Talkin’ New York. Copyright © 1962, 1965 by Duchess Music Corporation; renewed 1990,1993 by MCA.

Bob Dylan’s Blues. Copyright © 1963, 1964 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1991, 1992 by Special Rider Music.

Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands. Copyright © 1966 by Dwarf Music; renewed 1994 by Dwarf Music.

Time Passes Slowly. Copyright © 1970 by Big Sky Music; renewed 1998 by Big Sky Music.

 

All songs written by Bob Dylan.

 

Michael Glover Smith. Bob Dylan as Filmmaker: No Time to Think. McNidder & Grace, 2026. Bob Dylan as Filmmaker: No Time to Think. McNidder & Grace, 2026.

Robert Polito. After the Flood: Inside Bob Dylan’s Memory Palace. Liveright, 2026.

Walters, Jack. Bob Dylan: Song by Song. Pen & Sword Books, 2026.

Jim Windolf. Where the Music Had to Go: How Bob Dylan and the Beatles Changed Each Other―and the World. Scribner, 2026.

 

Nicholas Birns teaches modern and contemporary literature at the School of Professional Studies, New York University. His recent books include The Literary Role of History in the Fiction of J. R. R. Tolkien (2024), and the co-authored Agatha Christie Under the Magnifying Glass (with Margaret Boe Birns, 2025).

Erin C. Callahan is a professor of English at San Jacinto College in Houston, Texas. She has published essays on the Star Wars, and Charles Schulz’s Peanuts. She is the co-editor with Court Carney of The Power and Politics of Bob Dylan’s Live Performances: Play a Song for Me (2023), and hosts the Infinity Goes Up on Trial podcast.

Alessandro Carrera is Moores Professor of Italian Studies at the University of Houston, Texas. He translated Chronicles, Tarantula, and The Philosophy of Modern Song into Italian, authored La voce di Bob Dylan (2001, 2011, 2021), and in 2025 with Carlo Feltrinelli, edited Bob Dylan, 64 Lyrics.

Charles O. Hartman has published eight books of poetry, including Downfall of the Straight Line (2024), as well as books on jazz and song and on computer poetry. His Free Verse (1981) is still in print, and Verse: An Introduction to Prosody came out in 2015. He is Poet in Residence at Connecticut College, and plays jazz guitar.

Jonathan Hodgers received his PhD in music from Trinity College Dublin, where he teaches in popular music. His core areas of interest are song lyrics, the music of the 50s and 60s, audiovisual aesthetics, and music in movies. His recent book, Dylan on Film, was published by Routledge in 2024.

Bill Lattanzi is a playwright, video editor, and writer. His essays have appeared in Los Angeles Review of Books and Cognoscenti. He is a past Hall Humanities Fellow at U. of Kansas, a Knight Fellow in Science Journalism at MIT, and holds a master’s degree in creative writing from Boston University.

Quentin Miller, Professor of English at Suffolk University, is retiring at the end of this year to pursue non-academic writing. He is working on two projects: a campus novel titled Paradise Misplaced and a book about American halls of fame.

Jason Miller is a Distinguished Professor and public scholar at NC State University whose work has been featured on ABC, NBC, CNN, BBC, NPR, and The Rachel Maddow Show. His fourth book, Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood: Nina Simone, Langston Hughes, and the Birth of Black Power is forthcoming this fall from the trade division of UNC Press.

Thomas G. Palaima is Robert M. Armstrong Professor of Classics at University of Texas, Austin and a MacArthur fellow. He has written over 500 commentaries, reviews, features, and poems. These have appeared in Times Higher Education, Michigan War Studies Review, Arion, The Texas Observer, the Los Angeles Times, and commondreams.org.

Stephen Rive is an independent scholar living in Toronto.

Gayle Wald is Professor of American Studies at George Washington University, where she teaches cultural theory, American cultural history and popular music. Her most recent book, This Is Rhythm: Ella Jenkins, Children’s Music, and the Long Civil Rights Movement was published by University of Chicago Press in 2025.

 

The Dylan Review spoke to songwriter Emma Swift about covering Bob Dylan, Lou Reed and her own creative process. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

 

Dylan Review: As we speak, you’re back in Nashville after playing the historic Bearsville Theater in Dylan’s old stomping ground of Woodstock. How was it? 

Emma Swift: It was fantastic, it’s a beautiful theater. Albert Grossman is buried in the backyard. There’s a lot of really cool memorabilia around. Lots of old photos of artists who lived or played there, like Janis Joplin and Dylan. It’s pretty magical.

DR: Does all that history affect the performance, or is it just another gig?

ES: All gigs are special, everybody brings their own different energy. Last time in Woodstock—and the town is blessed with wonderfully unique places—I played at Levon Helm’s barn. And that was pretty cool too, because they had lots of Levon’s old musical equipment, and photos of The Band on the walls. Everywhere is a treat to play.

DR: You played another storied theater last summer—Cain’s Ballroom in Tulsa—for “Going Electric,” a concert of Dylan covers put together by Sonic Youth’s Lee Ranaldo and Wilco’s Nels Cline for the Dylan Center. What was that like?

ES: That was a really cool evening at another amazing venue. It was interesting, that gig, because it was like there were two supergroups involved. Mikal [Jorgensen] and Nels from Wilco, and then Lee and Steve [Shelley] from Sonic Youth. So that was the band! I was really lucky. They were celebrating the anniversary of Dylan going electric, but they also wanted us to perform a kind of preview of Dylan before he went electric. So they asked me to sing “The Times They Are A-Changin’.”

DR: Is it difficult to prepare for a Dylan cover like that?

ES: The hardest thing in Dylan’s songs, at least for me, is the phrasing. Sometimes it can just take a long time to get inside the phrasing. It’s not like karaoke, you can’t just pick up a mic. I really have to be inside the song, and know the song, before I can sing it. I couldn’t just do it with a teleprompter.

But it’s funny too. It’s like as a fan, some albums are more appealing to you wherever you’re at in your life. If you’re going through a breakup you might be super into Blood on the Tracks. Different things appeal to you at different times. So that affects what one might choose to do.

When I made my covers record [Blonde on the Tracks (2020)], there’s no way I would have put “The Times They Are A-Changin’” on it. But now I really enjoy singing it, because I live in America and it’s pretty crazy here at the moment. It’s got a whole new meaning.

I think the intent of that song when Dylan sang it was positive, the times, they are a-changin’! And now, when I sing “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” it feels a little more desperate and concerned. We’re caught up in the hamster wheel of history, and not necessarily going somewhere we all want to go.

So singing a song like that ten years ago, I probably would have said no. Now, I said yes. I love playing that song.

DR: Can you remember when you the first heard a Bob Dylan song?

ES: I’m a child of the 80s—I was born in 1981. So I arrived just in time for Infidels, which I love. But my first conscious memory of Dylan, when I was a kid, was of him being the grumpy old uncle in the Travelling Wilburys. So I guess my early memories of Dylan are not what many people would expect. It’s “Congratulations” and “Tweeter and the Monkey Man.” So even though he’s one of the most iconic solo artists of all time, I met him as being part of this supergroup. And then, I guess, I remember hearing “Maggie’s Farm” and “Like a Rolling Stone” after.

DR: For those of us who grew up with the later Dylan, lots of those newer songs are our classics. I think that’s why your cover of “I Contain Multitudes”, on Blonde on the Tracks, excited fans, because Dylan cover albums usually focus on the 60s and 70s.

ES: I loved recording “Multitudes.” Rough and Rowdy Ways means so much to me, as it does to so many Dylan fans, because it came out in that odd pandemic time. I love that song.

There’s nothing new in covering Dylan. Many people have done it before me, and a lot better than I have. I’m just continuing the tradition of loving his work and wanting to sing his songs. But with “Multitudes” I was able to be the first person to have recorded it. So that felt magical, in a way.

When I look back on Blonde on the Tracks now, I’d definitely be inclined to record a few more contemporary songs. When we played at Bearsville Theater a couple of weeks back, I played “Sweetheart Like You,” which I really enjoyed. And I also really like “Too Late,” which is an outtake from Infidels. I don’t know when I’ll record another Dylan project—I would definitely like to—but I’ll shake it up a bit.

DR: You shared your “Multitudes” only a month after Dylan first released it as a single. How soon after hearing the original did you know you wanted to cover it?

ES: Pretty much the second I heard it. There’s something really appealing about “Multitudes” for me. I majored in English Literature at college when I lived in Australia, in Sydney, and so dead poets have always been fabulously appealing to me. The line about Edgar Allan Poe, and juxtaposing it with the Rolling Stones, and Mott The Hoople’s “All The Young Dudes”: I really like the post-modern magpie quality that Dylan has in that song. From the second I heard it, covering it seemed like a no-brainer.

DR: It’s an unusual song, in that Dylan often seems to be singing about himself—“I fuss with my hair,” “I paint landscapes / I paint nudes”—but it sounds like the song spoke to your character as well.

ES: It’s what the best songwriters do, isn’t it? They take a hyper-specific experience, or an examination of one’s own character, and then send it out and see how many people connect with it.

I mean, so much of myself is made up of all the things that I like. So if I’m writing my own version of “I Contain Multitudes,” it may not have Mott the Hoople, or the Rolling Stones, but it might have, I don’t know, Sinead O’Connor and the Pogues. Fragments from my own life that I find appealing.

DR: You started work on Blonde on the Tracks several years before releasing “Multitudes.” What was the genesis?

ES: I thought of the title first—Blonde on the Tracks—and then I sat down and tried to rehearse the songs and, this is going back some years now before the pandemic, I recorded six songs in two days in Nashville. But my art practice at the time was very haphazard—I’ve improved a little since then—I recorded it, then abandoned it and went and did some other stuff. Living in Nashville, and Nashville being an important place in Dylan mythology, I wanted to record a whole collection of his songs. I didn’t want to do just a one-off.

And then when the pandemic happened, and I didn’t have anything to do, I was able to see the project through to completion. I added “Multitudes,” and also “Simple Twist of Fate,” and packaged it together.

Actually one of the inspirations for Blonde on the Tracks—which I forget—was Dylan’s Triplicate, when he started covering standards. I found that inspiring.

DR: Did recording Blonde on the Tracks in Nashville influence your approach? It’s a town with a specific sound, in terms of both Dyan’s history and country music.

ES: Nashville wears its country music hat for publicity purposes, but musically it’s pretty diverse. I guess the best way to describe that record is “adult contemporary-slash-Americana-slash-indie,” so I don’t know if it would have been different had I recorded it somewhere else.

That said, everybody in the room was a big Dylan enthusiast, right down to the engineer, John Little. He had a small recording studio on Dickerson Pike, in East Nashville. It was very DIY. And very different to, say, Dylan’s experience recording on Music Row. Not surprisingly, I had a much lower budget. But John’s studio had all of these old copies of Rolling Stone lying around, with Dylan on the cover. Everybody was having fun with what we were doing.

DR: Listening to the album, some arrangements aren’t that far from the original, and others like “Sooner or Later” sound more modern. How do you decide whether to keep a cover faithful, or mix it up and rearrange it?

ES: You know, I don’t really know. I think it’s just something that happens. It’s like when you see Bob Dylan live and you just don’t know how he’s going to play the song—like, how will “I’ll Be Your Baby” sound tonight?

When we went into pre-production—I say “pre-production,” it wasn’t very sophisticated—I was sat around my kitchen table with Pat [Sansone] and Robyn [Hitchcock] playing acoustic guitars, and we worked on what key I would be singing in, because I sing in a different vocal register [to Dylan], and we worked on the tempo. We would just sort of move things in and out to see how it felt.

Recently, I’ve started workshopping More Blonde, More Tracks—or whatever the next cover album will be called—and there’s a couple of really interesting Dylan covers that I’ve been listening to where the tempo changes. I don’t want to say what they are, so I won’t give it away, but I’ll definitely be having fun in that regard.

I’m a ballad singer, you know? I love slow, sad ballad-type music. I grew up listening to Dusty Springfield, Linda Ronstadt and those kinds of singers. And my voice, for whatever it may mean, has a sad timbre. If I did a rollicking version of “Maggie’s Farm”, that might be really enjoyable live but it would sound ridiculous on a record.

I’m a big Brian Ferry fan; I love his Dylan cover record Dylanesque and his interpretations. The great thing about Bob Dylan is that, aside from the majesty of the lyrics, the melodies are so exquisite. They’re glorious, and as a singer you can really stretch out. It’s a wonderful place to be.

There’s a reason why so many people cover his songs. They’re so well constructed. They are open to interpretation, because there’s so much there that can be emphasised or pulled back. He’s very enjoyable to cover.

DR: How did you approach singing a song as long as “Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands?”

ES: It was like running a marathon, but I liked the challenge. That song to me is, aside from “Visions of Johanna,” my favourite Dylan song. “Visions” probably sits above it now. But at the time of recording, “Sad-Eyed Lady” was the one and it felt like a mountain that I just had to climb.

I didn’t know if I would succeed or not, but I’ve always found that song particularly moving and devastating—just this great love letter. I really wanted to sing it. And it was, I’m not going to lie, pretty difficult. In truth I’ve never played “Sad-Eyed Lady” live, partly because I don’t know if I can play all of the verses, but also because I think there’s only a very select group of Dylanophiles who would enjoy the experience. And everyone else would go “oh another verse!” He’s really showing off on that song, it’s fantastic.

It’s very much against our contemporary culture, with our short attention spans, and people who say, “please don’t write a song over three minutes, because it definitely won’t get played on the radio and you won’t get on any algorithmic playlists.” I like the way that Dylan always made art on his own terms and went against the grain. He said, “Well, you know what? If this has to be on a whole side of an LP, so be it. I’m Bob Dylan!”

It’s amazing, his ability, and how he was rewriting the rulebook on how to make an album.

DR: Did that approach influence the making of your latest record, The Resurrection Game? It’s a cohesive album—with string arrangements linking each track—more than a collection of singles.

ES: Totally. I think of music in terms of albums. I know that makes me very old-fashioned, but it’s definitely the way that I work. Everything was written intentionally to belong together and sit side-by-side.

Having those kinds of cinematic strings is very un-Dylan; it’s going in a very different direction but one that I enjoy. Working more within the realm of Scott Walker, and Harry Nilsson who I really love. When I was growing up I had a very small record collection that I got from my Dad, and I used to play all these records.

So I wanted to have cinematic strings, inspired by Scott Walker, Harry Nilsson and then Burt Bacharach and David Lynch films. That was the reference.

DR: We have this romantic idea of songwriters like Dylan pulling songs out of thin air, but in his manuscripts he’ll revise songs for pages. How much unseen craft goes into penning a song cycle like The Resurrection Game?

ES: I spend a lot of time writing, and I spend a lot of time revising too. And that’s fun for me. I enjoy the revision; I like to work things over in my mind.

The world that we live in wants things instantly. It’s, “hey, here’s a song I wrote yesterday. I’m going to perform it on my Instagram!” I’m incapable of doing that as a person, because I have to live with the songs. I have to bring the idea down from wherever it comes from, and then I have to sit with it and finesse it.

I start with titles. For a long time I’ll just have a title, and it’s like, “okay, where is this going to go?” I could definitely stand to be more prolific and to let things go. I don’t think I’ll ever be Leonard Cohen, working for seven years on “Hallelujah.” I’ll never write anything that good and I’ll never spend as much time trying to write anything as good. But I don’t rush things either.

DR: Your new single “You Got Here First” has an obvious Dylan connection, with the lyric “I’ll keep the copy of Blood on the Tracks / You can take ‘Mack the Knife.’”

ES: It’s funny, I guess, because most people who found out about my music have come to me by the music of Bob Dylan. So I thought it would be fun and sweet to put in a little Dylan reference.

DR: Currently, you’re working on an album of Lou Reed covers. Does that require a different process, compared to covering Dylan?

ES: It’s totally different. Oh my goodness! It’s going to be called Sweet Hassle—another pun in the title—and the “Sad-Eyed Lady” of this record is [Reed’s 11-minute song] “Street Hassle.” It’s been really fun to work on. It’s been very different to the Dylan album in that it’s a lot more stop-and-start.

What’s fascinating for me is trying to work out what Lou Reed songs to cover. He was, again, a fantastic lyricist, but not as great with melodies. He has this very charismatic attitudinal vocal delivery. And when you’re covering a song, unless you’re going to be in a Lou Reed tribute band, you can’t really copy that. Or at least I feel like I can’t. So it’s been challenging, but ultimately a really fun process.

There were no strings on the Dylan record, and there were strings all over The Resurrection Game. There’s some strings on this album. I’ve got a version of “Candy Says” and “Berlin” with strings. “Street Hassle” obviously has strings, because, when Lou did it, it had strings. But then there’s some really interesting textural elements on this album. There’s a fantastic woodwind player in Nashville, David Williford. He plays the clarinet, but he puts it through loop pedals. There’s just some weird shit happening that I’ve not done musically before, and I’m very happy and excited.

DR: Does covering Dylan and Reed affect your own approach to songwriting? 

ES: Totally. One of the ways you learn to write, or that I’ve learned to write, is by covering other people’s songs. You get inside those songs and figure out what works and what doesn’t. That’s helped me as a songwriter enormously.

And I’ll always do that. I’ll do a covers project, then an original project, then a covers project and so on. I’m not a prolific writer, but each cover project is like going to school. What can I read to teach me about songwriting? What can Dylan teach me?

I’ll definitely do a Leonard Cohen project, that’s definitely coming down the line. And Neil Young too, probably. I’ve got a deep fantasy about going to Hansa Studios in Berlin, where David Bowie made so many iconic records. I don’t yet have the budget for that; it’s fully in the dream realm.

They’re all dudes—it’s not because I don’t like women songwriters. I’ve got a lot of female songwriting heroes. But, you know, Joni Mitchell’s already sung her songs in a female voice. So I don’t think that I have anything necessarily new to reveal in her songs, except that I’m singing them—probably not as well as she does.

DR: Besides the Lou Reed album, what else is in the pipeline?

ES: I released a single, “You Got Here First,” and there’s another single coming out soon and they’ll be bundled into a short EP, called Down and Out In Party City. I’m going to put it out on 10” vinyl if I can. And then I’ve also recorded a bunch of songs from The Resurrection Game, as well as some Dylan songs in a live studio session.

As I increasingly rush towards middle age, I feel like a lot of the procrastination that I suffered from in my thirties is now giving way to a more prolific period—I’m trying to get stuff done, mostly because we never know how long we’ve got. But also, it’s a tremendously fun way to spend time, going out and making stuff.

DR: Like Dylan’s Never Ending Tour?

ES: Right! I am going to see Dylan soon. He’s not playing a Nashville date in the Spring, but he is playing in Louisville, Bowling Green, Chattanooga and Knoxville. They’re all very close to Nashville, so I’ll be at one. I’m very excited—I can’t wait to see these upcoming shows.

Boy from the North Country: Sam Sussman’s Overly Cautious Autofiction

By Paul Haney

 

If you write a novel, readers will want to know which parts of your story are true; a memoir, which parts are made up. Sam Sussman’s Boy from the North Country—an “auto-fictional novel,” according to its publisher, Penguin finds itself with a foot in both camps. What’s real? What’s made up? What are readers to believe?

Based on an essay-length “memoir” titled “The Silent Type: On (possibly) being Bob Dylan’s son” published in Harper’s Magazine,[1] this book-length expansion raises questions about fiction’s ability to tell a story that is purportedly true. That “true” story involves a critically ill mother sharing profound philosophies of healing and love, an absent father who may or may not be Bob Dylan, and an aspiring novelist protagonist ever wondering what portion of his literary ambition, along with his uncanny resemblance to the hyper-literate rockstar, comes from Dylan’s own genes.

Quite a dream for a young writer to embrace, and not without reason. Between the Harper’s “memoir,” the novel itself, and Sussman’s own comments after the book’s publication in September 2025, the prospect of his being Dylan’s son seems entirely plausible. That plausibility comes without DNA evidence, or any statement from the Dylan camp, or verification from his mother, Fran Sussman, who died in 2017 without, it seems, ever confirming or denying her son’s suspicions. His claims are all we have, yet Dylan’s child or not, Sussman isn’t stumping for restitution. He’s been made whole, he claims, by his mother’s lessons of healing through love. Rather than a forensic account of Sussman’s parentage, then, Boy from the North Country stands as a tender depiction of a mother-son relationship as he comes home to care for her through cancer treatments.

It’s a moving book, melding complex family dynamics with contemplations of art and creativity. By writing his story as fiction yet telling everyone it’s true, however, Sussman in effect blurs the lines between imagination and reality. For that reason, I can’t help but wonder if Sussman’s choice to write autofiction may have done a disservice to his story, his readers, and his claims of “(possibly) being Bob Dylan’s son.”

 

Autofiction

“You have to find the form that fits the mess,” Sussman told David Segal, paraphrasing Samuel Beckett[2] in a September 2025 New York Times profile titled “Is That Bob Dylan in the Mirror?” The form Sussman landed on for Boy from the North Country, apparently, lay rooted in autofiction. A “Summary” embedded in the book’s copyright page reads, “An auto-fictional novel about the courage and resilience of motherhood as well as a window into the life of Bob Dylan at a peak moment of his creative output.” Interestingly, “auto-fictional” here is both hyphenated and adjectival, doubly downplayed as an appendage to “novel.” It’s a conspicuous choice of genre, twice removed, it seems, from the reality it seeks to portray.

Part autobiography, part fiction, according to Stephen Carlick on Penguin’s “What Is Autofiction?” webpage, the autofiction subgenre “was coined in the late 1970s by French novelist Serge Doubrovsky, to describe his novel Fils.” Doubrovsky pursued “a work of ‘fiction, of events and facts strictly real’” (Carlick). In the ensuing decades, by projecting fictional elements onto their life stories, authors have better coped with their more difficult experiences by transforming them. Famous examples include Karl Ove Knausgård’s My Struggle series; Ocean Vuong’s On Earth We’re Briefly Gorgeous; and Annie Ernaux’s The Years. Jack Kerouac might’ve called these “true-story novels,” a phrase he coined and practiced with the Duluoz Legend: On The Road, The Dharma Bums, Desolation Angels, and many more. Along with other so-called singer-songwriters like Joni Mitchell (Blue), Carly Simon (“You’re So Vain”), and James Taylor (“Fire and Rain”), Dylan himself may have worked in the genre with such autofictional songs as “Day of the Locusts,” “Sara,” and “Idiot Wind.” Long before Dylan, and Kerouac, Marcel Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past may have been “the first work of autofiction” (Carlick). Fittingly, Sussman regularly harkens back to Proust, both in the novel through the fictionalized voice of Norman Raeben—modernist painter and Dylan’s actual mid-70s painting teacher—and through interviews he’s given and articles he’s written to help market this release.

