 3:31:59 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 3:25:05 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 3:10:48 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:54:28 AM, Archaholic wrote:
I've already told you, Dylan is not a poet, he is a musician. What people buy from him are discs, not books with poetry.

Why is there necessarily a distinction between poetry and music? Some of the greatest poems ever written, like the Odyssey, were meant to be presented orally, often in a manner that we might describe as "singing." The epic poems, which any credibly scholar of literature will verify are poems, were, in essence, long ballads. Even more recent examples like Beowulf subscribe to this tradition. Do we stop calling these poems because they are sung and sometimes put to music? No.

In the modern era, we often write poetry designed to be read aloud. Even poetry no read aloud is often delivered orally to allow for audiences to experience the writing in a different manner than by mere visual inspection. Some poetry could even be put to music and sung. Just because I sing a piece of poetry does that mean it is no longer poetry but music? No.

Bob Dylan did not receive his prize for writing notes or for his vocal talent or for his instrumentals. He won the prize for the actual words he wrote and nothing more. The words are literature. Why does it matter how those words are delivered? It is not the delivery mechanism that is what the prize is for. The prize is for the words. You cannot conflate the words with the means by which they are conveyed.

I see your point, but I disagree. Do you know how much musicians there are in this world who are considered as poets, even better than Dylan?

Simply saying that there are other people you think are more deserving of the prize is not a reason to say Dylan should not have received the prize. All such prize-givings are subjective, and just because you subjectively disagree with the Nobel Committee does not mean that the Nobel Committee should not have given the award to the person it thought subjectively deserved it. I could go through and explain why every single Nobel laureate should not have gotten their award because someone else deserved it more, but not only would that be extremely petty, but it would misunderstand the subjective nature of the award process, and that the subjectivity itself does not make the process illegitimate.

This is a bad precedent for the literature novel prize, because writers don't just have to compete each other, but they have to compete with musicians. The world turned upside down!!

This is irrational and creates a dichotomy that does not exist. Bob Dylan WAS a writer. He wrote poetry. He got the award on the merits of his words, of the text of his poetry, not on his music.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Archaholic
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 3:44:45 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 3:31:59 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 3:25:05 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 3:10:48 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 2:54:28 AM, Archaholic wrote:
I've already told you, Dylan is not a poet, he is a musician. What people buy from him are discs, not books with poetry.

Why is there necessarily a distinction between poetry and music? Some of the greatest poems ever written, like the Odyssey, were meant to be presented orally, often in a manner that we might describe as "singing." The epic poems, which any credibly scholar of literature will verify are poems, were, in essence, long ballads. Even more recent examples like Beowulf subscribe to this tradition. Do we stop calling these poems because they are sung and sometimes put to music? No.

In the modern era, we often write poetry designed to be read aloud. Even poetry no read aloud is often delivered orally to allow for audiences to experience the writing in a different manner than by mere visual inspection. Some poetry could even be put to music and sung. Just because I sing a piece of poetry does that mean it is no longer poetry but music? No.

Bob Dylan did not receive his prize for writing notes or for his vocal talent or for his instrumentals. He won the prize for the actual words he wrote and nothing more. The words are literature. Why does it matter how those words are delivered? It is not the delivery mechanism that is what the prize is for. The prize is for the words. You cannot conflate the words with the means by which they are conveyed.

I see your point, but I disagree. Do you know how much musicians there are in this world who are considered as poets, even better than Dylan?

Simply saying that there are other people you think are more deserving of the prize is not a reason to say Dylan should not have received the prize. All such prize-givings are subjective, and just because you subjectively disagree with the Nobel Committee does not mean that the Nobel Committee should not have given the award to the person it thought subjectively deserved it. I could go through and explain why every single Nobel laureate should not have gotten their award because someone else deserved it more, but not only would that be extremely petty, but it would misunderstand the subjective nature of the award process, and that the subjectivity itself does not make the process illegitimate.

