Yes, it is a terrific honour for Dylan but, yes, there have been naysayers and gainsayers vocal in expressing their views. This carping seems to revolve around the notion that Dylan's works are not worthy of being considered literature. I would have thought literature had a pretty wide definition and Alfred Nobel seems to have held much the same point of view.
Over the years, the Nobel committee has given the literature award to some writers with whom I was not familiar and with whose works I am still unfamiliar. For once, this is someone whose works I not only know but know well. I suspect the same is true for many other people across the world. For this reason alone, this award should be welcomed.
Clearly, Dylan writes for the stage not the page (well, mainly, anyway) but should this count against him? I think not! Previous Nobel prizewinners in Literature have included Harold Pinter and the recently deceased Dario Fo, both of whom wrote principally for the stage.
Dylan's works have probably been heard and/or read more widely than almost any other Nobel prizewinner in recent times. Is this not be lauded?
As for Dylan's place being in popular culture, we should remember that Shakespeare, in his time, wrote his plays not just to be performed but also to be popular. Were he writing plays today, would this invalidate his being considered for this prize? Let alone winning it one year?
Mark's tribute to Mr Bob is much to be welcomed. Popular music in recent decades would have been very different but for Dylan. You may criticise his voice (many do), his performances (some great, some not, some uneven), even some of his albums but his body of work is enormous - and he's still on the road, year-in year-out.
These "Biobibliographical Notes", from the official Nobel website, give some idea of the reasoning behind the Academy's decision:
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2016/bio-bibl.html
