Showing posts with label BOB DYLAN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BOB DYLAN. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 23, 2022

RSN: FOCUS: Nat Hentoff | What Bob Dylan Wanted at Twenty-three

 


 

Reader Supported News
22 August 22

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

WE ARE ASKING FOR A 'FAIR SHAKE' ON DONATIONS: We never believed that that all the readers would donate all the time, nor do we expect it. We absolutely understand that extenuating circumstances happen. But less than 1% of the subscribers donating? That's not right or fair. We have no choice but to stand up and protest that. RSN was in fact built entirely with public funding. It's worth preserving. Give us a hand once in a while.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

Despite his critique of society, Dylan is averse to the neatly defined cause. 'I'm not part of no Movement,' he says. (photo: Richard Avedon/New Yorker)
FOCUS: Nat Hentoff | What Bob Dylan Wanted at Twenty-three
Nat Hentoff, The New Yorker
Hentoff writes: "A portrait of the artist trying to move past 'finger-pointing' songs, and finding a new voice in the process."

A portrait of the artist trying to move past “finger-pointing” songs, and finding a new voice in the process.


The word “folk” in the term “folk music” used to connote a rural homogeneous community that carried on a tradition of anonymously created music. No one person composed a piece; it evolved through generations of communal care. In recent years, however, folk music has increasingly become the quite personal—and copyrighted—product of specific creators. More and more of them, in fact, are neither rural nor representative of centuries-old family and regional traditions. They are often city-bred converts to the folk style; and, after an apprenticeship during which they try to imitate rural models from the older approach to folk music, they write and perform their own songs out of their own concerns and preoccupations. The restless young, who have been the primary support of the rise of this kind of folk music over the past five years, regard two performers as their preĆ«minent spokesmen. One is the twenty-three-year-old Joan Baez. She does not write her own material and she includes a considerable proportion of traditional, communally created songs in her programs. But Miss Baez does speak out explicitly against racial prejudice and militarism, and she does sing some of the best of the new topical songs. Moreover, her pure, penetrating voice and her open, honest manner symbolize for her admirers a cool island of integrity in a society that the folk-song writer Malvina Reynolds has characterized in one of her songs as consisting of “little boxes.” (“And the boys go into business / And marry and raise a family / In boxes made of ticky tacky / And they all look the same.”) The second—and more influential—demiurge of the folk-music microcosm is Bob Dylan, who is also twenty-three. Dylan’s impact has been the greater because he is a writer of songs as well as a performer. Such compositions of his as “Blowin’ in the Wind,” “Masters of War,” “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right,” and “Only a Pawn in Their Game” have become part of the repertoire of many other performers, including Miss Baez, who has explained, “Bobby is expressing what I—and many other young people—feel, what we want to say. Most of the ‘protest’ songs about the bomb and race prejudice and conformity are stupid. They have no beauty. But Bobby’s songs are powerful as poetry and powerful as music. And, oh, my God, how that boy can sing!” Another reason for Dylan’s impact is the singular force of his personality. Wiry, tense, and boyish, Dylan looks and acts like a fusion of Huck Finn and a young Woody Guthrie. Both onstage and off, he appears to be just barely able to contain his prodigious energy. Pete Seeger, who, at forty-five, is one of the elders of American folk music, recently observed, “Dylan may well become the country’s most creative troubadour—if he doesn’t explode.”

Dylan is always dressed informally—the possibility that he will ever be seen in a tie is as remote as the possibility that Miss Baez will perform in an evening gown—and his possessions are few, the weightiest of them being a motorcycle. A wanderer, Dylan is often on the road in search of more experience. “You can find out a lot about a small town by hanging around its poolroom,” he says. Like Miss Baez, he prefers to keep most of his time for himself. He works only occasionally, and during the rest of the year he travels or briefly stays in a house owned by his manager, Albert Grossman, in Bearsville, New York—a small town adjacent to Woodstock and about a hundred miles north of New York City. There Dylan writes songs, works on poetry, plays, and novels, rides his motorcycle, and talks with his friends. From time to time, he comes to New York to record for Columbia Records.

A few weeks ago, Dylan invited me to a recording session that was to begin at seven in the evening in a Columbia studio on Seventh Avenue near Fifty-second Street. Before he arrived, a tall, lean, relaxed man in his early thirties came in and introduced himself to me as Tom Wilson, Dylan’s recording producer. He was joined by two engineers, and we all went into the control room. Wilson took up a post at a long, broad table, between the engineers, from which he looked out into a spacious studio with a tall thicket of microphones to the left and, directly in front, an enclave containing a music stand, two microphones, and an upright piano, and set off by a large screen, which would partly shield Dylan as he sang, for the purpose of improving the quality of the sound. “I have no idea what he’s going to record tonight,” Wilson told me. “It’s all to be stuff he’s written in the last couple of months.”

I asked if Dylan presented any particular problems to a recording director.

“My main difficulty has been pounding mike technique into him,” Wilson said. “He used to get excited and move around a lot and then lean in too far, so that the mike popped. Aside from that, my basic problem with him has been to create the kind of setting in which he’s relaxed. For instance, if that screen should bother him, I’d take it away, even if we have to lose a little quality in the sound.” Wilson looked toward the door. “I’m somewhat concerned about tonight. We’re going to do a whole album in one session. Usually, we’re not in such a rush, but this album has to be ready for Columbia’s fall sales convention. Except for special occasions like this, Bob has no set schedule of recording dates. We think he’s important enough to record whenever he wants to come to the studio.”

Five minutes after seven, Dylan walked into the studio, carrying a battered guitar case. He had on dark glasses, and his hair, dark-blond and curly, had obviously not been cut for some weeks; he was dressed in blue jeans, a black jersey, and desert boots. With him were half a dozen friends, among them Jack Elliott, a folk singer in the Woody Guthrie tradition, who was also dressed in blue jeans and desert boots, plus a brown corduroy shirt and a jaunty cowboy hat. Elliott had been carrying two bottles of Beaujolais, which he now handed to Dylan, who carefully put them on a table near the screen. Dylan opened the guitar case, took out a looped-wire harmonica holder, hung it around his neck, and then walked over to the piano and began to play in a rolling, honky-tonk style.

“He’s got a wider range of talents than he shows,” Wilson told me. “He kind of hoards them. You go back to his three albums. Each time, there’s a big leap from one to the next—in material, in performance, in everything.”

Dylan came into the control room, smiling. Although he is fiercely accusatory toward society at large while he is performing, his most marked offstage characteristic is gentleness. He speaks swiftly but softly, and appears persistently anxious to make himself clear. “We’re going to make a good one tonight,” he said to Wilson. “I promise.” He turned to me and continued, “There aren’t any finger-pointing songs in here, either. Those records I’ve already made, I’ll stand behind them, but some of that was jumping into the scene to be heard and a lot of it was because I didn’t see anybody else doing that kind of thing. Now a lot of people are doing finger-pointing songs. You know—pointing to all the things that are wrong. Me, I don’t want to write for people anymore. You know—be a spokesman. Like I once wrote about Emmett Till in the first person, pretending I was him. From now on, I want to write from inside me, and to do that I’m going to have to get back to writing like I used to when I was ten—having everything come out naturally. The way I like to write is for it to come out the way I walk or talk.” Dylan frowned. “Not that I even walk or talk yet like I’d like to. I don’t carry myself yet the way Woody, Big Joe Williams, and Lightnin’ Hopkins have carried themselves. I hope to someday, but they’re older. They got to where music was a tool for them, a way to live more, a way to make themselves feel better. Sometimes I can make myself feel better with music, but other times it’s still hard to go to sleep at night.”

A friend strolled in, and Dylan began to grumble about an interview that had been arranged for him later in the week. “I hate to say no, because, after all, these guys have a job to do,” he said, shaking his head impatiently. “But it bugs me that the first question usually turns out to be ‘Are you going down South to take part in any of the civil-rights projects?’ They try to fit you into things. Now, I’ve been down there, but I’m not going down just to hold a picket sign so they can shoot a picture of me. I know a lot of the kids in S.N.C.C.—you know, the Student Nonviolent Coƶrdinating Committee. That’s the only organization I feel a part of spiritually. The N.A.A.C.P. is a bunch of old guys. I found that out by coming directly in contact with some of the people in it. They didn’t understand me. They were looking to use me for something. Man, everybody’s hung up. You sometimes don’t know if somebody wants you to do something because he’s hung up or because he really digs who you are. It’s awful complicated, and the best thing you can do is admit it.”

Returning to the studio, Dylan stood in front of the piano and pounded out an accompaniment as he sang from one of his own new songs:

Are you for real, baby, or are you just on the shelf?
I’m looking deep into your eyes, but all I can see is myself.
If you’re trying to throw me, I’ve already been tossed.
If you’re trying to lose me, I’ve already been lost. . . .