A list of authors and musicians like the one above sets a high bar, and though talented, Sussman hasn’t quite reached the stylistic heights of Knausgård, Vuong, and Ernaux, let alone Dylan, Kerouac, and Proust. A week after that initial New York Times profile, book critic Dwight Garner followed up with his own review, calling Sussman’s writing “florid, therapized and sentimental. It is radically un-Dylanesque.” Continuing his assessment, Garner writes, “[Sussman’s] novel is bereft of drama and close observation. Almost everything in it is rounded off and softened, like pebbles on a shore. If not for the Dylan angle, we wouldn’t be talking about it at all.” This criticism feels excessive, especially since the Dylan angle is, after all, inextricable from the book, its characters, and their desires. Garner’s hypothetical version of this novel bereft of Dylan remains impossible to grasp, and once readers invest in the heartfelt encounters between mother and son that propel the novel we do have, their reward is the first-hand experience of that caretaking drama, especially when the mother has left so much unsaid. All the while, the possibility of the mother’s death works like a ticking clock on her sharing the information Sussman’s stand-in, Evan, needs to know about his father. On this front, even if sentimental, the book works well. One still wonders, however, why Sussman chose to hide behind Evan to begin with.

By resorting to autofiction, Sussman effectively disowns this story which he has elsewhere professed to be true. Evan, the novel’s first-person protagonist, happens to be Sam Sussman’s real middle name. His mom, Fran in real life, is now June, a summer sunshine figure who radiates positivity even through her battle with cancer, and in the wake of multiple non-Dylan-related sexual traumas in her past. A sister mentioned in the Harper’s “memoir” never appears in the novel, so one wonders where she disappeared to during Fran/June’s chemotherapy treatments. One wonders, too, about the reliability of Fran/June’s account of painting classes with Norman Raeben, who “paced and painted and talked in a rolling monologue that seemed to have begun in the Russian shtetl where he was born” (97). Similarly, one questions intriguing new details about how Dylan came to write “Tangled Up in Blue,” his immersion in Petrarch sparked by a book from Fran/June’s shelf, and Dylan soon “talking about how Petrarch stood between everything significant, touching God with one hand and man with the other, the past with one hand and the future with the other” (137). After Dylan finally plays her the song that places that “Italian poet” in the 13th century, June informs him that “‘Petrarch lived in the fourteenth century’.” Dylan’ response? A simple, “‘Oh, right!’” (149), though he never did make that correction. One might even doubt Sam/Evan’s own memory of Dylan scooping him up off the couch as a little boy, recalling, “In his embrace was the warmth of the fire. With a longing I could not explain I wanted him to stay with my mother and me” (47). All of these incidents and more coalesce in a fictional soup, the important story Sussman and his mother have to tell blending in with the broth.

 

Memoir

While the novel Boy from the North Country might make one wonder where truth ends and fantasy begins, at least Sussman’s original writing on the topic of his parentage stands on sure footing. The 2021 Harper’s “memoir” begins in 1974, with Sussman placing his mother, an aspiring actor, and Dylan together in the painting class of “the eccentric Ukrainian-Jewish artist Norman Raeben” (since Ukraine was part of the U.S.S.R. until its collapse in 1991, Raeben could’ve been a “Ukrainian Jew” born in a “Russian shtetl”). Leveraging his fame as a tool for courtship, Dylan soon asks Sussman’s mother to host a party at her Upper East Side apartment. At the end of the night, after the last guest leaves, he hangs around to seduce her. The couple begin quote-unquote “dating” and, by the third paragraph, Sussman spills the goods: that evocative fifth verse from “Tangled Up in Blue,” the one where “She lit a burner on the stove,” procured “a pipe,” and “opened up a book of poems … by an Italian poet / from the thirteenth century”—yeah, that really happened. “She” was his mom, nearly two decades before he was born. That is, as much as a character from a set of lyrics can be any one person, as opposed to a literary figure representing any and all people, a point Sussman readily concedes by the end of his piece. When he and his mom attend a Dylan concert in Bethel Woods, New York[3] and Dylan performs “Tangled Up in Blue,” the two burst into laughter, then tears. They understand that Dylan’s “infamously mutating lyrics … must have become about almost anything other than the young actress in the East 70s walk-up.”

To believe Sussman’s Harper’s piece is to believe Sussman’s mother. This leap of faith is made more possible because of the genre label, even if our information comes third-hand, via Sussman, via his mom, who died of cancer in 2017. And whether or not this “Tangled Up in Blue” claim or any other claim is verifiably “true,” we must at least believe that he believes it, or that he would tell us if he didn’t. Such is the contract of nonfiction: authors provide a good faith version of the truth as they understand it, and readers regard their writing as at least a version of the truth. As Vivian Gornick writes in her classic text, The Situation and the Story: The Art of Personal Narrative,

The poet, the novelist, the memoirist—all must convince the reader they have some wisdom, and are writing as honestly as possible to arrive at what they know. To the bargain, the writer of personal narrative must also persuade the reader that the narrator is reliable. (14)

When authors prove unreliable—when they break that contract—readers feel misled, and scandal ensues: think John D’Agata, whose “lyric essay” failed Harper’s fact-checking, which must’ve taken the same rigorous look at Sussman’s work; James Frey, who received a public scolding from Oprah; Margaret B. Jones, who was a fake persona that fell apart as soon as she went on book tour. Each of these writers took liberties the genre hasn’t traditionally afforded, like changing key details, making up new episodes, and inventing entire histories. In short, they were all dishonest, forsaking whatever wisdom they may have brought to the bargain.

A seeming exception to this nonfiction agreement, of course, is Dylan’s own memoir, Chronicles, Volume One. It’s a memoir and not an autobiography because it strives to make sense of a few discrete eras of the author’s life, rather than accounting for his life as a whole. It’s nonfiction because it deals ostensibly with what’s real, though anyone consulting the book for an accurate timeline of events would be sorely disappointed. Its wisdom derives from Dylan extracting meaning from experience, discovering what he already knows. Its honesty lies in its fidelity to Dylan’s own mind, the associative leaps, the quickly sketched characters like “gaunt and battle-scarred” Ray Gooch (26) and “cool as pie” Chloe Kiel (102) from New York City in the early 60s, or Sun Pie who “repaired boats in a trussed-up backyard” (204) outside New Orleans in the late 80s. Except that these characters all appear to be fabrications from Dylan’s own mind. They fill in the gaps between major, well-known players like Daniel Lanois and Archibald MacLeish, but even Dylan’s interactions with MacLeish in Chronicles appear grossly embellished against details from theater producer Stuart Ostrow’s own 2005 memoir.[4] The most we can say is that Dylan’s memoir reflects Dylan’s experience of his own life, even when he recycles other people’s words.[5] In this way, Chronicles challenges our understanding of the memoir genre: its conventions, its relationship to the truth, and all the apparent multitudes the genre may contain.

Above all, we call Chronicles a memoir because Dylan and his publisher marketed it as such. And yet, in speaking of the book’s origins to Mikal Gilmore of Rolling Stone in 2001, Dylan said, “I guess I call it novelistic writing.” But it’s real, or real enough, so it’s not exactly a novel, even if novelistic, meaning character-driven, alive with detail, and episodic. Dylan went on:

It’s a biography. It’s biographical, in every sense of the word. But there’s more to it than that, because I’m a public figure, and so I can mention all kinds of things that have been written about already, but I bring a different resonance to it. My story on myself would have to be more interesting than anybody else that could look at it from the outside. Right?

Except that, for it to be a biography, Dylan would’ve needed to have written the book about a public figure other than himself. Or a third-person biographer would’ve needed to write the story of his life, such as Michael Gray, Robert Shelton, or Howard Sounes. The National Book Critics Circle did name Chronicles a finalist for Biography/Autobiography in 2004, and in the intervening years began to separate biography and autobiography in their annual awards. In this case, “autobiography” serves as a catch-all, it seems, for what we understand “autobiography” to mean—a comprehensive account of one’s own life—and memoirs. Within this model, Chronicles remains a memoir because, even with its borrowings and confabulations, its focus remains on exploring distinct realms of memory for larger truths.

Truth in written texts is a notoriously slippery concept, and memory itself a fallible tool. All the same, memoirists who don’t possess Dylan’s ability to market his hallucinations as figments of reality do well to lay out the facts as they understand them. Sussman’s Harper’s “memoir” fits the bill, accounting for his mother’s holistic health work, his rocky relationships with the men she dated throughout his youth, and the frequent, unbidden comparisons of his looks to Dylan’s. Through it all, Sussman contemplates what it might mean for a storyteller like himself to be made of the same DNA as one of the most significant artists of our time. That Dylan and Sussman’s mom supposedly rekindled their romance nine months before Sussman was born seems to seal the deal, and yet—thankfully, judiciously—the weight of evidence linking him to Dylan isn’t the main point. As with the novel, Sussman’s mother’s love wins the day. Her catchphrase-of-sorts, “We are here … to take the pieces of the universe we have been given, burnish them with love, and return them in better shape than we received them,” provides the guiding theme. In the final lines, Sussman concludes, “I am never sure how being Bob Dylan’s child would help me come closer to beauty or truth. But I know the infinite gifts of being my mother’s son.”

The thoughtfulness of Sussman’s Harper’s “memoir” preempts the inevitable chorus of naysayers who would accuse him of opportunism. He navigates the tricky straits of possibly being Dylan’s son with writerly aplomb. In its earnestness, the essay asks for nothing more than an audience to serve as witness to Sussman’s lived story. As an added benefit—and perhaps proof of concept—Sussman also provides new information about how Dylan composed Blood on the Tracks, particularly “Tangled Up in Blue.” The “memoir” label makes this graceful landing possible, creating the conditions for the author to stand by his words. No wonder Sussman got a book out of the deal. In his expansion, though, by fictionalizing his story, Sussman chose to forfeit the credibility that goes with the memoir genre, and it’s hard  to say why.

Every facet of the Harper’s “memoir,” from the “Tangled Up in Blue” anecdote, to the mom’s series of boyfriends, to the Dylan concert in Bethel Woods appears at length in the novel, though, as befits a work of autofiction, Sussman takes liberties with timelines and details. That Dylan concert, for instance, while occurring years before Fran’s battle with cancer, in the book becomes a major plot point where Evan pushes his curiosity. After an ecstatic reaction to “Tangled Up in Blue,” June, in a dip between her weekly chemotherapy treatments, is too depleted to stay for the rest of the show. Sussman writes, “My mother touched my arm. I could see the pain in her eyes. She didn’t need to say anything” (199). With Dylan’s voice still rattling through the venue, amid the mother-and-son’s arduous trek to the car, Sussman adds, “I hated my selfish need to know the truth” (199). Even so, in the car ride home, Evan poses the question directly to his mom: “I am twenty-six. I have every right to know” (200). Rather than answer, June keeps her silence while “[t]ears glistened on her cheek” (200).

Readers of this autofiction might not find Evan’s need to know the truth selfish at all. The question of his father remains relevant, especially when his father might be Bob Dylan, and especially when he himself claims of Dylan’s music, “His songs had given me a way to feel and live” (20). In this moment, though, with his mother in anguish, readers might understand Evan’s self-blame. He feels as if he’s hounding his mother, who wants to enjoy what might be the last days she has alive with her son. A few days later, while June is at the doctor’s office in Manhattan receiving another chemotherapy treatment, she tells Evan how, presumably in the early 90s,

Dylan called. He was going through a difficult period, said he’d lost his sight again. Raeben was dead by then. I was in an unhappy marriage with Simon. I wanted to be borne back to that earlier time in my life. Dylan and I started seeing one another and it was like old times. It went on that way for years. (218)

This is new information for Evan, who exclaims, “It went on that way for years? You told me you saw him once.” (218). But June shuts him down, seeming to anticipate where his thoughts are going. “Please listen to what I’m saying, Evan. Please” (218). This plea from June to listen recurs each time Evan gets too close to the truth, allowing her to either change the subject or interject some bromide about “find[ing] the unexpected joy in the way things are” (225). How frustrating this is for the reader, for the novel’s putative hero, June, to be so skilled at redirection. And how fascinating, too, to watch Evan attempt to balance his responsibility as a caretaking child with the enforced ignorance his mother has cast upon him.

In these emotional dynamics lie the makings of a compelling memoir, one where the author comes to terms with the past and helps the reader understand more precisely what it felt like to live within that bind. The autofiction version, though, makes plot points out of this rich emotional matrix. And it isn’t that the plot doesn’t work, but more to the point, that the takeaways could’ve been so much greater within the context of nonfiction.

 

Caution

“Completely unusable,” said Fabio Fantuzzi, a leading Norman Raeben scholar who has written at length about the painter’s influence on Dylan.[6] Fantuzzi was comparing Sussman’s novel to another book, The Creative Path by Caroline Schlam,[7] in that they both embellish experience for narrative effect, rendering their accounts void for scholarly research. I got Fantuzzi on the phone while writing this piece, because Boy from the North Country brings to life moments from Raeben’s painting studio, which Dylan began to frequent in early 1974. Fran Sussman was in attendance, too, Fantuzzi says: “I know that for a fact.” Painting, for Fran Sussman, at the behest of her coach Stella Adler, was a way of improving her acting. According to Fantuzzi, she was less invested in painting than she was in connecting with Dylan. “She was not really attending all that much,” Fantuzzi told me, “but when she figured out Dylan was there, she ended up hooking up with him.”

In Sussman’s novel, however, June expounds on Raeben’s artistic philosophies, ranges over which artists he admires (Chagall) and which he detests (Warhol), and even details how he slops brown paint across canvases of students whose uninspired work offends him. She seems to be a regular in the class who happens to be there when “The door opened and an unshaven man with shaggy hair wandered into the studio” (101). Sussman writes this passage through June’s own perspective: “He wore dirty jeans and a rumpled shirt and looked like he’d slept the night in Central Park. I couldn’t say where I knew him from” (101). The man, of course, is Dylan, and though imagined, these scenes do feel informed at least by research and firsthand knowledge.

Unimpressed with whatever fame Dylan may have garnered in music, Raeben eventually turns his critical eye on Dylan’s attempts at art. In the studio, when the class critiques Dylan’s painting of a fish, Raeben lays in: “‘You are imagining without seeing,’ he declared. ‘You want to transform a fish into a feeling? Fine. We are all here to transform objects into feelings. First you must see the object. Here I do not see a fish but only your imagination of a fish’” (106). As with everything else in this book, this recreated scene, with the class of painters gathered around Dylan’s easel, seems entirely plausible. Fantuzzi even cites “at least two or three occasions where Raeben picked on Dylan directly.” Fantuzzi has interviewed Sussman before, for research purposes, and finds Sussman “fairly knowledgeable about the core aspects of Raeben’s ideas.”[8] To Sussman’s credit, this knowledge about Raeben breathes life into June’s narrated scenes. Had he been transparent with readers about how he knows what he knows—what his mother said, what came through research, what he imagined—readers would at least know where they stand. His wisdom, plus honesty, could’ve bestowed reliability.

That said, June’s ability to narrate scenes in the narrative at all is actually a strength of the autofiction form. Since she’s no longer alive to stand by her words, we’ll never know how Fran might’ve told the story, or if she ever would’ve. Still, three times during the novel Sussman shifts from Evan’s into June’s first-person perspective. All three times occur while June is sitting for chemotherapy, with Evan listening. Whether Sussman is aware of the significance of June’s habit of knitting while she holds forth—spinning a yarn, as it were, or knitting together a text—is unclear. But the monologues themselves are totally absorbing, as even Garner admits, writing, “June’s segments constitute a novella of their own and are easily the best thing in the book.” The chapter where Dylan composes Blood on the Tracks finds Dylan coming and going from June’s apartment, driven by a frenetic energy, sometimes staying several nights in a row, other times disappearing for more than a week. During one of his absences, June peeks into his infamous Red Notebook, now housed at the Morgan Library & Museum in New York City. In it, she finds “half-formed sketches, fragments of stanzas jotted at odd angles, lines of poetry written over one another, every bit of handwriting illegible (144). Meanwhile, June has gotten a break in her acting career, playing the title character in an underground production of the Henrik Ibsen play, Hedda Gabler. This chapter culminates with two creative forces, June and Dylan, both harnessing Raeben’s artistic philosophies to reach new heights in their work, even if one remains an obscure performance and the other changes the course of American music.

After weeks of creative anguish, Dylan calls from Minnesota where he’s re-recording the album. His rationale? “‘Too much blood, too little tracks. Every word is too damn raw. Nobody wants to listen to that kind of anguish. You can’t make art out of seppuku’” (151). Where do these words come from? Are they Fran Sussman’s testimony? Paraphrased from jottings left behind? Utter fictional invention? And after finally pulling off the virtuoso performance of Hedda Gabler she’d been striving for, June relays, “I felt Raeben and Dylan, too, heard him saying art could become more real than life, and I understood” (153). The process of creation compels change in June and Dylan alike, who affect the world around them with their art. On the whole, though, the weaving together of June’s past and Evan’s coming-of-age, all together with the troubadour trickster figure of Dylan flitting through, outpaces what this auto-fictional novel purports to hold.

Readers of literary fiction will wonder what Dylan is doing here, and Dylan fans will be distracted by the mother-son relationship. The question becomes one of audience, and no matter its targeted demographic, the novel’s muddled treatment of the real holds it back in the end. And it’s not like Sussman wasn’t advised about this point. That original New York Times profile touches on Sussman’s Dylanesque looks, the apartment he still lives in that remained in the family since his mom hosted Dylan there so many times in the 70s, and the topic shift Sussman attempts from Dylan’s potential forgotten son to purveyor of his mother’s wisdom. “Sussman has already written two novels, neither published,” writes profiler David Segal. “His comfort with the medium is one reason his first hardback will land in the fiction section, even though little has been changed in the story besides names and dates—Dylan is the only person who doesn’t get a pseudonym—and publishers told him a memoir would sell more copies.” Writing in the fictional mode, even though Sussman’s first two novels have yet to sell, seems a matter of comfort for the youngish writer. But one wonders, too, if heading off Dylan’s ire factored into his choice of genre.

Throughout the novel, Sussman avoids copyright issues by omitting lyrical quotes, though the spare Dylan allusion inevitably slips in through an unattributed “every step of the way” (Sussman’s italics 9), or a “series of dreams” (22), or an “Early one morning I lay in bed, sun shining” (177). While sketching the Dylan concert in Bethel Woods, Sussman even skirts copyright by misquoting a Dylan lyric: “Dylan sang that you can’t lose with a winning hand” (196). In another moment, Sussman describes how “Dylan strode across the stage gasping that truths are lies and lies are truths” (199). And while he professes on a November 5, 2025 appearance on the Word in Your Ear podcast that “I’m not a Dylanologist … I’m not a historian of Dylan,” readers might think otherwise when the novel turns to inevitable musings about Dylan the timeless troubadour:

He was singing lyrics that spoke to Homer, Shakespeare, Whitman, Ginsberg. He could transform himself into whatever he wanted to be. He came straight out of American folk, a boy on a freight train moving through the night, a student of Guthrie, Seeger, Hank Williams. He was a Roman king descended from Ovid, Virgil, Horace. He was a Greek satyr, half man and half beast. (191)

This litany continues through Robert Johnson, T.S. Eliot, the bible, and more. The voice of this analysis sounds less like a young man collecting observations at a concert and more like an intellectual who’s been reading and thinking about the topic of Bob Dylan since he discovered him as a teen. “He refused interviews, turned away from celebrity, gossip, nonsense, commentary,” the narrator Evan continues. “The art was deep inside himself and only that was worth pursuing” (191). So while Sussman props up the fictional Evan as a means of working through his real sense of abandonment and dismay—“Everything that I know about myself might be other than I think, that’s not a pleasant experience,” the real Sussman tells the Word in Your Ear hosts—he still dedicates a number of auto-fictional paragraphs to the Dylan mythos. And to hear Sussman talk about Dylan’s artistic dissatisfaction in the early 70s is to realize the closeted Dylanologist ever lurking beneath the surface.

Sussman is capable, that is, of writing fiction, nonfiction, memoir, and more. According to Fantuzzi, Sussman claims to possess ephemera from Dylan’s romance with his mother that could not only help corroborate his story, but help further the field of Dylan studies. As for this book, he could’ve published June’s monologues as a novella, as Garner suggested, and formed the rest into a memoir. As long as he stuck to the truth, Dylan couldn’t have stopped him. Of the Harper’s “memoir,” Sussman told the Word in Your Ears hosts, “[Dylan’s people] asked to see the piece in advance. And [they] came back and said, ‘No changes requested. No comments in the piece.’ You know, of course, I won’t say too much, but they had every right to object to anything that they thought was not a faithful account.” Which is to imply, the Dylan people must’ve felt the Harper’s “memoir” was a faithful account. All the same, when expanding into the book, Sussman still covered his tracks by fictionalizing his story. He may have made this choice for the sake of art—the sake of form, in the name of Beckett and Proust, Kerouac and Knausgård. At the same time, Sussman chose caution, which, to quote Garner again, is radically un-Dylanesque.

Unfortunately, caution is all we can proceed with concerning Boy from the North Country. Whereas the Harper’s “memoir” promised a meaty new set of details for Dylan studies to sift through, all couched in an engaging personal narrative, this work of autofiction removes itself from the scholarly conversation surrounding Dylan’s work in books and magazines and journals like the Dylan Review. We’ll reference this book as a compelling-yet-dubious tale of what might’ve taken place between Bob Dylan and Fran Sussman under the tutelage of Norman Raeben. We’ll allude to that Sussman guy who might possibly be Dylan’s unacknowledged son, but we won’t run too far with the claims laid out in Boy from the North Country, no matter how many rhetorical backflips its author performs. Until Sussman consents to that nonfiction contract at length and shows us what he’s holding, we’ll be left wondering what to believe.


