In 2016, Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize in Literature. Bob Dylan is a lyricist and the honor was in the recognition of his commitment to songwriting through his songwriting. Dylan's success is the subject of discussion because - other Nobel Prize winners for literature are fiction essayists, artists and realistic authors - he is named a singer-songwriter. Some will dispute his work, while others will feel that he faces the making of a unique Nobel Prize winner essentially for being Bob Dylan, in any case, which condition is correct? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The main question that needs to be answered is: are songs “literature?” "Literature" is a term that changes and has changed, and the variant used is not exactly the same as the conventional definition. A definition that positively adapts to the songs and works composed. Therefore, Bob Dylan's works actually qualify for the Nobel Prize. Some might say that music is more lowbrow than fiction essayists, which might be true; The primary focus should not be on form, but on execution. One of the tunes he composed was "Blowin' in the Wind." This melody was written in 1962, when the Vietnam War had not yet begun, but was used, two or three years later, as a melody of dissent against the war. 'Blowin' in the Wind' begins: “How many roads must a man go before you call him a man? Yes, and how many seas must a white dove travel before sleeping in the sand?”. He asks a couple of main questions in order to ask the last question, the one that has to do with the war. The final issue is an inquiry that attacks the legislature and the appropriate response remains the same. With this tune, Bob Dylan wants the administration to understand that they are acting crazy. With playful questions, he tries to send his message, his plea for opportunity, to the president and his supporters. It addresses all human conduct. He executes this message effectively because it was timely, it was ministerial, and it wasn't what was usually played on the radio, which at the time was overwhelmed with deeply crafted pop tunes. One expression comes up again and again when researching how Nobel committees decide: the best benefit for humanity. There are several ways to decipher it. One is to say that the work, of a very high standard, has truly changed the lives of those who have been contacted by it. The other is to claim that the work had the greatest effect on the vast majority. Of all the potential candidates, Bob Dylan has certainly had the greatest global impact. “If poverty were to be sold for three cents today, I can't buy it.” You might say that Ngugi wa Thiong'o is a superior writer (which is true), but that's not as strong a quantitative argument for him. The fact is, if we look at it both ways, being the "greater benefit" quantitative or qualitative, Dylan wins either way because he has both. What can be argued is that Ngugi wa Thiong'o's work is the work of a Gikuyu poet and therefore an important voice in the context of current events; but it cannot be argued that he touched the same number of people as Dylan. The thing is, if we look at it two different ways, the "most notable advantage" being quantitative OR subjective, Dylan wins either way since he has both. What can be argued is that Ngugi wa Thiong'o's work is made by a Gikuyu artist and therefore a significant voice regarding recent developments; at the same time, you can't 2016.