Expecting Rain

QAL and unwavedhand,

I've been having a conversation with Warmuth over the past week or so. He agreed that I could share what he said in his emails to me, so I'll pass some of that along here.

I should begin by saying that he chose not to answer any of my questions about his methods. I asked, but he passed. He said that another writer had spent a fairly long time working through Warmuth's research and then spent time and energy coming out to meet with Warmuth to interview him about his work. He felt it would be unfair to answer my questions (essentially for this forum) given that writer's hard work.

I can respect that. And I'll take him at his word, that this is his reason for not sharing that information. It's not clear whether this other writer intends to say much about Warmuth's methods -- really crucial stuff to know if we are going to take his research seriously. I hope so.

He was (and may still be) reading the thread, and so we have all, in a sense, asked him. He has so far decided not to engage here.

He did make clear that he does not believe that there is some grand, single puzzle/code to be decoded in Dylan's work. I feel relatively confident in saying it that way. That was one possible way of interpreting what Warmuth has written -- namely, that there could be a cipher or code that has a mathematical (or similar structure) algorithm which will allow a single, intended message to be determined once the code is cracked. He assured me that despite his references to ciphers and code-breaking, that was not what he believed was happening.

However, he does suggest that there are layers and layers of clues and puzzles -- beyond the incorporations as such, that is, the lines Dylan quotes -- within the songs, paintings, Chronicles, and films. I think these kinds of games and puzzles are more what he means by codes.

One last point here,

Warmuth also confirmed what I think we all suspected (or hoped) that his claims about short phrases and sentences being from other texts do not rely on just a google match (everything suggests that this is Warmuth's basic tool). Warmuth confirms (as much as this is possible) these matches by finding other instances of matches in the Dylan song or broader work, other references, other incorporations. In other words, it isn't enough for a sentence to simply occur in a Dylan text and in another text on Google. There would have to be corroborating evidence. I think there is no real doubt about most of his claims. The Jack London File is undeniable, really.

Reading his first couple of posts on the Goon Talk blog, you'll see how he goes (or at least went) about searching. He searches for lines and rhymes together. Look here: http://swarmuth.blogspot.com/2008/10/te ... tch-1.html

Did Warmuth decide that there was a code and work backwards from that point ?
Or did he gradually come to the conclusion that there must be must be a code and set out to prove it?
There is something strange about the whole thing that seems wrong.

Hey Oldman (that's fun to write),
I think I am not understanding what you mean by 'code'. I know we hashed this out a little a couple of weeks ago, but I don't remember where we ended up.

So, if I am repeating something or rehashing it, just skip down below the asterisks.

Here is a short version:

The Technical Use of the Term 'Code' that Warmuth has Denied Being His Focus:
Taking direction from Warmuth's essay (linked early in this thread: Bob Charlatan), I worked through some texts on cryptography myself (I used to work on issues around that field). Drawing from the technical field of cryptography, I set out a definition of 'cipher' and 'code' -- basically, a cipher is a simple kind of code, transposed letters; a code can be a very complex algorithm whereby a message is translated into an unrecognizable form. You need the key algorithm to translate it back. The key to this technical use of the term 'code' is that there is one right answer to the code -- there is an exact formula that yields an exact right answer.

In this context, that would mean that Dylan has somehow created a way of encoding a secret message into his texts, using the quoted lines, melodies, images. For instance, the lines from Ovid in Ain't Talkin would be a set of clues. If you knew what to look for in the Ovid lines, you would pick up the secret message. Then, there would be a way of translating the song to yield Dylan's specific, single, correct secret intended message that only used Ovid as a carrier.

Warmuth says this is not what he thinks is going on.

The Non-technical Use of the Term 'Code' that Warmuth cops to:
In this version, 'code' would just mean puzzle. Dylan's references/incorporations from other texts would evoke ideas, feelings, themes, connections. The trick here is to recognize which texts Dylan is drawing from. Once you recognize the text (see Stetson's post about Things Have Changed), you can see a set of connections to the source and that can reveal a play of themes, ideas, with that original text from which Dylan borrowed. Stetson's post is a perfect example of that. Dylan almost certainly placed those references to Streetcar Named Desire in the song, intending them to be noticed by a few people, but most likely for his own amusement. Once you recognize the Streetcar lines in the song, you can think about the song in a whole new way. See meanings you might not have noticed.

