Bob Dylan: Most Unseemly Nobel Literature Laureate Ever?

Even though it is undeniable that Bob Dylan is one of the greatest songwriters in the great American songwriting tradition, but does this make the “old hippie” the most unseemly Nobel Literature laureate ever?

By: Ringo Bones 

When the news first broke out that Bob Dylan won the Nobel Literature Prize for 2016, many of my “audio-buddies” immediately quipped “who will the Nobel Committee award for next year’s Nobel Literature Prize – Tori Amos, Liz Phair?” Despite of the inextricably unprecedented move, the Nobel Committee did state their justification for awarding the 2016 Nobel Literature Prize to Bob Dylan – but is Bob Dylan, despite his great musical achievements since the 1960s, truly deserving of the Nobel Literature Prize? 

Bob Dylan’s place as one of the world’s greatest artistic figures was further elevated on Thursday, October 13, 2016 when Dylan was named the surprise winner of the 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature “for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition”. After the announcement, the permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy, Sara Danius, said it had “not been a difficult decision” and he hoped the Swedish Academy would not be criticized for its choice. 

On Bob Dylan’s 2016 Nobel Literature Prize win, Swedish Academy secretary Sara Danius advised those unfamiliar with the works of Dylan to start with the 1966 album Blonde on Blonde in which she said “I’s an extraordinary example of his brilliant way of rhyming, putting together refrains, and his pictorial way of thinking.” Though to me at least, Bob Dylan’s 1975 album The Basement Tapes is the one that faithfully captures Dylan as a singer songwriter. 

Whether or not Bob Dylan is truly deserving of the 2016 Nobel Literature Prize could be down to how the Swedish Academy interpreted Alfred Nobel’s original will governing the rules of awarding the Nobel Literature Prize. Originally interpreted as embracing not only writings in the field of belles-lettres (i.e. beautiful writing of artistic merit), but also of other works provided they possessed literary merit. Given this rather still-ambiguous clarification, Bob Dylan winning the 2016 Nobel Literature Prize could be justified – but should Tori Amos and Liz Phair or other great singer-songwriters should be in the running for the Nobel Literature Prize? 

Winston Churchill: The Only Head Of State To Win The Nobel Literature Prize?

Even though he’s more famous for his exemplary statesmanship and leadership during the darkest days of World War II – did you also know that Winston Churchill is, so far, the only incumbent head-of-state who was awarded the Nobel Literature Prize? 

By: Ringo Bones 

To most of us, Winston Churchill is better known for his exemplary statesmanship that not only prevented the whole of the U.K. from falling into the clutches of Adolf Hitler’s NAZIs during World War II, but also for his leadership that eventually made freedom and the rule of law reign again across Europe that resulted in an Allied victory during the Second World War. But did you also know that Winston Churchill is, so far, the only incumbent head-of-state that won the Nobel Literature Prize? 

Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, English statesman and writer was born at Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, England on November 30, 1874, the son of Lord Randolph Churchill and his American wife, Jennie, Jerome. Educated at Harrow at Sandhurst, Winston Churchill entered the British Army as a subaltern in the Fourth Hussars in 1895. Soon afterwards while on leave, he participated in the Spanish campaign against Cuban insurrectionists as a correspondent; then, after a peaceful term of garrison life in the south of India, he attached himself, again as a correspondent, to a British force operating on the Northwest Frontier.

Returning to England in 1897, Churchill wanted to go to go to the Balkans where hostilities were under way, but instead made his way to Egypt and joined a Lancers regiment in Lord Kitchener’s army. Though Kitchener disliked Churchill because of his practice of combining journalism with soldiering, the young officer was not dismayed. He took a distinguished part in a famous cavalry charge at Omdurman and at the close of field operations resigned from the army to devote himself to politics, making an unsuccessful attempt to enter Parliament. 

Even though the Dardanelles Campaign / Gallipoli Campaign eventually became his “Waterloo” during his stint as the First Lord of the Admiralty in the British Royal Navy, Winston Churchill nonetheless became the Conservative Prime Minister of U.K. after defeating then U.K. PM Neville Chamberlain. Though the Dunkirk evacuation of May 27 to June 4, 1940 – code-named Operation Dynamo – seems like the “darkest hour” of World War II, Britain stood by Winston Churchill in lieu of his blood, toil, sweat and tears speech.

Even though the July 10 to October 31, 1940 Battle of Britain became Britain’s  “Finest Hour” of World War II after the 3 months and 3 weeks long battle for air superiority of the British airspace resulted in a decisive British victory, the “Battle of Britain” has an unusual distinction in that it gained its name prior to being fought. The name is derived from a famous speech delivered by the then Prime Minister Winston Churchill in the House of Commons more than three weeks prior to the generally accepted date for the start of the battle. Nevertheless, the decisive victory of the Battle of Britain eventually bolstered the statesmanship of Winston Churchill that led to the success of the D-Day landings in June 6, 1944, 4 years and 2 days after the last day of the Dunkirk evacuation. 

By July 1945, the British people elected a majority of Labour Party members to the House of Commons and Clement Attlee became Prime Minister. After his defeat in the polls, Churchill resumed his position as a leader of the opposition. He visited the United States in 1946 and in a speech at Fulton, Missouri, gave wide currency to the term “Iron Curtain” as describing the wall of secrecy behind which the then Soviet government operated. 

With a narrow Conservative Party victory in the general elections of October 1951, Winston Churchill once more became Prime Minister. Not only was Churchill knighted by Queen Elizabeth II back in 1953, Churchill was also awarded the Nobel Literature Prize on that year on his “historical and biographical description and brilliant oratory, making him the only incumbent head-of-state so far that was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. 

In April 1955, after more than 50 years of a distinguished political career, Sir Winston Churchill tendered to the queen his resignation as Prime Minister. He died in London on January 24, 1964. Following a state funeral service at St. Paul’s Cathedral, he was buried near Blenheim Palace. 

Nobel Literature Prize: Ambiguity Par Excellence?

Even though the rules of awarding the Nobel Literature Prize are full of ambiguous stipulations, has it ever denied worthy contenders?

By: Ringo Bones

By an overwhelming margin, most Nobel Literature Laureates are seldom – if ever – remembered by the public-at-large more than three months after receiving their famed prize. Not only that, a growing number had been clamoring for better clarification of the ambiguous stipulation in Alfred Nobel’s original will with regards to the Nobel Literature Prize.

Stipulated in Alfred Nobel’s original will governing the rules of awarding the Nobel Literature Prize was originally interpreted as embracing not only writings in the field of belles-lettres (i.e. beautiful writing of aesthetic merit), but also of other works provided they possessed literary merit. Given this rather still-ambiguous clarification, does this mean that cleverly-worded adverts and consumer-electronic instructional manuals – especially ones that “mere mortals” can easily understand – are eligible for a Nobel Literature Prize?

Not only that, there also seems to be an ambiguity in the cut-off period of awarding the Nobel Literature Prize because the executors of Alfred Nobel’s original will also stipulated that the phrase “during the preceding year” should be interpreted to mean that “the awards shall be made for most recent achievements on the fields of culture referred to in the will, and for older works only if their significance has not become apparent until recently.” Does this mean that one of the greatest English bards of all time – William Shakespeare – could get a posthumous Nobel Literature Prize? Or what about Robert Burns who, sadly, never got the fame he deserved from his brilliant literary works during his lifetime? We live in hope.