Thanks to John Carvill:
“Scott Marshall asks whether I should be taken seriously, since I haven't read Webb's book. Marshall doesn't say whether he has read it himself, but he doesn't seem to have done so. Yet he appears to feel
no discomfort in airing his own views. Seems a double standard to me. Marshall ignores (or misses) my main point, which is that Dylan cannot be claimed as a 'right-winger'. The religion stuff is old news.
“I don't much like Marshall's tone, particularly when he accuses me of twisting Dylan's words. When I cited the Rolling Stone audio clips of Wenner's Dylan interview (not the magazine itself, which I did not
mention at all), I was guilty of an inaccuracy of memory, as I just wrote my post off the top of my head. I have now gone back and listened again to the clip in question, and feel a clarification is in order. I'll quote the relevant passage briefly, ignoring cross-talk:
“Dylan says that religion "is supposedly a force for positive good. Where can you look in the world and see that religion has been a force for positive good?"
“[and I admit that this is the line which I mistakenly remembered as having been spoken by Wenner, rather than Dylan]
“What Wenner says is this: "I can't look at what organised religion is doing these days and see anything positive that is being done..."
“So really they both effectively say what I quoted Wenner as saying, ie. that religion is not a force for positive good in the world.
“Marshall claims that "Wenner DID NOT state that 'nowhere in the world is religion a force for good.' He just didn’t say it, nor anything like it."
Talk about twisting words! The claim that Wenner didn't say anything like the quote I originally attributed to him is an outright lie. He did indeed say something 'like it', and Dylan actually said it, and they both seem to agree on the basic point.
“As for begrudging Webb his cup of Christian tea, I don't. But surely I shouldn't be expected to drink it down without complaint?”