One of the most effective ways for writers to improve their craft is to read intentionally. But, what does reading intentionally really mean? To me, when I read as a writer, I observe the way the other uses craft–either on the macro or the micro level, and see if there are any techniques or strategies I can incorporate into my own writing. I don’t always read like this, as it distracts, to some extent, from my ability to fully immerse myself in a story for pleasure, but, reading (or watching or listening, depending on the medium) for craft not only is an important part of my writing practice, but also has allowed me to get something out of almost anything I read, even if it is something which I would not–or do not–otherwise enjoy. It is especially important for a writer to read broadly and outside of their genre, as casting a wide net exposes one to a wider array or strategies and techniques.
In this series of articles, I will write about one element of craft I learned from a specific writer. Of course, in most cases, I learned more than one technique from each author, but for the purpose of this series of articles, I will focus on just one per post.
As with my Rules What Rules series, I will list previous entries at the top of each post, as while I plan on writing many of these, they, most likely, will not be in consecutive posts.
Previous Entries:
Oscar Wilde
WHAT I LEARNED FROM BOB DYLAN: focus on the General Rather than the Specific When Writing Social Criticism
There’s a strong argument to me made that Bob Dylan is the defining poet of his generation. As the only popular singer to win the Nobel Prize in Literature, he has achieved success both in the popular and critical arenas. Dylan came to prominence in the 1960s and was a major voice in the anti-Vietnam war movement. He is, perhaps, best known for his protest songs, which despite being written ostensibly about that war, have lived on long after the war in Vietnam was over, and which continue to inspire change-makers and poets alike years after they were written. While there is much that any poet can learn from Bob Dylan, from his expert characterization, to his use of biblical and literary allusions, to his ability to craft unique and whimsical phrases, it is the enduring legacy of these songs, Dylan’s ability to write evergreen poems about about a specific current event, which I wish to focus on today.
So why do Dylan’s songs still resonate? I would argue that is because he writes about the event of the day generally rather than specifically. Let’s look at Blowin’ in the Wind, which is, perhaps, his most famous protest song.
The song begins with a series of rhetorical questions:
How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes, ’n’ how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, ’n’ how many times must the cannonballs fly
Before they’re forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind
The song, which everyone knows as a protest song, does not mention contemporary issues at all at the beginning. The first question is a question of maturity. The second, is a biblical allusion to the Noah story. It is only the third question which addresses war specifically, and even here, it is a general question about war, not a specific question about a specific war. Imagine you were listening to the song for the first time and without context. You might not yet know what the song was about. Yet, if you were attending an anti-Vietnam war rally, you would immediately associate that last question with the (then) current conflict.
Looking back at the verse, the first two questions, which invoke maturity (1) and the bible, which is a source of morality (2), frame the third question which addresses the social issue about which Dylan want his listener to focus. A mature, moral person would recognize the futility of war in general, and the amoral nature of the specific was which was going on at the time Dylan performed the song.
The second verse is structured in the same way as the first, but Dylan varies the types of questions he asks:
How many years can a mountain exist
Before it’s washed to the sea?
Yes, ’n’ how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, ’n’ how many times can a man turn his head
Pretending he just doesn’t see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind
The first question in this verse resembles the first question of the first verse. It is a general question. This time, however, he moves to a specific social issue in the second question. The third question, continues on the theme of the second by implicating not just the oppressor, who is called out in question 2, but also the “neutral” observer, who while they don’t oppress others themselves, also don’t challenge the oppressor. Again, a listener in the 1960s would associate the second and third question with a contemporary issue of the day, in this case, the civil rights movement, but, like the first verse, Dylan chooses not to name the issue or those whom he criticizes explicitly.
Even though the structure of this verse is the same as the first, the content moves in a different way. Like the first verse, this one begins with a general question which establishes a context. In this case, the context is time. Oppression has been going on for a long time, both in the general sense and in the specific sense which Dylan implies from his own social context. The second question moves to the specific social criticism, in this case oppression. The movement between the first and second question does not happen until the third question in the first verse. Here, it happens one question sooner. The third question, however, makes a different type of movement. Dylan turns the question directly to his listeners. Even though it’s still stated generally, Dylan’s audience, who, likely, would not consider themselves pro war or oppressors, may recognize that they are not doing enough to fix these social issues. Thus, the third question acts as a call to action.
Let’s look at the third verse:
How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, ’n’ how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, ’n’ how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind
Once again, the verse is structured in the exact same way: three questions and the refrain. But this time, Dylan masterfully connects the themes of the first verse with those in the second. The first question, once again, seems to establish a general thematic context. Though it mimics the first question in the other verses structurally, in this case, it also echoes the last question in the previous verse, which continues the theme of blindness. It is implied, in context, that the blindness is willing. The second question continues the theme, switching from seeing to listening, but with the same implied message.
The third question makes a new kind of move. It masterfully connects the themes of the first verse and the second verse with one simple question. When he sings “too many people have died” does he mean in the war or because of oppression? It does not really matter because the answer is really both. Too many people died in the war. Too many people also died because of their civil rights were abused. Moreover, there were civil rights issues with the Vietnam war as well. All of these issues are connected. The same type of person who does not see–or hear–one will not see or hear the other. This criticism also applies, perhaps most strongly, to those in charge, whose policies and lack of empathy lead to each issue.
While the song as a whole is a scathing piece of social criticism, it does not refer specifically to any current social issue. There is no mention of a specific war or a specific type of oppression. The listener at the time would have recognized the specific, current events which inspired the song, but, because Dylan did not mention them explicitly, they are relevant to many other similar situations throughout history. Thus, Dylan effectively writes social criticism about the issues of his day while also writing a timeless poem which has lived on long after that specific war ended. (The civil rights issues, unfortunately, are ongoing). His material has an evergreen, timeless quality which transcends the events about which he was writing.
There is a strong temptation to write about those issues which make us most angry, and to write about them specifically, and, there is a value in doing so for sure. But, as Dylan shows, it is often more effective to address theme generally and trust one’s audience to understand the point one is trying to make. Dylan wrote many other songs which fit this paradigm, notably Masters of War and The Times They Are a’ Changin’. While he wrote songs which addressed specific events of his day, the are (with the exception of Hurricane) not among those which are considered his greatest hits. And yet, despite his tendency to write generally, Dylan–and his songs–were very clear about where he stood on the issues of the day.
This lesson can be seen in the work of other writers as well. It is the reason why 1984 is a better novel than Animal Farm, for example, and it is a large part of why Shakespeare’s tragedies are considered his greatest plays.
As writers, we should aspire to write our social criticism is evergreen ways. We all dream of writing work that lasts. While many factors go into whether a piece will resonate beyond its era some in our control and some not, emulating Dylan gives us the best chance at writing social criticism with a lasting legacy. And, Dylan’s example proves that writing generally does not detract from a poem’s effectiveness as social criticism of specific, current issues.
Follow me on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.
A. A. Rubin 