Look, the novel prize has always been controversial. There were writers who really deserved the prize (Jorge Luis Borges, for instance), and there were others who didnt diserve it (like Dylan). How to measure that? With the criticism. Have you seen it? Apparently not. And you know what, the criticism seems to be unanimous: Dylan just doesn't deserve it.

This is a bad precedent for the literature novel prize, because writers don't just have to compete each other, but they have to compete with musicians. The world turned upside down!!

This is irrational and creates a dichotomy that does not exist. Bob Dylan WAS a writer. He wrote poetry. He got the award on the merits of his words, of the text of his poetry, not on his music.

I repeat it again, slower so you can get it: Music is not poetry, even the performance of poetry is totally different than the performance of a song. They have lot of similarities, but they are not the same.

BR
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 3:48:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 3:44:45 AM, Archaholic wrote:
And you know what, the criticism seems to be unanimous: Dylan just doesn't deserve it.

Where are you getting the impression that the criticism is unanimous. Famous writers like Salmon Rushdie have praised the Nobel Committee's decision.

I repeat it again, slower so you can get it: Music is not poetry, even the performance of poetry is totally different than the performance of a song. They have lot of similarities, but they are not the same.

I am not getting it? Rofl.

Define "Music" for me, and I'll proceed in explaining why your position is untenable once you do.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Archaholic
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 4:07:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 3:48:34 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 3:44:45 AM, Archaholic wrote:
And you know what, the criticism seems to be unanimous: Dylan just doesn't deserve it.

Where are you getting the impression that the criticism is unanimous. Famous writers like Salmon Rushdie have praised the Nobel Committee's decision.

Ok, I was exagerating a little, but the criticism looks pretty harsh. Besides, as a literature lover, I am still dissapointed with the decision of the commitee, and you, as an american, should be very proud of it and it is understandable you are so defensive about my opinion.

I repeat it again, slower so you can get it: Music is not poetry, even the performance of poetry is totally different than the performance of a song. They have lot of similarities, but they are not the same.

I am not getting it? Rofl.

Define "Music" for me, and I'll proceed in explaining why your position is untenable once you do.
Why should I define it for you? You just google it if you don't know it.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 5:13:32 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 4:07:00 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/14/2016 3:48:34 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 3:44:45 AM, Archaholic wrote:
I repeat it again, slower so you can get it: Music is not poetry, even the performance of poetry is totally different than the performance of a song. They have lot of similarities, but they are not the same.

I am not getting it? Rofl.

Define "Music" for me, and I'll proceed in explaining why your position is untenable once you do.
Why should I define it for you? You just google it if you don't know it.

For two reasons. Firstly, everyone understands concepts differently, and I can only get a sense of your unique perspective from you. Secondly, by using the definition you offer, we can avoid quibbling over definitional disagreements.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 7:07:31 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 5:16:22 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Bob Dylan has won the Nobel prize in literature "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition." Many have praised this elevation of songwriting to the level of poetry, journalism, novels, and so forth. Still others have criticized the decision. For instance, Jodi Picoult tweeted, "#ButDoesThisMeanICanWinAGrammy?"

[http://www.bbc.com...]

What are your thoughts on this decision?

The obvious criticism is that this is another example of 'trendyness' infecting the prizes. Just as the peace prize has become a laughingstock by being awarded by whoever happens to be popular at the moment regardless of merit or sacrifice, the literature award is becoming a laughingstock by being awarded to a man who was good with words, but not nearly as good as other people who may have merited the award. Everyone is naturally expected to be good-natured about it, but it's absurd that, while we have countless awards show dedicated to musical expression, the one which is the gold standard for literary achievement is given to a man not for his literature but for his music, possibly opening future floodgates and further choking out the recognition of worthy literary talents.