Another friend of Dylan’s arrived, with three children, ranging in age from four to ten. The children raced around the studio until Wilson insisted that they be relatively confined to the control room. By ten minutes to eight, Wilson had checked out the sound balance to his satisfaction, Dylan’s friends had found seats along the studio walls, and Dylan had expressed his readiness—in fact, eagerness—to begin. Wilson, in the control room, leaned forward, a stopwatch in his hand. Dylan took a deep breath, threw his head back, and plunged into a song in which he accompanied himself on guitar and harmonica. The first take was ragged; the second was both more relaxed and more vivid. At that point, Dylan, smiling, clearly appeared to be confident of his ability to do an entire album in one night. As he moved into succeeding numbers, he relied principally on the guitar for support, except for exclamatory punctuations on the harmonica.

Having glanced through a copy of Dylan’s new lyrics that he had handed to Wilson, I observed to Wilson that there were indeed hardly any songs of social protest in the collection.

“Those early albums gave people the wrong idea,” Wilson said. “Basically, he’s in the tradition of all lasting folk music. I mean, he’s not a singer of protest so much as he is a singer of concern about people. He doesn’t have to be talking about Medgar Evers all the time to be effective. He can just tell a simple little story of a guy who ran off from a woman.”

After three takes of one number, one of the engineers said to Wilson, “If you want to try another, we can get a better take.”

“No.” Wilson shook his head. “With Dylan, you have to take what you can get.”

Out in the studio, Dylan, his slight form bent forward, was standing just outside the screen and listening to a playback through earphones. He began to take the earphones off during an instrumental passage, but then his voice came on, and he grinned and replaced them.

The engineer muttered again that he might get a better take if Dylan ran through the number once more.

“Forget it,” Wilson said. “You don’t think in terms of orthodox recording techniques when you’re dealing with Dylan. You have to learn to be as free on this side of the glass as he is out there.”

Dylan went on to record a song about a man leaving a girl because he was not prepared to be the kind of invincible hero and all-encompassing provider she wanted. “It ain’t me you’re looking for, babe,” he sang, with finality.

During the playback, I joined Dylan in the studio. “The songs so far sound as if there were real people in them,” I said.

Dylan seemed surprised that I had considered it necessary to make the comment. “There are. That’s what makes them so scary. If I haven’t been through what I write about, the songs aren’t worth anything.” He went on, via one of his songs, to offer a complicated account of a turbulent love affair in Spanish Harlem, and at the end asked a friend, “Did you understand it?” The friend nodded enthusiastically. “Well, I didn’t,” Dylan said, with a laugh, and then became sombre. “It’s hard being free in a song—getting it all in. Songs are so confining. Woody Guthrie told me once that songs don’t have to rhyme—that they don’t have to do anything like that. But it’s not true. A song has to have some kind of form to fit into the music. You can bend the words and the metre, but it still has to fit somehow. I’ve been getting freer in the songs I write, but I still feel confined. That’s why I write a lot of poetry—if that’s the word. Poetry can make its own form.”

As Wilson signalled for the start of the next number, Dylan put up his hand. “I just want to light a cigarette, so I can see it there while I’m singing,” he said, and grinned. “I’m very neurotic. I need to be secure.”

By ten-thirty, seven songs had been recorded.

“This is the fastest Dylan date yet,” Wilson said. “He used to be all hung up with the microphones. Now he’s a pro.”

Several more friends of Dylan’s had arrived during the recording of the seven songs, and at this point four of them were seated in the control room behind Wilson and the engineers. The others were scattered around the studio, using the table that held the bottles of Beaujolais as their base. They opened the bottles, and every once in a while poured out a drink in a paper cup. The three children were still irrepressibly present, and once the smallest burst suddenly into the studio, ruining a take. Dylan turned on the youngster in mock anger. “I’m gonna rub you out,” he said. “I’ll track you down and turn you to dust.” The boy giggled and ran back into the control room.

As the evening went on, Dylan’s voice became more acrid. The dynamics of his singing grew more pronounced, soft, intimate passages being abruptly followed by fierce surges in volume. The relentless, driving beat of his guitar was more often supplemented by the whooping thrusts of the harmonica.

“Intensity, that’s what he’s got,” Wilson said, apparently to himself. “By now, this kid is outselling Thelonious Monk and Miles Davis,” he went on, to me. “He’s speaking to a whole new generation. And not only here. He’s just been in England. He had standing room only in Royal Festival Hall.”

Dylan had begun a song called “Chimes of Freedom.” One of his four friends in the control room—a lean, bearded man—proclaimed, “Bobby’s talking for every hung-up person in the whole wide universe.” His three companions nodded gravely.

The next composition, “Motorpsycho Nitemare,” was a mordantly satirical version of the vintage tale of the farmer, his daughter, and the travelling salesman. There were several false starts, apparently because Dylan was having trouble reading the lyrics.

“Man, dim the lights,” the bearded friend counselled Wilson. “He’ll get more relaxed.”

“Atmosphere is not what we need,” Wilson answered, without turning around. “Legibility is what we need.”

During the playback, Dylan listened intently, his lips moving, and a cigarette cocked in his right hand. A short break followed, during which Dylan shouted, “Hey, we’re gonna need some more wine!” Two of his friends in the studio nodded and left.

After the recording session resumed, Dylan continued to work hard and conscientiously. When he was preparing for a take or listening to a playback, he seemed able to cut himself off completely from the eddies of conversation and humorous byplay stirred up by his friends in the studio. Occasionally, when a line particularly pleased him, he burst into laughter, but he swiftly got back to business.

Dylan started a talking blues—a wry narrative in a sardonic recitative style, which had been developed by Woody Guthrie. “Now I’m liberal, but to a degree,” Dylan was drawling halfway through the song. “I want everybody to be free. But if you think I’ll let Barry Goldwater move in next door and marry my daughter, you must think I’m crazy. I wouldn’t let him do it for all the farms in Cuba.” He was smiling broadly, and Wilson and the engineers were laughing. It was a long song, and toward the end Dylan faltered. He tried it twice more, and each time he stumbled before the close.

“Let me do another song,” he said to Wilson. “I’ll come back to this.”

“No,” Wilson said. “Finish up this one. You’ll hang us up on the order, and if I’m not here to edit, the other cat will get mixed up. Just do an insert of the last part.”

“Let him start from the beginning, man,” said one of the four friends sitting behind Wilson.

Wilson turned around, looking annoyed. “Why, man?”

“You don’t start telling a story with Chapter Eight, man,” the friend said.

“Oh, man,” said Wilson. “What kind of philosophy is that? We’re recording, not writing a biography.”

As an obbligato of protest continued behind Wilson, Dylan, accepting Wilson’s advice, sang the insert. His bearded friend rose silently and drew a square in the air behind Wilson’s head.

Other songs, mostly of love lost or misunderstood, followed. Dylan was now tired, but he retained his good humor. “This last one is called ‘My Back Pages,’ ” he announced to Wilson. It appeared to express his current desire to get away from “finger-pointing” and write more acutely personal material. “Oh, but I was so much older then,” he sang as a refrain, “I’m younger than that now.”

By one-thirty, the session was over. Dylan had recorded fourteen new songs. He agreed to meet me again in a week or so and fill me in on his background. “My background’s not all that important, though,” he said as we left the studio. “It’s what I am now that counts.”

Dylan was born in Duluth, on May 24, 1941, and grew up in Hibbing, Minnesota, a mining town near the Canadian border. He does not discuss his parents, preferring to let his songs tell whatever he wants to say about his personal history. “You can stand at one end of Hibbing on the main drag an’ see clear past the city limits on the other end,” Dylan once noted in a poem, “My Life in a Stolen Moment,” printed in the program of a 1963 Town Hall concert he gave. Like Dylan’s parents, it appears, the town was neither rich nor poor, but it was, Dylan has said, “a dyin’ town.” He ran away from home seven times—at ten, at twelve, at thirteen, at fifteen, at fifteen and a half, at seventeen, and at eighteen. His travels included South Dakota, New Mexico, Kansas, and California. In between flights, he taught himself the guitar, which he had begun playing at the age of ten. At fifteen, he was also playing the harmonica and the autoharp, and, in addition, had written his first song, a ballad dedicated to Brigitte Bardot. In the spring of 1960, Dylan entered the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, which he attended for something under six months. In “My Life in a Stolen Moment,” Dylan has summarized his college career dourly: “I sat in science class an’ flunked out for refusin’ to watch a rabbit die. I got expelled from English class for using four-letter words in a paper describing the English teacher. I also failed out of communication class for callin’ up every day and sayin’ I couldn’t come. . . . I was kept around for kicks at a fraternity house. They let me live there, an’ I did until they wanted me to join.” Paul Nelson and Jon Pankake, who edit the Little Sandy Review, a quarterly magazine, published in Minneapolis, that is devoted to critical articles on folk music and performers, remember meeting Dylan at the University of Minnesota in the summer of 1960, while he was part of a group of singers who performed at The Scholar, a coffeehouse near the university. The editors, who were students at the university then, have since noted in their publication: “We recall Bob as a soft-spoken, rather unprepossessing youngster . . . well-groomed and neat in the standard campus costume of slacks, sweater, white oxford sneakers, poplin raincoat, and dark glasses.”

