In 2016, the Nobel Committee for Literature assembled to make a decision that would later spark widespread debate within the award’s history. The Nobel Committee faced the important challenge of choosing this year’s Literature Prize winner whose selection would both recognize outstanding literary work and challenge existing definitions of literature.
The committee consisted of scholars, authors, and literary critics who devoted months to reviewing nominations by reading extensive works of prose, poetry, and lyrics. Bob Dylan previously appeared among nominees, but his bid gained momentum that year as observers acknowledged his persistent impact on cultural expression and musical storytelling.
Dylan’s Nomination and the Debate It Sparked
As the Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy then, Sara Danius played a key role in conducting this process. Her profound love for classical literature and modern art expressions led her to advocate broadening literature’s definition. She argued, “If we look at literature as not just the printed word but as the art of storytelling, of creating new poetic expressions, then Bob Dylan’s work fits perfectly within this broader scope.“
The debate within the committee was intense. The traditionalists maintained a strict definition of literature, including only novels, poetry, and drama. The committee members disputed the legitimacy of giving a literary award designed for “the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction” to someone whose main artistic expression was through musical performance. Among other critics, Pierre Assouline argued that awarding a musician represented a lack of respect for writers who had committed to writing without incorporating music.
Supporters of Bob Dylan’s nomination demonstrated equal levels of passion. They argued that his songwriting was comparable to that of ancient poets such as Homer and Sappho because both ancient poets’ works were initially intended to be performed audibly. The supporters of Dylan maintained his songs functioned beyond music by serving as deep stories infused with metaphorical images that connected strongly to human life similar to classical literary masterpieces.
“His lyrics are poetry,” said one member, pointing to albums like Blonde on Blonde as examples of Dylan’s “pictorial thinking” and his ability to weave complex stories with a rhythm and rhyme that transcended typical song structures. The committee discussed how Dylan’s work, which touched on themes of love, politics, and the human spirit, had inspired countless artists across various mediums, thereby impacting literature indirectly through its cultural and linguistic influence. The discussions often circled back to the historical precedents set by the Nobel Prize. Past recipients had included playwrights and poets whose works were initially performed rather than read. This historical perspective gave weight to the argument that Dylan’s contribution was indeed literary, even if unconventional.
Moreover, his influence wasn’t just theoretical. Dylan’s lyrics had been published and analyzed in literary contexts, appearing in university courses and critical essays alongside traditional literature. His books, including memoirs like Chronicles: Volume One and the poetry collection Tarantula, further blurred the lines between his musical and literary contributions.
When the meeting came to its conclusion, the vote was initiated. While the decision provoked controversy as the vote showed dissent among members, the majority still supported Dylan. The citation was carefully crafted to encapsulate the committee’s rationale: The committee framed their rationale in the citation by stating that Dylan deserved recognition “for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition.“
Reactions from the Literary and Music Worlds
The announcement on October 13, 2016, sent shockwaves through the literary world, with reactions ranging from ecstatic to outraged. Yet, for the members of the Swedish Academy, the decision was a bold step towards acknowledging the evolving forms of storytelling in a world where the boundaries between art forms are increasingly fluid.
The shockwaves included criticism from Rabih Alameddine, the Lebanese novelist, who tweeted his skepticism through a tweet, comparing Dylan’s win to “Mrs Fields being awarded 3 Michelin stars.”
Pierre Assouline, a French writer, described the decision as “contemptuous of writers.” His critique was rooted in the belief that the Nobel Prize should recognize those who have primarily worked within traditional literary forms rather than someone whose primary medium is music.
Tim Stanley, writing for The Telegraph, said that this choice was indicative of a broader cultural and political lowering of expectations, suggesting that it was comparable to Donald Trump being recognized for his tweets.
Those praising the choice included novelist Salman Rushdie, who tweeted, “From Orpheus to Faiz, song & poetry have been closely linked. Dylan is the brilliant inheritor of the bardic tradition. Great choice.“
Joy Harjo, the Native American poet and musician, said, “Bob Dylan has reshaped our understanding of what poetry can be. His lyrics have not only moved but also inspired generations.“
Patti Smith, in her acceptance speech for Dylan at the Nobel Prize ceremony, praised Dylan’s work by stating, “He has given us his heart and soul through his songs, and in doing so, he has expanded the borders of what we consider literature.“
The Swedish Academy had not just awarded a prize; they had expanded the very concept of literature to include the lyrical poetry of a troubadour whose voice had echoed through decades, touching the lives of millions.
This article was a courtesy of Michael McKown, co-founder and president of Ghostwriters Central, Inc., a provider of quality ghostwriting services for clients worldwide since 2002. If you’ve got a story to tell but don’t have the time or writing skills, we can help turn it into published literature. The first step is to click the link.