As to whether music is 'poetry', the overlap is scant. The ancient Greeks, of example, made distinct division between lyric poetry, which was by definition recited with musical accompaniment, and dramatic and epic poetry, which were not. The meters of Greek lyrical poetry were eventually divorced from the musical aspect, and from then on it was perfectly clear that there were two separate schools: the poetry which was written/recited, and musical recitations with accompaniment. It really has taken the modern drive to needlessly muddy definitions to come to the absurd conclusion that 'music actually is literature', even though they have always been two separate schools since time immemorial, when a separate muse (Euterpe) was designated as the patron of what would one day be music. It's sad to see another award become a joke.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Willows
Posts: 2,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 9:37:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 5:16:22 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Bob Dylan has won the Nobel prize in literature "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition." Many have praised this elevation of songwriting to the level of poetry, journalism, novels, and so forth. Still others have criticized the decision. For instance, Jodi Picoult tweeted, "#ButDoesThisMeanICanWinAGrammy?"

[http://www.bbc.com...]

What are your thoughts on this decision?

Let's face it, the Nobel Prize awards have been a bit stuffy and uneventful over the past few years so I guess the committee wanted to stir things up with a bit of controversy.

Watch out, though, next, they will be awarding the Nobel prize for chemistry to Keith Richards.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 1:05:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 2:37:54 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:43:31 PM, Archaholic wrote:
What kind of message does the academia send to book lovers? I feel very disappointed. It seems like there are not enough writers in the world who deserve the prize. There are actually remarkable writers, though. What a pity!

BR

Why should songs not be considered literature?

they are stories set to music, many great story tellers have done this, have you listen to any and listen to the words and message, that is why he won, I think there have been others as well but don't care enough to check :)
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 2:23:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 7:07:31 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2016 5:16:22 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Bob Dylan has won the Nobel prize in literature "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition." Many have praised this elevation of songwriting to the level of poetry, journalism, novels, and so forth. Still others have criticized the decision. For instance, Jodi Picoult tweeted, "#ButDoesThisMeanICanWinAGrammy?"

[http://www.bbc.com...]

What are your thoughts on this decision?

The obvious criticism is that this is another example of 'trendyness' infecting the prizes. Just as the peace prize has become a laughingstock by being awarded by whoever happens to be popular at the moment regardless of merit or sacrifice, the literature award is becoming a laughingstock by being awarded to a man who was good with words, but not nearly as good as other people who may have merited the award.

Skep, we're probably not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue. As I said to Arch, I think statements like X is better with words than Y is necessarily subjective. For instance, when Elfriede Jelinek won the word, some widely criticized the prize-giving as essentially awarding written pornography, yet others disagreed. Last year, a journalist won the award, and that stirred controversy as well. Personally, I would not have given the award to Toni Morrison; I don't particularly care for her writing. That doesn't mean that the committee was wrong to award Morrison the prize.

Irrespective of the medium of delivery (and the award was not given the for the medium of deliver), the words that Dylan wrote were poetic and artistic expressions. The words won the award, not the music. So, while I agree that there is possible some considerations of "trendiness" here, I don't think this award demeans the prize at all. I think it merely recognizes that literature--i.e. written work--can be found in unexpected places, and that Dylan was no less a writer and mass of his word-wielding craft than any poet.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Archaholic
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 7:22:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 2:23:06 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 7:07:31 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/13/2016 5:16:22 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Bob Dylan has won the Nobel prize in literature "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition." Many have praised this elevation of songwriting to the level of poetry, journalism, novels, and so forth. Still others have criticized the decision. For instance, Jodi Picoult tweeted, "#ButDoesThisMeanICanWinAGrammy?"

[http://www.bbc.com...]

What are your thoughts on this decision?

The obvious criticism is that this is another example of 'trendyness' infecting the prizes. Just as the peace prize has become a laughingstock by being awarded by whoever happens to be popular at the moment regardless of merit or sacrifice, the literature award is becoming a laughingstock by being awarded to a man who was good with words, but not nearly as good as other people who may have merited the award.