Before Dylan arrived at the university, his singing had been strongly influenced by such Negro folk interpreters as Leadbelly and Big Joe Williams. He had met Williams in Evanston, Illinois, during his break from home at the age of twelve. Dylan had also been attracted to several urban-style rhythm-and-blues performers, notably Bo Diddley and Chuck Berry. Other shaping forces were white country-music figures—particularly Hank Williams, Hank Snow, and Jimmie Rodgers. During his brief stay at the university, Dylan became especially absorbed in the recordings of Woody Guthrie, the Oklahoma-born traveller who had created the most distinctive body of American topical folk material to come to light in this century. Since 1954, Guthrie, ill with Huntington’s chorea, a progressive disease of the nervous system, had not been able to perform, but he was allowed to receive visitors. In the autumn of 1960, Dylan quit the University of Minnesota and decided to visit Guthrie at Greystone Hospital, in New Jersey. Dylan returned briefly to Minnesota the following May, to sing at a university hootenanny, and Nelson and Pankake saw him again on that occasion. “In a mere half year,” they have recalled in the Little Sandy Review, “he had learned to churn up exciting, bluesy, hard-driving harmonica-and-guitar music, and had absorbed during his visits with Guthrie not only the great Okie musician’s unpredictable syntax but his very vocal color, diction, and inflection. Dylan’s performance that spring evening of a selection of Guthrie . . . songs was hectic and shaky, but it contained all the elements of the now-perfected performing style that has made him the most original newcomer to folk music.”

The winter Dylan visited Guthrie was otherwise bleak. He spent most of it in New York, where he found it difficult to get steady work singing. In “Talkin’ New York,” a caustic song describing his first months in the city, Dylan tells of having been turned away by a coffeehouse owner, who told him scornfully, “You sound like a hillbilly. We want folk singers here.” There were nights when he slept in the subway, but eventually he found friends and a place to stay on the lower East Side, and after he had returned from the spring hootenanny, he began getting more frequent engagements in New York. John Hammond, Director of Talent Acquisition at Columbia Records, who has discovered a sizable number of important jazz and folk performers during the past thirty years, heard Dylan that summer while attending a rehearsal of another folk singer, whom Hammond was about to record for Columbia Records. Impressed by the young man’s raw force and by the vivid lyrics of his songs, Hammond auditioned him and immediately signed him to a recording contract. Then, in September, 1961, while Dylan was appearing at Gerde’s Folk City, a casual refuge for “citybillies” (as the young city singers and musicians are now called in the trade), on West Fourth Street, in Greenwich Village, he was heard by Robert Shelton, the folk-music critic for the Times, who wrote of him enthusiastically.

Dylan began to prosper. He enlarged his following by appearing at the Newport and Monterey Folk Festivals and giving concerts throughout the country. There have been a few snags, as when he walked off the Ed Sullivan television show in the spring of 1963 because the Columbia Broadcasting System would not permit him to sing a tart appraisal of the John Birch Society, but on the whole he has experienced accelerating success. His first three Columbia albums—“Bob Dylan,” “The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan,” and “The Times They Are A-Changin’ ”—have by now reached a cumulative sales figure of nearly four hundred thousand. In addition, he has received large royalties as a composer of songs that have become hits through recordings by Peter, Paul, and Mary, the Kingston Trio, and other performers. At present, Dylan’s fees for a concert appearance range from two thousand to three thousand dollars a night. He has sometimes agreed to sing at a nominal fee for new, nonprofit folk societies, however, and he has often performed without charge at civil-rights rallies.

Musically, Dylan has transcended most of his early influences and developed an incisively personal style. His vocal sound is most often characterized by flaying harshness. Mitch Jayne, a member of the Dillards, a folk group from Missouri, has described Dylan’s sound as “very much like a dog with his leg caught in barbed wire.” Yet Dylan’s admirers come to accept and even delight in the harshness, because of the vitality and wit at its core. And they point out that in intimate ballads he is capable of a fragile lyricism that does not slip into bathos. It is Dylan’s work as a composer, however, that has won him a wider audience than his singing alone might have. Whether concerned with cosmic spectres or personal conundrums, Dylan’s lyrics are pungently idiomatic. He has a superb ear for speech rhythms, a generally astute sense of selective detail, and a natural storyteller’s command of narrative pacing. His songs sound as if they were being created out of oral street history rather than carefully written in tranquillity. On a stage, Dylan performs his songs as if he had an urgent story to tell. In his work there is little of the polished grace of such carefully trained contemporary minstrels as Richard Dyer-Bennet. Nor, on the other hand, do Dylan’s performances reflect the calculated showmanship of a Harry Belafonte or of Peter, Paul, and Mary. Dylan off the stage is very much the same as Dylan the performer—restless, insatiably hungry for experience, idealistic, but skeptical of neatly defined causes.

In the past year, as his renown has increased, Dylan has become more elusive. He felt so strongly threatened by his initial fame that he welcomed the chance to use the Bearsville home of his manager as a refuge between concerts, and he still spends most of his time there when he’s not travelling. A week after the recording session, he telephoned me from Bearsville, and we agreed to meet the next evening at the Keneret, a restaurant on lower Seventh Avenue, in the Village. It specializes in Middle Eastern food, which is one of Dylan’s preferences, but it does not have a liquor license. Upon keeping our rendezvous, therefore, we went next door for a few bottles of Beaujolais and then returned to the Keneret. Dylan was as restless as usual, and as he talked, his hands moved constantly and his voice sounded as if he were never quite able to catch his breath.

I asked him what he had meant, exactly, when he spoke at the recording session of abandoning “finger-pointing” songs, and he took a sip of wine, leaned forward, and said, “I looked around and saw all these people pointing fingers at the bomb. But the bomb is getting boring, because what’s wrong goes much deeper than the bomb. What’s wrong is how few people are free. Most people walking around are tied down to something that doesn’t let them really speak, so they just add their confusion to the mess. I mean, they have some kind of vested interest in the way things are now. Me, I’m cool.” He smiled. “You know, Joanie—Joanie Baez—worries about me. She worries about whether people will get control over me and exploit me. But I’m cool. I’m in control, because I don’t care about money, and all that. And I’m cool in myself, because I’ve gone through enough changes so that I know what’s real to me and what isn’t. Like this fame. It’s done something to me. It’s O.K. in the Village here. People don’t pay attention to me. But in other towns it’s funny knowing that people you don’t know figure they know you. I mean, they think they know everything about you. One thing is groovy, though. I got birthday cards this year from people I’d never heard of. It’s weird, isn’t it? There are people I’ve really touched whom I’ll never know.” He lit a cigarette. “But in other ways being noticed can be a weight. So I disappear a lot. I go to places where I’m not going to be noticed. And I can.” He laughed. “I have no work to do. I have no job. I’m not committed to anything except making a few records and playing a few concerts. I’m weird that way. Most people, when they get up in the morning, have to do what they have to do. I could pretend there were all kinds of things I had to do every day. But why? So I do whatever I feel like. I might make movies of my friends around Woodstock one day. I write a lot. I get involved in scenes with people. A lot of scenes are going on with me all the time—here in the Village, in Paris during my trips to Europe, in lots of places.”

I asked Dylan how far ahead he planned.

“I don’t look past right now,” he said. “Now there’s this fame business. I know it’s going to go away. It has to. This so-called mass fame comes from people who get caught up in a thing for a while and buy the records. Then they stop. And when they stop, I won’t be famous anymore.”

We became aware that a young waitress was standing by diffidently. Dylan turned to her, and she asked him for his autograph. He signed his name with gusto, and signed again when she asked if he would give her an autograph for a friend. “I’m sorry to have interrupted your dinner,” she said, smiling. “But I’m really not.”

“I get letters from people—young people—all the time,” Dylan continued when she had left us. “I wonder if they write letters like those to other people they don’t know. They just want to tell me things, and sometimes they go into their personal hangups. Some send poetry. I like getting them—read them all and answer some. But I don’t mean I give any of the people who write to me any answers to their problems.” He leaned forward and talked more rapidly. “It’s like when somebody wants to tell me what the ‘moral’ thing is to do, I want them to show me. If they have anything to say about morals, I want to know what it is they do. Same with me. All I can do is show the people who ask me questions how I live. All I can do is be me. I can’t tell them how to change things, because there’s only one way to change things, and that’s to cut yourself off from all the chains. That’s hard for most people to do.”

I had Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’ ” album with me, and I pointed out to him a section of his notes on the cover in which he spoke of how he had always been running when he was a boy—running away from Hibbing and from his parents.

Dylan took a sip of wine. “I kept running because I wasn’t free,” he said. “I was constantly on guard. Somehow, way back then, I already knew that parents do what they do because they’re up tight. They’re concerned with their kids in relation to themselves. I mean, they want their kids to please them, not to embarrass them—so they can be proud of them. They want you to be what they want you to be. So I started running when I was ten. But always I’d get picked up and sent home. When I was thirteen, I was travelling with a carnival through upper Minnesota and North and South Dakota, and I got picked up again. I tried again and again, and when I was eighteen, I cut out for good. I was still running when I came to New York. Just because you’re free to move doesn’t mean you’re free. Finally, I got so far out I was cut off from everybody and everything. It was then I decided there was no sense in running so far and so fast when there was no longer anybody there. It was fake. It was running for the sake of running. So I stopped. I’ve got no place to run from. I don’t have to be anyplace I don’t want to be. But I am by no means an example for any kid wanting to strike out. I mean, I wouldn’t want a young kid to leave home because I did it, and then have to go through a lot of the things I went through. Everybody has to find his own way to be free. There isn’t anybody who can help you in that sense. Nobody was able to help me. Like seeing Woody Guthrie was one of the main reasons I came East. He was an idol to me. A couple of years ago, after I’d gotten to know him, I was going through some very bad changes, and I went to see Woody, like I’d go to somebody to confess to. But I couldn’t confess to him. It was silly. I did go and talk with him—as much as he could talk—and the talking helped. But basically he wasn’t able to help me at all. I finally realized that. So Woody was my last idol.”

