Nobel Prize for Literature goes to Bob Dylan

The best argument for Dylan's Nobel Prize comes from Ralph Waldo Emerson, even though he died a century before Shot of Love. His 1850 essay "Shakespeare; or the Poet," from the book Representative Men, works as a cheat sheet to Dylan. For Emerson, Shakespeare's greatness was to exploit the freedoms of a disreputable format, the theater: "Shakespeare, in common with his comrades, esteemed the mass of old plays, waste stock, in which any experiment could be freely tried. Had the prestige which hedges about a modern tragedy existed, nothing could have been done. The rude warm blood of the living England circulated in the play, as in street-ballads."

This is a key point – Shakespeare was a writer/actor/manager hustling in the commercial theater racket for live crowds. He didn't publish his plays – didn't even keep written copies. Once it was onstage, he was on to the next one. (After his death, his friends had to cobble the First Folio together, mostly from working scripts, hence the deplorable state of his texts.) Low prestige meant constant forward motion. The theater was becoming a national passion, "but not a whit less considerable, because it was cheap." He aimed his poetry at the groundlings: "It must even go into the world's history, that the best poet led an obscure and profane life, using his genius for the public amusement."