Works Cited

Carlick, Stephen. “A Guide to Autofiction.” Penguin Books, 19 Nov. 2025,

http://www.penguin.co.uk/discover/articles/what-is-autofiction-genre-books

Fantuzzi, Fabio. Interview with Paul Haney. Facebook Messenger telephone call, January 25, 2026.

Garner, Dwight. “Bob Dylan Might Be His Dad. But the Star of His Book Is His Mom.”

The New York Times, 10 Sept. 2025, http://www.nytimes.com/

Gilmore, Mikal. “People of the Year: Bob Dylan: An Oscar, a Sixtieth Birthday and the Year’s Best Album.”

Rolling Stone, 6 Dec. 2001, http://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/people-of-the-year-bob-dylan-2-202777/

Gornick, Vivian. The Situation and the Story: The Art of Personal Narrative.

Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002.

Segal, David. “Is That Bob Dylan in the Mirror?” The New York Times, 4 Sept. 2025, http://www.nytimes.com/.

Sussman, Sam. Boy from the North Country. Penguin, 2025.

—. “The Silent Type: On (possibly) being Bob Dylan’s son.” Harper’s Magazine, May 2021, harpers.org/archive/2021/05/the-silent-type-on-possibly-being-bob-dylans-son/.

Word in Your Ear. “‘Bob Dylan Is My Father’—and Why Sam Sussman Is Convinced It’s True.”

Word In Your Ear, episode 836, 5 Nov. 2025. Acast, shows.acast.com/word-in-your-ear-2/episodes/word-podcast-836-sam-sussman.


[1] Sussman, Sam. “The Silent Type: On (possible) being Bob Dylan’s son.” Harper’s Magazine, May 2021. https://harpers.org/archive/2021/05/the-silent-type-on-possibly-being-bob-dylans-son/

[2] The quote appears in Steal like an Artist by Austin Kleon (Workman Publishing Group, 2012), whose website links to the blog Rick on Theater, which references Tom F. Driver’s interview with “Beckett by the Madeleine” in Columbia University Forum 4 (Summer 1961): 21-25. In its original: “To find a form that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artists now.”

[3] Presumably they attended this concert on August 11, 2011.

[4] In his essay “Oh Mercy: Bob Dylan, Chronicles, and the Mysterious Hand Injury” (Medium, September 2, 2019), Fred Bals charts these discrepancies and more while referring the Ostrow memoir, Present at the Creation: Leaping in the Dark and Going Against the Grain (Applause, 2005).

[5] As Scott Warmuth has so diligently shown.

[6] From The Village Trip website: Fabio Fantuzzi is a scholar, a music critic, and a songwriter. He is also a Marie-Curie Fellow at Columbia University and Ca’ Foscari University, directing the project POYESIS, which studies artist Norman Raeben and his influence on various leading artists, including Stella Adler and Bob Dylan. He co-edited the book Bob Dylan and the Arts (ESL, 2020).

[7] Schlam, Caroline. The Creative Path: A View from the Studio on the Making of Art. Allworth Press, 2018.

[8] More of Sussman’s Raeben insights appear in another nonfiction piece, an article he wrote for Forward titled “Bob Dylan, my mother, and the unknown painter behind Blood on the Tracks: Dylan Once Said That Norman Raeben Was the Man Who ‘Taught Me How to See.’” 15 Sept. 2025, https://forward.com/culture/music/765628/norman-raeben-bob-dylan-sam-sussman-boy-from-the-north-country/

Apollo and the Sad-Eyed Lady: Nietzsche Listening to Dylan

By Stephen Rive

We do not always keep our eyes . . . from finishing off the poem; and then it is no longer eternal imperfection that we carry across the river of becoming—we then feel that we are carrying a goddess, and are proud and childlike in performing this service.

—Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science

And your flesh like silk, and your face like glass,
Who could they get to carry you?

—Bob Dylan, “Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands”

 

“Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands” (Blonde on Blonde, 1966) is widely regarded as an anomaly in Dylan’s work, with some critics even deeming it a failure—famously, Michael Gray initially dismissed it as “sexy, fur-lined wallpaper” (158).[1] The critics are right: “something is happening here,” there’s something that sets the song apart, though, with some exceptions, most notably Christopher Ricks (97-108), who interprets the song as a meditation on the sin of covetousness, the relative lack of commentary suggests that “[they] don’t know what it is.” They seem to be defeated by the song’s dizzying array of images and allusions, such that almost none venture—beyond the observation that the song is an anomaly—to say what the song might be about, even hinting that it might be about nothing at all, or that it is simply a strange kind of love song. But the generally observed differences in tone (musical, vocal) and figurative language that distinguish “Sad-Eyed Lady” from what came before and what came after add up to more than mere oddity; collectively, they contribute to an important statement about a topic that has to be acknowledged as important to Dylan: art. Identifying that topic does not, of course, suddenly dispel the mystery. What the song has to say about art, a statement made at a critical juncture in Dylan’s early career, does, however, come into focus when we look at the song through the intertext of Friedrich Nietzsche’s aesthetic theory of the Dionysian. My claim in this essay is twofold: (i) in its form, “Sad-Eyed Lady” is an Apollonian work as that term is understood in Nietzsche’s aesthetics; and (ii) the song is an expression of two essentially Apollonian themes: first, it draws attention to the fragility of art in the face of the mission that Nietzsche sees for it when he declares, several times in The Birth of Tragedy, that “only as an aesthetic phenomenon do existence and the world appear justified” (BT 113.[2] See also 33 and 114.); second, the song tells us that the only cure for the fragility of art is more art. I also claim for “Sad-Eyed Lady” an important role as pivot, or turning point, in Dylan’s development as an artist at a critical juncture in his early career, a role that becomes clear in the light of the Nietzschean intertext.

It must be stressed that I am not arguing that Nietzsche is a source or influence for Dylan; in fact, it seems highly unlikely that this is the case. (See Appendix, “Nietzsche as a Source for Dylan”). My approach, instead, is to use Nietzsche’s Dionysian aesthetic as an intertext with which to “read,” or—to give Dylan’s artform, song, the respect it deserves—“listen to” “Sad-Eyed Lady.” B. J. Leggett, in Early Stevens: The Nietzschean Intertext, draws attention to “the multiplicity of conceptions and practices that operate under the name intertextual” (20, emphasis in original), and he catalogues no fewer than six ways of looking at Nietzsche as an intertext for Wallace Stevens (18-19). Within Dylan studies itself, and largely due to Dylan’s borrowings from other sources in recent decades, one very important such “conception” of intertextuality has been, in Richard Thomas’s term, “creative reuse.”[3] Since I am not concerned in this essay with Nietzsche as an influence or source for Dylan, I am also not concerned with intertextuality as borrowing or “reuse.” Rather, I will use the Nietzschean intertext as, in Leggett’s term, an “interpretive strategy” for listening to Dylan. I will remain firmly in “the realm of parallel ideas, instructive analogies, of similar motives and values” (Leggett 12, 15) that tie Dylan to Nietzsche, the elucidation of which enhances our appreciation of “Sad-Eyed Lady” and its meaning.[4] Ricks paves the way for this approach when he offers Swinburne’s “Dolores” as an intertext (not his word) for interpreting “Sad-Eyed Lady,” noting, correctly in my view, that the poem “would not have to be a source for Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands (leave alone an act of allusion by Dylan) for it to illuminate the song’s art” (100). To put it another way, if Nietzsche is truly “onto something” with his Dionysian aesthetic, then it should not surprise us that we find artists like Dylan whose work exhibits, quite independent of any influence, the characteristics Nietzsche so admiringly described.

In this essay I will not consider “Sad-Eyed Lady” from a biographical perspective. In support of this approach, I note that in their quite different interpretations of “Sad-Eyed Lady” Ricks, mentioned above, and Gray (158-160) ignore biography altogether, and Stephen Scobie (144-146) relegates it to a footnote (324n15). It must be acknowledged, nevertheless, for those who hear biographical resonances in the song, that “Sad-Eyed Lady” is generally understood to be a love song about Dylan’s first wife, Sara. The seal on this view is, of course, Dylan’s famous revelation in “Sara” (Desire, 1976) that he had written the song for her. Biographical references encoded in the song include the sad-eyed lady’s “magazine husband,” who is taken to be Sara’s first husband, Hans Lownds, a fashion photographer (“lowlands” is no doubt a reference to the similar-sounding “Lownds,” the name that Sara bore when Dylan met her); the “hoodlum” in the line, “And with the child of the hoodlum, wrapped up in your arms,” which points, again, to Lownds, with whom Sara had one child (Varesi 98-99); and the mentions of “sheet-metal” and “sheets like metal” tied to Sara being the daughter of a scrap metal   dealer (Sounes 204-205). I don’t deny these connections; my concern in this essay simply lies elsewhere, with the meaning of “Sad-Eyed Lady,” and not with what it tells us about Dylan’s life.

 

Apollo and the Sad-Eyed Lady

Dylan’s Blonde on Blonde, which, with “Rainy Day Women #12 & 35,” opens on a Dionysian note in the crude, “bacchanalian” sense of the word, ends with a view of a magnificent temple to Apollo: “Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands.” In what sense is “Sad-Eyed Lady” an Apollonian work as Nietzsche understands that term?

All art for Nietzsche is a means of addressing suffering in the face of our insight—the destructive power of which he associates with the Greek god Dionysus, who also gives Nietzsche’s aesthetic its name—into the terrible truth that confronts us after the death of God: the meaninglessness and absurdity of life, the unfathomable enigma that anything exists at all, our vulnerability to suffering, and our mortality. Only art, in Nietzsche’s view, by achieving what he calls “artistic distance” (GS 107), can save us from the abyss of the Dionysian insight in a healthy and life-affirming manner: art is “the great stimulus to life” (TI, “Expeditions,” 24) and the “saving sorceress . . . [who] can re-direct those repulsive thoughts about the terrible or absurd nature of existence into representations with which man can live” (BT 40). The Apollonian work for Nietzsche fulfills art’s role of providing a “stimulus to life” by overriding the terrible Dionysian insight with beautiful forms and surfaces designed to delight the eye. The Apollonian is characterized by balance, order, artifice, and illusion—features that Nietzsche associates with painting, sculpture, and epic poetry, represented ideally, for him, by the Greek myths of the Olympians and the epics of Homer (BT 24-25). Under the rubric of Nietzsche’s Dionysian aesthetic there is a counterpart to the Apollonian work, the somewhat confusingly named Dionysian work, in which the pessimistic Dionysian insight into the terrible truth of our existence is recognized, or acknowledged—hence the label “Dionysian” for such works—but at the same time mediated (not overridden, as it is in the Apollonian work) by the selecting, ordering, surface beauty, and illusions of Apollonian artifice. For Nietzsche, art of this kind—“the Apolline embodiment of Dionysiac insights and effects” (BT 44)—reached its apotheosis in fifth-century Greek tragedy, in which the terrible Dionysian insight, in its “pure” form, represented by the music and singing of the chorus, is tempered by Apollonian stagecraft, masks, and speeches. Within Nietzsche’s two-part aesthetic, it is the features of the Apollonian work—the balance, order, beautiful surfaces, and emphasis on vision—that we recognize in “Sad-Eyed Lady.”

“Sad-Eyed Lady” derives much of its Apollonian nature from the literary genre in which it participates, the courtly love song, usually understood to have originated with the troubadours of southern France in the Middle Ages, which represents an important part of the Western songwriting tradition that Dylan inherited.[5] Typical features of the courtly love song that appear in “Sad-Eyed Lady” are the otherworldly, unattainable, and exalted woman; the male singer/narrator who worships her and defers to her, as her devotee and servant; and the sublimation of the physical aspects of love into beautiful surfaces, woven out of two kinds of thread: refined, elaborate literary artifice, on the one hand, and, on the other, restrained, measured, and graceful music. It is the beautiful surface that gives the courtly love song, and, by extension, “Sad-Eyed Lady,” their Apollonian character. Nietzsche was, in fact, an admirer of the troubadours and their poetic art, their term for which was “la gaya scienza,” a term that Nietzsche took up as the subtitle, and, in German translation (Die fröhliche Wissenschaft), the title, of one of his most important books, The Gay Science. The term summarized for him “that unity of singer, knight, and free spirit that is distinctive of the wonderful early culture of Provence” (EH, “The Gay Science”).[6]

Another mark of the Apollonian in “Sad-Eyed Lady” is the primary sense to which it appeals—vision. With the exception of “prayers like rhymes,” “voice like chimes,” “matchbox songs,” “gypsy hymns,” and “phony false alarm,” all the figurative language in the song refers to things seen, not heard; and the singer’s “warehouse eyes,” referenced at the end of each chorus, are a trope for the singer’s prodigious ability to collect and store visual imagery, an ability to which the song itself, with its long list of visual attributes of the sad-eyed lady, lovingly laid out on view, gives ample testimony.[7] Vision is the paramount Apollonian sense for Nietzsche. The Apollonian, he tells us, “alerts above all the eye, so that it acquires power of vision. The painter, the sculptor, the epic poet are visionaries par excellence” (TI “Expeditions” 10). As I will argue below, the cumulative effect of “Sad-Eyed Lady”’s exhaustive “layering” of image upon image of the sad-eyed lady reflects an Apollonian “power of vision” on a monumental scale. Each of the song’s repeated “with your”s, followed by a descriptor, is like a brush stroke added to a vast canvas that slowly takes shape before the mind’s eye. And of course, in the chorus, the singer’s “warehouse eyes” are joined by the sad eyes of the sad-eyed lady herself and of the “sad-eyed prophets,” reflecting vision of a very different sort: the sad eyes of the lady and the prophets express the suffering, but also the tragic wisdom, associated with our insight into the terrible, Dionysian truth of our existence.

As an Apollonian work based on the courtly love song genre, “Sad-Eyed Lady,” I will argue, makes two distinct claims, which, together, constitute its theme: first, in exploring the elusive, mysterious meaning of art—represented by the eponymous sad-eyed lady, the song’s “love interest,” but also Nietzsche’s “saving sorceress” referred to above—as a response to the human yearning for stability and perfection in the face of suffering and endless flux, it draws attention to the fragility of art in playing the justificatory role that Nietzsche sees for it; second, it tells us that the only cure for the fragility of art is more art. If, as I hope to convince the reader in the discussion that follows, the theme of “Sad-Eyed Lady” is as I have claimed, then its treatment of its theme, particularly the second part, is thoroughly and fittingly Apollonian—the Nietzschean artform that emphasizes artifice above all. Like all Apollonian art, “Sad-Eyed Lady” confronts a terrible mystery that it seeks to transform into beautiful surfaces to delight the eye and, in so doing, achieve Nietzsche’s Apollonian aesthetic ideal of expressing gratitude and love for its subject by immortalizing it. (I will have more to say about that ideal below). I will argue that the specific mystery that “Sad-Eyed Lady” confronts is the mystery of art, and what the song immortalizes and celebrates, through a monumental accumulation of images, is art, or artifice, itself.

 

Fragility

What I mean by the “fragility” of art is the elusiveness of its consolations, or its capacity to fail as a response to suffering. Sometimes the work fails us: however well intended, some art fails to capture our imagination or to bring us under its spell. Conversely, sometimes we fail the work: even works that we know and admire may not achieve their effects at certain times—when we are tired, overwhelmed, or distracted, for example. But there is a far more important kind of failure and disappointment associated with art and its fragility that arises from the fact that its consolations rely on a bubble—Apollo’s illusions and artifice—that can burst at any time. It is this last point of failure that looms large in “Sad-Eyed Lady.”

The singer in “Sad-Eyed Lady” tells us several things about the eponymous lady and his relationship to her that are critical to her as a symbol for art, and to the theme of art’s fragility. Consider the first verse:

With your mercury mouth in The Missionary Times,
And your eyes like smoke, and your prayers like rhymes,
And your silver cross, and your voice like chimes,
Oh who, do they think, could bury you?
With your pockets well protected at last,
And your streetcar visions, which you place on the grass,
And your flesh like silk, and your face like glass,
Who could they get to carry you?[8]

Most obviously, the verse tells us that the singer finds the sad-eyed lady beautiful, and, in some respects, strangely so: while “flesh like silk” reads like a straightforward, even cliched, description of feminine beauty, “eyes like smoke,” and “face like glass” are more ambiguous, suggesting, from the outset, both the evanescence and the brittleness of the sad-eyed lady’s capacity to enchant. Overall, the singer is fascinated by the sad-eyed lady’s physical attributes, initiating in this first verse what will, in the course of the song, grow into a long list of descriptors.

The sad-eyed lady also represents something of great value to the singer, something which inspires awe (she is powerful, irrepressible, no one could “bury” her), but also devotion (no one is worthy of carrying her), suggesting a quasi-religious feeling of reverence. In connection with these notions of reverence and devotion, there are the references in the first verse to the “Missionary Times,” the sad-eyed lady’s “silver cross,” and her “prayers like rhymes.” More generally, “Sad-Eyed Lady” abounds, across all its verses and its chorus, with biblical and religious imagery (“the sad-eyed prophets”; “the kings of Tyrus”;[9] “the dead angels”; and “Gypsy hymns”) and, more specifically, Catholic imagery (the sad-eyed lady’s “holy medallion” and “saintlike face”), related either to the sad-eyed lady herself or to her world. Further, the singer’s question, “Who could they get to carry you?” evokes the icons, paintings, and statues carried in processions on Christian holy days. All this imagery emphasizes the sad-eyed lady’s spirituality and otherworldliness and the feelings of awe and devotion that she inspires.

Another way that the song expresses awe and devotion is through its music and Dylan’s vocal performance. The melody and rhythm of “Sad-Eyed Lady” set a calm, serious, restrained, elegiac tone that is characteristic of what Nietzsche calls “the music of Apollo,” which he describes as having “a wave-like rhythm with an image-making power” that “keeps at a distance . . . the very element which defines the character of Dionysiac music,” that being “the power of its sound to shake us to our very foundations” (BT 21). This is the tone that Andy Gill hears when he comments on the song’s “measured grace and stately pace” and “depth of devotion,” which he contrasts with the “jokey nihilism” that characterizes the other songs on Blonde on Blonde and on the album that preceded it, Highway 61 Revisited (1965) (131), and that Tim Riley notes when he refers to the song’s “withheld intensity” (141). The intro consists of the whisper of Dylan’s harmonica playing the melody of the first line. When Dylan begins singing, his voice is solemn and reverent: there is not a trace of a sneer or blame, or bitterness, or the sarcastic glee of parody or satire—all hallmarks of Dylan’s voice in the Dionysian songs of Blonde on Blonde. In addition, the song is counted in 6/8 time, which has the steady, “one-two” feel of the heartbeat of a healthy body at rest, suitable to a mood that is contemplative and adoring. The overall effect of voice and music in “Sad-Eyed Lady,” consistent with the song’s use of religious imagery, is to impress upon the listener a “depth of devotion,” in Gill’s words, toward its subject, the sad-eyed lady.

Finally, notwithstanding her other-worldly attributes that inspire devotion, the first verse tells us that the sad-eyed lady is very much of this world. Like art, the transcendence she offers is grounded in the mundane. She has “street car visions,” her pockets are “well protected at last,” suggesting she was once vulnerable to the very worldly harm of theft, and we learn in the second verse that she wears “basement clothes.”

Further, the sad-eyed lady is not worldly in the sense that, Mary-like, she shares in the world’s sufferings and perhaps even offers comfort from them (whatever it is that the singer wants—redemption, salvation—from his deity, it remains “unrequited”; she offers nothing and remains silent throughout); rather, she is a spiritual figure who is herself tainted and corrupted by the world. In the third verse, for example, the singer reminds her that the other-worldly devotion she inspires can degenerate into this-worldly sexual attraction:

The kings of Tyrus, with their convict list,
Are waiting in line for that geranium kiss.
And you wouldn’t know it would happen like this,
But who among them really wants just to kiss you?

Note that, for the singer, the sad-eyed lady appears not to have anticipated this sexual turn, though, he seems to chide her, she probably should have.

Another example of the sad-eyed lady appearing tainted in the singer’s eyes occurs in the fifth and final verse, where the singer mentions the sad-eyed lady’s “magazine husband, who one day just had to go.” If, for a moment, we use Dylan himself as an intertext to read Dylan, then, given the broadly anti-commercial, anti-mass culture tenor of many of his earlier songs, we can hear in the epithet “magazine husband,” a strong suggestion of a failed marriage to someone who—in the singer’s eyes at least—had more “gloss” than substance and who projected an idealized form of masculinity created for mass consumption, raising questions about the sad-eyed lady’s judgement.

The sad-eyed lady seems oblivious to the faults the singer finds in her relationships with the kings of Tyrus and the magazine husband, and her obliviousness, as much as the faults themselves, clearly hurts him: there is, for example, a strong tone of reproach in Dylan’s voice when he sings the line, “But who among them really wants just to kiss you?” That tone, and, more generally, the disappointment aroused in the singer by the men who loom on the sad-eyed lady’s horizons, provide the song with some conflict and dramatic tension. It is important, nevertheless, to stress that disappointment never completely overwhelms the expression of awe and reverence for someone who is powerfully attractive and endlessly fascinating (the song, of extraordinary length, is entirely concerned with the sad-eyed lady’s appearance, accoutrements, and doings), but the actual possession of whom—by the singer, by the other men—is never even a question. When, in the chorus, the singer asks,

Sad-eyed lady of the lowlands,
Where the sad-eyed prophet says that no man comes,
My warehouse eyes, my Arabian drums,
Should I put them by your gate,
Or, sad-eyed lady, should I wait?

his repeated acknowledgement that she resides where “no man comes,” (not just the singer, but no man) and the recurring reference to the “gate,” through which the singer never passes, and which seems to serve as a kind of shrine where offerings (the “warehouse eyes,” the “Arabian drums”) are left, show that he clearly believes that the sad-eyed lady, consistent with the conventions of the courtly love song discussed above, is ultimately beyond both his reach, and the reach of anyone else.

While the sad-eyed lady could be understood as an essentialized “eternal feminine” or female deity, she is, as we have seen, also one for whom the sacred always appears to be at risk of veering into the profane. On one level, the elusive sad-eyed lady is like life itself, with its pleasures and pains, its beauty and ugliness, and, counter to all of our yearnings, its refusal to “stay put” or “make sense.” At the same time, the song emphasizes features of the sad-eyed lady that make her, with her capacity to enchant and disappoint, an apt symbol for both art and the fragility of the spell art casts—especially the art of Nietzsche’s Dionysian aesthetic, which, while holding out the possibility of the non-supernatural “transcendence we can believe in” (the sacred), does not shy away from what is ugly, terrifying, or mysterious in life (the worldly, the profane). Both the sad-eyed lady and the Apollonian and Dionysian works are beautiful; both hold the spectator in a kind of devotional spell; both are “worldly” in important respects; as a consequence of their worldliness, however, both have the capacity to fail and to disappoint. Therein lies their fragility.