Skep, we're probably not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue. As I said to Arch, I think statements like X is better with words than Y is necessarily subjective. For instance, when Elfriede Jelinek won the word, some widely criticized the prize-giving as essentially awarding written pornography, yet others disagreed. Last year, a journalist won the award, and that stirred controversy as well. Personally, I would not have given the award to Toni Morrison; I don't particularly care for her writing. That doesn't mean that the committee was wrong to award Morrison the prize.

Irrespective of the medium of delivery (and the award was not given the for the medium of deliver), the words that Dylan wrote were poetic and artistic expressions. The words won the award, not the music. So, while I agree that there is possible some considerations of "trendiness" here, I don't think this award demeans the prize at all. I think it merely recognizes that literature--i.e. written work--can be found in unexpected places, and that Dylan was no less a writer and mass of his word-wielding craft than any poet.

It is not just being better than others, it is a matter of contributing on your field. What Dylan did is having contributed with music and not with literature. It is insane what the comitee did. Dylan had received countless prizes, recognition, fame and fortune before the nobel prize, but all of them were for his music or for his art in general (Asturias Prince prize). For God's sake, is it so hard to understand it?

Besides, putting musicians in contention with writers is foolish, unfair, and unnecesary. As many here said, the comittee wanted to stir things up. And they really did. Being a writer is pretty hard, not the same as being a musician. Both are totally different.

I love novels and poetry, and I am very much looking forward to enjoinig new books. But, with this precedent, it is difficult for writers to be impelled to write new forms of stories. Such a pity!!

BR
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 11:30:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
It makes little sense that somebody telling stories and poetry through song doesn't qualify as literary. And it makes no sense that him getting the prize should mean those who don't write music should qualify for a Grammy. The fact is that music encompasses multiple facets of creativity.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of old timers hate Dylan. Think about a song like "everybody must get stoned" in reference to the culture at the time. Think about how much people despise drugs, and while modern artists like Marilyn Manson and Eminem take a lot of flack for their lyrics, Dylan was doing it at a time when we were much more rigid about such things. Dylan was also a protester, and is affiliated with hippies and counterculture. He may even be the true father of the hip hop culture. I also heard that he was quite an arrogant bastard, he apparently told Simon and garfunkle they weren't any good, which was pretty devastating to them considering how big he was (some think that was the impetus for them breaking up).

Suffice to say, there is a lot of reason to hate him, and I believe hatred is a big reason why his award is being criticized.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 5:41:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 7:22:50 PM, Archaholic wrote:
Being a writer is pretty hard, not the same as being a musician. Both are totally different.

The only difference between a bard and a poet is that the bard sings while the poet recites. Neither the act of singing or reciting changes the inherent quality of the words they craft.

I love novels and poetry, and I am very much looking forward to enjoinig new books. But, with this precedent, it is difficult for writers to be impelled to write new forms of stories. Such a pity!!

I don't think there is any writer out there who writes just because they want to get a Nobel Prize in literature. This decision is hardly going to stop people from writing, because writing is more than just about the Nobel Prize--whether it's done for making ends-meet or for the love of the craft. If anything, expanding the prize to songwriters would motivate more people to pursue their writing skills in the hopes of getting the prize, because now more people are eligible. This decision will only incentivize better songs and better books (because, let's not forget, bookwriters are still eligible and will still compete for the prize).
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Archaholic
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 4:36:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 5:41:43 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/15/2016 7:22:50 PM, Archaholic wrote:
Being a writer is pretty hard, not the same as being a musician. Both are totally different.

The only difference between a bard and a poet is that the bard sings while the poet recites. Neither the act of singing or reciting changes the inherent quality of the words they craft.

There you go the main difference between them, a singer composes with the help of music, whereas the poet doesn't. The singer uses instruments or just a melody to compose his lyrics. The way they are produced should be enough to avoid an unnecessary and unfair contention.

Furthermore, it is utterly clear Dylan's lyrics have such an artistic quality and he was recognized for it. Even though, his contribution on arts was specifically in music, but never ever in literature. And this was remarked by the swedish academy, when they said he has been awarded the prize "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition". You see, his contribution was in American song tradition. It is clearer than water.

