Dwolf0823 wrote:
Johnny wrote:

Nonsense.

Which part? All of it? Maybe.

No. I was referring to the following:

What's

up with that? Racism? Which way? "Don't quote the Japanese"?

Or

"It's OK to rip off African Americans"? The critics have more to
answer for than Dylan.


Was any single TooM source used to the same extent as Saga's work?

I have no idea.


I'd be
surprised if Dylan took more than one line from any single source for TooM, >> whereas he took several (I believe 9) from Saga's book. The quantity of
"borrowings" from a single work is one significant distinction

that your

comparison ignores.


I'm not sure "quantity" per se matters at all. Where is the line
crossed in borrowings from a single source? Why does it matter how
many sources are utilized? None of those points is obvious to me.

Unfortunately, I think I might have responded to points you weren't making

and

therefore we're talking past each other.
My point is simple: a) it would have been courteous for Dylan to have

provided

attribution to Saga and b) I don't think it's necessary for Dylan to have provided attribution to the sources he used in TooM, partially because I

think

there is a significant difference between taking one line from a work and taking ten lines from the same work.

Upon closer examination of your post, however, it seems you are limiting

your

comments towards people who believe Dylan *should not* have taken lines from Saga at all -- i.e., those who feel betrayed by what he has done. As I now read your comments, you argue that these people should have felt *betrayed*

by

TooM, too, because Dylan *stole* lines there, as well.
You know what, Johnny, I agree with you, and I'd also agree that quantity in that context is not self-evidently relevant. I still stand by my previous post, but *not* as a response to your post.

Moreover, there's an expectation and acceptance relating to taking lines
from
old gospel songs ("part of the process") and, when it's done by

Dylan or

others, sources are easily traced. On the other hand, Saga wrote an
obscure
book in another language whose role in "Love and Theft" was only
discovered,
and could only be discovered, through fortuity.


Now that's closer to my point, but I really don't see why Dylan should
confine himself to a single genre for his sources anymore than he
should do so for his music.

Agreed.

This seems to be a replay of the many

demands in the past that he limit himself, let the fans define him,
stop growing and expanding. If I were him, I would consider this
absurd, as if a) any thing has to be off-limits because it's too
obscure, and b) the sources he refers to from the folk-blues-gospel
canon aren't already extremely obscure!

Again, to be clear, I wasn't arguing in favor of Saga being off limits; I

only

mean to suggest that it would have been courteous for Dylan to provide attribution and there are very few people here who wouldn't be pissed if someone borrowed ten lines from a Dylan album without citing to the Man.

Dylan would have expected in foresight that his musical sources would be
discovered (and he goes as far as to throw Patton into a parenthetical
title).
He never could have expected that Yakuza would be discovered as a source.


I think that's completely false. I mean, he read it! It's been
translated! He knows he has many rather literate fans; at the same
time, I'm sure there's dozens of references and hints and such that
are obvious to him that no one's noted yet, and I'm sure he's quite
amused by it. No, I don't accept that at all.

You might be right.

I
believe this distinction, too, puts a greater moral obligation on sourcing >> Saga
than sourcing his blues, folk, and gospel sources.

Again, not at all obvious.

Stealing lines from blues and folk songs and making them your own -- sans citation -- is part of a long and accepted tradition. Is there a comparable tradition for doing the same with novels? Of course not. But there's no greater moral obligation to provide citation to the author of the novel who, unlike peer musicians, a) *expects* to be cited when quoted, and b) is

actually

still alive and can personally enjoy the benefits that flow from citation?

I made my thoughts on this matter known months ago. Dylan was under no
obligation to provide attribution to Saga, but it would have been the
courteous
thing to do. If someone stole as many lines from Dylan as Dylan took from >> Saga, I'd expect attribution and would be disappointed if the artist who
borrowed from Dylan did not provide citation. The media uproar, however,
is
much ado about nothing.

Agreed.

I think we might agree more than we disagree about this matter.

dsw

A topic that continues to fascinate.


This is a response to the post seen at: http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=675071304#675071304

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)