The fragility of art is underscored by the song’s figurative language. The features of the sad-eyed lady are rendered impressionistically, and the singer struggles to pin them down: over the song’s five verses there are two descriptions of the sad-eyed lady’s mouth (“mercury”; “cowboy”), three descriptions of her eyes (“like smoke”; “where the moonlight swims”; and, of course, “sad”), and three descriptions of her face (“like glass”; “hollow”; “saintlike”). Further, many of the descriptive words importantly suggest something elusive, fleeting, or hard to grasp: “mercury,” “smoke,” “moonlight.” Much of the figurative language is surreal—often wildly, incongruously so (“warehouse eyes”; “geranium kiss”; “curfew plugs”)—and reminiscent of Nietzsche’s idea of language in the Dionysian work “straining to its limits to imitate music” (BT 34), in the sense that it evokes feelings or intuitions, but defies straightforward paraphrase. Both the impressionistic language, which struggles to realize its elusive subject, and the wild surrealism reflect how Nietzsche’s “artistic distance” depends on a fragile balance that is always at risk of collapse.

 

More Art

Having addressed the first of my claims regarding “Sad-Eyed Lady”’s theme—art is fragile—I will now turn to the second: the answer to the fragility of art is more art. What I mean by “more art” is “Sad-Eyed Lady”’s lavish, multi-faceted use of literary and musical artifice to create a monumental, enduring bulwark against the terrible Dionysian forces that rule our lives. In a critical passage of The Gay Science, Nietzsche grounds the order and beautiful illusions of the Apollonian work—“spreading a Homeric light and splendor over all things”—in a desire on the part of the “Dionysian man” and artist for “fixing, for immortalizing, for being,” prompted by “gratitude and love” (GS 370).[10] Together, the desire to immortalize and the gratitude and love that prompt that desire form Nietzsche’s ideal for the Apollonian work, and “Sad-Eyed Lady” brings both to bear on the theme of “more art.” Gratitude and love express the theme through the song’s awe-struck celebration, noted above, of the sad-eyed lady/art/artifice. It is the Apollonian drive to immortalize, however, that is most emphatic in “Sad-Eyed Lady.” “Sad-Eyed Lady” achieves its immortalizing effect by two means: its sense of “stopped time,” and its monumentalism.

The primary conceit of the Apollonian “immortalizing” and “fixing” impulse is that time and its ravages can be stopped. There are two elements of “Sad-Eyed Lady” that convey the sense of “stopped” time: its music and its treatment of narrative. It is the musical sense of stopped time—“Sad-Eyed Lady”’s dreamy, mesmerizing rhythm and melody—that most immediately strikes the listener and has also caught the attention of critics. Wilfrid Mellers, for example, aptly states that “Sad-Eyed Lady”’s music “effaces Time” and “enters a mythological once-upon-a-time where the clock doesn’t tick” (403); Sean Latham cites “Sad-Eyed Lady” as an example, like “Tempest” (Tempest, 2012) and “Highlands” (Time Out of Mind, 1997), of one of Dylan’s “sprawling epics,” to which, in words that echo Mellers’s, he attributes a “looping musical structure that could seemingly go on forever” (7); and Ricks observes that “Sad-Eyed Lady,” like Swinburne’s “Dolores,” “moves in time to that of which it speaks, ‘To a tune that enthralls and entices’” (98, internal quotation from “Dolores”). The sense of stopped time evoked by the music in “Sad-Eyed Lady” comes into sharp focus when we contrast it with the relentless forward momentum of the music that drives Miss Lonely headlong into the abyss in Dylan’s “Like a Rolling Stone” (Highway 61 Revisited).

A very different kind of stopped time, one that Latham also takes note of when he says of “Sad-Eyed Lady,” that, like “Highlands,” its “length fills time as the singer waits for something to happen” (7), stems from “Sad-Eyed Lady”’s almost entire lack of event or narrative. The song is made up, for the most part, either of static descriptions, or of equally static hypothetical actions: “Should I leave”; “should I wait?”; “Who could they get to carry you?”; “Who among them would try to impress you?” (emphasis added). The song offers just two passages in which event and conflict intrude on the otherwise sovereign, seamless flow of imagery. Although things “happen” in these passages, the ultimate effect of both is to reinforce the Apollonian value of immortalization and stopping time. One narrative passage involves the “kings of Tyrus,” which I quoted above; the other involves the sad-eyed lady’s resistance to the blandishments of the oddly feckless “farmers” and “businessmen”:

Oh, the farmers and the businessmen, they all did decide
To show you where the dead angels are that they used to hide.
But why did they pick you to sympathize with their side?
How could they ever mistake you?
They wished you’d accepted the blame for the farm,
But with the sea at your feet, and the phony false alarm,
And with the child of the hoodlum, wrapped up in your arms,
How could they ever have persuaded you?

Both passages are set in what Mikhail Bakhtin calls the “absolute past” of the epic[11]—one of the ideal types of Apollonian art for Nietzsche—which, in its “epic completeness,” is sealed off from the “spontaneity of the inconclusive present” (13, 27).[12] A key consequence of the “epic” qualities of these two narrative passages in “Sad-Eyed Lady” is that they project an atmosphere of stasis, but also, importantly, of distance, such that neither, ultimately, disturbs the overall beauty and calm of the surface imagery.

True to epic form, both narrative intrusions begin in medias res: we are not told how the kings of Tyrus came to be “waiting in line,” nor do we know what went wrong with “the farm,” or why the sad-eyed lady should take the blame for it. Importantly, we do not learn how either story ends. Both narratives are moments of larger stories, frozen and sealed off in the distance of Bakhtin’s “absolute past.” First, there is distance between the listener and the events related. The kings of Tyrus are biblical figures (see note 9 above), but even for the listener who lacks the background to make this connection, the kings—neither contemporary, nor historical—sound epic and distant. Second, there is distance between the sad-eyed lady and calamity: the song portrays the kings passively “waiting in line”—as hapless as the singer, who, in the chorus, repeatedly offers to wait before he makes his offering. There is nothing in this waiting to suggest the rush of transformative events in Bakhtin’s “inconclusive present.” As for the farmers and the businessmen, they are faceless, generic characters without a past or future, and the song presents the sad-eyed lady’s misadventure with them, whatever it involved exactly, as something safely behind her now.

The sad-eyed lady’s present position of safety, just noted, and the overall sense the song gives us that, whatever her past, the sad-eyed lady, “With [her] pockets well protected at last,” has attained a certain degree of autonomy, stability, and even invulnerability (“Who among them could ever think he could destroy you?”), provide another touchpoint, relevant to the idea of immortalization, with Bakhtin’s understanding of the epic. For Bakhtin, the stasis and distance that are true of epic plot are also true of epic characters: whatever happens to the epic hero, Bakhtin tells us, he remains the same “fully finished and completed being” (34). (In support of Bakhtin’s view, we can contrast, for example, the fixity of Achilles or Odysseus as characters with a tragic, Dionysian character like Oedipus, who is transformed by his ordeal.) “Sad-Eyed Lady” provides a beautiful illustration of Bakhtin’s static, epic character when the singer admires the sad-eyed lady: “With your silhouette, when the sunlight dims / Into your eyes, where the moonlight swims.” In classic Apollonian form, the description presents the sad-eyed lady as a statue or a monument, around which the light changes during the day, revealing new surfaces to be admired and revered, but who herself remains, like Bakhtin’s epic hero, the same “fully finished and completed being.”

In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is instructive, once again, to contrast “Sad-Eyed Lady” with “Like a Rolling Stone.” While the Apollonian sad-eyed lady appears before us like sculpture, “fully finished and completed,” “Like a Rolling Stone” presents the Dionysian Miss Lonely at a tragic, threshold moment of crisis and flux—as a character she remains “in play,” in Bakhtin’s “spontaneity of the inconclusive present.” (The two characters may, in fact, be related. The sad-eyed lady could be a sadder, wiser version of Miss Lonely—a later self who has gained tragic wisdom after her downfall.)

Many listeners are struck by “Sad-Eyed Lady”’s monumentalism, yet another key feature of the song’s immortalizing effect. There is of course something monumental in the sheer length of the song—at just over eleven minutes, only “Desolation Row” (Highway 61 Revisited) matches “Sad-Eyed Lady” in length among the songs that came before it. More importantly, however, the images of the sad-eyed lady, though individually impressionistic and elusive, collectively form a monumental structure. Dylan’s strategy in “Sad-Eyed Lady” is to exhaust the suffering and the mystery that his song confronts by multiplying and layering before the listener image upon image of the song’s principal subject. Scobie: “[the sad-eyed lady] almost disappears in the haze of images that surround her” (144). The first verse, quoted above, is typical in this respect: every line involves a description of some aspect of the woman around whom the song revolves. The song’s solution to the problem of the fragility of art, then, is more art, or more artifice, in the form of a monumental accumulation of images of the sad-eyed lady. In this sense “Sad-Eyed Lady” is its own answer to the problem that it sets for itself. It transforms the pain of artistic failure and art’s fragility, represented both by the mystery and elusiveness of the sad-eyed lady, and by her worldliness, into a monumental set of beautiful images, to be contemplated with gratitude and serenity. To achieve Apollonian immortalization by building a monument out of that which is ephemeral, impressionistic, and fleeting, is to provide reassurance, in symbolic form, of the power of Apollonian artifice, or art more generally, to enchant.

“Sad-Eyed Lady”’s structural elements—the repeated “With your”s and “your”s and its rhyme scheme—while imposing order on the profusion of imagery, also contribute to the song’s monumentalism. “Sad-Eyed Lady”’s verses are comprised of a pair of tetrameter quatrains, with an a a a b c c c b rhyme scheme. The “laying on” of the thrice-repeated a and c rhymes echoes the “laying on” of images discussed above, and contributes to the feeling of the monumental in the same way. But note also how far apart the b rhymes are set from one another. In the way that they anticipate and call back to each other across a great distance, they appear as sturdy, stone pillars supporting a temple. Note further the ingenious, “ambidextrous” rhyme scheme of the chorus, in which the line “Where the sad-eyed prophets say that no man comes,” manages to achieve both a slant, polysyllabic rhyme with the end of the line that precedes it (“lady of the lowlands”; “say that no man”),[13] and a different, masculine end rhyme with the line that follows it (“comes” and “drums”). The result is a kind of monumental “double reinforcement” of the lines of the chorus.

The final dimension of the monumental in “Sad-Eyed Lady” is its melody. In a New Yorker article, Alex Ross draws attention to the “grand” rising and descending scale of the song’s chorus and to how, in the final chorus that follows the fifth verse,

as the band keeps playing the [descending] scale, [Dylan] skates back up to the top D with each syllable. He sings on one note as the rest of the harmony moves around him: it’s as if he’s surveying the music from a summit. (n. pag.)

To this lovely, apt image, we can add two other features of the melody of “Sad-Eyed Lady” that are important to the role that it plays in the song. First, with respect to the melody of the chorus, in addition to noting the ascending and descending pattern that Ross highlights, it is important to note that the melody ascends sharply—more than an octave—from the word “comes” to the syllable “ware” of “warehouse,” and then, with the exception of the fifth and final chorus, in which Dylan holds the high D as Ross says, it descends gradually—one note short of a full octave, without missing any “steps” in the scale as it does so—between the syllable “ware” of “warehouse” and the word “drums.” Second, the melody of the verses of “Sad-Eyed Lady” also features a rising and descending pattern that peaks on the high D (on the syllable “sil” of “silver” and the word “flesh,” if we take the first verse as an example), although the interval of the ascent to the high D is smaller in the verses than it is in the chorus, and the downward movement is much shorter, and it “meanders” a bit (again, taking the first verse as an example, touching bottom on the words “chimes” and “glass”).

The rising and descending melodic feature that is mirrored in the verses and in the chorus of “Sad-Eyed Lady” has several consequences. First, the mirroring helps bind the song together and adds to the sense of monumentalism; at the same time, it is subtle: the ascent and descent in the verses is an attenuated version of the “big” ascent and descent of the chorus, and, as a result, the braces holding the song together are partially hidden. Second, the bigger ascent and descent in the chorus, compared with the verses, contributes to the feeling of building to the “summit” that Ross observes. Third, however, the melodic ascent takes the singer to the summit on the word “warehouse,” which, as an adjective to describe the singer’s eyes, is a symbol for the singer’s Apollonian power of vision. Ross’s “summit” is one from which singer and listener alike can survey the music, but it is also one from which they can survey the beautiful, monumental Apollonian surfaces that the singer’s words have spread before our mind’s eye. (This effect is amplified when, after the fifth verse, as Ross notes, Dylan’s voice holds the D on each syllable, while the band follows the scale down.) The sharp ascent of the melody in the chorus contrasts powerfully with its gradual, stepwise descent. Here, the melody seems to acknowledge the law—common to gravity, music, and life—that what goes up must come down. But with its measured descent, it wears that law lightly. To cite what was said about another famous ascent and descent, “One must imagine Sisyphus happy” (Camus, 91).

 

The Place of “Sad-Eyed Lady” in Dylan’s Early Career

If we can fruitfully understand “Sad-Eyed Lady” as an Apollonian work from the perspective of Nietzsche’s Dionysian aesthetic, then we can also say that it is Dylan’s first song of this kind and that it marks a turning point in his early career. Critics have noted that “Sad-Eyed Lady” stands out vis-à-vis the songs that precede it on Blonde on Blonde and on Dylan’s two prior albums, Bringing It All Back Home (1965) and Highway 61 Revisited. Ricks tells us that “Sad-Eyed Lady” is “unmistakably [Dylan’s] and yet nothing like any other achievement of his” (101). Neil Corcoran hears in “Sad-Eyed Lady” an attempt at “self-abandonment,” which is “perhaps actually realized in the weird (even for Dylan) and in some ways hilarious, and never repeated, vocal styling of [‘Sad-Eyed Lady’]” (169). As noted above, Gill comments on the lack in “Sad-Eyed Lady” of the “jokey nihilism” that characterizes many of Dylan’s earlier songs.

“Sad-Eyed Lady” stands out as an Apollonian work because it appears against an immediate backdrop of so many songs that have the characteristics of the counterpart to the Apollonian work in Nietzsche’s Dionysian aesthetic: the darker and more fragile Dionysian work, in which, as discussed above, the terrible Dionysian insight into the truth of our existence is mediated, but not overridden, by Apollonian artifice. Nietzsche grounds the Dionysian work in a desire on the part of the Dionysian man or artist “for destruction, for change, for novelty, for future, for becoming,” which is “the expression of an overflowing energy pregnant with the future” (GS 370). The Dionysian man’s desire for destruction is not nihilistic; rather, it is ultimately a creative desire—one “pregnant with the future,” as Nietzsche says—to replace what is with something new, in order to taste and experience all the possibilities that life has to offer.

Tragedy is the archetypical destructive Dionysian artform for Nietzsche, of which “Like a Rolling Stone,” in which the singer plays the role of chorus to Miss Lonely’s downfall, is the classic example in Dylan’s work. But for Nietzsche the destructive Dionysian impulse finds creative outlet in other ways as well, including parody, satire, and farce—highly corrosive examples of which we find in Dylan songs like “Subterranean Homesick Blues” and “Bob Dylan’s 115th Dream” (Bringing It All Back Home), “Highway 61 Revisited” (Highway 61 Revisited), and “Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again” (Blonde on Blonde). All of these songs feature a carnivalesque overturning of social norms and a picaresque singer, who lives by his wits, and who is buffeted about by, and disrupts, established authority and hierarchies. Many of them are also notable for their combination of raucous, rock backing and Dylan’s accusatory, mocking, and sarcastic vocal performance, which is all of a piece with their destructive nature. But “Mr. Tambourine Man” (Bringing It All Back Home), which features an acoustic folk musical arrangement, is equally Dionysian, albeit concerned with destruction of a different kind. Here Dionysus himself, Nietzsche’s “tempter god and born pied piper of consciences” (BGE 295), appears in the guise of the eponymous Tambourine Man, who holds out the promise of “jingle-jangle morning” and new beginnings, a promise built on the destruction of “evening’s empire,” which, Ozymandias-like, has “returned into sand.”

The contrast between these Dionysian songs and the Apollonian “Sad-Eyed Lady” is stark, helping to make the case for “Sad-Eyed Lady” as an Apollonian “first” for Dylan. But there is another song on Blonde on Blonde, “Visions of Johanna,” that appears to challenge “Sad-Eyed Lady”’s claim to “first place.”[14] The point is not merely that “Johanna” exhibits elements of Apollonian artifice—that is true of all Dionysian works—but rather that certain of these elements loom large enough to give the impression, superficially at least, that “Johanna,” like “Sad-Eyed Lady,” is a purely Apollonian work.

The Apollonian characteristics that figure prominently in “Johanna” include a sense of the monumental,[15] the dramatis personae of the courtly love song (the exalted, elusive, unattainable woman and the male singer who is devoted to her), and a subdued, solemn, “serious” musical treatment.

At the same time, “Johanna” departs from the Apollonian aesthetic ideal in a number of important ways. For example, “Johanna” is multi-voiced—both with respect to Dylan’s vocal performance, and with respect to the language that he uses—such that the singer’s overall tone is by turns awe-struck and reverent, as in “Sad-Eyed Lady” (when referring to Johanna); sneering and sarcastic (as Scobie observes, vis-à-vis the “jelly-faced women” and “Little Boy Lost” [268]); anguished and self-pitying (“Oh, how can I explain? It’s so hard to get on.”); ironic, but also somewhat didactic (the museums/Mona Lisa episode); and world-wearily cynical (the peddler and countess episode). In addition to speaking in different voices of his own, reflecting different moods or attitudes, the singer channels the voices of others (“Voices echo”; “Hear the one with the mustache say”; “The peddler now speaks . . ., saying”; “like Louise always says”), each with their own intonation and vocabulary. In “Sad-Eyed Lady,” however, a single awe-struck and reverent voice and language prevail, contributing to both        the sense of gratitude and love, and the uniformity of surface, so important to the Apollonian aesthetic. “Johanna” also exhibits, in contrast with the epic Apollonian ethos of distance on display in “Sad-Eyed Lady,” an “up-close,” novelistic concern with the idiosyncrasies of place and person. We have no sense at all of where or when “Sad-Eyed Lady” takes place—the very question seems wrong; but the famous first verse of “Johanna” transports us to what is unmistakably a mid-60s, New York bohemia at a very recognizable hour of the night. Further, the characters in “Sad-Eyed Lady” are few and distant, whereas in “Johanna” there are many characters, some of whom recur across verses, like Louise, but all of whom are rendered in telling details of speech, action, and appearance. “Visions of Johanna” is also full of dialogue and open-ended conflict. The conflicts are both interpersonal in nature (the singer and Little Boy Lost, for example), and philosophical (an abstract idea—“Infinity”—is tested, literally, when it “goes up on trial”; and the peddler’s dialogue with the countess raises a question about what it means to “say a prayer” for someone “that’s not a parasite”[16]). In other words, and notwithstanding its themes of being “stranded” and stuck, “Johanna” as a work brims with movement of one kind or another—the shifting scenes and characters, the clash of argument—which, as we have seen, is almost entirely absent from the “time-stopping,” immortalizing “Sad-Eyed Lady.” Indeed, when the question of immortalization comes up in the “museums/Mona Lisa” episode, “Johanna” treats it ironically and with suspicion, as simply mind-numbing “Infinity,” about which “Voices echo, ‘This is what salvation [i.e., immortalization in a religious sense] must be like after a while.’”[17] Finally, “Visions of Johanna” confronts us with a failure of Apollonian “power of vision,” not its triumph: remarkably, and despite all the singer’s talk about his “visions” of the titular woman, we never actually see anything of her. We only hear, repeatedly, at the end of each verse, about the various effects that the visions have on him. He can only tell, not show.[18] In contrast, the singer in “Sad-Eyed Lady” parades before the mind’s eye of the listener, and presumably the sad eyes of the sad-eyed lady, who is his second-person audience, the fluid and fluent Niagara of imagery discussed above.

It is beyond my scope here to provide a full analysis of “Johanna.” But the failure of vision just noted points to at least one way of interpreting the song that also explains why, while it may look and sound in some respects like the purely Apollonian “Sad-Eyed Lady,” it remains solidly Dionysian.[19] “Johanna” presents a first-person self-portrait of a character whose tragedy is his failed ambition to be an artist, a failure that can be understood to represent, more broadly, the sin of “lifelessness,” the sin of failing to find meaningful engagement, of some kind, with life. (Under this interpretation, the literary soulmate of “Visions of Johanna” is Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground—another vivid masterpiece, told in the first person, about a resentful, life-denying man.) The singer/artist in “Visions of Johanna” wants to create a work of pure praise that will live up to his exalted visions of the woman who is the focus of the song. It is from this desire that the song derives its form of the courtly love song, which also gives it the characteristics of the Apollonian work. In a sense, Dylan the artist allows his character, the singer, to dictate form. But that character is incapable of filling his form with content. His error, and what sets him apart from the singer in “Sad-Eyed Lady,” is that he believes that the material for art lies in some ineffable “beyond” and not with what is at hand. He says of the very “this-worldly” Louise, for example, “she’s just near” (emphasis added)—i.e., merely near, which means that “near” is never adequate for him. On this last point, Pamela Thurschwell quite astutely says of Louise that she is “too fleshly to fulfil the . . . muse function” for the singer and “too accessible” (268).

