LIKE A REBEL WILD A study of BOB DYLAN’s art by Jon P. Hooper LIKE A REBEL WILD A study of BOB DYLAN’s art by Jon P. Hooper Manly Duckling 2007 Text copyright © 2007 by Jon P. Hooper. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the author, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages. Lyrics to Bob Dylan’s songs have been quoted only as necessary in the context of critical analysis, and are believed to be covered by “Fair Use” policy. If, however, any copyright infringement has occurred, the author will be pleased to rectify the situation at the earliest opportunity. This book is dedicated to Miss Potter. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 7 “THE WOODY GUTHRIE JUKEBOX” .......................................... 11 “FINGER-POINTING SONGS” ....................................................... 23 “IF MY THOUGHT-DREAMS COULD BE SEEN” ........................ 47 “OTHER FORMS OF PSYCHIC EXPLOSION” .............................. 63 “DRIFTER’S ESCAPE” ...................................................................... 77 “WHAT THE BROKEN GLASS REFLECTS” ................................. 91 “HANGING ON TO A SOLID ROCK” ......................................... 109 “SURVIVING IN THE RUTHLESS WORLD” ............................... 131 “DIGNITY” ...................................................................................... 143 “MY HEART IS NOT WEARY” ...................................................... 161 “DO NOT GO GENTLE…” ........................................................... 173 NOTES AND SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................... 183 INTRODUCTION t is January 17th, 1998, in Palo Alto, California, and academics and rock music fans are gathered at Stanford University to debate the I merits of studying a twentieth century musical icon. It proves to be an opportunity for the taking of sides. For the guardians of high culture, the trend towards the study of pop culture in universities is indicative of a slump in critical quality control. John Ellis, secretary of the Association of Literary Scholars and Critics, sees it “as part of a context of disparagement of higher culture” current in the academic world.1 On the other side of the fence, exponents of cultural studies like Charles M. Brown are eager to argue the validity of subjecting popular culture to the rigours of intellectual analysis. What is worthy of note is that merit, literary or otherwise, seldom enters the discussion. No doubt the subject of all this would not care either way. No matter if, in the course of the debate, the writer of “Desolation Row” and “Visions of Johanna” finds himself grouped together with Madonna or the Spice Girls. The real battle for many in the academic world is between high and low culture. On the one side there are Shakespeare, Tennyson, Joyce and the giants of the western literary canon; on the other side Dylan and disposable consumer culture, the world of the Top 40 hit record and the plastic revolution, inseparable from Dylan’s surrealist lyrics in that all are opposed to serious art. Behind this prejudice is the lingering ghost of a literary conservatism that once sought to exclude the likes of Dickens from the canon simply because of his enormous popularity. 7 Like A Rebel Wild There are numerous reasons for wanting to do the same with Dylan. Academics seek to preserve the purity of literary language in the age of mass communication. Pop music is consumed by millions and offers escapist entertainment. It often uses street language, vulgar idioms and innuendo, or else sentimental clichés. The prejudice against popular culture is comparatively recent, going back to the Romantic period, when there was a new emphasis on the idea of the artist as remote from the ordinary world, beholden only to his genius, understood by a handful of elite, the literati. In the modern world, the guardianship of high culture is under threat, because the children of the counter culture, offspring of a cultural revolution that liberated a generation from the staid values of the ‘40s and ‘50s, are taking charge of academic institutions. Where does Bob Dylan fit in? Bob Dylan is not Madonna. Despite her immense popularity, Madonna does not proclaim the end times in language that echoes the Old Testament prophets. She does not sing about death and the frailty of human existence, about personal truth and integrity in a world of deception. Dylan does, and despite the fears of conservative academia it is now apparent that Dylan is as remote from mass consumer taste as the Romantic poets themselves. Though one can study the cultural importance of anyone - Madonna, Robbie Williams, Michael Jackson included - in order to better understand the times, Dylan’s cultural significance is only part of the picture. Once the spokesman of his generation, he no longer represents the hopes, fears and discontentment of a mass public. Despite the high regard in which he is held, and the recent upsurge in his popularity, he now holds a