I love novels and poetry, and I am very much looking forward to enjoinig new books. But, with this precedent, it is difficult for writers to be impelled to write new forms of stories. Such a pity!!

I don't think there is any writer out there who writes just because they want to get a Nobel Prize in literature. This decision is hardly going to stop people from writing, because writing is more than just about the Nobel Prize--whether it's done for making ends-meet or for the love of the craft. If anything, expanding the prize to songwriters would motivate more people to pursue their writing skills in the hopes of getting the prize, because now more people are eligible. This decision will only incentivize better songs and better books (because, let's not forget, bookwriters are still eligible and will still compete for the prize).

I am not saying writers are going to quit writing, but the swedish academy is trully discouraging writers to strive more when producing. That is the reason of the existence of that kind of prizes and recognition.

By the way, I have been checking in internet that there are doubts about Dylan's attending the event. You see, he doesn't care about that. It wasn't worth giving the nobel prize and the one million dollar to him. It is so ironic, he is receiving a million dollar, that should be a peanut for him. LOL

Best Regards
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 9:45:52 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 4:36:01 PM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:41:43 AM, bsh1 wrote:
The only difference between a bard and a poet is that the bard sings while the poet recites. Neither the act of singing or reciting changes the inherent quality of the words they craft.

There you go the main difference between them, a singer composes with the help of music, whereas the poet doesn't.

Please read more carefully so you don't continue to miss the point of what I am saying.

The singer uses instruments or just a melody to compose his lyrics. The way they are produced should be enough to avoid an unnecessary and unfair contention.

No. Firstly, I would argue that not all musicians use music to guide them (at least no more than many poets). If you look at any rhyming poem set to a fixed meter, it could easily be set to music. Are those poems suddenly not literature because they are musical in nature? Many poets deliberately strive for a musical cadence in their work, and so the merely presence of such a cadence is not a disqualifying factor in deciding what is "literature." Moreover, it is not as if lyrics for songs are thought of on the fly--good songwriters will agonize over their lyrics just as much as an poet agonizes over their verses. Secondly, the means of delivery (through music or not through music) does not change the intrinsic value of the words being delivered. In other words, the music and the lyrics are not the same thing. It is the words/lyrics that are winning the award, and "words" are literature, irrespective of the delivery mechanism.

Read this: http://www.theatlantic.com...

I don't think there is any writer out there who writes just because they want to get a Nobel Prize in literature. This decision is hardly going to stop people from writing, because writing is more than just about the Nobel Prize--whether it's done for making ends-meet or for the love of the craft. If anything, expanding the prize to songwriters would motivate more people to pursue their writing skills in the hopes of getting the prize, because now more people are eligible. This decision will only incentivize better songs and better books (because, let's not forget, bookwriters are still eligible and will still compete for the prize).

I am not saying writers are going to quit writing, but the swedish academy is trully discouraging writers to strive more when producing. That is the reason of the existence of that kind of prizes and recognition.

That is hardly true. No writer is suddenly going to stop investing in their craft because the Nobel Prize is slightly more competitive. Firstly, because the Nobel Prize is not the main source of motivation for writers, it's becoming more competitive will have only a marginal impact on writers in the first place. If you write for the love of the craft, to earn a living, or to express your self through words, you aren't going to care much about this decision. Secondly, any rational assessment of the prize-givings future will realize that the vast majority of prizes will still be going to traditional poets and authors. The fact that one musician was included will does not change the long history of favoring those more customary literary outlets.

By the way, I have been checking in internet that there are doubts about Dylan's attending the event. You see, he doesn't care about that.

How does non-attendance = not caring? Elfriede Jelnicks did not attend, though she did care. Her reason for skipping out was extreme agoraphobia.

In fact, there is some evidence that he does care and was honored by the award: http://www.stereogum.com...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Archaholic
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2016 8:55:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 9:45:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/16/2016 4:36:01 PM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/16/2016 5:41:43 AM, bsh1 wrote:
The only difference between a bard and a poet is that the bard sings while the poet recites. Neither the act of singing or reciting changes the inherent quality of the words they craft.

