Bob Dylan is fast becoming rock's equivalent of James Joyce, his singular and continuing body of work increasingly picked over by academics and biographers.
Last year, for instance, saw the publication of a collection called Do You, Mr. Jones?: Bob Dylan with the Poets and Professors, in which the former, particularly Simon Armitage and Paul Muldoon, made much more sense of Dylan's work than the latter.
This may simply be artistic empathy, or it may be that poets sense what scholars seem to have trouble accepting: Dylan is a singer-songwriter first and foremost. His poetry is contained in the wholeness of his art: the convergence of melody, line, turn of phrase, nuance, drawl, and, famously, electricity. His one book of published prose, the amphetamine-fuelled fragments that make up Tarantula, makes the Beats look disciplined and restrained.
Interestingly, Christopher Ricks, formerly professor of English at Cambridge, now professor of humanities at Boston, is conspicuous by his absence from that last volume. Which is odd considering that he is, with the American, Greil Marcus, the academic most associated with Dylan. Indeed, he was the brain behind the "Is Dylan Better Than Keats?" faux debate more than a decade ago, on Dylan's lyrics, and which splutters on from time to time, usually when Dylan finds himself the bemused recipient of yet another honorary doctorate.
The Dylan/Keats question could only have been asked by an academic and it forms the unstated subtext of Ricks's grandly titled book, Dylan's Visions of Sin. Here, he attempts to scrutinize Dylan's lyrics in the same way that he would scrutinize Keats's poetry. For the purposes of this book, then, Dylan is first and foremost, a poet.
It begins with an epigraph, not by Rimbaud, the patron saint of rock n' roll visionaries, but by Kingsley Amis, whose only possible connection to Dylan is that he, too, made an art of extreme contrariness in the latter stages of his career. "Of the seven deadly sins," Amis senior writes, "Roger considered himself qualified in gluttony, sloth and lust but distinguished in anger."
The quote, from One Fat Englishman, handily introduces Ricks' conceit, which is to use the model of the Seven Deadly Sins, and, indeed, the Four Cardinal Virtues, and the Three Heavenly Graces, as the guiding principle for his study of Dylan's lyrics. Already, though, we are on shaky ground. The Amis quote suggests, wrongly in my opinion, that anger is Dylan's main creative driving force, rather than, say, disgust, of which he is a master, or spite, which, as Positively 4th Street illustrates, he once excelled at, or world weariness, which underpins much of his later work from, say, 1989's No Mercy album to the relentlessly downbeat, Time Out of Mind, from 1997.
Nevertheless, sin, both in the literal and metaphorical sense, is a great linch-pin for an investigation of Dylan's great songwriting adventure. His songs, even those from his protest period, are steeped in biblical allusion. In his second great creative rebirth, he emerged with 1968's austere and allegorical John Wesley Harding, written with the Bible and the Hank Williams' Song Book as its guiding principles. In the years since, he has dallied with both orthodox Judaism and, more problematically, evangelical Christianity, most dramatically on 1979's ragged and vengeful Slow Train Coming, the first of his triumvirate of "born-again" albums.
Given the deep well he has to draw from, why is Ricks' book such a frustrating read? Why, to put it bluntly, is it such a mess? The answer, I think, is contained in the opening lines, perhaps the least inviting introduction to a book on music I have yet read: "Any qualified critic to any distinguished artist: All I really want to do is -- what exactly? Be friends with you? Assuredly. I don't want to do you in, or select you or dissect you or inspect you or reject you."
What is wrong with that opening paragraph is what is wrong with this big, misguided book: it is too knowing, too clever, too clumsily conversational. Its tone lies somewhere between academese and what I suspect the author thinks of as casually hip. It assumes too much -- about the casual or curious reader's knowledge of Dylan's lyrics -- and imparts too little. Not a great start for a book of scholarship.
This scatter-gun approach is defeating in itself, but worse still is the style. Ricks quotes, for example, an uncharacteristically forthcoming Dylan on the writing of Positively Fourth Street, which the singer says "is extremely one-dimensional ... I don't usually purge myself by writing anything about any type of quote, so-called, relationships."
From this fragment of illumination, Ricks then constructs a
thicket of academic obfuscation. "Two-dimensional, not-one dimensional, this Fourth Street, and although one-sided, it is two-edged, a two-handed engine that stands ready to smite more than once and smite some more ... catharsis, the ancient critical metaphor, in Dylan's phrase, `purge myself,' would be one way of getting rid of the catharsole and of the waste matter that is pretence."
"Tragedy makes you cathart" Oh, how we chuckled. I mean, I know academics are retiring types, but does this guy ever leave the study? This kind of thing was embarrassing when Leavis ruled the roost in lit-crit studies; now, misapplied to a popular artist, it is simply risible. Indeed, Ricks is in danger throughout of making a complete catharshole of himself.
The writing of this book was, I'm told, a labor of love and, as such, I am pained to point out how defeated I was by its ungainly style. Perhaps it's an academic trait, but Ricks seems unable, or unwilling, to write clearly for the "common reader.
The depressing numbers continue to pile up, like casualty lists after a lost battle. This week, after the government announced the 19th straight month of population decline, the Ministry of the Interior said that Taiwan is expected to lose 6.67 million workers in two waves of retirement over the next 15 years. According to the Ministry of Labor (MOL), Taiwan has a workforce of 11.6 million (as of July). The over-15 population was 20.244 million last year. EARLY RETIREMENT Early retirement is going to make these waves a tsunami. According to the Directorate General of Budget Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS), the
Many will be surprised to discover that the electoral voting numbers in recent elections do not entirely line up with what the actual voting results show. Swing voters decide elections, but in recent elections, the results offer a different and surprisingly consistent message. And there is one overarching theme: a very democratic preference for balance. SOME CAVEATS Putting a number on the number of swing voters is surprisingly slippery. Because swing voters favor different parties depending on the type of election, it is hard to separate die-hard voters leaning towards one party or the other. Complicating matters is that some voters are
Sept 22 to Sept 28 Hsu Hsih (許石) never forgot the international student gathering he attended in Japan, where participants were asked to sing a folk song from their homeland. When it came to the Taiwanese students, they looked at each other, unable to recall a single tune. Taiwan doesn’t have folk songs, they said. Their classmates were incredulous: “How can that be? How can a place have no folk songs?” The experience deeply embarrassed Hsu, who was studying music. After returning to Taiwan in 1946, he set out to collect the island’s forgotten tunes, from Hoklo (Taiwanese) epics to operatic
Five years ago, on the verge of the first COVID lockdown, I wrote an article asking what seemed to be an extremely niche question: why do some people invert their controls when playing 3D games? A majority of players push down on the controller to make their onscreen character look down, and up to make them look up. But there is a sizable minority who do the opposite, controlling their avatars like a pilot controls a plane, pulling back to go up. For most modern games, this requires going into the settings and reconfiguring the default controls. Why do they
RSS