I've just about finished The Dylan's Chronicles Vol 1 now, and I really enjoyed it. One thing I'd say about it is that his style hasn't changed much. It's quite reminiscent of his early sleeve notes and even, dare I say it, Tarantula, which I read avidly (several times) as a teenager. Tarantula is seen as an embarrassment now, but I enjoyed it. I don't think I'd feel the same about it now, but that was then.

His narrative skills are deceptively brilliant. He starts, really, at the end of this initial "unknown in New York" stage, talking about meeting his song publisher. Then he drifts back to his amazement at being signed by the legendary Hammond, then back again to his arrival in New York, only then moving forward, mentioning the Cafe Wa? and the Folklore Centre.

There's always a sense that he wants to leave space around a subject. He'll approach it from angles, getting to the edge of a definition, and then he moves away and comes at it again. There's a natural ebb and flow to it. This is especially evident with his character sketches. He's allowing you to make you own mind up about somebody, without ever being so crass as to say something definitive. This is right, I think, because otherwise he'd be like one of those people who has to explain why the joke is funny.

It seems like a pretty skimpy book, to quote Holden Caulfield, but at the same time is so agreeable, like a meal with lots of different flavours and textures, that to read one or two pages at a time is satisfying.
He's saltatorial, he hops around. He writes a sentence and then contradicts it. He sees everything from all sides. And he puts you on, constantly. I mean, he's still very, very funny. Which it's easy to forget I think, with the media image of him. The media has a tendency to focus on things like, Blood on the Tracks, with liberal application of the autobiographical fallacy. Or they hear the tone of the voice in "Like a Rolling Stone" and they portray him as an angry young man, spitting venom. Actually he's probably quite easygoing, and sees humour in everything.

A typical example of this comes where he talks about some of the social changes that happened in the 60s; he talks about nuclear proliferation and the women's movement. He says how some women didn't want to be called "ladies" or "girls" any more. And then he says that there were changes for men, too. Some white religious men didn't want to be called "The Reverend" anymore. They wanted to be called just, "Reverend."

Anyway, I think it's a great book. He tells you so much stuff that's of interest. He concentrates on not the "20 pounds of headlines" Dylan, but the Dylan who is actually a person in the world, who has opinions and enthusiasms, same as anyone else. And for those who want him to talk about his bike crash and his failed marriages and all the empty hype, I say, pay attention. He's telling you all about his influences, his formative years, how it was that he came to formulate his way of writing songs. He talks about two instances of what were portrayed as "comeback" albums, and what was really going on for him at those times. He reveals the mystery behind his "never ending tour" and what exactly it was he was trying to do. And he talks about working with Daniel Lanois, and gives you a good deal of insight as to why he so often leaves the best song off the album.These are some of the most enigmatic things about the Dylan, and here he is talking about them in great detail. It's both fascinating and fantastic.