Expecting Rain

Does Bob Plagiarize or is that the wrong word?

never has, no convictions, judgements or complaints.

woody allen:

"Why are you asking me? I don't even understand how the can opener works!"

did you know that time magazine refused to complain about the cover of love and theft?
and worse, they refused to complain that bob used one of their covers for a painting, not telling anyone where he got it.(big letters spelling TIME notwithstanding),

'Hurry along now, this way please, mind the gap, this way, careful as you go, that's it, straight ahead, straight ahead, hurry along now.'

^^^^^^^^^^^

I think that this subject has been plagiarized from a previous thread.....

I don't think we can have a serious debate about this.... people prefer to close their eyes. Must have something to do with a deeply rooted disappointment in their hero.

That said, I don't think it matters what we call it, as long as we can agree it exists.

I get it. So let's call it 'Bob, of occasion, washes the dishes', and agree that that condition exists. Problem solved. No plagiarising. Hurry along now, just a few places left. Quiet as you go, no need to rush.

This is obviously a polarizing topic and opinions vary wildly. I present statements from two writers who have planted their flags in opposite sides of the field.

Here's Sean Wilentz in Bob Dylan in America: "At the most basic legal level, the charges of plagiarism were groundless. Many of the words as well as melodies that Dylan appropriated had long ago passed into the public domain and were free for appropriation by anyone. The exceptions, like the Yakuza borrowing, involved isolated lines—images and turns of phrase—that hardly represented passing off another persons memoir as his own."

Here's Michael Gray on the subject: "...you can surely see that another way of reacting to the revelations from Scott Warmuth about passages from Chronicles Volume One might be with great disappointment - great disappointment that whole paragraphs that were very reasonably assumed to be, and praised as, terrific prose by Bob Dylan, turn out to be 'copied out', as we used to say at school, from prose by other writers.

Now you may say - I might say myself - that that isn't plagiarism but literary quilt-making, or postmodernist game-playing, or something else very Dylanesque and clever. But to ask a simple question from the same starting-point: ie from the fact that whole paragraphs reasonably assumed to be, and praised as, terrific prose by Bob Dylan, proved to have been copied out from prose by other writers: if that isn't plagiarism, what is?"
http://bobdylanencyclopedia.blogspot.co ... llins.html

There's quite a gap between "groundless" and "if that isn't plagiarism, what is?" - too bad the discussion usually stalls here in an endless stream of bile and invective as displayed recently by a select number of people here who are clearly lacking in the social graces.

happy trolling, TIR....

aint no plagiarism, all that stuff thats 'copied' thats rootless hearsay as no author has yet brought any complaint.
when he 'copies something from one of the blogs then you can carry on with the indignancy
right now its just people who got nothing better do than to follow bob around all day and all night.
you should get that raving rabbi to join up. the INDIGNANT FIVE, maybe find a way to raise a few bucks.

"Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal." - T.S. Eliot

Eliot used large amounts of uncredited quotes from other writers when writing The Waste Land. Same goes for James Joyce's Ulysses, and Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech. All of these people, along with Bob Dylan, are among the most important figures of their respective fields - and they certainly didn't get their reputations due to ignorance of the things they "stole." There's a huge literary, poetic, folk, and blues tradition of allusion and borrowed material. There are only so many words, feelings, notes, chords, and sentiments out there, especially when we're talking about art forms that have been around for centuries. No one's inventing the wheel, you know? Just keeping it rolling.

Does that make it ok? Not necessarily, but there's also probably no reason to single out Bob Dylan.

they remind me of buzzards. always with 'its too bad that we cant discuss yadadaya... etc etc" like anyone is requesting of their services. dont they have any readership over at the blog?

if its not wilentz said this or marcus said that or the one over saw a giant gaunt cat. all of trying to live large offa bob.

Just because noone stands up to accuse you doesn't mean you didn't do something. Even On-The-$ony-Payroll Wilentz admits he did it. Of course they are isolated lines, but once you isolate a few in a few different songs, someone's bound to notice.

Back to you, bubblegoom....

I thought you guys WERE discussing the yadiyadi yada over here?

So the verdict reads guilty uhh?

Happy trolling, scottw.

This is not about guilt, this is not about suing, it is about people noticing things.

And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

I'm afraid I hold out little hope for this thread; the "debate" is bound to generate more heat than light for the simple reasons that it isn't possible develop an argument of any subtlety on the forum and that people here are for the most part not experienced in the theory and practice of literary criticism.

Once you've acknowledged that Dylan, call it steals, if you must, or appropriates, or borrows, quotes, alludes, adapts, accretes, incorporates etc. other preexisting material in his work you've got to address the questions - Why does Dylan use this method of creation; and do Dylan's stealings, or appropriations, or borrowings, quotations, allusions, adaptations, accretions, incorporations etc. create successful works in their own right? I'm afraid that Dylan experts seem unable to answer these questions convincingly because they seem only able to approach the matter from a Dylan perspective and what know they of Dylan who only Dylan know?

Incidently the italic bit at the top of my post isn't one of mine, but from Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold and the (rhetorical) question I ask at the end is my adaptation of a line of Kipling - thought I'd better make that clear, just to be on the safe side...

Right you are, Queen. ^

You rather see that Bob stops writing poetry because you and some other people noticed he quoted what somebody else had written before? You want to stand beside him and tell him what he can write and what he can not write?because that is what you are doing An artist works in many different ways and who are you to say what an artist can do and not do? That is what it seems to me? You can not just enjoy poetry or songs but you have to analyze to any priceI say let the bird fly and let the poet be free to to write what he pleases? In a way it would be more fair if somebody sued him so he could get a close to this and defend himelf but this constant picking on him never ends I would welcome a lawsuit for him to get it out of the world once and for all. What do you want him to do? Apologize to you? Let it be for God's sake. Either you enjoy a poet and writer or you don't?

Instead of continuing all that blind bashing, could someone take a second to explain what exactly you're accusing scottw of? His reading ability?

yea i like how they talk like their some sorta big daddy. kindergarte school teachers.
we may not have passed cotillion with flying colors but we know when we see tabloid type of stuff.

have you read the blogs? they go ballistic when they email folks like TIME mag and are ignored.

strange dylanolgy goes back a long way, many years ago i gave some a ride from one show to help em out they needed a ride. one the way i mentioned someone connected to bob and there was outrage. it seems one member of party did not accept that this person existed and the person who had this belief was a highly efficient dylanologist expert of many merits gained.
so they would appreciate if i didnt mention this person again. this is true. i pulled over and said
that the person not only existed id met the person and if there were any further objection to this heresy they would be walkin a mile in their own shoes.

Nobody wants him to do nothing. People are pointing things out, nothing more. If it doesn't interest you, don't read it. Nobody said he cannot or should not, the only ones offended are those saying he does not. Those also seem to be the ones who have never really looked into the matter, or else they would understand.