If we apply to “Visions of Johanna” Timothy Hampton’s very useful historical framework for understanding visionary literature, we can see the singer, far behind his rightful time, taking, or trying and failing to take, an earlier and outmoded approach to the visionary work, epitomized by Blake, under which the visionary experience—through God, or through “Romantic notions of ‘imagination’ and ‘fancy’”—“overtakes” the visionary from outside. In contrast, Dylan’s visionary aesthetic is “modernist,” Hampton argues, taking a this-worldly cue from Rimbaud, “the first great nonmetaphysical visionary” (Bob Dylan, 88). The result for Dylan is a “poetry of the everyday,” with which, Hampton observes, he “teach[es] us that beauty is all around us” (“‘Nothing, Really Nothing’”). Dylan the artist appreciates how rich the singer’s “here and now” is in settings, people, conversation, and ideas, all of which he transforms into a work of extraordinary beauty. It is precisely this richness that the singer, in his obsession with the other-worldly Johanna, treats with contempt or indifference. To cite just one example of the singer’s blindness to the beauty around him, consider his reaction when Louise “holds a handful of rain, tempting you to defy it.” Louise’s lovely, fragile, dexterous piece of performance art, which in a somewhat scrambled fashion seems to enact Cummings’s line “nobody, not even the rain, has such small hands,” crackles with intertextual electricity, yet does nothing to move or to enchant the singer; rather, the challenge in Louise’s performance (while she defies physics, she tempts her audience, the singer, to defy that she is doing so), which is the defiant challenge of all genuine art, is one that the singer would prefer to ignore. For the singer, Louise’s gesture is just one more annoying distraction on the dreary list that immediately follows the “handful of rain” line, one more of the “tricks” that the night plays, along with the coughing heat pipes, “when you’re trying to be so quiet” (presumably the better to attend to the absent Johanna). Notwithstanding its Apollonian features, “Visions of Johanna” is ultimately a cautionary tale that showcases a form of Dionysian destruction that is too dark to be anything but tragic. The singer is ultimately undone by the visions that he is incapable of realizing as art: “And these visions of Johanna are now all that remain.”

If we accept “Sad-Eyed Lady” as an Apollonian “first” for Dylan, the story of its place in his early career is still not straightforward. First, as we have seen, “Visions of Johanna,” which Dylan wrote before “Sad-Eyed Lady,” and which appears before that song on Blonde on Blonde, already marks a noticeable move, within the bounds of what remains nevertheless a Dionysian work, toward a greater emphasis on Apollonian effects. Second, although things would never be the same again, “Sad-Eyed Lady” did not immediately usher in a period of Apollonian songs for Dylan. Instead, with the turn toward Apollo in “Sad-Eyed Lady,” Dylan made a break with the past that opened the door to the radically new Dionysian songs that appear on John Wesley Harding (1967), the album with which he followed Blonde on Blonde. Like all Dionysian artworks, these songs temper the destructive Dionysian insight with the beauty of Apollonian artifice; but unlike their pre-“Sad-Eyed Lady” predecessors, including “Johanna,” they foreground Apollonian balance, restraint, and order as a means of achieving “artistic distance” from the profoundly tragic, Dionysian worldview that underlies them. They inherit from the Apollonian “Sad-Eyed Lady” its more subdued music and Dylan’s new “chastened,” elegiac vocal tone (the sneer, the sarcasm, which still figure in “Visions of Johanna,” are gone), but they replace its lush orchestration with one that is radically simplified, and its surreal, impressionistic language with a spare, unadorned lyrical form. To borrow words Nietzsche uses to describe the “deeper secrets” of the tragedies of Aeschylus, what we find in the songs of John Wesley Harding is “something incommensurable in every feature and every line, a certain deceiving definiteness, and at the same time a puzzling depth, indeed infinity, in the background” (BT 58). It is precisely this “puzzling depth” that “Sad-Eyed Lady” is lacking and that both distinguishes it, as an Apollonian song, from the Dionysian songs of John Wesley Harding, and marks it as a turning point—different from what came before, but different as well, in different ways (most notably in its continued use of highly surreal language), from what followed.

 

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the editors of The Dylan Review and the two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions for revision. I am also very grateful to Paul Headrick and Bruce Baugh for their generous engagement with my broader explorations of Dylan and Nietzsche, and for their insightful comments and feedback on earlier drafts of this essay. Special thanks to Paul Headrick for his unflagging encouragement and moral support.

 

Appendix: Nietzsche as a Source for Dylan

Over the years, Dylan has made a handful of references to Nietzsche and at least one reference to the Dionysian:

  • Dylan’s liner notes for Highway 61 Revisited (1965) feature a vignette in which a character named Paul Sargent “comes by . . . in an umpire’s suit & some college kid who’s read all about Nietzsche comes by & says ‘Nietzsche never wore an umpire’s suit’ & Paul says ‘You wanna buy some clothes, kid?’”
  • In “Joey” (Desire, 1976), Joey Gallo does “ten years in Attica, / Reading Nietzsche and Wilhelm Reich.”
  • Dylan mentions Nietzsche in a talk at a concert in Toronto in 1980, during his Christian period, in which he describes speaking to a hostile audience at a concert he had given the year before in Tempe, Arizona: It says things in the Bible that I didn’t really learn until recently, and I really mentioned these [at the concert the year before] because there are higher learning people there, preaching their philosophy. So people can study all the different philosophies . . . Well, I definitely recall reading Nietzsche and those people like that. (quoted in Heylin, Shades 353)
  • In his notes on “Stack A Lee,” from World Gone Wrong (1993), Dylan says of the eponymous murderer, “Stack’s in a cell, no wall phone. he is not some egotistical degraded existentialist dionysian idiot, neither does he represent any alternative lifestyle scam . . . .”
  • In Chronicles: Volume One (2004) Dylan makes two mentions of Nietzsche. The first: “In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche talks about feeling old at the beginning of his life . . . I felt like that, too” (73, ellipsis in original). The second: [Dave] Van Ronk’s wife, Terri, . . . was just as outspoken and opinionated as Dave was, especially about politics—not so much the political issues but rather the highfalutin’ theological ideas behind political systems. Nietzschean politics. Politics with a hanging heaviness. (263)
  • In The Philosophy of Modern Song (2022), in his discussion of “Where or When,” performed by Dion and the Belmonts, Dylan notes that one of the characters in the 1937 Rodgers and Hart musical, Babes in Arms, from which the song originated, is a “Nietzsche-spouting communist” (331). Further, the lyrics of “Where or When” echo, in a loose way, Nietzsche’s idea of the “eternal return”: “Some things that happen for the first time / Seems [sic] to be happening again,” (Belmonts); and Dylan, in his commentary, describes the song as “one repetitious drone through space, plugging the same old theme, nonstop over and over again . . . ,” in which “[h]istory keeps repeating itself” (327).

 

What are we to make of all this?

Based solely on Dylan’s reference to Nietzsche in the liner notes to Highway 61 Revisited, Clinton Heylin suggests that Nietzsche influenced the writing of “Desolation Row,” a song on the same album (Revolution, 248), but Heylin’s inference relies on the slimmest of circumstantial evidence. Heylin also suggests that the title of Dylan’s book Tarantula is a reference to the chapter “On the Tarantulas” from Part II of Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra and that Nietzsche’s book may have “served as some kind of model” for Dylan’s (Shades, 124), but he provides no support for these suggestions.[20] It is clear, nevertheless, that by the time Dylan released Highway 61 Revisited in 1965 he had at least heard of Nietzsche and had some idea of how college students might bandy his name about and invoke it as a kind of “trump card” in arguments. Perhaps as well, given his comments on “Where or When,” Dylan is aware of Nietzsche’s eternal return, but it is just as possible that he is simply responding to the themes of the song, which, although it does not explicitly mention Nietzsche or the eternal return, may bear an actual Nietzschean influence, since Nietzsche is in fact discussed in Babes in Arms (See Wikipedia entry). It’s telling, however, that Dylan’s “college kid” has “read all about” Nietzsche, but hasn’t necessarily read Nietzsche. In fact, the same may be true of Dylan himself. All of Dylan’s references to Nietzsche above have a superficial feel to them (“Nietzsche and those people like that”), as if Nietzsche is little more than a name that Dylan can recognize in a line-up of philosophers. Even Dylan’s quotation, or paraphrase, from Beyond Good and Evil is suspect: I have not been able to find anything even remotely resembling it in that book. But even if Dylan has read Nietzsche, as he implies with his paraphrase from Beyond Good and Evil, and as he claimed to have to the audience in Toronto, there is nothing of Nietzsche that comes through in these references and “Nietzsche sightings” that would suggest a serious influence.

 


Works Cited

“Babes in Arms.” Wikipedia (n.d.). 7 March 2025. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babes_in_Arms.

Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. “Epic and Novel, Toward a Methodology for the Study of the Novel.”

Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. The Dialogic Imagination, Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2014. 3-40.

Belmonts, Dion and the. “Where or When.” By Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart. 1960.

YouTube. 7 March 2025.

Berlin, Adele and Marc Zvi Brettler, The Jewish Study Bible. Trans. Jewish Publication Society.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Trans. Justin O’Brien. New York: Vintage Books, 1955.

Corcoran, Neil. “Death’s Honesty.” “Do You, Mr. Jones?”: Bob Dylan with the Poets and Professors.

Ed. Neil Corcoran. London: Chatto & Windus, 2002. 143-174.

Coyle, Michael and Debra Rae Cohen. “Blonde on Blonde (1966).” The Cambridge Companion to Bob Dylan.

Ed. Kevin J. H. Dettmar. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 143-149.

Cummings, E. E. “somewhere i have never travelled,gladly beyond.” 20th-Century Poetry and Poetics.

Ed. Gary Geddes. Second Edition. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1973. 106-107.

Dettmar, Kevin. “Borrowing.” The World of Bob Dylan. Ed. Sean Latham. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2021. 205-213.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Notes from Underground. Trans. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky.

New York: Vintage Books, 1994.

Dylan, Bob. Blonde on Blonde. Columbia Records, 1966. CD.

—. Bringing It All Back Home. Columbia Records, 1965. CD.

—. Chronicles: Volume One. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2005.

—. Desire. CBS Inc., 1975. CD.

—. Highway 61 Revisited. CBS/Sony, 1965. CD.

—. “Liner Notes, Highway 61 Revisited.” Columbia Records, CK 9189, 1965. CD.

—. “Liner Notes, World Gone Wrong.” Columbia Records, CK 57590, 1993. CD.

—. Philosophy of Modern Song, The. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2022.

—. Tarantula. St. Albans, Hertfordshire: Panther Books Limited, 1973.

—. World Gone Wrong. Sony Music Entertainment Inc., 1993. CD.

Gill, Andy. Bob Dylan: The Stories Behind the Classic Songs, 1962-69. London: Welbeck, 2021.

Goldblatt, David and Edward Necarsulmer IV. “Language on the Lam(b): Tarantula in Dylan and Nietzsche.”

Bob Dylan and Philosophy: It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Thinking). Ed. Peter Vernezze and Carl J. Porter. Popular Culture and Philosophy. Vol. 17. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company, 2006. 156-168.

Gray, Michael. Song and Dance Man: The Art of Bob Dylan. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981.

Hampton, Timothy. “‘Nothing, Really Nothing, to Turn Off’: A Listening Guide for Octogenarians.”

The Dylan Review 3.1 (Summer 2021). 18 December 2025. https://thedylanreview.org/2021/07/25/nothing-really-nothing-to-turn-off-a-listening-guide-for-octogenarians/.

—. Bob Dylan: How the Songs Work. New York: Zone Books, 2019.

Herdman, John. Voice without Restraint: A Study of Bob Dylan’s Lyrics and Their Background.

New York: Delilah Books, 1981.

Heylin, Clinton. Dylan: Behind the Shades. London: Penguin Books, 1991.

—. Revolution in the Air: The Songs of Bob Dylan, 1957-1973. Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2009.

Latham, Sean. “Introduction: Time to Say Goodbye Again.” The World of Bob Dylan. Ed. Sean Latham.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 1-9.

Leggett, B. J. Early Stevens: The Nietzschean Intertext. Durham: Duke University Press, 1992.

Marshall, Lee. “Bob Dylan and the Academy.” The Cambridge Companion to Bob Dylan.

Ed. Kevin J. H. Dettmar. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 100-109.

Mellers, Wilfrid. “Bob Dylan: Freedom and Responsibility.” Bob Dylan, The Early Years: A Retrospective,

with a New Preface by Nat Hentoff. Ed. Craig McGregor. New York: Da Capo Press, Inc., 1990. 398-407.

Muir, Andrew. Troubadour: Early & Late Songs of Bob Dylan. Bluntisham,

Cambridgeshire: Woodstock Publications, 2003.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil, Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, Translated, with a Commentary,

by Walter Kaufmann. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, 1966.

—. “Ecce Homo: How to Become What You Are.” The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols, and Other Writings. Ed. Aaron Ridley and Judith Norman. Trans. Judith Norman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 69-151.

—. The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings. Ed. Raymond Geuss and Ronald Speirs. Trans. Ronald Speirs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.

—. The Gay Science, with a Prelude in German Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs. Ed. Bernard Williams. Trans. Josefine Nauckhoff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

—. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, A Book for All and None. Ed. Adrian Del Caro and Robert B. Pippin. Trans. Robert B. Pippin. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

—. Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ. Trans. R. J. Hollingdale. London: Penguin Books, 2003.

Ricks, Christopher. Dylans Visions of Sin. New York: Viking, 2003.

Riley, Tim. Hard Rain: A Dylan Commentary. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1992.

Ross, Alex. “The Wanderer.” The New Yorker 3 May 1999. 20 December 2020.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1999/05/10/the-wanderer.

Scobie, Stephen. Alias Bob Dylan Revisited. Calgary: Red Deer Press, 2003.

Sounes, Howard. Down the Highway, The Life of Bob Dylan, Revised and Updated Edition.

New York: Grove Press, 2011.

Thomas, Richard F. “‘And I Crossed the Rubicon’: Another Classical Dylan.”

The Dylan Review 2.1 (Summer 2020). 14 March 2025.

thedylanreview.org/2020/06/12/and-i-crossed-the-rubicon-another-classical-dylan/.

Thurschwell, Pamela. “A Different Baby Blue.” “Do you, Mr. Jones?”: Bob Dylan with the Poets and Professors.

Ed. Neil Corcoran. London: Chatto & Windus, 2002. 253-273.

Varesi, Anthony. The Bob Dylan Albums, 2nd. Edition. Toronto: Guernica Editions, 2022.


[1] Gray later revised his opinion, arguing for the power of Dylan’s performance to redeem the “shortcomings” of the song’s lyrics (see Christopher Ricks, 101). The idea that the song’s vocal performance and/or its music rescue its weak lyrics is a recurring theme in discussions of “Sad-Eyed Lady”: see Lee Marshall (102-103), Clinton Heylin (Revolution, 294), and Andrew Muir (151). For a rebuttal to this idea, see Ricks (102).

[2] In citations I use the following abbreviations for Nietzsche’s works: Beyond Good and Evil (BGE), The Birth of Tragedy (BT), Ecce Homo (EH), The Gay Science (GS), Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Z), Twilight of the Idols (TI). Numbers refer to pages in BT and to sections in all the other works. Nietzsche was a great lover of emphasis; in quotations, unless indicated otherwise, all emphasis is in the original.

[3] Kevin Dettmar, in his discussion of Dylan’s borrowing, equates “intertextuality” with “textual influence” (212), suggesting, like Thomas, that it involves an explicit and traceable, causal relationship between one text and another.

[4] In the only other extended discussion of Nietzsche and Dylan that I have found, David Goldblatt and Edward Necarsulmer’s “Language on the Lam(b): Tarantula in Dylan and Nietzsche,” the authors remain in a similar realm, making no claim for influence. Further, they do not address the question of Dylan and Nietzsche’s Dionysian aesthetic. In fact, they make an explicit point of eschewing aesthetic theory, on the grounds that an “intuitive” and “spontaneous” artist like Dylan “evades theory in a certain way” (157).

[5] Michael Coyle and Debra Rae Cohen, who interpret the song in biographical terms as a “celebration of [Dylan’s] new wife,” recognize “Sad-Eyed Lady”’s debt to the courtly love genre when they refer to the song’s “Petrarchan catalogue of [Sara’s] qualities” (149).

[6] I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer who raised the importance of the courtly love song to “Sad-Eyed Lady”’s Apollonian nature and who reminded me of the link between Nietzsche’s Gay Science and the art of the troubadours.

[7] The “warehouse eyes” are something of a two-edged sword, suggesting capaciousness and appreciation, but also, more negatively, acquisitiveness and a desire to possess. The latter feeling is ever-present in “Sad-Eyed Lady,” associated as it is with the theme of art’s fragility, as we shall see below. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer who opened my eyes to the “two-sidedness” in “warehouse eyes.”

[8] Blonde on Blonde. All quotations of song lyrics, including the choice of line breaks and punctuation, are, unless indicated otherwise, my transcriptions from the recording referenced. In assigning line breaks, I have been guided by rhyme scheme and by the musical measures within which a line falls, and not by word or syllable count.

[9] “Tyrus” is the name in the King James Version of the Bible for the Lebanese port city Tyre. Ezekiel 28 denounces the king, or prince, of Tyrus for mistaking the accumulation of wealth for godliness and for hubristically declaring himself a god; the chapter prophesies the ultimate destruction of Tyrus at the hands of foreign armies carrying out God’s will (Berlin and Brettler).

[10] Nietzsche does not use the term “Apollonian” in this passage. But it is clearly Apollo who appears before us in the form of the Dionysian man under the influence of the desire to immortalize—with his “Homeric light and splendor”—who so strongly resembles the Apollonian artist, typified by Homer, whom Nietzsche extols in The Birth of Tragedy.

[11] The “kings of Tyrus” passage is written in the present tense. Given, however, the many features that it shares with Bakhtin’s epic, as I will set out below, it is reasonable to hear the historical present tense in these lines.

[12] Bakhtin: [o]ne may begin the [epic] story at almost any moment, and finish at almost any moment. The Iliad is a random excerpt from the Trojan cycle. . . . But epic completeness suffers not the slightest as a result. The specific “impulse to end”—How does the war end? Who wins? What will happen to Achilles? and so forth—is absolutely excluded from the epic. (31-32)

[13] This rhyme is more evident when Dylan sings it than it is when spoken—highlighting the importance of performance to Dylan’s work.

[14] All references to “Visions of Johanna” in the discussion that follows are to the version on Blonde on Blonde.

[15] Although “Johanna” is shorter than “Sad-Eyed Lady,” it is among the longer songs on Blonde on Blonde, and the relatively long lines that open and close each of its verses contribute to a feeling of grandeur.

[16] For some insightful observations on the ambiguity in the peddler’s offer to “say a prayer,” see Scobie (270).

[17] John Herdman argues that the song implicitly associates Johanna herself with “the monotony and the lifelessness of the fixed and permanent” (30), a point that is relevant to my discussion below of the singer’s lifelessness.

[18] There is one (very famous) moment in which the light of creativity blazes—one moment for the singer I stress, and not for Dylan as the creator of the song, who triumphs throughout—when the singer says, “The ghost of electricity howls in the bones of her face.” So he can do it. But this brief breakthrough of Apollonian vision only makes what he is not able to do “all too concise and too clear.”

[19] Many interpretations are, of course, possible. For a particularly luminous and close reading of “Johanna” and its themes, see Scobie (254-275).

[20] Goldblatt and Necarsulmer also point to the similarity in the titles of the two works, but, as noted above, they make no claims of influence.

Too ‘Tangled Up in Blues’: A Look Inside Bob Dylan’s 1974 Notebooks

By W. Jason Miller, North Carolina State University

 

Over twenty pages of Dylan’s handwritten lyrics to “Tangled Up in Blue” (1974) are now available for study at the Bob Dylan Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma.[1] These lyrics are located in two small 5 in. x 3 in. spiral notebooks from 1974.[2] All forty-five pages of each notebook are filled, and one contains personal notes commingled with revised song lyrics to what would become the iconic 1975 album Blood on the Tracks. The album chronicles Dylan working through a painful separation on the way to being divorced, and references to his family are central throughout one of these notebooks.

The cover of one of Dylan’s two notebooks advertises its cost: “19.” Opening it up reveals the most minuscule letters I have ever encountered in over twenty years of conducting archival research.[3] I needed a magnifying glass to read Dylan’s handwriting. Dylan’s practice of writing out a full stanza on the left, using the right side across from the spiral wire for revisions, meant I had to scan left to right (rather than up and down) to track his complex process. It was no small challenge to untangle the lyrics in notebooks now finally available to scholars.

Before they were officially made available for research at the Bob Dylan Center, the notebooks passed before Anne Margaret Daniel in 2019, who previewed them for Hot Press.[4] Where Daniel scanned parts of every written song that eventually became Blood on the Tracks, my article here zeros in on only “Tangled Up in Blue.” As such, I newly identify such details as exactly how Dylan arrived at his final title for the song. The other moments I examine in the drafts further reveal that the theme of “change” is present in the earliest iterations of the song. Moreover, the now famous pronoun shifts also surface in Dylan’s early drafts. These final two ideas, communicating change through shifting pronouns, rest latently for us now as visual reminders of what Dylan eventually reinscribed back into the song over decades of endless revisions for his live performances. As such, this article grounds the innovations that eventually emerge in the long history of “Tangled Up in Blue” as items permanently archived in Dylan’s earliest handwritten versions.

The moment that shook me most while studying these pages was encountering three previous titles of the song that eventually became known as “Tangled Up in Blue.” Dylan cycled through various iterations of the three titles—“Dusty Country Blues,” “Blue Carnation,” and “Tangled Up in Blues”—before dropping this final “s” and settling on the now familiar “Tangled Up in Blue.” These two notebooks make it clear that “Tangled Up in Blue” is at least Dylan’s fourth title for the song. That each of the three earlier titles dawns in the moments Dylan is composing intricate passages about his own life with his invented characters offers new insight into how dispersed his own biography eventually becomes in the many varied verses he delivers across decades of alternative performances.

Because the third (and most significant) of these titles brings the role of the artist into sharp relief, this article also provides a new entry point for interpreting what it means to be “Tangled Up in Blues.” This exploration begins by noting exactly where in the process Dylan discovers his fully considered title. Dylan moves away from the title “Blue Carnation,” something that gestures toward marriage, to instead index his own persona as a bluesman. Hence, the final song title captures this once lost originary emphasis on both marriage and the “blues.” By instead presenting the final ambiguity of merely “blue,” this color in the final title of “Tangled Up in Blue” simultaneously unites (and veils) the two foundational impulses for mixing music and marriage.

 

The 19¢ Notebooks

Blue spiral notebook with a worn cover and visible creases.

Dylan’s “Blue Notebook #2” (circa 1974). Photo courtesy of the Bob Dylan Archive.