But the key difference from the other sense of 'code' is that here there is not an exact key and no exact secret message to arrive at. The puzzle is simply finding the Streetcar Named Desire connection. Then, you can imagine your own effects of the play on the song. Interpretation remains wide open.

Now, Warmuth tells me that he thinks there all kinds of internal puzzles: for instance, he says that he believes that Dylan has given clues in his songs and texts to the sources of his borrowing/incorporations or given clues as to the real identities of the characters in his songs. For instance, In the very first post on Warmuth's blog, he notes that Dylan's borrowings from the poet Wither in the song Can't Escape From You are accompanied by a puzzle clue -- Dylan puts the word "withering" in the song. Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee , he tells me has a series of clues and puzzles.

That's not a code in the technical sense. It's like a clue leading you to the texts that are incorporated.

**********************
OK. So, when you ask whether Warmuth starts off thinking there is a code or not, I think the answer is that he starts off thinking that Dylan incorporates texts, melodies, images, etc in all of his current work (Warmuth never answered my question about when he thinks this particular practice started). And he also now comes to Dylan's work assuming there will be clues that point him (Warmuth) to other texts, movies, historical things, etc. But he doesn't approach Dylan's work assuming it's all a big (technical) code that has to be translated to reveal a single, secret message from Dylan. That is, he is just looking for incorporated lines (&tc.) and fun clues. Note that beyond that, Warmuth has rarely offered an interpretation of what those incorporated lines do to the meanings of the songs.

If I might address some of the snarky stuff that is said: Neither I, nor Warmuth (according to what he's said to me), think these incorporations are part of a technical code (a cryptogram) that would yield a single, hidden, secret message. We can just put that aside.

I think that the essay Bob Charlatan can leave readers (as it left me) with the impression that Warmuth does think there is a technical code. But he says that is not what he intended.

Now, Warmuth remains cagey. He may have his reasons for doing so. I don't quite understand them.

But he won't explain (at least to me, or here on ER) how he goes about finding these incorporations -- because it's clear it is not by having already read or seen all the sources he has located. That might be a kind of possessive thing -- perhaps he wants to maintain as exclusive a hold on this research as he can. That's fine. But, as I said in my first post, if his work is going to be really taken up and taken seriously, people will need to understand how he arrived at these conclusions.

And, while he denies that he believes there is a technical code at work, he almost always follows that with a "but..." after which he says there is "a lot more going on that meets the eye". I don't think he is hedging, holding onto the technical sense of code or anything. He usually follows the "but..." by referring to puzzles, clues, etc. I wish he would follow that up with more detail. He may just be waiting until he has it more fully worked out. Hard to tell.

He tells me that he is working on a number of new discoveries that he hopes to put up on his blog soon.

Alright, that's all.

Hope that helps.

I think we have a "trees from the forest" problem here. The amazingly huge, very complex volume of work Bob Dylan has produced makes it very easy to get lost in the details and distractions. If there is a "code", or single theme throughout his work, I see it as a very simple and obvious one - IMPROVING THE HUMAN CONDITION. All of his greatest songs hammer home this theme in brilliant poetry and have earned him the highest awards all around the world.

The best image of him, other than being a singer songwriter, and which he has alluded to numerous times - is that of a fighter.
Bob Dylan, is now, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN, fighting for you. If you are ever lucky enough to meet him, extend to him your sincerest thanks - and mine.

The incorporation of other's words are simply(in my mind) his decision that those words will help further HIS intentions. The vast volume of his own words stand brilliantly by themselves and he would be in the exact same world class position today on his words alone.

From page one, second paragraph, of "Chronicles", Bob Dylan's autobiography -

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Lou introduced me to Jack Dempsey, the great boxer. Jack shook his fist at me.
"You look too light for a heavyweight kid, you'll have to put on a few pounds. You're gonna have to dress a little finer, look a little sharper - not that you'll need much in the way of clothes when you're in the ring - don't be afraid of hitting somebody too hard."

