看意思是他在毒品作用下写歌 清醒时再修改？
ZenMan1
5/16/2017 11:08 AM PDT
People are very confused these days about what is "poetry" and what isn't. The Modernist experiments of the first half of the 20th Century confused a lot of semi-literate souls (like public school teachers). Lines of emotionally tinged prose written in eccentric, disjointed patterns on a page are not poetry. Real poetry is rooted in song and dance, but has an independent existence. If a composition has no recognizable rhythmic or lyric (sonic) components, it's just prose no matter what the typography looks like.
This disqualifies as poetry 75-85% of everything that has been presented to the public as "poetry" in the 20th Century, even if the work has won prizes and "critical acclaim" and the author is famous.
If you want to know what the human race has considered to be poetry, what defines poetry, you need to read a healthy, representative selection of works written from the time of Homer to the end of the 19th Century in the original languages when you're able. All of it has rhythmic and lyric (song like) qualities that make it easily distinguishable from prose.
Dylan is an interesting case. Many of his famous and most loved songs have lyrics that are the product of free association while on drugs -- they are "surreal" and suggestive of meaning without actually meaning anything much. Yes, Coleridge's "Kubla Khan; or, A Vision in a Dream: A Fragment" originated in an opium trip, but he obviously had a go at it again while he came down, and it makes sense to the reader in a way many of Dylan's unedited products don't. Being "experimental" doesn't make something "poetical," or, in Dylan's case, even grammatical. Dylan's works are "pop songs" and have pleased, and even inspired, many people. Does that make them "poetry" or "literature"? I can give you a definitive "Maybe, but probably not" on that.