There you go the main difference between them, a singer composes with the help of music, whereas the poet doesn't.

Please read more carefully so you don't continue to miss the point of what I am saying.

The singer uses instruments or just a melody to compose his lyrics. The way they are produced should be enough to avoid an unnecessary and unfair contention.

No. Firstly, I would argue that not all musicians use music to guide them (at least no more than many poets). If you look at any rhyming poem set to a fixed meter, it could easily be set to music. Are those poems suddenly not literature because they are musical in nature? Many poets deliberately strive for a musical cadence in their work, and so the merely presence of such a cadence is not a disqualifying factor in deciding what is "literature." Moreover, it is not as if lyrics for songs are thought of on the fly--good songwriters will agonize over their lyrics just as much as an poet agonizes over their verses. Secondly, the means of delivery (through music or not through music) does not change the intrinsic value of the words being delivered. In other words, the music and the lyrics are not the same thing. It is the words/lyrics that are winning the award, and "words" are literature, irrespective of the delivery mechanism.

Read this: http://www.theatlantic.com...

It is really funny how Dylan's supporters try to convince people about this issue. In your case, you are giving a pro-Dylan website. LOL! I can do the same:

http://www.slate.com...
https://news.vice.com...

I think it is useless to continue discussing whether Dylan's lyrics are literature or not. What I truly believe is that Dylan has never influenced neither literature nor poetry. He influenced, as the swedish comitee said, the american music. That should be enough to consider it an undeserved prize.

But even if he is considered a poet, he doesn't deserve the prize because he is not on the level of the preceding poets who also won the nobel prize.

I don't think there is any writer out there who writes just because they want to get a Nobel Prize in literature. This decision is hardly going to stop people from writing, because writing is more than just about the Nobel Prize--whether it's done for making ends-meet or for the love of the craft. If anything, expanding the prize to songwriters would motivate more people to pursue their writing skills in the hopes of getting the prize, because now more people are eligible. This decision will only incentivize better songs and better books (because, let's not forget, bookwriters are still eligible and will still compete for the prize).

I am not saying writers are going to quit writing, but the swedish academy is trully discouraging writers to strive more when producing. That is the reason of the existence of that kind of prizes and recognition.

That is hardly true. No writer is suddenly going to stop investing in their craft because the Nobel Prize is slightly more competitive. Firstly, because the Nobel Prize is not the main source of motivation for writers, it's becoming more competitive will have only a marginal impact on writers in the first place. If you write for the love of the craft, to earn a living, or to express your self through words, you aren't going to care much about this decision. Secondly, any rational assessment of the prize-givings future will realize that the vast majority of prizes will still be going to traditional poets and authors. The fact that one musician was included will does not change the long history of favoring those more customary literary outlets.


The literature nobel prize is the most prestigious recognition a writer can achieve. That kind of things are always discouraging. Don't come with excuses.

By the way, I have been checking in internet that there are doubts about Dylan's attending the event. You see, he doesn't care about that.

How does non-attendance = not caring? Elfriede Jelnicks did not attend, though she did care. Her reason for skipping out was extreme agoraphobia.

In fact, there is some evidence that he does care and was honored by the award: http://www.stereogum.com...

I was obviously assuming he didn't care since there was not an official explanation. But, as much as I see, he feels kind of guilty because he knows he doesn't deserve the prize because I don't think he is agarophobic.

Best Regards
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 12:00:27 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/17/2016 8:55:10 PM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:45:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Read this: http://www.theatlantic.com...

It is really funny how Dylan's supporters try to convince people about this issue. In your case, you are giving a pro-Dylan website. LOL! I can do the same:

As I said, I am not a "Dylan supporter." I have not ever knowingly listened to his songs. Yet, I disagree that songwriters should somehow be ineligible for the prize.