_____________________________________________________________________________________

This is the very first story he tells in HIS OWN STORY. NOT meeting Woodie Guthrie(which happend in the same time frame), or some delta blues legend, but a fighter, telling him "don't be afraid of hitting somebody too hard".

i can understand it i think- maybe he doesn't want other critics, researchers, what have you, to take his research and then come up with some grand interpretation based on all of his leg work. he has done the work, maybe he wants first shot at explaining what it means to him- sounds reasonable to me

Yes--and the more "books" that are out there (or internet blogs, etc), the more it is validating all points of view, all interpretations--other ideas beyond the handful laid out in Gray's book or Heylin's book or whomever's. Criticism is taken out of the hands of the few who have the ability to get a book contract. Dylan could be be saying that anyone's response to a song is just as valid as anyone elses. Like his many sided song lyrics, the quote about the books can mean whatever. He's a slippery fish. (And silliness can also be fun --not taking oneself too seriously--being open to new points of view)

I consider the context of that quote (gazillion books) to be important, also. Wasn't it in his statement about the China controversy?


edit: darn,I see there is an entire page of posts I missed and someone may have already addressed this. I'll get to reading page ten.

^
actually, it was a part of that, yes.

Thanks. I just think Warmuth with no doubt the best of intentions and a feeling that he has made new ground and gone to a new area has in fact complicated the issue . I have thought my way through this and there is no real puzzle from where I sit. Dylan is a well read person and naturally absobs things as we all do. I have examined things I have written and seen afterwards where I have taken from other sources usually without realizing . I read his blog and while he is clever and learned. I felt in a way he values the prize beyond the game.

Yes you are absolutely right. Warmuth is entitled to do what he wants. Absolutely. And you may be exactly right. And given the enormous amount of time he's put in, he surely deserves the first shot at putting it together. I did not press him at all.

His well-deserved privilege of holding on to what he's found (and its method) aside, it's possible it's even simpler:
Explaining something like this well can take a lot of time. He may not have wanted to spend it. He may have been too busy.
And, he has no idea what I intend to do with any information he might give me.

So, that was not meant to be disparaging toward him.

I found him open, amiable and respectful. I accept his desire to play some things close to the vest or to decline to explain himself simply because some one he doesn't know stood up on his hind legs and demanded it!

My point is that I think that understanding and verifying his methods would help to firmly ground the interpretive work that others (like me) would like to take on someday, using his hard-won discoveries.

If the sources of the incorporations cannot be established with some high level of certainty, interpretive work becomes far more speculative and sketchy.

Oldmanemu,
so are you saying that you think that Dylan is not intentionally incorporating these sources (Timrod, Ovid, Twain, London, etc) into his work?
And I think that then implies that Dylan would not, in your view, intend for his audience to recognize those sources, nor for his audience to think through the implications of those sources for Dylan's work?

If you think there is more that you can say about how you came to this conclusion (beyond your last post), I would be interested in hearing it from you.

I should say that I think there is fairly convincing proof that Dylan is incorporating these texts/sources intentionally and that he hopes for at least some of his audience to recognize it.

"Love and Theft" in quotations should be a clue that it is intentional and that he wants people to take notice.

I accept the fact that I may be wrong and that it is possibly intentional however I just feel uneasy about that at this stage.
It has been well know that he has used texts etc as long as he has been writing . We used to talk about this sort of thing in the early seventies. We would say have you seen this in a certain song and so on. In those days I assumed it was because he had read and absorbed things like the Bible , Roman and Greek myths and so on.
I am prepared to be convinced by Warmuth , but at this stage I can not make the step even though I know some of us are already there.

JB,
I think we'll have to address, at some point, the issue of elitism in regard to all of this.

The arguments that you (and I and others) have made about there being no need for anyone to recognize Dylan's incorporations in order to appreciate the song in a meaningful way -- those arguments are, I believe valid. But...

There is the fact that without recognizing the incorporated texts, and without having some fundamental grasp of the significance of those texts (themes, characters, plot, historical context, etc), any experience of a work by Dylan that includes incorporations remains limited, inadequate to the work.

Why is this potentially elitist? Because the breadth and depth of Dylan's literacy is such that only a small number of people can be sufficiently educated enough (whether in academia or self-taught) to come to term with Dylan's work.

Again, 'elite' need not mean here academically privileged or having the highest IQ. It could mean those who have had the curiosity and persistence to immerse themselves in our shared, history and culture.

In other words, an elite determined not by money and power but by desire and hard work - and an elite that could be made up of a majority. Could be....but isn't.

By the by, I do not now include myself in Dylan's elite audience. But a guy can aspire, right?

Thanks emu,
I am going to step away from the internet for a while here, but I want to briefly respond to you.

I agree that Dylan has always done some of this "referencing". I think that in earlier work, allusion was more common than a full incorporation (essentially a word for word "quoting" of another text without citing the source). In that case, I think a less intentional reason for the presence of Biblical and Classical ideas, themes, phrasing is possible. You're reading the Bible a lot, you start infusing your work with Biblical themes and wording.

