fancyladd said:
[...] it seems that some people here, definitely not all or even the majority for that matter, seem to idolize him without question.
[...] for me, Dylan is more poetic in the way he employs a lot of poetic devices while Bukowski is usually raw and direct, more of an animal, if you will, attacking the page. but i do believe that Bukowski could appreciate Dylan's talent. i mean, how could you not?
Ahhh but there you go yourself, idolizing a definition of the term POETIC and LYRICAL "without question". The "poetic devices" you so admire in Dylan's lines (not the ones he took from blues and folk music!), are just a couple of hundred years old. They showed up in the "romantic" era of the 1800's and have been reused and refined since. Before that there were tons of other "devices" used in "poetry", my friend. Somewhere along the line "poetry" turned into romantic, modernistic, symbolist dreamery. Thats all very fine, and there are some nice pieces written in that style (Baudelaire - YES!), but going back past the 1800s you'll discover plenty of poems with a more down to earth feel. Ever read the Norse (viking) poetry of Iceland & Norway for example?
I'm one with the great romantic poet, Goethe, who said something like "Poetry here and poetry there, I'm writing German, thats all!"
Dylan is fine, but he lets himself off too easy. Writing "easy" is the hard trick.
Dylan's lines totally lack humor. Give me Leonard Cohen any day (ahem). I think Dylan hit fame too early and retreated, tail between legs, into his surrealistic party tricks. Though he
has loosened up nicely, with time. He comes thru very down to earth in the new DVD. I like the anecdote were he says: "Imagine, years from now they'll try to understand this song, and I don't even have a clue myself what its about!"
Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Dylan?
(Gawd dang! This addictive site has got me up past my bed time again!)