Also, there is nothing about The Atlantic that makes it a "pro-Dylan website," unless you mean that any site that could possibly disagree with your opinion is biased.

He influenced, as the swedish comitee said, the american music. That should be enough to consider it an undeserved prize.

And there is nothing that separates lyrics from poetry, and you've repeatedly failed to demonstrate otherwise. I, on the other hand, have repeatedly offered reasons as to why lyrics ought to be considered literature. If lyrics are not fundamentally different from other forms of writing ("literature") then contributing to a lyrical tradition is no different from contributing to a poetic tradition.

But even if he is considered a poet, he doesn't deserve the prize because he is not on the level of the preceding poets who also won the nobel prize.

And I have already explained how this argument is patently absurd and probably one of the worst arguments people make for your position. I will repeat my argument, since you've made no effort to fundamentally address it:

I think statements like X is better with words than Y is necessarily subjective. For instance, when Elfriede Jelinek won the word, some widely criticized the prize-giving as essentially awarding written pornography, yet others disagreed. Last year, a journalist won the award, and that stirred controversy as well. Personally, I would not have given the award to Toni Morrison; I don't particularly care for her writing. That doesn't mean that the committee was wrong to award Morrison the prize.

Different people are going to make different assessments about what was prize-worthy. That doesn't mean that merely because you personally feel that someone should not have won the award that someone else could not reasonably disagree. The mere presence of subjectivity cannot invalid an award that is inherently subjective--to do so would force one to conclude that the award was always worthless.

That is hardly true. No writer is suddenly going to stop investing in their craft because the Nobel Prize is slightly more competitive. Firstly, because the Nobel Prize is not the main source of motivation for writers, it's becoming more competitive will have only a marginal impact on writers in the first place. If you write for the love of the craft, to earn a living, or to express your self through words, you aren't going to care much about this decision. Secondly, any rational assessment of the prize-givings future will realize that the vast majority of prizes will still be going to traditional poets and authors. The fact that one musician was included will does not change the long history of favoring those more customary literary outlets.

The literature nobel prize is the most prestigious recognition a writer can achieve. That kind of things are always discouraging. Don't come with excuses.

Lol. This is an utter and complete failure to rebut or address anything I said, and is essentially a capitulation.

How does non-attendance = not caring? Elfriede Jelnicks did not attend, though she did care. Her reason for skipping out was extreme agoraphobia.

In fact, there is some evidence that he does care and was honored by the award: http://www.stereogum.com...

I was obviously assuming he didn't care since there was not an official explanation. But, as much as I see, he feels kind of guilty because he knows he doesn't deserve the prize because I don't think he is agarophobic.

Your whole remark here was an exercise in being obtuse. It also had quite a few logical fallacies and pieces of wholly unsubstantiated supposition. How does "no official explanation" mean he doesn't care? This is a total non-sequitur. Moreover, there is quite literally no evidence that he feels guilty in any way, there is no evidence that he will not attend the prize-giving ceremony, and there is no evidence that even if he chose not to attend that that choice reflect some fundamental sense of shame in his winning the award. As I said, how does non-attendance = not caring? Again, a non-sequitur.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Archaholic
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2016 1:54:46 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/18/2016 12:00:27 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/17/2016 8:55:10 PM, Archaholic wrote:
At 10/16/2016 9:45:52 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Read this: http://www.theatlantic.com...

It is really funny how Dylan's supporters try to convince people about this issue. In your case, you are giving a pro-Dylan website. LOL! I can do the same:

As I said, I am not a "Dylan supporter." I have not ever knowingly listened to his songs. Yet, I disagree that songwriters should somehow be ineligible for the prize.

Also, there is nothing about The Atlantic that makes it a "pro-Dylan website," unless you mean that any site that could possibly disagree with your opinion is biased.

He influenced, as the swedish comitee said, the american music. That should be enough to consider it an undeserved prize.