In terms of sequencing, Dylan used at least three notebooks contemporaneously. The two notebooks at the Bob Dylan Center are identical, produced by the Mead Corporation of Dayton, Ohio. One cover is missing. The other complete front piece reads “45-2152.” I will use the names Notebook #1 and Blue Notebook #2 for clarity.[5] Notebook #1 is missing its front red cover, but the back red cover is still intact. At one time, a “red-orange edge” (presumably left over from the torn cover) was also identified, caught in the spiral spine, further confirming that the original cover was in fact red.[6] In addition to the first versions of Dylan’s songs, Notebook #1 includes later personal entries and random notes that are themselves sometimes dated October 1974.

Blue Notebook #2 does not include any dates; however, as it includes only rewrites of Dylan’s songs, it speaks back and forth with entries from his two other notebooks. Absent any personal journaling, it may very well either be contemporaneous or immediately succeeding Notebook #1. Dylan here alternates writing in black and blue ink.

The third notebook is The Red Cover Notebook. It contains various near-finalized drafts Dylan prepared with clear intentionality for his recording sessions at Columbia studios in New York on September 16-19, 1974. Unlike the other two notebooks, where random ideas are recorded, explored, and wholly rewritten, the lyrics here are remarkably clear and direct. It is as deliberate a version of the songs as Dylan performed them during the New York sessions as one could expect to encounter. It is held at New York’s Morgan Library and Museum, and all but three of its pages appeared in 2018 inside the More Blood, More Tracks, Bootleg Series vol. 14, Deluxe Edition. The missing pages include one page containing the full lyrics to the song “You’re a Big Girl Now” and the final two pages of “Tangled Up in Blue” (featuring verses four through seven).[7] As with the other two, this notebook would seem to date to sometime between summer and fall of 1974.

Random personal notes are interspersed only throughout the first of Dylan’s two notebooks held at the Bob Dylan Center. Here, in Notebook #1, Dylan writes out everything from the profound to the absurd. Clearly the most “used” of the three notebooks, it appears to have lost its red cover simply from being revisited on so many different occasions by Dylan himself. Though not in journal form, Dylan makes playful notes about a squeeze play[8] where the runner scores from third and even records new Italian words he seems to have learned. He includes “plusvlta” and defines it as “the highest point capable of being attained (entranced),” and also “nephbitis: kidney disease.” In one place, Dylan even muses about getting an updated Polaroid camera image of himself.

This notebook captures Dylan reflecting on lines from Allen Ginsberg’s poem “Howl” (1955) as he writes out the line: “I’ve seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness.” Unmistakable reminders of Dylan’s fame include references to people he meets at an undisclosed October 30 party. He lists film stars Natalie Wood, Jack Nickolson, Ryan O’Neil, and filmmaker Roman Polanski. Original lines to songs drafted for Blood on the Tracks offer new ways of re-hearing the familiar. In his drafts to “Idiot Wind,” for instance, Dylan writes: “From the Grand Coulee Dam to Omaha.”[9]

 

“Tangled Up in Blues

Before the Bob Dylan Center made research access available to its two notebooks, various images of Dylan’s drafts to “Tangled Up in Blue” were made available to the public.[10] Two fine articles by those with special preliminary access also appeared, written by Jeff Slate and, as mentioned, Anne Margaret Daniel. Because the song was composed during Dylan’s changing relationship with his wife, I wondered: “What information about their relationship gets invoked, altered, or dispersed on the way to recording the original album version of ‘Tangled Up in Blue?’”[11] First, one of Dylan’s drafts reads: “There were many books up in a box, I opened up to see.”[12] Perhaps thinking of Suze Rotolo on McDougal Street more than his current wife, by his final revision this image is switched entirely from voyeuristic snooping to voluntary sharing about being shown a book of poems. Equally interesting, Sam Sussman suggests these lines refer to his own mother and Dylan reading the poems of Plutarch together.[13] Yes, as Dylan tells us himself in the published version, this is a song about “all the people we used to know.” Second, the 1974 recording’s odd reference to “slaves” has a very different beginning. In its place, Dylan first wrote: “We listened to a lot of Coltrane / tried to find happiness.” Other variations for this stanza include: “Some are digging Coltrane” and “Coltrane came up” and “They stopped listening to Coltrane.” On this topic, Anne Margaret Daniel has suggested that “anything by Coltrane intimates revolution.”[14]

Despite these noteworthy ideas and lines, the most remarkable discovery from studying these newly available notebooks concerns how Dylan arrived at his final title. In Notebook #1, Dylan considers titles to the song. He writes the two words, “Blue Carnation,” at the top of a page, underlined so that it stands alone as a title. Because we engage in an inquiry and not an autopsy, we might thoughtfully ask: Does this image gesture toward a flower one might wear at a wedding? Is this what Dylan was likely alluding to when he said this song “took ten years to live, and two years to write?”[15] What else might that symbol represent to Dylan or his invented characters? The possibilities are limitless. To be clear, there is not one single reference to a “blue carnation” in any extant draft of the lyrics in either of these two notebooks. As with so many of Dylan’s compositions, this is a title he creates regardless of the actual words never appearing anywhere within the song.

After writing out the title “Blue Carnation” and placing it at the top left of one page, Dylan is still in the mode of thinking how to title this work.[16] It is at this point that Dylan returns to a single line he has drafted within one of the verses in Notebook #1. Underneath “Blue Carnation,” he writes a second title and again underlines it. It reads: “Tangled up in Blues.” The words first appear from Dylan’s pen to end a full verse of the song, arriving at a moment in drafting what would become the fourth verse on the album version. Here, he suddenly falls into a reflective biographical mode of thought that is very revealing. Writing out the line, “I wish we’d tied the knot just like I tied the laces of my shoes,” Dylan completes this line by adding further insight into this marriage knot coming undone in what can be read as a personal reckoning: “The circle has come to an end / Guess I always been too tangled up in blues.” This precise moment (and rhyme with “shoes”) is how Dylan arrived at the song’s title. It is stunning to see Dylan’s life as a musician so directly linked to the knot of his marriage being broken. In no uncertain terms, Dylan’s marriage and career are each linked in this single rhyming verse. As such, these lines embody the personal pain and reckoning Dylan first explored before concealing it by dropping the final “s” in “Blues” for the final title, “Tangled Up in Blue.”

In this same drafted verse, Dylan goes further into self-confession. His next lines read: “When you needed me most I was always off by myself / Always too busy or too stoned.” The implications appear when he concludes: “And everything that we had planned / Had to be postponed.”[17] Not only is the title found in this verse, but Dylan is also writing with the personal “I” that will soon become dispersed in the pronoun “he.” The key dispersive shift, one that moves from “I” to “he,” also begins in the same critical verse. As such, this is the most decisive moment in the history of one of Dylan’s most iconic songs. That history cannot be found in interviews: it’s here in the notebooks.

The artist’s need for isolation and drugs to perhaps both create and escape culminate in what it means to be tangled up in blues. While scholars such as Elizabeth Randall Upton have wisely reflected on “what it might mean to be entangled with a color,” here we finally have some insight.[18] Dylan’s early drafts suggest being tangled up in blues means to be saddled with the blues, stoned, and perhaps even on the verge of divorce. It is both why and how the blue carnation of marriage wilts.

This title also points, however, to the profession of being an artist who performs blues music. In the first released version of the song on Blood on the Tracks, this traveler goes from “west to east and back in the first two stanzas” and then north and south in the third.[19] In some ways, this movement is reminiscent of Jack Kerouac’s On the Road, linking Dylan’s song with the Beat writer he knew so well. All these directional movements in the song point as much to touring as they do to experiencing alternative points of view over the course of one’s life. It is noteworthy that a focus on Dylan’s profession has informed so many discussions of this song already. For Tim Riley, the leading figure in the song “has become a slave to the road.”[20] For Greil Marcus, the blues informs so many of Dylan’s songs. Hence, Marcus suggests that even more than Woody Gutherie, it is “the bluesman” Robert Johnson who represents a “mythic emblem for a central strain of Dylan’s musical experience.”[21] The notebook drafts of this song make this direct comment finely explicit.

Throughout this draft that references to being stoned, having the clap, and writing in solitude, Dylan eventually revises out of the song anything that hints at music’s most overworn cliche: sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll. By subsequently dropping the “s” in “Blues,” the song disperses most elements of his personal life and leaves listeners with the pleasure of confronting art in all its mysteries. Moving from the personal to the obscure—along with the choosing to disperse one’s experience—is part of what makes Dylan’s artistic process so captivating and elusive. Nonetheless, two key aspects of Dylan’s life remain in his final title, “Tangled Up in Blue”: his dissolving marriage and the idea of being a bluesman.[22] The color “blue” coalesces both the image of the wedding carnation and Dylan’s persona of being a “bluesman.” To be clear, this color animates both marriage and music. At the moment of composition, with no one watching, does Dylan consider blaming the inevitable trappings of life on the road for dissolving his marriage? Or perhaps even his own willingness to embrace the persona of a bluesman who must be rambling on? If the petals of the carnation die and fade to obscurity in further iterations of the song, the figure of the “blues musician” nonetheless remains. It is indeed diluted, but it also lingers as a substantive trace in the final stanza where Dylan asserts: “I’m still on the road / Heading for another joint.”[23] Not a concert or an arena: a juke “joint.”

 

A Living Poem

As is well-known, beyond these notebooks, Dylan relentlessly revised and altered “Tangled Up in Blue,” so that the song models change itself when performed. As Jeff Slate has wisely noted, “‘Tangled Up in Blue’ is the one song in Dylan’s vast catalogue that he has never seemed to be finished with.”[24] According to a surprisingly accurate and honest insight from Dylan, the key moment in this long string of changes occurred with purpose and intent in the summer of 1984: “I rewrote it in a hotel room somewhere. I think it was in Amsterdam . . . When I sang it the next night, I knew it was right.” [25] On what does indeed appear to be the first night of this new version, Dylan includes this line in the last stanza: “So now I’m going on back again / To that forbidden zone.” He continues: “Me, I’m still walking towards the sun / Trying to stay out of the joint.”

In subsequent versions (captured on 1984’s Real Live), the shifting perspectives on the lovers in the song results in the implication that the speaker can “no longer even speak of them as we.”[26] This may owe something to Dylan’s desire to make this song resemble a painting, in its ability to present multiple representations of time, as Dylan was taking painting classes with Norman Raeben at the time of composition in 1974.[27] In Kat Peddie’s discussion of how “I is somebody else,” for both Arthur Rimbaud and Dylan, any attempt at representations of the self are further undermined:

This instability is also a facet of musical performance. Actually, the way in

which indeterminacy in Dylan is most frequently experienced, the way in which

he defies audiences’ desires for stable interpretation, is through variation in musical performance, most particularly his famous refusal to settle on any one variant of any song, and certainly not to regard the first version as any kind of ur-text.[28]

Indeterminacy of both a fixed self and static song is something Timothy Hampton has extended through his own reading of the prose poems of Illuminations (1896) by Arthur Rimbaud: “there are two moments of the different ‘lives’ that Rimbaud posits for all creatures; ‘To each being it seemed to me that several other lives were due.’”[29] As Hampton further delineates, “the question of the ‘I’ poses interesting problems when we consider Dylan’s own location in his songs” as his presence may indeed be “felt most clearly in songs that cannot be linked in any narrative way to ‘Bob Dylan.’”[30] In this way, the Dylan who drafts about his personal memories in first person can bend his lived experience into something easily ascribed to another. Dylan’s artistry blurs these other selves by beginning in the notebooks with his own distant, other self; concealing that identity behind the vague pronouns of “he” and “she”; and blending these identifiers into a wholly new “I” and “we.”

In fact, Notebook #1 documents what seems to be Dylan’s first reckoning with this shift. In permanent ink, this notebook records the most complex and powerful theme Dylan is circling when he writes: “And now we’re changing again.” Though this remarkably illuminating line never makes its way into any actualized version of the song, its logic is absolutely central to the core theme at work in “Tangled Up in Blue.” Acting like a poet, Dylan removes the overt nature of this thought as an immature or expository overview all too easily defined, like the moral that summarizes a fable. Instead, he eventually activates the remarkable pronoun shifts in the song to communicate this change and starts looking back on the speaker as a distant “he” rather than just a younger “I.” Hence, The Red Cover Notebook at the Morgan Library shows Dylan making five intentional pronoun shifts that depersonalizes the song. Taking his black pen to the second verse of “Tangled Up in Blue,” he turns “you” in line one to “They’; “You” becomes “He” to start the second line; and two other iterations of “you” become “he” to end the same second line. Both times “you” appears in line three, Dylan inks over them with “they.” The overall effect is that the lives of the speaker’s past selves and acquaintances all feel like they were lived by different people.

Moreover, as can now be heard, Dylan even confuses himself on two occasions during the first recording sessions in New York. Take 2, Remake 2 (September 18, 1974 | Disc 5) ends at the 1:31 mark when Dylan sings line one of the second verse as “he was married.” After an audible, “Oh,” Dylan mumbles the correction: “she was married.” Take 2, Remake 3 (September 19, 1974 | Disc 6) ends abruptly as well when Dylan mixes up these pronouns at the end of verse one. The “And she was” he sings is supposed to be “And he was standing on the side of the road.” Hence Dylan’s own performative errors when singing highlight the actual written changes of these pronouns in his notebooks. It lets us hear what we cannot see: neither “he” nor “she” was ever firmly fixed in these ever-changing, handwritten lyrics.

Over the decades after its initial release, the changing nature of “Tangled Up in Blue” has only expanded as Dylan both refined and amplified the song’s key artistic trait of change.[31] On December 10, 1978, the audience in Charlotte, NC, did not hear Dylan sing about reading 13th century poetry, but rather having a women quote to him a section of the Bible from “Jeremiah, chapter 17, / From verses 21 and 33.” By the final verse, the list of people he had to get back to included “bricklayers,” “bank robbers,” and “burglars.”[32] To this idea of change, one “Mondo Scripto” iteration of Dylan’s lyrics blends the original draft with elements of the new. His passage about living on “Montague Street” and listening to Coltrane indexes the idea of transformation again as he writes of his unnamed hosts: “Suddenly they changed on me.”[33]

Remarkably, when Dylan performs the song on tour (over 1,725 times through 2018), he has continued to further alter and revise new verses. None of this is coincidental: actual lyrical change itself is more central to this song than any other in Dylan’s entire discography. Not only do the changes capture the spirit of evolving relationships, they summon the expected spontaneity of a blues musician. At a March 20, 2004, show in Toronto, Dylan pushed his pronoun shifts to new gender-bending extremes when he sang: “Some are Mathematicians / I’m a truck driver’s wife.” On October 14, 2016, the Las Vegas crowd heard him sing: “He helped her out of a jam I guess / Then he let the law take its course.”[34] Such changes can be heard across the full spectrum of his live performances. The last known live performance of the song dates to August 24, 2018, in Brisbane, Australia. Even here, Dylan can still be heard inserting new ideas all throughout the song. In the last verse alone, new lines about “yesterday” and “tomorrow” replace references to people who are merely illusionary now.[35] The effect is plain: both descriptions and connections to the people we love (both others and our past selves) are fluid rather than fixed. In this way, “Tangled Up in Blue” is a living poem as it expresses the constant change we each experience over time in our relationships with both others and the memory of ourselves. Moreover, Notebook #1 & Blue Notebook #2 make it clear these eventual performative changes are present in the song, in one form or another, from its earliest written inception to delivery. Making art initiates the change, and performing it allows it to evolve. In this way, the song is a remarkable example of what rhetoricians call iconicity: it models the very topic it addresses. As such, “Tangled Up in Blue” is a poem where memory breathes. Dylan shows us exactly what the idea of change sounds like: it is a song that never codifies.


Works Cited

Collins, Mattew. “Bob Dylan and that Poet From the Thirteenth Century.’” Dante e l’arte 6 (2019): 11-24.

Daniel, Anne Margaret. “The Full Bob Dylan Cover Story from the Hot Press Annual 2019.”

Hot Press, 23 April 2019. https://www.hotpress.com/music/full-bob-dylan-cover-story-hot-press-annual-2019-22771539

Davidson, Mark and Parker Fishel, eds. Bob Dylan: Mixing Up the Medicine. New York: Callaway, 2023.

Epstein, Daniel Mark. The Ballad of Bob Dylan. New York: Harper, 2011.

Hampton, Timothy. Bob Dylan: How the Songs Work. Princeton, NJ. Princeton UP, 2020.

Heylin, Clinton. Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Revisited. New York: Marrow, 2001.

Gray, Michael. Song and Dance Man III: The Art of Bob Dylan. New York: Cassell, 2003.

Mai, Anne-Marie. “Time Slots in Dylan’s Oeuvre.” Aktualitet: Litteratur,

Kultur og Medier 17.3 (2023): 31-43.

Marcus, Greil. Mystery Train: Images of America in Rock’n’Roll Music. New York: Plume, 1975.

Margotin, Philippe and Jean-Michel Guesdon. Bob Dylan All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track.

New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers, 2015.

Metsa, Paul and Rick Shefchik. Blood in the Tracks: The Minnesota Musicians Behind Dylan’s Masterpiece.

Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press, 2023.

Peddie, Kat. “‘I is somebody else’: Bob Dylan / Arthur Rimbaud.” Popular Music History,

8.2 (2013): 169-188.

Philips, Muziekcentrum Frits. https://www.flaggingdown.com/p/listening-to-every-tangled-up-in

Ricks, Christopher. Dylan’s Visions of Sin. New York: Ecco, 2003.

Riley, Tim. Hard Rain: A Dylan Commentary. New York:Knopf, 1992.

Sisario, B. “Bob Dylan’s Secret Archive.” New York Times, 2 March 2016.

Slate, Jeff. “Bob Dylan’s First Day with ‘Tangled Up in Blue,’” The New Yorker, 31 Oct. 2018.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/bob-dylans-first-day-with-tangled-up-in-blue

Sussman, Sam.  “The Silent Type: On (Possibly) Being Bob Dyaln’s Son,”

Harper’s Magazine, May 2021.

https://harpers.org/archive/2021/05/the-silent-type-on-possibly-being-bob-dylans-son/

Upton, Elizabeth Randall. “Bob Dylan’s ballade.” Postmedieval: A Journal of Medieval Cultural Studies,

10.4 (2019): 452-465.


[1] I thank Mark Davidson and Stephanie Stewart at the Bob Dylan Center for so kindly and expertly guiding me through these (and other) materials at the Bob Dylan Center in June of 2024.

[2] These two notebooks from 1974 are held at the Bob Dylan Center (Series IV: Notebooks, Box 99, Folders 05 and 06). In terms of chronological sequence, they are followed by The Red Cover Notebook filled with song drafts for Blood on the Tracks held at the Morgan Library and Museum.

[3] This includes (but is not limited to) reading the handwriting of Martin Luther King, Jr. in several archives (in Boston and Atlanta) as well as hundreds of letters of correspondence both written and addressed to poet Langston Hughes held at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University.

[4] For more, see Anne Margaret Daniel’s 2019 article: https://www.hotpress.com/music/full-bob-dylan-cover-story-hot-press-annual-2019-22771539

[5] When not on display in the main museum, Notebook #1 is located in Series IV: Notebooks, Box 99, Folder 05; Blue Notebook #2 is located in Series IV: Notebooks, Box 99, Folder 06.

[6] Anne Margaret Daniel notes seeing this in her 2019 article: https://www.hotpress.com/music/full-bob-dylan-cover-story-hot-press-annual-2019-22771539

[7] The Morgan Library and Museum has presented the three missing pages of both “You’re a Big Girl Now” and “Tangled Up in Blue” from The Red Cover Notebook.  They can be located online: https://www.bobdylan.com/news/missing-notebook-pages/.  I thank Dale Stinchcomb, the Drue Heinz Curator of Literary and Historical Manuscripts at The Morgan Library & Museum, for directly sharing these remaining three pages with me.

[8] Though the timeline synchs perfectly, it is ultimately unclear if this is in any way connected to Game 1 of the 1974 World Series played on October 12, 1974, between the Oakland A’s and the Los Angeles Dodgers. After he hit a double in the fifth inning of Game 1, A’s pitcher Ken Holtzman eventually scored from third on Bert Campaneris’s suicide squeeze bunt to trim the Dodgers lead to  2-1.

[9] Notebook #1.

[10] In addition to the wonderful color image in Bob Dylan: Mixing Up the Medicine (Davidson and Fishel, 300-01), the first page of “Tangled Up in Blue” from The Red Cover Notebook was included inside the 2018 More Blood, More Tracks – Bootleg Series Vol. 14 Deluxe Edition. Finally, the New York Times also shared another image in 2016 from one of the two notebooks held by the Bob Dylan Center (Sisario).

[11] As Christopher Ricks wisely notes in Dylan’s Visions of Sin, as “a work of art,” a song “is always going to be larger than and other than what precipitated it” (344).

[12] This may have some significance to those who have tried to identify who the song references as the “poet from the thirteenth century.” For more, both Elizabeth Randall Upton and Mattew Collins explore the possibility of this being either Dante or Plutarch in their respective articles “Bob Dylan’s ballade” and “Bob Dylan and that ‘Italian Poet from the Thirteenth Century.’” Quite simply, Dylan may have mistakenly thought the 1300s are called the 13th century.

[13] For more, see the opening section of Sam Sussman’s “The Silent Type”: On (Possibly) Being Bob Dylan’s Son”: https://harpers.org/archive/2021/05/the-silent-type-on-possibly-being-bob-dylans-son/

[14] Daniel also lists several songs by John Coltrane from 1958-66 to support her thought: https://www.hotpress.com/music/full-bob-dylan-cover-story-hot-press-annual-2019-22771539

[15] Quoted in Margotin & Guesdon, p. 416.

[16] This title appears in Notebook #1, page 15 (recto).

[17] Notebook #1, page 15 (recto).

[18] Upton, p. 457.

[19] Ibid, p. 456.

[20] Riley, p. 236.

[21] Marcus, Mystery Train, pp. 39-40; Zak, pp. 623-24.