There was a pause.

“I’ve learned a lot in these past few years,” Dylan said softly. “Like about beauty.”

I reminded him of what he had said about his changing criteria of beauty in some notes he did for a Joan Baez album. There he had written that when he first heard her voice, before he knew her, his reaction had been:

“I hate that kind a sound,” said I
“The only beauty’s ugly, man
The crackin’, shakin’, breakin’ sounds’re
The only beauty I understand.”

Dylan laughed. “Yeah,” he said. “I was wrong. My hangup was that I used to try to define beauty. Now I take it as it is, however it is. That’s why I like Hemingway. I don’t read much. Usually I read what people put in my hands. But I do read Hemingway. He didn’t have to use adjectives. He didn’t really have to define what he was saying. He just said it. I can’t do that yet, but that’s what I want to be able to do.”

A young actor from Julian Beck’s and Judith Malina’s Living Theatre troupe stopped by the table, and Dylan shook hands with him enthusiastically. “We’re leaving for Europe soon,” the actor said. “But when we come back, we’re going out on the street. We’re going to put on plays right on the street, for anyone who wants to watch.”

“Hey!” said Dylan, bouncing in his seat. “Tell Julian and Judith that I want to be in on that.”

The actor said he would, and took Dylan’s telephone number. Then he said, “Bob, are you doing only your own songs now—none of the old folk songs at all?”

“Have to,” Dylan answered. “When I’m up tight and it’s raining outside and nobody’s around and somebody I want is a long way from me—and with someone else besides—I can’t sing ‘Ain’t Got No Use for Your Red Apple Juice.’ I don’t care how great an old song it is or what its tradition is. I have to make a new song out of what I know and out of what I’m feeling.”

The conversation turned to civil rights, and the actor used the term “the Movement” to signify the work of the civil-rights activists. Dylan looked at him quizzically. “I agree with everything that’s happening,” he said, “but I’m not part of no Movement. If I was, I wouldn’t be able to do anything else but be in ‘the Movement.’ I just can’t have people sit around and make rules for me. I do a lot of things no Movement would allow.” He took a long drink of Beaujolais. “It’s like politics,” he went on. “I just can’t make it with any organization. I fell into a trap once—last December—when I agreed to accept the Tom Paine Award from the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee. At the Americana Hotel! In the Grand Ballroom! As soon as I got there, I felt up tight. First of all, the people with me couldn’t get in. They looked even funkier than I did, I guess. They weren’t dressed right, or something. Inside the ballroom, I really got up tight. I began to drink. I looked down from the platform and saw a bunch of people who had nothing to do with my kind of politics. I looked down and I got scared. They were supposed to be on my side, but I didn’t feel any connection with them. Here were these people who’d been all involved with the left in the thirties, and now they were supporting civil-rights drives. That’s groovy, but they also had minks and jewels, and it was like they were giving the money out of guilt. I got up to leave, and they followed me and caught me. They told me I had to accept the award. When I got up to make my speech, I couldn’t say anything by that time but what was passing through my mind. They’d been talking about Kennedy being killed, and Bill Moore and Medgar Evers and the Buddhist monks in Vietnam being killed. I had to say something about Lee Oswald. I told them I’d read a lot of his feelings in the papers, and I knew he was up tight. Said I’d been up tight, too, so I’d got a lot of his feelings. I saw a lot of myself in Oswald, I said, and I saw in him a lot of the times we’re all living in. And, you know, they started booing. They looked at me like I was an animal. They actually thought I was saying it was a good thing Kennedy had been killed. That’s how far out they are. I was talking about Oswald. And then I started talking about friends of mine in Harlem—some of them junkies, all of them poor. And I said they need freedom as much as anybody else, and what’s anybody doing for them? The chairman was kicking my leg under the table, and I told him, ‘Get out of here.’ Now, what I was supposed to be was a nice cat. I was supposed to say, ‘I appreciate your award and I’m a great singer and I’m a great believer in liberals, and you buy my records and I’ll support your cause.’ But I didn’t, and so I wasn’t accepted that night. That’s the cause of a lot of those chains I was talking about—people wanting to be accepted, people not wanting to be alone. But, after all, what is it to be alone? I’ve been alone sometimes in front of three thousand people. I was alone that night.”

The actor nodded sympathetically.

Dylan snapped his fingers. “I almost forgot,” he said. “You know, they were talking about Freedom Fighters that night. I’ve been in Mississippi, man. I know those people on another level besides civil-rights campaigns. I know them as friends. Like Jim Forman, one of the heads of S.N.C.C. I’ll stand on his side any time. But those people that night were actually getting me to look at colored people as colored people. I tell you, I’m never going to have anything to do with any political organization again in my life. Oh, I might help a friend if he was campaigning for office. But I’m not going to be part of any organization. Those people at that dinner were the same as everybody else. They’re doing their time. They’re chained to what they’re doing. The only thing is, they’re trying to put morals and great deeds on their chains, but basically they don’t want to jeopardize their positions. They got their jobs to keep. There’s nothing there for me, and there’s nothing there for the kind of people I hang around with. The only thing I’m sorry about is that I guess I hurt the collection at the dinner. I didn’t know they were going to try to collect money after my speech. I guess I lost them a lot of money. Well, I offered to pay them whatever it was they figured they’d lost because of the way I talked. I told them I didn’t care how much it was. I hate debts, especially moral debts. They’re worse than money debts.”

Exhausted by his monologue, Dylan sank back and poured more Beaujolais. “People talk about trying to change society,” he said. “All I know is that so long as people stay so concerned about protecting their status and protecting what they have, ain’t nothing going to be done. Oh, there may be some change of levels inside the circle, but nobody’s going to learn anything.”

The actor left, and it was time for Dylan to head back upstate. “Come up and visit next week,” he said to me, “and I’ll give you a ride on my motorcycle.” He hunched his shoulders and walked off quickly.


READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611







Monday, May 24, 2021

CC News Letter 24 May - Covid positive cases rising in Dongaria and Bonda hills of Odisha

 

Dear Friend,

Covid +ve cases have increased amongst the Dongria Kandha and Bonda communities in Odisha. These two tribal communities are very vulnerable to being affected by the spread of the Covid virus

Kindly support honest journalism to survive. https://countercurrents.org/subscription/

If you think the contents of this news letter are critical for the dignified living and survival of humanity and other species on earth, please forward it to your friends and spread the word. It's time for humanity to come together as one family! You can subscribe to our news letter here http://www.countercurrents.org/news-letter/.

In Solidarity

Binu Mathew
Editor
Countercurrents.org



Covid positive cases rising in Dongaria and Bonda hills of Odisha
Press Release


Covid +ve cases have increased amongst the Dongria Kandha and Bonda communities in Odisha. These two tribal communities are
very vulnerable to being affected by the spread of the Covid virus



Corona Pandemic and Civil Society
by Dr Narasimha Reddy Donthi


With corona pandemic predicted to take us on a long haul, and with more such pandemics being warned about, government has to encourage the growth of civil society that can supplement its efforts in education, awareness, capacity building and humanitarian responses. For profit organisations do not have the inclination or band-width to fill this void that has developed in more than two decades.



Swedish doctors recommend against vaccination of young, healthy
by Rosamma Thomas


Over 85 per cent of those who died of Covid-19 had some other underlying health condition and were very old. The risk from the virus to the young and healthy is not great, and vaccination of the whole
population could set off other health crises, over 25 Swedish doctors have warned in a joint, open letter. In the age group of 0-19 years, one in five lakh have died from Covid-19 in Sweden, the letter writers point out. “Mass vaccination of a young and healthy population is not medically justified, but on the contrary is associated with some risks.”



Jewish groups that aid Israel’s war crimes can’t deny all responsibility for those crimes
by Jonathan Cook


Here is something that can be said with equal certainty. Israel’s apologists – whether Jews or non-Jews – cannot deny all responsibility for Israel’s war crimes when they actively aid and abet Israel in committing those crimes, or when they seek to demonise and silence Israel’s critics so that those war crimes can be pursued in a more favourable political climate.

Here is something that can be said with great confidence. It is racist – antisemitic, if you prefer – to hold Jews, individually or collectively, accountable for Israel’s crimes. Jews are not responsible for Israel’s war crimes, even if the Israeli state presumes to implicate Jews in its crimes by falsely declaring it represents all Jews in the world.

Very obviously, it is not the fault of Jews that Israel commits war crimes, or that Israel uses Jews collectively as a political shield, exploiting sensitivities about the historical suffering of Jews at the hands of non-Jews to immunise itself from international opprobrium.

