[JonPR]

Originally Posted by mc1

Yet I often see these comparisons of Dylan to the great writers of history, and I think that's what doesn't sit quite right with me.

I agree. Such comparisons are silly, because the older the writer is, the more of a head start they have!

E.g., using that criterion, we can't compare Dylan to Shakespeare until another 400 years have passed. And even then, the only sensible comparison would be between Dylan's reputation around 2400 and Shakespeare's reputation now! Hard to imagine any more pointless exercise.

An easier and more sensible exercise - if we're going to use a criterion of popularity or influence during the artist's lifetime (i.e., disregarding any literary quality of the work) - is to compare Dylan's reputation now with what we know of Shakespeare's reputation in his own lifetime.
Given that Dylan is (of course) not a playwright, I think you can roughly equate them there. Shakespeare was certainly popular and successful - even pre-eminent - in his lifetime, at least within the society that would have heard of him. (Dylan has an unfair advantage thanks to technology and mass media.)

Once you start looking at literary quality, that's a lot more difficult, due to the evolution of the English language if nothing else.

Personally I don't agree with the opinion that Dylan is a great poet. Certainly not in comparison with plenty of actual poets - i.e., ones who are not also songwriters, and may well be extremely obscure in terms of fame. I mean, if you want to read great poetry - even just poetry of the 20th century - you don't go to Dylan. You go to a poetry book. (There is worse poetry around in books than Dylan's best lyrics, of course, but also a whole lot better.)
Is he a "great poet" in comparison with other popular songwriters? Undoubtedly yes - but that's not setting the bar very high!
Is he the greatest poet among other popular songwriters? IMO, no. IMHO, Joni Mitchell is at least his equivalent, and Leonard Cohen is better.
But Cohen, arguably, has the unfair advantage of being a published poet (and author) before he became a songwriter. I.e. poetry was his business, in a way it was never Dylan's. Cohen was a professional wordsmith (and it shows in his songs), whereas Dylan was always involved in music and singing skills as well. (Here is where we get the popular opinion that "Dylan can't sing". Maybe now he can't. But in the 1960s and 70s, at least, his vocal delivery was part of his genius. That's an opinion, of course, not a fact. )
Dylan's skill with words is - IMO again - more in the realm of narrative than pure poetry. That's what really seems to interest him, and where I think he's done his best work: setting up characters and scenarios that draw you in, take you somewhere - more like a novelist, in that sense (or even a film maker), than a poet. He certainly has poetic skills, but they're more like flashes of genius, in certain songs, rather than his main concern. There are too many examples of really crass lyrics in his songs (doggerel at best) for poetic craft to be something that concerned him very much.

My favourite example of crap Dylan lyric?

"Now the beach is deserted except for some kelp
And a piece of an old ship that lies on the shore.
You always responded when I needed your help
You gave me a map and a key to your door."

It's just embarrassing! The important line for the song ("Sara", about his wife) is the second one, so he needed a rhyme for "help". Instead of trying to rephrase the line so it ended with an easier rhyme (easily done), he just invented a couple of totally irrelevant lines about a beach so he could get "kelp" in. He should have been ashamed of himself - but I get the sense that shame is not a common sensation for Dylan... ;