And there is nothing that separates lyrics from poetry, and you've repeatedly failed to demonstrate otherwise. I, on the other hand, have repeatedly offered reasons as to why lyrics ought to be considered literature. If lyrics are not fundamentally different from other forms of writing ("literature") then contributing to a lyrical tradition is no different from contributing to a poetic tradition.


In which part of the swedish comitte's assertion says Dylan's lyrics contributed to literature? Sir, I am asumming you understand what you read.

So, the fact here is if Dylan deserves a literature prize for having contributed to music. That obviously doesn't make any sense at all.

But even if he is considered a poet, he doesn't deserve the prize because he is not on the level of the preceding poets who also won the nobel prize.

And I have already explained how this argument is patently absurd and probably one of the worst arguments people make for your position. I will repeat my argument, since you've made no effort to fundamentally address it:

I think statements like X is better with words than Y is necessarily subjective. For instance, when Elfriede Jelinek won the word, some widely criticized the prize-giving as essentially awarding written pornography, yet others disagreed. Last year, a journalist won the award, and that stirred controversy as well. Personally, I would not have given the award to Toni Morrison; I don't particularly care for her writing. That doesn't mean that the committee was wrong to award Morrison the prize.

Different people are going to make different assessments about what was prize-worthy. That doesn't mean that merely because you personally feel that someone should not have won the award that someone else could not reasonably disagree. The mere presence of subjectivity cannot invalid an award that is inherently subjective--to do so would force one to conclude that the award was always worthless.

Art, in the whole, is subjective. Nevertheless, it has an objective part. Dismiss the objective part can lead to accept anything as art. And that is what you are suggesting in your assertion, that any perspn can win the nobel prize. Your logic is just absurd!!

So, we can say a literary piece can be judged due to the fact that it has an objective side. That is why is so imporant the opinion of critics, because they are authorities of the matter. And as much as I understand, there are lots of critics about Dylan's lyrics: his work is not on the expected level for a nobel prize in literature.

Being said that, I would like to bring the will of Alfred Nobel, he wanted to give a prize to "the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction". It is clear what was the will of Alfred Nobel. There is no subjctivity on it. He wanted to give the prize to an outstanding work. Dylan's work is outstanding, there is no discussion on it. But is it the most outstanding in literature? Apparently not, because critics are not convinced so far.

That is hardly true. No writer is suddenly going to stop investing in their craft because the Nobel Prize is slightly more competitive. Firstly, because the Nobel Prize is not the main source of motivation for writers, it's becoming more competitive will have only a marginal impact on writers in the first place. If you write for the love of the craft, to earn a living, or to express your self through words, you aren't going to care much about this decision. Secondly, any rational assessment of the prize-givings future will realize that the vast majority of prizes will still be going to traditional poets and authors. The fact that one musician was included will does not change the long history of favoring those more customary literary outlets.

The literature nobel prize is the most prestigious recognition a writer can achieve. That kind of things are always discouraging. Don't come with excuses.

Lol. This is an utter and complete failure to rebut or address anything I said, and is essentially a capitulation.

How does non-attendance = not caring? Elfriede Jelnicks did not attend, though she did care. Her reason for skipping out was extreme agoraphobia.

In fact, there is some evidence that he does care and was honored by the award: http://www.stereogum.com...

I was obviously assuming he didn't care since there was not an official explanation. But, as much as I see, he feels kind of guilty because he knows he doesn't deserve the prize because I don't think he is agarophobic.

Your whole remark here was an exercise in being obtuse. It also had quite a few logical fallacies and pieces of wholly unsubstantiated supposition. How does "no official explanation" mean he doesn't care? This is a total non-sequitur. Moreover, there is quite literally no evidence that he feels guilty in any way, there is no evidence that he will not attend the prize-giving ceremony, and there is no evidence that even if he chose not to attend that that choice reflect some fundamental sense of shame in his winning the award. As I said, how does non-attendance = not caring? Again, a non-sequitur.
Don't take it so seriously, this is an informal discussion. So I am free to assume, to guess, to make fun on Dylan. Just have fun. LOL