But here is something that can be said with equal certainty. Israel’s apologists – whether Jews or non-Jews – cannot deny all responsibility for Israel’s war crimes when they actively aid and abet Israel in committing those crimes, or when they seek to demonise and silence Israel’s critics so that those war crimes can be pursued in a more favourable political climate.

Such apologists – which sadly seems to include many of the community organisations in Britain claiming to represent Jews – want to have their cake and eat it.

They cannot defend Israel uncritically as it commits war crimes or seek legislative changes to assist Israel in committing those war crimes – whether it be Israel’s latest pummelling of civilians in Gaza, or its executions of unarmed Palestinians protesting 15 years of Israel’s blockade of the coastal enclave – and accuse anyone who criticises them for doing so of being an antisemite.

But this is exactly what has been going on. And it is only getting worse.

Upsurge in antisemitism?

As a ceasefire was implemented late last week, bringing a temporary let-up in the bombing of Gaza by Israel, pro-Israel Jewish groups in the UK were once again warning of an upsurge of antisemitism they attributed to a rapid growth in the number of protests against Israel.

 

These groups have the usual powerful allies echoing their claims. British prime minister Boris Johnson met community leaders in Downing Street on Thursday pledging, as Jewish News reported, “to continue to support the community in the face of rising antisemitism attacks”.

Those Jewish leaders included Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, a supporter of Johnson who played a part in helping him win the 2019 election by renewing the evidence-free antisemitism smears against the Labour party days before voting. It also included the Campaign Against Antisemitism, which was founded specifically to whitewash Israel’s crimes during its 2014 bombardment of Gaza and has ever since been vilifying all Palestinian solidarity activism as antisemitism.

 

In attendance too was the Jewish Leadership Council, an umbrella organisation for Britain’s main Jewish community groups. In an article in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper on this supposed rise in antisemitism in the UK, the JLC’s vice-president, Daniel Korski, set out the ridiculous, self-serving narrative these community groups are trying to peddle, with seemingly ever greater success among the political and media elite.

Popular outrage over Gaza

Korski expressed grave concern about the proliferation of demonstrations in the UK designed to halt Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. During 11 days of attacks, more than 260 Palestinians were killed, including at least 66 children. Israel’s precision air strikes targeted more than a dozen hospitals, including the only Covid clinic in Gaza, dozens of schools, several media centres, and left tens of thousands of Palestinians homeless.

The sense of popular outrage at the Israeli onslaught was only heightened by the fact that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had clearly engineered a confrontation with Hamas at the outset to serve his immediate personal interests: preventing Israeli opposition parties from uniting to oust him from power.

In his naked personal calculations, Palestinian civilians were sacrificed to help Netanyahu hold on to power and improve his chances of evading jail as he stands trial on corruption charges.

 

But for Korski and the other community leaders attending the meeting with Johnson, the passionate demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians are their main evidence for a rise in antisemitism.

‘Free Palestine’ chants

These community organisations cite a few incidents that undoubtedly qualify as antisemitism – some serious, some less so. They include shouting “Free Palestine” at individuals because they are identifiable as Jews, something presumably happening mostly to the religious ultra-Orthodox.

But these Jewish leaders’ chief concern, they make clear, is the growing public support for Palestinians in the face of intensifying Israeli aggression.

Quoting David Rich, of the Community Security Trust, another Jewish organisation hosted by Johnson, the Haaretz newspaper reports that “what has really shaken the Jewish community … ‘is that demos are being held all over the country every day about this issue’ [Israel’s bombardment of Gaza].”

Revealingly, it seems that when Jewish community leaders watch TV screens showing demonstrators chant “Free Palestine”, they feel it as a personal attack – as though they themselves are being accosted in the street.

One doesn’t need to be a Freudian analyst to wonder whether this reveals something troubling about their inner emotional life: they identify so completely with Israel that even when someone calls for Palestinians to have equal rights with Israelis they perceive it as a collective attack on Jews, as antisemitism.

Exception for Israel

Then Korski gets to the crux of the argument: “As Jews we are proud of our heritage and at the same time in no way responsible for the actions of a government thousands of miles away, no matter our feelings or connection to it.”

But the logic of that position is simply untenable. You cannot tie your identity intimately to a state that systematically commits war crimes, you cannot vilify demonstrations against those war crimes as antisemitism, you cannot use your position as a “Jewish community leader” to make such allegations more credible, and you cannot exploit your influence with world leaders to try to silence protests against Israel and then say you are “in no way responsible” for the actions of that government.

If you use your position to prevent Israel from being subjected to scrutiny over allegations of war crimes, if you seek to manipulate the public discourse with claims of antisemitism to create a more favourable environment in which those war crimes can be committed, then some of the blame for those war crimes rubs off on you.

That is how responsibility works in every other sphere of life. What Israel’s apologists are demanding is an exception for Israel and for themselves.

Lobby with the UK’s ear

In another revealing observation seeking to justify claims of an upsurge in antisemitism, Korski adds: “We don’t see the same kind of outpouring of emotion when it comes to the Rohingya or the Uighurs or Syria, and it makes a lot of Jews feel this is about them [as Jews].”

But there are many reasons why there aren’t equally large demonstrations in the UK against the suffering of the Rohingya and the Uighurs – reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism.

The oppressors of the Rohingya and the Uighurs, unlike Israel, are not being generously armed by the British government or given diplomatic cover by Britain or being given preferential trade agreements by Britain.

But equally importantly, the states oppressing the Rohingya and Uighurs – unlike Israel – don’t have active, well-funded lobbies in the UK, with the ear of the prime minister. China and Myanmar – unlike Israel – don’t have UK lobbies successfully labelling criticism of them as racism. Unlike Israel, they don’t have lobbies that openly seek to influence elections to protect them from criticism. Unlike Israel, they don’t have lobbies that work with Britain to introduce measures to assist them in carrying out their oppression.

The president of the Board of Deputies, Marie van der Zyl, for example, pressed Johnson at the meeting this week to classify all branches of Hamas, not just its military wing, as a terrorist organisation. That is Israel’s wet dream. Such a decision would make it even less likely that Britain would be in a position to officially distance itself from Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, where Hamas runs the government, and even more likely it would join Israel in declaring Gaza’s schools, hospitals and government departments all legitimate targets for Israeli air strikes.

Pure projection

If you are lobbying to get special favours for Israel, particularly favours to help it commit war crimes, you don’t also get to wash your hands of those war crimes. You are directly implicated in them.

David Hirsch, an academic at the University of London who has been closely connected to efforts to weaponise antisemitism against critics of Israel, especially in the Labour party under its previous leader Jeremy Corbyn, also tries to play this trick.

He tells Haaretz that antisemitism is supposedly “getting worse” because Palestinian solidarity activists have been giving up on a two-state solution. “There used to be a struggle in Palestine solidarity between a politics of peace – two states living side by side – and a politics of denouncing one side as essentially evil and hoping for its total defeat.”

But what Hirsch is doing is pure projection: he is suggesting Palestinian solidarity activists are “antisemites” – his idea of evil – because they have been forced by Israel to abandon their long-favoured cause of a two-state solution. That is only because successive Israeli governments have refused to negotiate any kind of peace deal with the most moderate Palestinian leadership imaginable under Mahmoud Abbas – one that has eagerly telegraphed its desire to collaborate with Israel, even calling “security coordination” with the Israeli army “sacred”.

A two-state solution is dead because Israel made it dead not because Palestinian solidarity activists are more extreme or more antisemitic.

In calling to “Free Palestine”, activists are not demanding Israel’s “total defeat” – unless Hirsch and Jewish community organisations themselves believe that Palestinians cannot be free from Israeli oppression and occupation until Israel suffers such a “total defeat”. Hirsch’s claim tells us nothing about Palestinian solidarity activists, but it does tell us a lot about what is really motivating these Jewish community organisations.

It is these pro-Israel lobbyists, it seems, more than Palestinian solidarity activists, who cannot imagine Palestinians living in dignity under Israeli rule. Is that because they understand only too well what Israel and its political ideology of Zionism truly represent, and that what is required of Palestinians for “peace” is absolute and permanent submission?

Better informed

Similarly, Rich, of the Community Security Trust, says of Palestinian solidarity activists: “Even the moderates have become extremists.” What does this extremism – again presented by Jewish groups as antisemitism – consist of? “Now the movement [in solidarity with Palestinians] is dominated by the view that Israel is an apartheid, genocidal, settler-colonialist state.”

Or in other words, these pro-Israel Jewish groups claim there has been a surge in antisemitism because Palestinian solidarity activists are being influenced and educated by human rights organisations, like Human Rights Watch and Israel’s B’Tselem. Both recently wrote reports classifying Israel as an apartheid state, in the occupied territories and inside Israel’s recognised borders. Activists are not becoming more extreme, they are becoming better informed.

 

And in making the case for a supposed surge in antisemitism, Rich offers another inadvertently revealing insight. He says Jewish children are suffering from online “abuse” – antisemitism – because they find it increasingly hard to participate on social media.

“Teenagers are much quicker to join social movements; we’ve just had Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, #MeToo – now Jewish kids find all their friends are joining this [Palestinian solidarity] movement where they don’t feel welcome or they are singled out because they’re Jewish.”