[22] While various styles of musicians make use of open tuning, it is sometimes directly identified with blues guitarists. Also, as Paul Metsa and Rick Shefchik note in Blood in the Tracks (U of Minnesota Press, 2023), Dylan wrote almost all the songs for Blood on the Tracks on a Martin 00-18 acoustic guitar set in open D tuning. With fascinating implications for the color used throughout this discussion of “Tangled Up in Blue,” Metsa and Shefchik also suggest that Dylan had a concurrent obsession with Joni Mitchell’s 1971 album Blue, which also used open tuning exclusively (7-8).

[23] Gray notes that another element of blues quietly conceals itself in Dylan’s song as “keep on keeping on / Like a bird that flew” alludes to a line in the song “Road Runner” by bluesman Junior Wells & The All-Stars (356).

[24] Slate notes some of the most recent changes and additions to the song (as of 2018) that “recasts the song in the spirit of our times, in the same way the original was so much a product of the Vietnam and Watergate era.” https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/bob-dylans-first-day-with-tangled-up-in-blue

[25] Quoted in Heylin, p. 566. Dylan did not play a show in Amsterdam, but he did play two in Rotterdam on June 4 and 6, 1984. Dylan’s timing (if not city) seems correct: a new version emerged on June 4, 1984. To hear a version of the song, see   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if8lWlmIwSM

[26] Epstein, p. 323.

[27] Mai, p. 31.

[28] Peddie, p. 178.

[29] Surprisingly, Hampton connects this shift in selves within the context of his astute discussion of “All Along the Watchtower” rather than “Tangled Up in Blue.” For more, see Hampton, p. 116.

[30] Hampton, p. 18.

[31] And this study of the lyrical changes does not even scratch the surface of the various instrumental alterations. Percussionist Gary Burke recounted Dylan running the band through two hours of rehearsing only “Tangled Up in Blue” before their 1976 show in Fort Collins, Colorado, only to hear how Dylan then “takes off in a whole other direction” when they actually took the stage. Burke said: “It was like we didn’t even spend any time on it the night before. I’m just hanging on for my life.” To actually hear leaked versions of that epic two-hour rehearsal, see Ray Padgett’s “Now it Goes like This: ‘Tangled Up in Blue’” https://www.flaggingdown.com/p/now-it-goes-like-this-tangled-up

[32] These alterations can be found at https://glyphobet.net/strthrwr/bob/18-01.html

[33] For the full page of this draft, see Daniel.

[34] Muziekcentrum Frits Philips notes these two alterations. For this, and many more, see: https://www.flaggingdown.com/p/listening-to-every-tangled-up-in

[35] Dylan’s mumbled lines of this version can be heard at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2870z57nVQY&t=200s

“The Lost Rolling Thunder Show”

By Bill Lattanzi

 

Trapped forever in grains of silver, thirty four year-old Bob Dylan is blasting through “Isis,” his clear blue eyes fixed on a far-off vision of the song’s “outrageous” snow, harmonica wrapped in an arm-pumping fist. Totem, talisman, sole surviving evidence, I’ve kept the photo with me since the night I took it, through myriad dorms, apartments, and houses from coast to coast. For all the extensive documentation of Dylan’s career, it is, as far as I know, the only visual or aural document in existence of the third ever Rolling Thunder Revue show, November 1, 1975, at then Southeastern Massachusetts University in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts. What follows is a brief replay of the experience of that concert, a fan’s “I was there,” and I hope more than that, an attempt to capture the strange, chaotic vibe of the mid-70s, and what it was like to come of age inside it.

No cameras. No recordings. No booze. Mean-looking dudes, the tour’s roadies and assorted help were fairly barking at us as we stood in line waiting for the doors to open. There were eight in our Dylan-head college student crew: me; Ezra, a junior, with the car; Jimmy, quiet, who would go into business down South; Chris, a tall, handsome Northwesterner who would become an eco-warrior, but here, will play the villain; Peter with the vast LP collection; Judith, a minister’s daughter and religion major;  the bohemian painter Arianna, always a little out in space; and my girlfriend—long black Baez-style hair, sarcastic, cigarette-smoking, guitar-playing. She had dated Jack Kerouac’s nephew in high school, and that put me, I thought, one step closer to validity. Our first conversation was about Bob Dylan. Years later, we married, and are married still.

It wasn’t easy getting tickets or even finding out where and when the shows would be. It had started with an on-campus rumor that Dylan’s people had called our college and asked to perform on the bucolic green. They were turned down, outraging us. But could it be real? Bob Dylan with a band of legendary singers and players appearing inside our bubble of a tiny liberal arts school in the most unfashionable corner of Connecticut was about as likely as an alien spacecraft descending to offload more free booze, Columbian weed, and munchies than we could ever consume.

Dylan had released Blood on the Tracks in January, and we’d been listening, reading the reviews, decoding it, and learning to play it. We’d been writing rejected proposals for final papers in English Lit about it (“Shelter From the Storm” is about ART!). Now this “Rolling Thunder Revue” thing (What could it mean? US Air Force Bombers? An indigenous chief?) was set up to bring the music to the people, springing surprise shows in out-of-the-way places. This tour had the spirit of anarchy and freedom, a rebuke, we thought, to the growing trend of arena rock. It would rekindle the 60s flame we’d been too young to experience first-hand. Dylan and troupe were the stars of the firmament, but we’d be there shining beside them, as much a part of it as they were.

The show at our school wouldn’t happen. Another one would, at a school a hundred miles away that we’d never heard of, the announcements real enough to make plans. Four of us formed a reconnaissance squad. One gray afternoon, we set out on a ticket-buying trip to the distant land of North Dartmouth in Ezra’s canary yellow Toyota wagon with one million miles on it. Most campuses now have big, branded welcome signs. At SMU, the turn into the campus was marked by an abandoned drive-in movie theater. Its giant marquee greeted us with the warning, “Death Has Visited This Corner.” The campus was stranger still. Regarded now as something of a Brutalist masterpiece, designed by Paul Rudolph, it looked to us like straight dystopia. We passed one radically shaped hulk of poured concrete after another, searching for the student center. Eventually, we found it.

We needed eight seats. Only students could buy tickets, so we searched out non-Dylan fans, and then asked to borrow their IDs for purchase. We were able to get seven without too much trouble, but then we hit a dry spell, and remained one short. The box office would close at four and it was now ten of. I noticed a conservatively dressed and adult-beyond-her-years looking female student, checking her mail at the nearby student post office. I approached with caution. Would she be going to the show? “No,” she said. “Certainly not.” She said she wouldn’t want to put me in danger and politely declined my request for her ID. She explained that if Jesus chose the moment of the concert to return, because I would be, in that moment, part of the sinful world of rock, I would be condemned to Hell. As a Christian, she cared for everyone, and wouldn’t want to contribute to the possible loss of my soul. She was both charming and serious. I acknowledged her kindness. efforts, and  I absolved her of all responsibility. I said that I would take my chances on Jesus being otherwise occupied. She was hesitant, but finally agreed to loan me the ID, an act of kindness I have always remembered. I quickly bought the ticket, and returned her ID with a minute to spare. We had our eight. We were going to see Dylan.

The road was dusky on the way back. Pot smoke wafted through the car, tunes blasting on Ezra’s eight track. (Steely Dan would be about right, but I don’t remember exactly. Ezra was an Allman Brothers guy. Live at Fillmore East, maybe?) Out on the horizon, there was a pretty line of gold in the violet sunset. Purple clover, Queen Anne’s lace. Like it’s been since I was fourteen (and still today), Dylan lyrics flitted through my brain, lighting up the world. Sundown, yellow moon.

We flew through an open, flat zone of nothing. To the right was untended rocky land, a ditch beside us climbing up the far side to a ten-foot berm of dirt that ran for a mile or more ahead and behind. A silhouette appeared atop the berm. A four-legged thing with horns, hairy. Maybe the canary yellow caught his crazed eye. Suicidal or badly miscalculating, he leapt high, appeared for a moment like a cloaked wraith above us, and smashed directly into the center of Ezra’s windshield, his horned goat face wide-eyed. The car swerved badly. The goat bounced off and spun in the air before us. His heavy body swung around, leading his badly broken neck, a grotesque outtake from the Wizard of Oz tornado scene. Ezra battled for control as the car veered wildly. “It’s okay, it’s okay, it’s okay, it’s okay,” I kept saying, head in hands in the back seat, certain we would die. Somehow Ezra tamed the car and slowed to a stop. Everyone intact, we stumbled out to see the goat splayed out behind us on the highway.

A van roared up behind us and parked. Two men got out, opened the back, and heaved the dead goat into the vehicle.

“Don’t worry,” one of them said. “We’ve got him.” They were from animal control, chasing down an escaped goat from parts unknown. Backing him up against the highway, they thought, they’d either get him, or he’d jump and get got. We were the lucky getters.

All of us stunned, Jimmy managed to get out, “What about us? What about the car?”

“You can find some help at the next exit, probably.”

The goat hunters got back in the van and left as fast as they’d arrived. Dazed, we assessed the damage. The windshield was mostly smashed, but the car was drivable. After a stop at the police station to report the incident, Ezra managed to peer through the spider-webbed glass to get us home in one piece. It felt right, fighting off a creature from the wilderness to get to Dylanland.

Our crew of eight arrived early on the night of the show, so we were close to the front of the line when the doors opened. We moved past the mean security guys toward the entrance, where more mean security guys frisked anybody they chose. This was a choke point, because in defiance of the no photography rules, I had brought along not one, but two bulky 35 millimeter cameras. (These were those ubiquitous single lens reflex types you see in all the old movies, from Blow-Up to the parody of it at the end of the first Austin Powers movie. Think of a half-width brick with a glass and metal lens protruding from the center.) I brought two so that, with thirty-six shots to a roll, I could get seventy-two pictures without having to re-load.

Today, there’s a lot of talk about respecting the artist’s wishes, especially Dylan’s, given the recent contretemps over his company booting Daniel Hildebrand, the owner of the Daily Dylan website out of a show in Glasgow. But at the time banning cameras was unheard of. I’d strolled up the aisle and snapped pics of Joni Mitchell, the Grateful Dead, Patti Smith, The Band, Tom Waits and more. We didn’t consider ourselves mere audience members at these events. you see. We were participants. Contrary to the woman’s worry about my soul, a concert was a congregation of the faithful, a summoning of a certain spirit, one that would bring a better world into existence, if only for a night. Capturing that on film was part of the process. Beyond that, I think that if my rebellious teenage self was reflective enough, he would have said:  Didn’t Kerouac, Rimbaud, and Dylan himself all glorify rules-breaking, especially in pursuit of art? I’m not following leaders, he’d smirk, I’m photographing parking meters. If I was a thief, well, I dug it. As we approached the goons, I gave one camera to Jimmy and we both stuffed them into our jean fronts, the lenses bulging—ambitious packages for a couple of scrawny college boys. Billy, they don’t like you to be so free.

In his Rolling Thunder chronicle, On the Road with Bob Dylan, Larry “Ratso” Sloman describes that night’s venue as “the first large hall” of the tour, making it sound like a proper theater. It was actually the college gym, with the stage at the far end like an old grammar school. We rushed toward the stage. Some long-haired dude with dilated pupils had reserved the front row for his friends, but I talked him out of it: “You can’t see the drummer!”

“Oh yeah,” he said, his eyes growing wider. “You’re right!”

When he moved behind us, the eight of us scored the best seats in the house.

As the hall filled up, we caught peeks of various Revue folk looking out from the wings, even strolling the aisles. Most were unknown to us. But was that Ramblin’ Jack Elliott? Yeah, that was him. Members of the production crew wandered by. We heard them passing the word there would be no filming tonight from the Dylan team. Who even knew there were film cameras? Maybe the lone authorized photographer, Ken Regan, had the night off too, as he was nowhere in evidence. I stood up to take in the crowd only to see Allen Ginsberg wrapped in an extra-large cloak.

“Mr. Ginsberg!” I blurted, walking up to him. He smiled, a gleam in his eye, and engulfed me in a deep, long bear hug. He smelled like warm wool with a hint of patchouli, not unpleasant. When he finally let me go, he held me at arm’s length, looked deeply into my eyes, and without a word, walked away.

At the time, this felt like a Buddy-Holly-stares-at-young-Dylan-and-passes-the-torch moment. Only later did I realize that Allen Ginsberg hugged a whole lot of long-haired, skinny young men, or at least would have liked to. (For instance, In Martin Scorsese’s trickster faux-documentary of the tour, fulsomely titled Rolling Thunder Revue: A Bob Dylan Story by Martin Scorsese, strings player David Mansfield recalls of Ginsberg: “I wasn’t a bad-looking, you know, little 19-year-old at the time. He had a thing for straight, talented teenage boys.”) For the moment, though, I had arrived only one degree away from greatness. That last degree—making yourself great—was the tough one. If there was a magic sextant that could guide you from proximity to the promised land itself, I never found it.

Lost in the many recaps of the Rolling Thunder Revue, even in most of Ray Padgett’s thorough-going online series[1], is the fact that the experience was much more than the best Bob Dylan show you’d ever see. It was also a revelatory parade of greater or lesser known folk and rock luminaries, each with their own aura, whose music took up more than half the show. Riveted through their sets, you’d almost forget about Dylan. And while it’s hard, fifty years after the fact, to accurately recall, even with the help of online setlists, everything that occurred on stage that night, and in what order, I’m going to try to reconstruct the full evening’s experience here. If there’s some haziness around the edges, that was part of the time, too.

The warm-up band took the stage, strapping on their instruments in nonchalant 70s style. They eventually kicked off with a long, indifferent instrumental. Heading them up with a frontman’s swagger, wielding a big electric bass, was the self-described “Rockin’” Rob Stoner, who told us they were Guam, a name that sounded made up on the spot, and somehow a joke on us. The group shared the de rigueur style of long hair, jeans, and ragged shirts. Except that, way in the back, unaccountably, in a body-hugging Kelly green pantsuit and blonde shag, writhed English guitar hero Mick Ronson from David Bowie’s Spiders From Mars band, and Mott the Hoople. Through the night, he’d beam out searing alien solos from a distant planet. I recognized, too, the aforementioned, angelic-looking David Mansfield, familiar from a picture in Rolling Stone or somewhere, playing all manner of acoustic stringed instruments. Guam traded off lead singers. After a few Stoner tunes, we were introduced to a tall,  frightened-looking guy in shades named T-Bone Burnett, who sang something distinctive and a little eccentric. My girlfriend and I gave each other a look. This T-Bone guy had potential. (I can’t be sure, but the song may well have been Warren Zevon’s “Werewolves of London,” which Burnett played often on the fall tour, according to Mansfield in the Ray Padgett interview. Yes, the unrecorded song was around that early.) Stoner came up with the highlight, a slow bluesy rocker about the famous Yankees pitcher Jim “Catfish” Hunter, who had recently signed baseball’s first million-dollar contract as an early free agent. Catfish . . . million dollar man. There was something about the lyrics, and the cadence, and the song’s implicit praise of freeing oneself that lifted it above everything else they played. The language was oddly familiar: “Used to work on Mr. Finley’s farm…” Later, we’d learn that, of course, Dylan wrote it. (Dylan was a baseball fan? We were beside ourselves. He lives in the same world as us?) I pulled out the camera and sneaked a few good shots here, one of them that classic rock photograph angle—low, looking up at the singer, all crotch and thick Fender bass. But with only the two rolls in hand, and shooting guerilla style, I bided my time, waiting for bigger game.

Guam took their bows, and Ramblin’ Jack strolled out alone with his guitar to tell half-finished stories (“They don’t call me Ramblin’ cuz I travel”) and sing three songs, including a beautiful “Dark as a Dungeon.” (Where the rain never falls and the sun never shines/It’s dark as a dungeon way down in the mines.) It sounded like it was written by a coal miner in the distant past instead of by Merle Travis in 1968. Later in the tour, Dylan and Baez would take over the song, but their version wouldn’t touch Elliott’s delicacy.

Bob Neuwirth appeared to sing “Mercedes Benz,” the short Janis Joplin ditty, funny and cynical, that some of us knew he’d written. He looked beefy and bloated, a big change from the speedy days of Don’t Look Back. Of course he, like the others, was entirely a myth until he stood in front of us, more or less emceeing the show. In my memory, Dylan now drifted on quietly (Is that him? That’s him!) in his ‘65 Newport leather jacket and flowered hat, to join his old pal for “When I Paint My Masterpiece.” Dylan was the most dangerous photographic prey. I sensed security on the lookout, and I had visions of them grabbing me by the shirt and roughing me up behind the gym. I worked quickly, the camera bobbing up for a shot and quickly down to escape attention. I was thrilled to see Dylan there in the viewfinder, to know a few bits of him were captured with every click in crystals of silver halide, waiting to be transformed in the darkroom. The real Dylan vanished after the one song, as quickly as he’d arrived. Was that really him? That was really him.

Joan Baez came out solo and, in some order, sang “Diamonds and Rust” (pretty ballsy considering Dylan was right there); “Joe Hill,” which I found interminable on the Woodstock album, but here was very moving; and an a cappella version of the spiritual, “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.” The song, starting with the same self-dramatization that Monica Barbaro’s a cappella bit had in 2024’s A Complete Unknown, drained the punk attitude right out of me. For a moment, my soul seemed salvageable. I wished my religious friend from the ticket line was here to share the moment. She might have felt the spirit in the house and changed her mind about Jesus’s judgement.

Roger McGuinn was next, his eyes nearly as crazed as the goat’s, to kick off “Eight Miles High,” complete with that twelve-string mad-genius opening. The band galvanized. It was a dream, a rock ‘n’ roll journey, alive, fantastically well played and sung, a new level of professionalism to go with the band’s ragged charm. I couldn’t take a bad shot. McGuinn retired and somebody else came out (maybe a Ramblin’ Jack return?), before McGuinn returned came back a few songs later for “Chestnut Mare.” The performance was even better than “Eight Miles High.” It is possible this was the highlight of the night. The gym levitated. Later Dylan, in his minimal half-sentence stage patter, would say, “How ‘bout that Roger McGuinn?,” to an appreciative roar.

Ronee Blakely had been a sensation that summer in Robert Altman’s film Nashville, playing a doomed country singer. She now stepped forward for one song, something upbeat. She was small and hard to see beneath a hat. We all wondered if she and Dylan were having an affair, as if that could be the only explanation for her presence. The same for the tall, snaky violin player, bewitching us with her dissonant, compelling solos and fills. Mysterious and dark, in spider’s web makeup, long raven hair and gypsy-drag gown; we had no idea who she was. Her presence, like Ronson’s, was unexpected, another antipodal point to add to this wide world of weird. Dylan introduced her as Scarlett Rivera, and a mini-cult was born, to be later burnished by the half-true story that Dylan had picked her up on the street when he saw her walking with a violin case in Greenwich Village.

Dylan’s set now began in earnest, with “It Ain’t Me, Babe” and “A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall.” The night now really felt like the Fellini-esque commedia dell’arte family circus Dylan told Sloman he was after (you can hear the clip in the Scorsese doc or read it in Sloman). It was all so heartfelt. By the following spring, the tour’s spirit would fray. Dylan would be shouting his lungs out, the music harsh, the concerts the kind of big arena shows the fall tour stood, at least for us, in opposition to. But that night, November 1, 1975, the Day of the Dead, at Southeastern Mass U., we all lived the dream. Dylan was warm, engaged, honest, in good voice. In short, he was brilliant.

Desire wouldn’t come out for another couple of months. With no notice, we were about to hear most of it. “This is a song for Mr. Sam Peckinpah,” Dylan said, the name bitten off, a tribute to the hard-living director of Dylan’s major motion picture debut, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. I don’t think I knew it was shot in Durango, Mexico, and I definitely did not know that the song was called “Romance in Durango.” After a pause, a drum crack, and a full-throated cry that went right through us: Hot chili peppers in the blistering sun!

Between songs, frat boys in the back had been chanting slowly, loudly, clearly, “Every-body must get stoned!” Bob Dylan finally responded. “Yeah . . . Go get stoned,” then launched into “Isis.” Okay, did I say McGuinn was the highlight? This was the highlight, a fantastic new Dylan song, like nothing he’d ever done, in that moment topping the unstoppable past, and in a completely new style. “Isis” was a movie, “Isis” was a myth. “Isis” was a mystery. “Isis” rocked. “If you want me to, YES!” The roof opened, the sky cracked. Maybe the world was about to end. Dylan left the stage.

Intermission? We were at a show? We collected ourselves, vibrating after two hours, not knowing we had much more to go. Even in the intermission, theater was happening. An elaborately painted muslin stage curtain unfurled in silence. You can see it in the Scorsese film, filled with carnival figures from the past. Rock concerts in those days—David Bowie and Alice Cooper excepted—had close to zero stagecraft beyond maybe smoke, and a spotlight on the soloist, if the spotter could figure out which longhair was playing and knew the difference between the pedal steel and the guitar. This was high-end stuff.

From behind the curtain came the sound we’d heard about but never dreamed we’d hear in person—Baez and Dylan together, singing the anthem, turning back the clock to the time we were too young to be a part of— “The Times They Are A-Changin’.” The banner rose to reveal them, mid-tune. They used to say about the classic Hollywood dancers Fred Astaire and Ginger Rodgers that he gave her class, and she gave him sex appeal. This was Rogers and Astaire in reverse. Baez was made ten times cooler and sexier standing next to Dylan, and scruffy Dylan looked like a class act standing next to her. In the applause, Baez looked down at the front row, directly at my buddy Peter, a fellow sophomore. “My god, you’re all so young,” she said. She was only thirty-four, but I thought, “And you’re so old.” They played one we didn’t know, called “Never Let Me Go.” It was beautiful. We were ecstatic. “Mama, You’ve Been on My Mind” and “I Shall Be Released” followed. The latter would become something of an anthem, the traditional sing-along show ender, for all manner of group shows. Here it was still its natural self, Dylan’s recurring theme of freedom just out of reach clear in duet form. Then the best of all: Baez left the stage, Dylan came down even closer to us, sat on a chair and sang “I Don’t Believe You (She Acts Like We Never Have Met).” It’s the lament of a rejected lover, with a bitter ending: “Is it easy to forget? I’ll say, It’s easily done / You just pick anyone / An’ pretend that you never have met!” As there’s no recording of this particular performance, only the one pic I snapped and later lost, there’s no one who can provide evidence to deny what I’m about to say. This was the greatest single moment of Bob Dylan’s career. Hyperbolic? Unprovable? Subjective? Ridiculous? Sure. But everyone has their own Bob Dylan, their own treasured moment, and this is mine. God, it was beautiful, the emphasis not on meanness but on heartache, Dylan inhabiting the song’s emotions like a method actor living his part. I hear it still.