position that is almost unique in modern popular music. Unlike the majority of his contemporaries, and whereas for a considerable length of time he seemed uninterested in trying to recapture the flame of youth, he now appears completely reinvigorated and committed to producing works of significance even this late in his career. The obvious parallel is with the great blues singers, who worked in an art form that valued maturity and did not view age as a barrier to creativity. We do not know whether Dylan will endure long after Madonna, or continue to speak to successive generations. But we do know that his words set him apart from the majority of popular music writers. Forget about the exponents of modern pop music - you will not find the same level of high seriousness in The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, or Bruce Springsteen. 8 Introduction Perhaps the most infuriating thing for the elitists is the claim that Dylan is a poet. It upsets people because written literary language and song have long been seen as distinct entities in the West; the age when ancient bards would sing or recite their poetry to music is long gone. Dylan is a songwriter, born into a time in which the cultural elite values written literature over oral performance. His works are meant to be sung. The words of a song should have maximum impact when you hear them; the refrain is all important, and even if the words have depth and substance there has to be a surface immediacy, a reliance on certain techniques such as repetition and the cultivation of direct, ordinary speech, that are no longer requirements of poetry. Furthermore, they have to obey the rhythms of the song. And yet, many of Dylan’s major songs do not easily conform to this definition. Dylan, more than any other contemporary songwriter, blurs the distinction between song and poetry. Sometimes, the words are relegated in the service of the melody, and their immediate impact emphasised over subtlety and depth, without fine textures (as in “Lay Lady Lay” or “Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door”). Dylan uses broad strokes very well - he realises that song is an oral medium, and in his folk incarnation particularly he reminds us of an ancient bard, who had to continually maintain the audience’s interest. For such a poet reciting a work aloud, too many complex metaphors would have been redundant, even if the poet had had them in his vocabulary - the narrative poems of Old English, like the verse of Homer, rely on easily-identifiable similes, similes that compound everyday, shared experience. On the one hand, Dylan belongs in this oral tradition. When he says, “come gather round people” he is making a call to attention, common in medieval verse; he is not inviting a critical, analytical approach. Even in the oblique, surreal and ambiguous lyrics of “Like a Rolling Stone” and “Desolation Row” such devices, derived from early folk songs and oral storytelling, are still operational. When Dylan cries “How does it feel?” he is going as much for the marrowbone as for the head. At the same time, however, there is complexity and depth, and Dylan is constantly negotiating between the more immediate requirements of song - rock and roll included - and the subtleties of poetry. You cannot completely remove Dylan from the context of songwriting, and the critics who would seek to elevate his words as pure poetry will have always to be on the defensive; they will have to strip his words of the clothing of song and let them stand naked, as it were, next to works that were written 9 Like A Rebel Wild as pure poetry; “Gates of Eden” versus “Paradise Lost”. Once we accept that the division of song and poetry is fairly recent, we may also come to accept that much in the Western canon was written as literature, and intended to be read in isolation, therefore being better suited to a more thoughtful, contemplative approach. The high style we admire in older poetry is now so remote from us that it is difficult to imagine that it too was once common currency, oral literature shared in the exchange between bard and audience. If we compare Dylan with the Romantics, we should realise that there are different paradigms in operation; it is easy to disparage Dylan by placing his work next to a Milton or an Alexander Pope, especially since Dylan frequently uses idioms and diction derived from blues and folk song, often using ungrammatical forms, whereas these Classical Poets use a more elevated form of diction that has, to our ears, a higher tone, a sense of grandeur. However, if one approaches his work as another mode of literature, as songs with poetic content, their greatness becomes apparent. Dylan is a serious artist at work in a popular oral art form, whose songs explore Classical literary themes. He can be as philosophical as Eliot and as much a prophet as Blake; in his way he is as learned as Milton (if one counts a knowledge of obscure Scottish ballads and wailing Delta bluesmen the equal of Classical history).