Fancifully, Rich is arguing that Jewish children raised in Zionist families and communities that have taught them either explicitly or implicitly that Jews in Israel have superior rights to Palestinians are being discriminated against because their unexamined ideas of Jewish supremacy do not fit with a pro-Palestinian movement predicated on equality.

This is as preposterous as it would have been, during the Jim Crow era, for white supremacist Americans to have complained of racism because their children were being made to feel out of place in civil rights forums.

Such assertions would be laughable were they not so dangerous.

Demonised as antisemites

Zionist supporters of Israel are trying to turn logic and the world upside down. They are inverting reality. They are projecting their own racist, zero-sum assumptions about Israel on to Palestinian solidarity activists, those who support equal rights for Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East.

As they did with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition, these Jewish groups are twisting the meaning of antisemitism, skewing it from a fear or hatred of Jews to any criticism of Israel that makes pro-Israel Jews feel uncomfortable.

As we watch these arguments being amplified uncritically by leading politicians and journalists, remember too that it was the only major politician to have demurred from this nonsensical narrative, Jeremy Corbyn, who became the main target – and victim – of these antisemitism smears.

Now these pro-Israel Jewish groups want to treat us all like Corbyn, demonising us as antisemites unless we fall silent even as Israel once again brutalises Palestinians.

This essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.


GET COUNTERCURRENTS DAILY NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX




Bob Dylan, even at
80, offers “Shelter from the Storm”
by James Anderson


With singer-songwriter Bob Dylan turning 80 on May 24, it seemed like an appropriate time to reflect on the artist’s enduring relevance.

Writing furiously at his typewriter, cigarette in his mouth and the legendary Joan Baez by his side or in the background, a prolific young Dylan tapped into the spirit of a burgeoning counter-culture with his folk-inspired work. Performed with harmonica rack, active acoustic guitar and a distinctive voice defined by a croaky pathos, songs like “Blowin’ In the Wind,” “Masters of War,” “Only a Pawn in Their Game,” and “The Times They Are A-Changin’” expressed topical concerns, underscored generational schisms and arguably made manifest reconfigured archetypes residing in the “collective unconscious,” to frame the impact in terms of Carl Jung’s psychoanalytic theory. Epitomized by Dylan’s contributions, art of that era appeared to swim in archetypal ideas, present in some form throughout history and with which the emergent culture reinterpreted and became awash.

Exploring all the above decades later as a teenager around the late 90s and early 2000s got me into Dylan’s work. What in retrospect probably turned me into a dedicated, longtime Dylan fan, however, has more to do with the way this one-time, would-be Woody Guthrie reincarnate turned rock idol managed to articulate the depths and contours of the human condition throughout his oeuvre.

Not for nothing did the Swedish Academy award Dylan the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2016. Not surprisingly did Dylan decide not to attend the award banquet, instead opting to furnish a banquet speech comparing himself to Shakespeare.

“I would reckon he thought of himself as a dramatist,” Dylan wrote in the speech delivered by Azita Raji, then US Ambassador to Sweden. “The thought that he was writing literature couldn’t have entered his head. His words were written for the stage. Meant to be spoken not read. When he was writing Hamlet, I’m sure he was thinking about a lot of different things: ‘Who’re the right actors for these roles?’ ‘How should this be staged?’ ‘Do I really want to set this in Denmark?’ His creative vision and ambitions were no doubt at the forefront of his mind, but there were also more mundane matters to consider and deal with. ‘Is the financing in place?’ ‘Are there enough good seats for my patrons?’ ‘Where am I going to get a human skull?’ I would bet that the farthest thing from Shakespeare’s mind was the question ‘Is this literature?’”

For his part, Dylan noted, he’s often been focused on “life’s mundane matters,” and the details of making art – like whether a song is in the right key, if the studio sound is right, etc., leaving little time or energy to reflect on whether his work ought to be considered literature.

But a closer look at Dylan’s lyricism reveals the power of his poetry (and music more generally) to do what great literature always does, distilling down the omnipresent themes characterizing human struggle and strife, and in so doing offering us prophetic “shelter from the storm,” to borrow the title of a famous Dylan track discussed below.

Dylan recorded a lengthy, lesser-known poem commemorating Guthrie in 1963 that does just that, affirming both human need – as well as grounds – for hope.

And where do you look for this hope that you’re seeking? / Where do you look for this lamp that’s a burnin’? / Where do you look for this oil well gushing? / Where do you look for this candle that’s glowin’? / Where do you look for this hope that you know is there and out there somewhere? / And your feet can only walk down two kinds of roads / Your eyes can only look through two kinds of windows / Your nose can only smell two kinds of hallways / You can touch, and twist and turn two kinds of doorknobs / You can either go to the church of your choice or you go to Brooklyn State Hospital / You find God in the church of your choice / You find Woody Guthrie in Brooklyn State Hospital / I know it’s only my opinion, I may be right or wrong / You find ‘em both in Grand Canyon, sundown

By the end of his seven-minute spoken word tribute, Dylan all but deified Guthrie with his juxtaposition, but in so doing, he also opened up the nature of the divine.

He did this elsewhere in the synesthesia-invoking “Chimes of Freedom,” from “Another Side of Bob Dylan,” an album released the following year. That track conjures up both apocalyptic and revolutionary experiences borne out in what we might envision as “messianic time,” an historical conjuncture which for secular, socialist-humanist theorist Erich Fromm entailed integrating newfound self-awareness and transcending our estrangement from each other that followed the evolution of consciousness. Human’s, the historical narrative goes, underwent transformative expansion in critical self-awareness, akin to the proverbial “fall” when our ancestors ate the forbidden fruit and gained new knowledge, to borrow the biblical language Dylan has often deployed with heady effect.

The imagery in the song is predicated upon the rapturous chimes that Dylan describes and simultaneously echoes on a microcosmic level, prefiguring (perhaps) the feeling of freedom conveyed by the music.

As he put it,

Even though a cloud’s white curtain in a far-off corner flashed

An’ the hypnotic splattered mist was slowly lifting

Electric light still struck like arrows, fired but for the ones

Condemned to drift or else be kept from drifting

Tolling for the searching ones, on their speechless, seeking trail

For the lonesome-hearted lovers with too personal a tale

An’ for each unharmful, gentle soul misplaced inside a jail

An’ we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing

The plural pronoun “we” appears significant here, as it can imply shared struggle and solidarity while also suggesting intimate union against the unfreedom of estrangement.

The observers alluded to in the song gaze upon the chords of freedom as we all listen to Dylan recount (in the past tense) a liberatory future hitherto unrealized.

The song strikes me as illustrative of the sort of art described by social theorist Herbert Marcuse. In Marcuse’s view, art ought to remain alienated from established society insofar as the aesthetic dimension can offer sensuous experience of an awe-inspiring world that does not (yet) exist but perhaps could be – a latent world capable of being catalyzed by newfound sensibilities and apperception elicited by art itself, and through its appreciation. That beautiful, heretofore nonexistent world represented through art also offers an indictment of existing reality by point of contrast. In such artwork, “the aesthetic dimension assumes political value,” Marcuse claimed, “especially in the lyrics and music of Bob Dylan.” For Marcuse, it is in the artistic “transformation of reality into illusion, and only in it,” where we find “the subversive truth of art.” Moreover, Dylan’s use of the past tense in “Chimes of Freedom” harkens back to the Marxian theory of “recollection,” which Marcuse took as tantamount to art that recognizes and maybe even excites “a repressed quality” in human beings. “Beauty returns, the ‘soul’ returns,” as Marcuse explained.

In lyrics lamenting incarceration antithetical to the human soul within the verse spelled out above, and elsewhere conjuring emancipatory bells with lines like, “Tolling for the aching ones whose wounds cannot be nursed / For the countless confused, accused, misused, strung-out ones an’ worse / An’ for every hung-up person in the whole wide universe,” Dylan is able to “let suffering speak,” as Cornel West would put it, and as Theodor Adorno before him termed a precondition for truth.

The song “Chimes of Freedom” also acknowledges the individual anguish of those “lonesome-hearted lovers,” and the “we” within the narration also ostensibly carries connotations of erotic union intimated elsewhere in Dylan’s oeuvre. The “we” can either position you closer to the artist within the confines of the track, or it can elicit images of you and a significant other witnessing the zenith of this storm “blowing from Paradise,” to borrow the words of another Frankfurt School theorist, Walter Benjamin (who used the phrase to refer to what “we call progress”).

One reading of Dylan’s “Shelter from the Storm,” released on the celebrated album, “Blood on the Tracks,” a little more than a decade after the aforementioned “Another Side of Bob Dylan,” has the artist materializing divinity once again, in feminine form. As he explained,

Suddenly I turned around and she was standin’ there

With silver bracelets on her wrists and flowers in her hair

She walked up to me so gracefully and took my crown of thorns

‘Come in,’ she said, ‘I’ll give you shelter from the storm’

One could surmise from this that Eros and the realization of the desire it produces are inseparable from salvation. Put in another register, “the personal is political,” to quote the poignant phrase from the second-wave feminist movement that gained traction a few years before that song’s release. Granted, entering into and creating history entails separation. “Now,” as Dylan’s lyrics continue, “there’s a wall between us, something’ there’s been lost / I took too much for granted, got my signals crossed,” which could describe the individual predilections responsible for severing many romantic connections. It could just as easily refer to our innate-yet-cultivated proclivities that have served to sever our connection with source – or, put less opaquely, it could allude to our alienating disassociation from the rest of the organic world of which we are a unique part.