But what Warmuth is pointing too is something of a wholly different order. Chronicles in particular makes your position difficult to accept. There are long, long passages taken verbatim from sources that appear numerous times in Dylan's "memoir". Dylan would have to have both a photographic memory and to be totally and utterly unselfaware, while being totally ignorant of all intellectual property law and convention.

You have your reasons for believing what you do. I don't pretend to know anything for certain.

THe only reason I am pushing any of this at all (in what I hope is a polite and serious way) is that the first, most basic threshold for working to re-interpret Dylan's late work is being convinced that Dylan intends the incorporations to be recognized and that he has set them to work in a way that multiplies meanings, enriches the works and his audience's experience of it.

I am convinced.

But, I want to test my conviction against your skepticism. Essentially, I am looking to falsify or disprove what I think is the case.

I'll be back as soon as I have a little free time.

Best wishes.

what kind of work do you plan on taking on. are you writing a book. do you work at a university or are you a critic somewhere else. did you tell s. warmuth about what exactly you wanted to work on. i guess i am still not clear- are you wanting to study dylan's music, or whether warmuth's research methods are correct, or something else. just wondering, but of couse i can understand if you don't want to say.

i'm pretty sure the people who like dylan's music now, will be able to pick up the books he referenced and understand them (and there are a lot of guide books at the library or stuff on the internet), and if they are intrigued enough about the whole thing, then they will. and he may get more people interested in his work or in the other works. some people just won't be interested, but that's always how it's been. i don't think that makes anyone more or less "elite" though.

I agree with that. I always saw references my favorite artists made as a recommended reading/listening/watching/seeing lists. I have wondered, though, to what extent there might be a sense that this whole discussion becomes exclusive in some way.

Dylan is such an American, such a democrat (small d), that the term 'elitism' in any meaningful sense does seem difficult to match up with him.

Just wondering how people saw that possible issue. Thanks for the response.

No, I am not necessarily planning on writing a book. But who knows. And yes, I told him who I was and what I was interested in.

My interest is in Dylan's incorporations -- the textual sources. If a person (if I) were to write interpretations of Dylan's work that focused on his incorporations, it would be important to have some level of certainty that the texts in question were from the sources claimed.

Some of these incorporations are relatively easy to confirm (and there is enough support to be fairly certain that Dylan is in some sense "quoting" from the source). For other sources, it is harder to confirm them and the evidence is less strong -- e.g., a single line from a work from which there are not many, many "quotes". If Warmuth has a method of locating these incorporations that is more that Googling the words, if he has a way of identifying them that would raise the level of certainty. that would let a writer base arguments on sources where there are not many instances of "quoting".

Something like that.

Of course, one could just build in hedges and disclaimer ("if this line is from....then....") but that is less than ideal.

Finally, it would allow others to see whether a line that Warmuth finds in one source (In Jack London, say) might also be found in other sources. This is a similar concern to the one QAL raised. Just because a line does appear in a book, magazine, etc, it does not rule out that line appearing elsewhere. Iterability is crucial to something like objectivity.

Hope that is clearer.

Hear, hear! Well said, MMD! I don't see an elitism issue at all here, although there is the question of access to important information, on which more in a moment.

My only problem with Warmuth is that I feel he has moved to the interpretation stage way too soon. Personally, I would be happy (nay, delighted, over the moon) with a kind of concordance that tells me which songs have which inclusions from other sources. I can handle the interpretation thereafter myself in the usual way. I may even decide to conclude that there is a hidden message buried in the text. If I do, that too will be an interpretation (unless I find the secret message, I suppose).

However, doubt must remain that they truly are inclusions as long as Warmuth keeps his methods private. I appreciate what MMD said back there, and I'm not suggesting he should reveal all just yet, but ultimately the method will need to be known. This seems to be the only way that relevant information remains accessible to all and that privileged elites are avoided.

glad it has been figured out that elitism is not really relevant here,and not because some might think dylan is a small d democrat. more because it does not take a brain surgeon to read a book and understand it, if you are so inclined. it also doesn't take a genius to do what warmuth is doing and find the sources and do the work, if so inclined, instead of expecting someone else to lay it out. i am sure he will when he feels like it, but until then, my opinion is, if anyone plans on maybe writing a book, do the work, knock yourself out.

art is code

i think you're right about that bobschool