I'm sure he read the books. That's not really an issue. I just wish he had accepted the fact that the Nobel committee regarded his work with songs as "literature" and that he therefore didn't have to try to prove that point by invoking traditional literary sources that ultimately were not the greatest influences on his career. I think the lecture came from a defensive posture. He should have just told us about songs, songwriting, the tradition his work springs from, and given us insight into his creative process and the importance of the kind of "literature" he has excelled at.
In interviews and radio shows and songs, the poets he has mentioned most (to my limited recollection) are Poe, Rimbaud and Dante. If he felt he had to legitimize himself by reference to non-song literature, these are the types of sources I would have expected him to be talking about.
|