Recollecting once again as part of a message of solace, Dylan continued: “Just to think that it all began on a long-forgotten morn / ‘Come in,’ she said, ‘I’ll give you shelter from the storm.’”

Shortly thereafter, he poses a rhetorical question in the song about the abject suffering endemic to human existence (and exacerbated by existing institutions), before reminding us of the recurring, revelatory riposte.

I’ve heard newborn babies wailin’ like a mournin’ dove

And old men with broken teeth stranded without love

Do I understand your question, man, is it hopeless and forlorn?

‘Come in,’ she said, ‘I’ll give you shelter from the storm’

Using geographical metaphor to convey our condition of estrangement, he proceeds to state he’s “livin’ in a foreign country,” yet he’s “bound to cross the line.” What is more, Dylan articulates that artful tension described by Marcuse, the dialectic between the beautiful ideal and the real expressed through the aesthetic domain, by asserting: “Beauty walks a razor’s edge, someday I’ll make it mine.” And he ends the song with another reference to the recuperation of our divine sensibilities, reflecting, “If I could only turn back the clock to when God and her were born / ‘Come in,’ she said, ‘I’ll give you shelter from the storm.’”

And after eight decades on earth, he maintains those same sensibilities. Employing simile in “I’ve Made Up My Mind to Give Myself to You,” a song from his 2020 album, “Rough and Rowdy Ways,” Dylan sings, “My heart’s like a river – a river that sings / It just takes me a while to realize things.” The obvious message? Realization of true potential can sometimes take a while, though it is often worth the wait.

“I’ll see you at sunrise – I’ll see you at dawn,” he went on to say, “I’ll lay down beside you, when everyone is gone.” The line is not unlike a lyric from the late Leonard Cohen, one of the few songwriters on Dylan’s level who died at age 82 in November 2016, shortly after the release of his final album. In “Dance Me to the End of Love” – a love song reportedly and paradoxically inspired by the Holocaust – Cohen crooned, “Oh let me see your beauty when the witnesses are gone / Let me feel you moving like they do in Babylon.”

Dylan ends that fourth track on his last album with more terrestrial references, a hope expressed in relation to “the gods” (plural) and an affirmation of belief punctuated by a decisive refrain, the ultimate form of embodied mutual aid.

From the plains and the prairies – from the mountains to the sea

I hope that the gods go easy with me

I knew you’d say yes – I’m saying it too

I’ve made up my mind to give myself to you

It might be that in those radical acts of giving that we come closest to whatever one takes “God” to mean. “Giving,” as Erich Fromm wrote in, “The Art of Loving,” “is the highest expression of potency.” Although giving in this manner implies vulnerability, it also engenders an “experience of heightened vitality and potency,” a joyous affair, as “in the act of giving lies the expression of my aliveness.” Fromm specifically cites “the sphere of sex” as an example. “The culmination of the male sexual function lies in the act of giving; the man gives himself, his sexual organ, to the woman,” he wrote. “At the moment of orgasm he gives his semen to her.” And woman “gives herself too; she opens the gates to her feminine center; in the act of receiving, she gives.” The “premise” of erotic love, for Fromm, requires that I “love from the essence of my being—and experience the other person in the essence” of the other’s being. If we humans share one essence, as Fromm intimates, love is the expression of that. But that love “is not just a strong feeling—it is a decision, it is a judgment it is a promise,” as Fromm wrote and Dylan averred.

Indeed, Dylan’s poetry put to music has long put forward a prophetic promise. As Fromm explained in “You Shall Be As Gods,” the prophet in the Hebrew tradition “sees the future” not via visions of predetermined events, but rather “because he sees the forces operating now and the consequences of these forces unless they are changed.” And as Dylan informed listeners, admittedly a little tongue-in-cheek, in the single, “False Prophet,” off of the album released last year, he’s “the enemy of treason, the enemy of strife,” he’s “the enemy of the unlived meaningless life,” adding: “I ain’t no false prophet – I just know what I know / I go where only the lonely can go.” But it is arguably only by going to that lonely place, by having “traveled the long road of despair,” and having “met no other traveler there” – as he sang in “I’ve Made Up My Mind To Give Myself to You” – that one can emerge ready to realize the inherent value in another. To truly become one with another human being without extinguishing the dignity that resides within each of us, prior solitary despair can be rather generative.

It is that realization that might redeem human history. In Fromm’s heterodox reading of the Old Testament and its tradition, “messianic time” can mark an epoch of “return,” invoking the Judaic notion of “baal teshuvah,” referring to the sinner who repents and becomes “the master of the return.”

Although Dylan’s gospel music in the late 1970s and early 1980s mostly came across to me as preachy and proselytizing, his whole body of work is peppered with symbolic Biblical references and anticipation of a messianic age.

“Don’t have the inclination to look back on any mistake / Like Cain, I now behold this chain of events that I must break,” he sang in “Every Grain of Sand,” in accord with what Fromm describes as the Talmudic insistence on a complete absence of guilt during the “messianic time,” and in tune with a prophetic intention of rupturing what Walter Benjamin called “homogenous, empty time.”

Dylan’s art might not create heaven on earth, but in providing us a little respite from our weariness, some shelter from the proverbial storm, his music has proven durable enough to sustain us through our individual and collective peaks and valleys. I for one can’t wait to see what else he might deliver on the other side of 80.

James Anderson is an adjunct professor working in Southern California. He is from Illinois but now tries each semester to cobble together classes to teach at various SoCal colleges and universities. He has recently taught classes in the Communication Studies Department at Riverside City College and in the Media and Cultural Studies Department at the University of California, Riverside. He also taught a class at the California Rehabilitation Center during the fall 2019 semester as part of the Norco College prison education program. He has worked as a freelance writer for several outlets. 



Changing the Way the Military Handles Sexual Assault
by Andrea Mazzarino


Given the more than 60 Democratic and Republican votes lined up, the Senate is poised to move forward with a new bill that would change the way the military handles sexual assault and other felony crimes by service members. Sponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Joni Ernst (R-IA), the new law would assign decision-making on sexual-assault cases and a host of other felonies, including some hate crimes, to a specially trained team of uniformed prosecutors. While the bill will indeed inch the military away from its antiquated practice
of allowing commanders to decide whether to prosecute their own officers and soldiers on sexual-assault allegations, if baffles me that it’s still allowed to handle its own violent crimes rather than having them dealt with through our criminal justice system



Cyclone Threat Is Increasing, and We Must Be Better Prepared
by Bharat Dogra


We are still in the middle of recovering from Cyclone Tauktae on the western side of our long coast, even the rescue effort is still continuing at the time of writing, and now we have to also prepare for meeting the challenge of Cyclone Yaas on the eastern side. This is just one reflection, a dramatic one, of the wider reality that the threat from cyclones has been increasing in recent times both in terms of its intensity and its frequency.



Cooperative Federalism—Rhetoric and Reality
by Bharat Dogra


The importance of cooperative federalism has  been widely recognized in India in the interests of justice, democracy and national integration. Unfortunately, however, in recent times not all has been well in the context of the principles and the spirit of cooperative federalism being followed at the level of the union government, and it is certainly very much in the larger national interest to initiate remedial action sooner rather than later.



Storytelling-A Scientific Analysis
by V A Mohamad Ashrof


Our old generation has already discovered the power of storytelling in a practical sense – they have observed how compelling a well-constructed narrative can be. However, recent scientific research shows how stories change our attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. An interesting and emotionally moving film or novel will project
ourselves into stories or we might identify with a specific character



Global Indians and the Problem of a Singular National Identification
by Aindrila Chakraborty


Diasporic communities are marked by the constant renegotiation of their identities, pertaining to how they represent themselves in the hostland, correlated with how they are represented in their homeland. The identification of the Indian diaspora with a singular Indian identity is ridden with complexities



How Fascism Works
by T Navin


Jason Stanley in the book titled ‘How fascism works: The politics of us and them’ describes fascist politics as characterized by ten aspects. The different headings under which it is discussed include: The mythic past, propaganda, anti-intellectual, unreality, hierarchy, victimhood, law and order, sexual anxiety, sodom
and gomorrah and arbeit macht frei.

Jason Stanley in the book titled ‘How fascism works: The politics of us and them’ describes fascist politics as characterized by ten aspects. The different headings under which it is discussed include: The mythic past, propaganda, anti-intellectual, unreality, hierarchy, victimhood, law and order, sexual anxiety, sodom and gomorrah and arbeit macht frei.

The mythic past:

Fascist politics seeks to build on the idea of a mythical past, which it claims was destroyed with the advent of liberal cosmopolitanism or universal values such as equality. The mythical past which was glorious was characterized by uniformity – religious, racial, cultural, linguistic or all of it. It calls for returning back to this state of glory and uniformity. In the process of glorifying the imagined past – it justifies a patriarchal, authoritarian and hierarchical ideology in accordance with what it calls natural law. The fascist leaders call for replacing history and rewriting history in lines of glorious past.