The band reassembled. The Desire songs came one after the other in a rush, each one a revelation. “Hurricane,” “Oh, Sister,” “One More Cup of Coffee,” and “Sara.” Oh, my god, “Sara.” Then, an unforgettable “Just Like a Woman.” Halfway through this run, I think during “Hurricane,” Dylan, guitar around his neck, singing at the mic, looked down and saw me and my camera. He couldn’t leave the mic because he had to sing, but immediately, he leaned back, jerked his head out of frame, and danced around like he was dodging a wasp. I got the message and put the camera away, at least for a while. The next night, in Lowell, Dylan started the practice of appearing in whiteface on the tour. An homage to Les Enfants Du Paradis? A rebuke to the minstrel tradition? Simply a way for his face to be visible to those in the back? Of all these options, it’s just as plausible that it could’ve been me. Nope, it was me.

A ludicrous claim, and one that I don’t seriously believe. Still, is it really any less credible than any other explanation? I might have wondered about it at the time. And maybe I still do. My delusion, though, maybe reveals something about our desire, as fans, as listeners, to attach ourselves to the artist’s story, to matter in the grand design. Again, we are more than consumers, we are participants. Or are we just thieves?

The cast assembled for the finish, “This Land Is Your Land.” Then they left, and the house lights came on. There’s a moment in the Scorsese film showing the crowd at end of one of the shows. They look dazed, happy, bewildered, shaken. In one shot, a woman cries uncontrollably. Maybe we didn’t sob, but that was us, too. We staggered out to lay on a small, goatless berm by the parking lot, and we stared up at the stars. A friend later gave me the phrase for the moment, “ecstatic togetherness,” capturing that feeling of being as one, uplifted, alive to the world and ourselves.

In the spring, Chris, the future eco-warrior, and I moved to an off-campus apartment together. This did not go well, due to the fact that I was an absent-minded, wannabe intellectual who drank to excess. I was heavily involved in various art and theater projects, and struggling page-by-page through a dense philosophy text for a class far out of my ken. Petty details like vacuuming, washing dishes, and taking out the garbage were bourgeois wastes of time. Chris took exception. One day toward the end of semester, I noticed the pile of Rolling Thunder pics were no longer on the top of the bedroom bureau where I had “stored” them. There were a lot of piles in the room, so it took a while before I concluded they’d gone missing. I asked Chris if he’d seen them. He smiled like a killer from a horror film. “I wanted to do something that would really hurt you,” he said. The fucker had destroyed them. I ran to my book of negatives. He’d found those too and removed them to God knows where, preventing me from ever reprinting them. The bits of soul I’d stolen and frozen onto photo paper had escaped. All but one, the best of all, Dylan singing “Isis.” I’d kept in the inside flap of a loose leaf notebook, so I could show it at a moment’s notice. All the rest—Stoner’s swagger, McGuinn’s crazed look, Ronson’s pantsuit, Baez dancing, Ginsberg in the aisle, Dylan in flight—all of them were gone.

Maybe dignity’s never been photographed, but the lost show was, even if all but one of the pictures have returned into sand. I write this in place of them.

Bob Dylan in a suit and wide-brimmed hat performing on stage with a microphone.

Bob Dylan, North Dartmouth Massachusetts,
November 1, 1975. Photo courtesy of Bill Lattanzi.


[1]http://www.flaggingdown.com/t/rolling-thunder

 

“Songs of Love Sing”

By Thomas G. Palaima

 

Songs of love sing

fire, ice and stone

forever together

nevermore alone

 

hearts call out to hearts

gently, true and sweet

birds sing joyous songs

in songs, when lovers meet

 

arm and arm, hand and hand,

dancing at the edge of sand,

songs sing twining laughter

and happily ever after

 

Songs give love

their name of love

while friends arrived

disappear like smoke

 

become illusions

have lots of nerve

don’t think twice

get what they deserve

 

but lovers do do

—songs tell of this, too—

what they do

and do it well

 

suns go down

over the seas

while lovers listen

to lovers’ pleas

 

leave lights on

don’t wonder why

love outshines

the starry sky

 

songs of love

make love a boat

smoke and flame

snow and rain

 

blinking stardust

fringes of night

heat pipes coughing

wintry light

 

gold that isn’t

meant to shine

weeping clouds

and silhouettes

 

compromise

contentment

uncertainty

resentment

 

Russian roulette

lands of permanent bliss

tickets thrown out windows

betrayals with a kiss

songs of love

sing all of this

 

but true love

tends to forget

things that happen

or haven’t yet

 

true love forgets

its own name

and all the rights

and all the wrongs

that singers sing of

in their songs

 

love is in

the look of you

and all the times

that are too few

 

love takes our lips

from words to kiss

and right now

my love is this

Dylan once said, memorably, “all my songs are protest songs.” Common consensus is he was referring not to genre so much as to an attitude, not content so much as ethos. And, in fact, analyzing Dylan through the lens of attitude or ethos has gotten more screen time than genre studies. But what if he was indeed talking about genre? I wonder how that would affect our engagement with the songs. On one hand, does genre help us to understand Dylan better or, on the other, does Dylan shed new light on genre. Or both? Certainly at times Dylan’s generic innovations can be as startling as his reinvention of “Lord Randal,” which changed folk music, then rock music, then American culture.

Taking my cue from Dylan in an attempt, purely for experimental purposes, to refocus Dylan studies on genre, I want to reinvent the wheel—the Virgilian wheel, or rota as it was known in the past (when Latin was the lingua franca). The Virgilian wheel consists of the three major poems Virgil wrote: the Eclogues (pastoral), the Georgics (georgic/farming), and the Aeneid (epic). Poets in the Renaissance especially, all across Europe, tried to emulate Virgil’s progression from pastoral to georgic to epic as the ideal formula for becoming a great poet.

Can we fit Dylan’s songs into the old Virgilian categories? Surprisingly yes, though admittedly with some Procrustean [and Dylanesque] adjustment. Is there any critical percentage in analyzing Dylan’s art through traditional genres? I think so, as this column  shows briefly.

William Empson says in Some Versions of Pastoral (I borrowed the title) that “good proletarian art is usually Covert Pastoral.”[1] This is a tricky phrase, thanks to the word “covert,” but the idea of a masked pastoral form fits Dylan’s art. Whether Dylan’s is “proletarian art” is another question: the early albums up to Another Side advertised a working-class solidarity; and, much later, “Workingman’s Blues #2” seems to bemoan the proletarian dilemma, not to mention “Union Sundown.” Even the Nobel Committee, while raising Dylan to the world of high art and culture, paradoxically seemed to imply that the troubadours and oral poets preceding Dylan sang for the people.

In any case, amid the tsunami of books on Dylan, especially recent ones, few analyze Dylan’s songs as contributions to pastoral poetry, proletarian or otherwise. But why pastoral? Because, Empson notwithstanding, pastoral’s flexibility as a genre has been neglected. Philip Roth wrote a stunning novel called American Pastoral (1999), which extended and challenged the generic implications of its title brilliantly. But the genre has remained on the sideline in a kind of critical (and, apart from Roth and a few landscape poets, literary) obsolescence, dismissed as over-stylized, frivolous, staid, restrictive, and even elitist.

Some Versions of Pastoral was first published in 1935. Odd, perhaps, or amusingly belated for me to be applying Empson’s idea of Covert Pastoral to Dylan’s songs now, as if it were hot off the press. Max Weber believed that no academic book should last more than fifty years (of course his books belied that pronouncement). But, pace Max, maybe Empson’s ideas about genre are still current. Dylan’s songs have garnered scores of literary analyses, many brilliant enough to take your breath away. But curiously, despite the acknowledgment of Dylan’s literariness, critics tend to approach his lyrics idiosyncratically, either in categories tied to their own reading or peculiar to Dylan and unconnected to standard genres. Maybe the time has come for a little Empsonization.

Does Dylan deliberately engage conventional genres? Or does he intuitively rewrite conventions and leave it to us to find the literary patterns? I’m not sure. But intention is a subject for another column. I will say this, however. Whether with poetic intent or not, his choices underscore Christopher Ricks’s idea that “Like the great athlete, the great artist is at once highly trained and deeply instinctual. So if I am asked whether I believe that Dylan is conscious of all the subtle effects of wording and timing that I suggest, I am perfectly happy to say that he probably isn’t…What matters is that Dylan is doing the imagining, not that he be fully deliberately conscious of the countless intimations that are in his art.”[2]

Probably, in Ricks’s terms, Dylan’s relationship with pastoral poetry isn’t “fully deliberately conscious” of the ways he engages, and upends, the traditional mode. At least not always—at some times, in certain songs, his awareness of conventions and stereotypes seems undeniable. This is particularly true of his many lyrics setting the city and its jaundiced denizens against the wide-eyed innocent from the country: in “Mississippi,” for instance, the speaker complains “I was raised in the country, I been workin’ in the town / I been in trouble ever since I set my suitcase down.” These country-versus-city songs indicate a deliberate technique and, arguably, qualify as examples of covert (proletarian) pastoral.

Dylan’s identity with country-versus-city lyrics seems to have been real enough. In “Diamonds and Rust,” Joan Baez’s rueful speaker remembers the young Dylan as an outsider:

you burst on the scene
Already a legend
The unwashed phenomenon
The original vagabond

The “scene” that the “original vagabond” bursts on, though fictional in the song, is presumably Greenwich Village and the “unwashed phenomenon” has just arrived from the (iron-ore) country. The historical Dylan, as is voluminously documented, began his career singing with unplaceable Iron Range accents and acting the canny hayseed among the urban folk music crowd. He cultivated an outsider posture, both in person and in quasi-autobiographical songs:

Ramblin’ outa the wild West
Leavin’ the towns I love the best
Thought I’d seen some ups and downs
’Til I come into New York town

(“Talkin’ New York”)

The half-innocent rustic who’d “seen some ups and downs” arrives in “New York town” where he heads down to Greenwich Village ( mispronounced “Green-Which” like a rube) and “ended up / In one of them coffee-houses on the block.” Nothing could be more urban than a coffeehouse, and nothing more alien to the Manhattan audience than the unwashed phenomenon: “Man there said, ‘Come back some other day / You sound like a hillbilly / We want folk singers here’” (“Talkin’ New York”).

This scene, adjusted to fit MacDougal Street, is a familiar one: if he hadn’t read Mark Twain, Dylan probably knew a few Hollywood versions of the innocent abroad. In the formulaic tale, the rustic figure brings country humility and innocent values to the jaded cosmopolitan scene. Generically, despite its familiarity, this formula is a reversal of pastoral convention. In pastoral, the site of the action is bucolic, not urban, and—to oversimplify twenty centuries of poetic variations—the smug visitor from the city or court gets a humbling lesson from an honest rustic or a sharp rejection from a maidenly shepherdess. Sometimes pure virtue, sometimes country wit, undo the superior attitude of the unwelcome visitor.

Although “Talkin’ New York” fits the pattern of the innocent abroad, and as much as Dylan might have burst on the scene “already a legend,” the fiction of the humble hayseed doesn’t survive beyond his earliest songs. Dylan’s lyrical intuition was to problematize the myth, to challenge the facile polarities with his own version of dialectical engagement. His lyrics quickly moved away from the hick-among-high-buildings pose to a complex narrative that realigns the contours of the conventional pastoral mode.

There’s an old, much-debated question in literary studies: “What is pastoral?” According to Frank Kermode, “The first condition of pastoral poetry is that there should be a sharp difference between two ways of life, the rustic and the urban. The city is an artificial product, and the pastoral poet invariably lives in it, or is the product of its schools and universities.”[3] This is a crucial point: pastoral poets are city-educated and write from urban settings about an idealized countryside. The earliest pastoral poet, the Sicilian-Greek Theocritus, was a city poet writing about imaginary shepherds. Virgil, too, though raised on a farm in Mantua, wrote his Eclogues in Rome, as an urban poet. Paul Alpers, who wrote a book called What is Pastoral? (and another called What Else is Pastoral?) objects to what he calls Kermode’s overly quick explanation that, “in the space of two pages,” moves from “contrasts between the natural and the cultivated” to “the opposition of the country and city to the Golden Age to Juvenalian satire.”[4] Alpers prefers a much more complicated explanation, eschewing the long history of romantic (and Romantic) definitions of pastoral that stem from Friedrich Schiller’s On Naïve and Sentimental Poetry and Wordsworth’s Prelude. His quibble with this history is that it favors landscape—e.g., Arcadia and Golden Age bucolics—as well as “a longing for the ideal, prompted by a reaction against the ways of civilization, to be at the heart of pastoral”(30). Alpers, in contrast, insists that “we will have a far truer idea of pastoral if we take its representative anecdote to be herdsmen and their lives, rather than landscape or idealized nature”(22).

But Alpers’s categorical division doesn’t seem to hold in practice, as “Talkin’ New York” shows. The song clearly contains both categories, and stereotypes overlap. There’s a landscape “anecdote” pitting the “wild West” and “towns I love the best” against Greenwich Village. But there is also another anecdote—of the “herdsmen and their lives,” so to speak. The song uses the speaker’s country humility to satirize the city’s corrupt “ways of civilization,” manifest in the urban snickering, if that’s what it was, of the misguided “man there” in the coffeehouse, who might have been an unsympathetic MC at a hootenanny or open mike night.

“Talkin’ New York” offers a Covert Pastoral by inverting the site of the naïve poet’s experience. Rather than discovering the poet in the landscape of bucolic innocence, the modern (covert) version of the pastoral myth sets the innocent poet in the heart of a cityscape replete with urban criticism and bigotry toward hillbillies. The stranger from the country appears on the scene and, in an inversion of the city-country pastoral paradigm, levels his satire at the jaundiced city folk.

Significantly, Dylan’s speakers don’t move from naivete to sentimentality, don’t abandon the “representative anecdote” of moral experience in favor of ossified ideals—to whit, “all my songs are protest songs.” But Dylan’s approach to the city-country conflict soon developed beyond the simple inversion of “Talkin’ New York.” He tested the boundaries of this version of pastoral. For instance, one of his earliest train songs, “Bob Dylan’s Dream” from the Freewheelin’ album, gives a preview of a dialectic of pastoral values evident throughout his later work:

While riding on a train goin’ west
I fell asleep for to take my rest
I dreamed a dream that made me sad
Concerning myself and the first few friends I had

With half-damp eyes I stared to the room
Where my friends and I spent many an afternoon
Where we together weathered many a storm
Laughin’ and singin’ till the early hours of the morn

The narrative here transplants innocence from the country to the city. The train is “goin’ west,” as if toward the open American spaces, and the speaker looks back sadly at a room probably (or plausibly) in an urban setting. There is an unmistakable naivete, reminiscent of “My Back Pages,” in the lines “As easy it was to tell black from white / It was all that easy to tell wrong from right.” But, unlike traditional pastoral poetry, the innocence exists in the crowded room, the stand-in for culture, and it is lost as the speaker travels west into America—which, under normal circumstances, would represent rustic innocence.

There’s a strong temptation to read this song autobiographically—which complicates things, since Dylan was from mining country and “goin’ west” could mean going home, unless he’s going to a new kind of country. It is also irresistible—and confirmed by biography—to compare the room where the speaker and his friends “weathered many a storm” to the coffeehouse in Greenwich Village where the uncut harmonica player first encounters alien city mores. The reversal of innocent pastoral sites—the “wild West” and the room with the “Laughin’ and singin’”—mirrors the reversal of the two different speakers’ moral status. The expression of Covert Pastoral on full display in “Bob Dylan’s Dream” enacts a dialectic of elegiac mode and satire, of pastoral naivete and urbanity.

At times, Dylan’s lyrics can capture this dialectic almost too subtly. Think about a song like “Time Passes Slowly” which should be easy to categorize as elegiac pastoral romancing:

Time passes slowly up here in the mountains
We sit beside bridges and walk beside fountains
Catch the wild fishes that float through the stream
Time passes slowly when you’re lost in a dream

The repetition at the beginning and end of the stanzas of the phrase “Time passes slowly” seems to reinforce the pace of pastoral life, maybe alluding to the inevitable turning of the seasons. The speaker, “up here in the mountains,” would seem to be an updated version of famous rustics like Colin Clout or Lycidas, not a herdsman but definitely enjoying the characteristic otium of the genre. But something is amiss in Dylan’s version of pastoral (at least in this song). He builds the lyrics around the passing of Time, evidently an invasive extra-pastoral force unwelcome in the locus amoenus—the idyllic safe and shaded landscape of bucolic tranquility. Further, and more damning, Dylan’s bucolic scene occurs “when you’re lost in a dream.” This is the heart of the pastoral dialectic, the struggle between reality and the unreal site of leisure, a state of mind John Donne refers to as sucking on “country pleasures / childishly” (“The Good-Morrow”).

In “Time Passes Slowly,” however, the valence favors reality over pastoral innocence, because Time impinges on the dream. This isn’t the typical pastoral relationship in which rustic pleasures revamp city woes, and simple country values neutralize the skepticism and superciliousness of urban visitors. On the contrary, “Time Passes Slowly” is ultimately a skeptical song: unlike “Bob Dylan’s Dream,” in which the romance is set back east in the (urban) room, “Time Passes Slowly” romances the rustic setting of bridges and fountains (a good rhyme for mountains, but aren’t fountains the product of human architecture?). Yet the presence of Time is like a shadow over everything. It may be that Time passes slowly in a dream, but in reality Time passes, and with it the pastoral dream. This is one of Dylan’s versions of “Covert Pastoral.”

Here’s another version. Explaining “the marriage of the myths of heroic and pastoral,” Empson contends that “the double plot … is needed for a general view of pastoral because the interaction of the two plots gives a particularly clear setting for, or machine for imposing, the social and metaphysical ideas on which pastoral depends” (30). A double plot juxtaposes the two modes of pastoral and heroic, in a sense collapsing the spokes of the Virgilian wheel. This kind of juxtaposition, if Empson is right, is crucial to introducing pastoral, especially Covert Pastoral. A song like “Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts” might come to mind. Not only does the song have an active double plot—the heroic outlaw subplot of Jack’s men who “by the riverbed they waited on the ground” interlaced with the erotic/jealousy main plot of Rosemary and Big Jim. But it also captures a pastoral version that valorizes the success of extra-urban qualities in the thick of town corruption (“The hangin’ judge came in unnoticed and was being wined and dined”). For all his mystery, however, the Jack of Hearts is really only an enhanced copy of the misunderstood performer in the coffeehouse: if the performer arrives in New York to outwit the wits, the Jack of Hearts out-performs the performers, steals their hearts, and “heroically” steals money from the bank. This is what Empson means by “the marriage of the myths of heroic and pastoral”—served up in Dylan’s Americanized version.

As is well known, “Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts” doesn’t fit the contours of the typical outlaw ballad. But there’s more to it than just a revision of songs like “Pretty Boy Floyd,” Woody Guthrie’s straightforward Depression-era tale of a ruined agrarian culture and a face-off between unfair laws and benevolent lawlessness. “Pretty Boy Floyd” is a protest song, justifying the acts of a notorious villain who was forced “to live a life of shame.” But Woody, ever the political activist, heightens the contrasts between the haves and have-nots, defining the myth of the agrarian by introducing a myth of the hero:

But a many a starvin’ farmer
The same old story told
How the outlaw paid their mortgage
And saved their little homes.
Others tell you ‘bout a stranger
That come to beg a meal,
Underneath his napkin
Left a thousand-dollar bill.

This isn’t a double plot, though, because the agrarian figures have no agency in the song. Like most outlaw ballads such as “Whiskey in the Jar” or “Jesse James” or “John Wesley Harding,” Woody’s song has a single plot. You could even say a single-minded plot: the justification of crime and villainy in an unjust society.

Dylan’s song, in contrast, takes the framework of the outlaw ballad and, by introducing a double plot and giving agency to the figures in both plots, transforms it into a Covert Pastoral. In Empson’s terms, he uses the double plot as a “machine for imposing the social and metaphysical ideas on which pastoral depends.” The song has, of course, inspired many interpretations. Timothy Hampton calls it a “shaggy-dog tale,” and ties it to Jack Kerouac’s On the Road and the “maps of both writers.”[5] Stephen Scobie categorizes it as an outlaw narrative, highlighting its “indeterminacy” and emphasizing the jumps in time, while Michael Gray calls the song “a deft movie script.” [6] But, ironically, the more critics seek up-to-date genres or subgenres (“shaggy-dog tale”) with which to categorize the song, the clearer it becomes that we can hear Dylan’s song as a version of an existing genre. Perhaps we can’t know if, for example, Dylan is just alluding to pastoral stereotypes, or if pastoral is an organizing force here and elsewhere in his work. Nor can we be sure, finally, if he’s “fully deliberately conscious” of pastoral traditions when he writes. Or if he’s ever stumbled over Virgil’s rota rolling by.

But imagine. Some versions of georgic: Dylan on farmers and farming (“Gospel Plow,” “Hollis Brown,” “Maggie’s Farm”). And imagine too, though no one sings Homeric songs anymore, Some versions of epic (the ballads, yes, but also “Bob Dylan’s 115th Dream,” “Frankie Lee and Judas Priest,” “Highlands,” “Tangled Up in Blue,” “Isis,” “Hurricane”). Maybe, as we look for new ways to listen to Dylan, we might think about the oldest poetic genres, like the Virgilian rota of pastoral, georgic, and epic. Maybe we should go back, even if we can’t go back all the way.

Raphael Falco

 


[1] William Empson, Some Versions of Pastoral (New York: New Directions, 1935;1974), 6.

[2] Christopher Ricks, Dylan’s Visions of Sin (New York: HarperCollins Books, 2003), 8.

[3] English Pastoral Poetry: From the Beginnings to Marvell, ed. Frank Kermode (New York: W.W. Norton, 1952; 1972), 14.

[4] Paul Alpers, What is Pastoral? (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 32. Further references in the text.

[5] Timothy Hampton, Bob Dylan’s Poetics: How the Songs Work (New York: Zone Books, 2019), 124.

[6] Stephen Scobie, Alias Bob Dylan Revisited (Calgary, Canada: Red Deer Press, 2003), 161-62; Michael Gray, Song and Dance Man III: The Art of Bob Dylan (London: Continuum, 2000), 185.