The Meaning of Bob Dylan’s Silence – The New York Times

To be a Nobel laureate, however, is to allow “people” to define who one is, to become an object and a public figure rather than a free individual. The Nobel Prize is in fact the ultimate example of bad faith: A small group of Swedish critics pretend to be the voice of God, and the public pretends that the Nobel winner is Literature incarnate. All this pretending is the opposite of the true spirit of literature, which lives only in personal encounters between reader and writer. Mr. Dylan may yet accept the prize, but so far, his refusal to accept the authority of the Swedish Academy has been a wonderful demonstration of what real artistic and philosophical freedom looks like.

An interesting comparison between Dylanesque aloofness and Sartrian individualism.

Source: The Meaning of Bob Dylan’s Silence – The New York Times

4 thoughts on “The Meaning of Bob Dylan’s Silence – The New York Times

  1. Ignoring this – what is in fact – honour, is rude and pretentious. I don’t think he should have been given it in the first place. If he’s unimpressed, he still has his $100 million to comfort him. He’s a pop star, and his temperament and self-regarding proves it.

    • TJ Ollerhead,
      Don’t stop there, share how you feel about any previous Nobel recipient responses.
      Or maybe they have all been innocuous to you up until Dylan?

  2. Ignoring this – what is in fact – honour, is rude and pretentious. I don’t think he should have been given it in the first place. If he’s unimpressed, he still has his $100 million to comfort him. He’s a pop star, and his temperament and self-regarding proves it.

    • TJ Ollerhead,
      Don’t stop there, share how you feel about any previous Nobel recipient responses.
      Or maybe they have all been innocuous to you up until Dylan?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.