Propaganda:

Fascist politics relies on propaganda. Propaganda is used under the garb of virtuous ideals behind objectionable ends. The end could be racial, religious, ethnic dominance and supremacy. It uses the idea of freedom and democracy to create spaces for misogynist, racial or communal forces. Once in power they are put to end as they feel that they are the greatest to have arrived.  It is concerned with bringing back traditional order. It attempts at destroying rule of law and replacing it with dictats of individual leaders or party bosses. In the name of rooting out corruption of culture, fascist politics attacks and diminishes institutions that might check their power. The fascists reject enlightenment ideals and claim that they want to replace it with natural law.

Anti-Intellectual:  

Fascist politics undermines public discourse through attacking and devaluing education, expertise and language. Intelligent debate requires all the three. Fascist politics believes that there is only one legitimate viewpoint, that of the dominant nation. Liberal education is seen as a threat and sought to be replaced with education which glorifies the mythical past. Universities are the centers of dissent and intellectual discourse and it is seen as coming in the way of creating a glorious nation. Hence universities come under attack by fascists. Perspectives which run counter to fascist notions are attacked. It removes the requirement for sophisticated debate.

Unreality:

Fascist politics does not believe in a reasoned debate. It relies on lying and invoking sense of fear and anger. The information spaces are captured and reality is manipulated. Conspiracy theories are floated and form an integral part of its politics and used to create divide of ‘us’ vs ‘them’. It discredits free media as it does not provide space for conspiracy theories. Propaganda on conspiracies is based on imagination and through its repetition it is sought to be made real. Through propagating conspiracy theories, it seeks to create and widen divides.

Hierarchy:

Contrary to ideas of liberal citizenship and equality before law, fascist ideology imposes hierarchies of power and dominance inconsistent with values of equality. It aims to organize society hierarchically. In its principles, equality goes against natural law. In the name of bringing natural law, it seeks to create hierarchy – men over women, members of chosen few of nation over other groups. To create the hierarchy, it uses the language of ‘deserving and undeserving’, ‘hardworking and lazy’ to create distinction between the two. It exploits the anxieties of dominant groups and point’s minority groups as posing threat to their existence. The beneficiaries of traditional hierarchy are convinced that liberal equality is a source of their victimization.  This myth is propagated to an extent that those benefiting from hierarchy come to believe in the myth of their superiority. It justifies inequality contrary to ideas of equality which emerged from enlightenment.

Victimhood:

In fascist politics, equality and discrimination are both mixed with each other. Equality of the minority groups is seen as discrimination against the dominant groups. Representation of minority groups is seen as threatening by the dominant groups. Dominant groups are depicted as victims of growing equality, whereby they need to share citizenship and power with minorities. There are movements of both oppressors and oppressed, one justifying inequality and the other fighting for equality. Fascist agenda tries to build on the feeling of loss of dominant status and aggrieved victimhood among dominant groups and use it to create dominance over minority groups. Majority are made to feel victims.

Law and Order:

Fascist politics creates a divide of chosen few who are lawful and those who are not as lawless. The minority groups are sought to be seen as a threat to law and order. The other is categorized as ‘criminals’ with permanent character traits that are frightening to most and they position themselves as protectors. The criminalized group is portrayed as a threat to the fascist nation and a threat to its purity. Rape by lawless is pointed as a thing which can pollute the purity of the dominant group. Hence it calls for protecting the nation’s manhood through maintaining purity.

Sexual Anxiety:

Fascist propaganda sexualizes the threat from the other to the manhood of the nation. The other is represented as those who corrupt the blood of a pure nation through an ‘inferior blood’. It could be racial, religious or sexual minorities. It appeals to patriarchal masculinity. Fascist politics heightens male economic anxiety into fear that one’s family is under existential threat by those who reject structure and traditions. It uses the weapon of threat of sexual assault by the minorities. Through politics of sexual anxiety, it tries to point that equality and freedom can be threats to the dominant majority.

Sodom and Gomorrah:

Cities in fascist imagination are seen as places of corrupted culture and rural areas as places which protect purity. They preserve pure blood by preventing intermixing by outside. Hardworking rural people are depicted as supporting lazy urban dwellers. Urban centers as locations of religious and racial diversity, diversity of customs and lifestyles are rejected. Urban centers are seen as a threat to fascist ideology. Minorities in cities are depicted as parasites who live off the hard work of rural populations. Laziness of minorities in cities is to be cured according to them by pushing them to hard labor. Hard labor could according to fascists purify lazy race.

Arbeti Macht Frei:

In times of crises, fascist politics reserves support for members who according to it represents ‘us’ and not ‘them’. The justification given is that the other is ‘lazy’, lack work ethic and cannot be trusted with state funds as they seek to live off state largesse. The ones lazy are depicted as reaping without sowing. It calls for preventing redistributing wealth of hardworking citizens to ‘undeserving’ minorities outside dominant ethnic or religious community. The ideal of hard work is weaponized against minority populations. It seeks to cultivate stereotypes to propagate its myth of persons belonging to certain races, classes or ethnic groups as being lazy.

The book provides a typology to understand fascism with examples from democratic and authoritarian societies, both from history and contemporary examples. The typology drawn in the book also helps to understand Indian version of fascism.

T Navin is a writer and works with an NGO





How India lost its way in Persian Gulf
by M K Bhadrakumar


India began to identify itself with the countries of the anti-Iran regional front that the former US President Donald Trump was sponsoring, involving Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE…and with Washington’s so-called Indo-Pacific strategy against China. Then the inevitable happened in a rapid sequence: Trump lost the November election… Disregarding protests by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Biden decided to engage with Iran.



COVID 19 claims two journalists who tried to make the Indian state accountable for 1984 tragedies
by Gurpreet Singh


The year 1984 saw two major catastrophes in the world’s so called largest democracy; first a brutal massacre of one single
community, and then the biggest industrial disaster of its time, thus turning George Orwell’s imaginative year of totalitarianism into reality. 37 years later, two journalists who tried to make the Indian establishment answerable for these calamities have died due to COVID 19 complications. Jarnail Singh passed away on May 14, and Rajkumar Keswani died exactly a week later, on May 21, 2021.

The year 1984 saw two major catastrophes in the world’s so called largest democracy; first a brutal massacre of one single community, and then the biggest industrial disaster of its time, thus turning George Orwell’s imaginative year of totalitarianism into reality.

In the first week of November, 1984 thousands of Sikhs were slaughtered across India after the assassination of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. Then in December, a gas leak at the Union Carbide pesticide plant that left many dead.

Not only were these incidents preventable, but the government remained complicit in both cases.

37 years later, two journalists who tried to make the Indian establishment answerable for these calamities have died due to COVID 19 complications.

Jarnail Singh passed away on May 14, and Rajkumar Keswani died exactly a week later, on May 21, 2021.

Singh had burst into the limelight for throwing a shoe at India’s then home minister, P. Chidambaram during a press conference in 2009.

He had protested after one of India’s most powerful politicians refused to answer repeated questions about attempts to shield those involved in the Sikh massacre of 1984.

At the time of the incident, Singh worked for the Dainik Bhaskar daily paper. Interestingly, Kewani lately worked with the same publication.

Keswani was a whistle-blower, who had forewarned about the accident through his writings much before the gas leak in Bhopal. Unlike Singh, who later went into politics after being sacked from his job, Keswani continued to work as a journalist. Singh was only 48, while Kewsani died at the age of 71.

That the Indian government was responsible for the tragedies which shaped the future of these two men is well documented.

In New Delhi alone, close to 3,000 Sikhs were murdered by the mobs led by the slain leader’s Congress party, with the help of police.

Gandhi’s bodyguards were seeking revenge for the army invasion on the Golden Temple Complex, the holiest Sikh shrine, in June of that year.

The ill-conceived military operation was ordered to deal with a handful of armed militants inside the place of worship. The invasion left many pilgrims dead, and important historical buildings were heavily damaged.

Chidambaram, a minister in the Congress-led government, expressed his satisfaction in 2009 over the “clean chit” given to party leaders involved in the massacre.

Keswani has been writing consistently about the gas leak that killed more than 3,000 people in Bhopal.

His articles on safety lapses at the Union Carbide plant were first published in 1982 for a different newspaper, two years before the tragedy. The one warning about potential disaster was written in June 1984 for another publication, six months before the deadly gas leaked out during the intervening night of December 2-3, 1984.

The Congress government back then had compromised public safety, in spite of warnings about the plant being located near residential areas. Much as in the case of Sikh massacre, it helped the top company officials involved to go unpunished.

The victims of both episodes have been fighting for justice and closure, despite the fact that in the highly polarized environment, an attempt was made to cover up the Bhopal case by falsely blaming it on the Sikhs.

The untimely deaths of Singh and Keswani during these difficult times. when bigotry and corporate control have grown under India’s right-wing Hindu nationalist regime. is a huge loss not only to journalism, but to humanity at large.

Gurpreet Singh is a journalist



Trump's Friday Meltdown: Begging Iran, Ditching Ukraine, and Blaming Everybody But Himself – 7/31/26

                                               LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER..... OR REMOVED ON THEIR WHIM! ALL POSTS ARE AVAILABLE ON MI...