Bob Dylan won't go away.

But what about an obscure Lithuanian poet?

The cult of Bob Dylan is a powerful entity, which explains the giant long-form piece in the New York Times and countless stories across news outlets about the folk hero's archive being bought by The Kaiser Foundation and put on display at the University of Tulsa.

Indeed, in their extensive story of his work, the Times refers to Dylan's "dozens of rewrites" of "even minor songs," how he was clearly "an obsessive self-editor in constant motion," and how this whole archive is the next step in the "canonization" of the musical legend. But the Times, like most media outlets and Dylan cultists, largely ignores his history of constant allegations of plagiarism.

Dylan has been accused of plagiarism so often he finally felt the need to speak out in 2012. Regarding accusations he stole lines of poetry from a book of obscure Japanese poetry, as well as an equally obscure American Confederate Civil War-era poet, Dylan told Rolling Stone Magazine the claims were made by "wussies and pussies," and, as Reuters noted in their own reporting, that "[to Dylan] musical appropriation is [as he says] 'part of the folk tradition.'" Moreover, Reuters noted Dylan said that in folk and jazz music "quotation is a rich and enriching tradition."

No. Quotation is what I just did there. I quoted Reuters, who was quoting Rolling Stone, who was quoting Dylan. That's how quoting works. Plagiarizing is when you simply take the work of others and pass it off as your own. It's a rich and enriching tradition of lazy writers who create a persona and piggyback off the work of others to create worldwide fame for themselves. Work like that of obscure Japanese poets. Work like obscure poets from 140-years ago. Plagiarizing happens to lazy writers.

Like Dylan.

Who shouldn't be canonized.