Archival Outlook • May/June 2023 • A Bob Dylan Fan Mail Collection Raises Questions of Privacy

The 1960s was a time of uncertainty and anxiety. Cold War tensions were ever present, and the fear of nuclear war lingered. Black Americans were fighting for civil rights while the US conflict with Cuba was at an all-time high. Young people in this era—baby boomers—were searching for their place in the world. Through his songs, Bob Dylan warned people of what the world would look like if humankind continued its dark path of war and injustice while also offering hope that the course of history could be changed for the better. As a result, Dylan captivated a generation and amassed a uniquely devoted fanbase.

The 1966 Bob Dylan Fan Mail Collection at The Bob Dylan Archive® consists of correspondence, drawings, ephemera, and small artifacts deaccessioned from a larger group of Dylan’s papers that came from his management offices in New York City. The correspondence ranges from autograph requests and personal confessions to fan club inquiries and messages of adoration. Most fans who wrote to Dylan were from the United States, but a significant portion of mail also came from around the world.

I had the opportunity to work with this collection as a remote intern for the American Song Archives from 2021 to 2022. This experience became part of my graduate capstone project, and I presented my research at SAA’s Annual Meeting in 2022. I created a case study for the development of an access policy for the fan mail collection, which involved a review of US copyright law and a discussion of the balance between privacy and access in archives, specifically concerning correspondence containing private information.

Archivists must always consider privacy when reviewing potential obstacles that could affect access to collections. Maintaining the privacy of records’ creators, subjects, and stakeholders represented in collections is one of an archivist’s many duties. As appropriate and mandated by law, archivists place access restrictions on collections to ensure that privacy and confidentiality are maintained, particularly for individuals and groups who have had no voice or role in a collection’s creation, retention, or public use. However, the way archivists approach privacy is subjective. There are laws to which archivists must adhere, but certain types of private information—like sexual orientation or experiences of abuse and trauma—are not legally protected. Moreover, privacy issues generally fall under ethical gray areas, making them inherently ambiguous. In these instances, archivists must decide how to balance privacy concerns with another archival core value: access.

In the American Archivist article, “In Secret Kept, in Silence Sealed: Privacy in the Papers of Authors and Celebrities,” Sara S. Hodson discusses issues that archivists might encounter when working with the personal papers of high-profile individuals, specifically concerning the presence of third-party individuals within those materials. According to Hodson, “archivists must keep in mind that collections of papers contain letters that are, by definition, private communications intended solely for the eyes of their recipient(s), not for viewing and study by researchers or the curious public.” Those who send letters expect few people to read them and, therefore, may include private information about themselves or other individuals that they would not want publicly disclosed. A key question for the analysis of the fan mail collection was: what are the expectations of privacy from letter writers?

For those who wrote to Dylan, expectations of privacy vary. Many of the letters are simple requests for autographed photos that contain no information about the sender beyond their name, address, and request. Other letters serve as expressions of gratitude and love for Dylan and his music. While these do not contain what is considered private information, the authors may feel embarrassed if the letters had wider readership. However, one group of letters contains highly personal and sensitive information. These all come from a woman named Judy.

Judy wrote dozens of lengthy letters in which she shares her admiration for Dylan, her loneliness, her insecurities, and her overall dissatisfaction with her life. They are profoundly personal and reading them is akin to reading someone’s diary. Over time, she began to enclose her artwork, songs she composed, and excerpts from a book she was writing about the adventures of a fictional female folk singer named Jay. Part of the book illustrates Jay’s complicated relationship with a man named Alfie, and at one point they have sex. In a letter postmarked the day after the one containing this scene, Judy expresses embarrassment: “I read the Playboy article on pornography [and] the US mail [and] Im expectin [sic] a call from the FBI any day. I wish I’d read it before I sent you that damned lovescene [sic] . Burn it up if you have it I’ve changed my mind.”

This was the only time any of the letter authors provided explicit instruction on how to handle their correspondence. While Judy was not addressing me specifically and had no knowledge that in fifty-five years an archival intern would be going through her letters, I was, and still am, conflicted. After reading her letters, I felt like I knew her personally and that this request should be honored. However, I also felt that the love scene was not worthy of destruction or restriction. Based on Judy’s response, it is clear she was embarrassed by writing this scene, but it is also part of a fictional story, not exceedingly pornographic, and does not pose a threat to the privacy of Judy or other individuals.

Another issue arose when reading Judy’s more personal letters. Among the many topics Judy discusses, a frequent one is her father. She discusses the abuse he inflicted on her in childhood, his substance abuse, and how his behavior affected her and her siblings. She did not ask for the disposal of these letters, but it felt wrong to make this information widely available due to its sensitive nature, the possibility that she or her younger siblings may still be alive, and the fact that these letters were meant for only one person—Bob Dylan—to read.

This scenario, as well as other case studies I encountered during my research, highlights the concerns archivists have for the privacy of the individuals represented in their collections—individuals who have not had a say in how they want their records dealt with, how they want to be represented, or if they want to be represented at all. Making these decisions can put archivists in a difficult position, but it is crucial to handle these matters empathetically. Looking at the records created helps guide us to what we hope are the right decisions.

In Judy’s case, her other letters offer insight into the decision she might have made: “Somebody ought to dig up all the letters I’ve written you [and] publish them—title: Diary of an unhappy zero. . . . But dont [sic] ever throw them away because theyre [sic] me.” Given this statement, the little identifiable information provided, and the unlikelihood of being able to locate her, I do not think restrictions should be placed on any of her letters. However, due to both privacy and copyright reasons, researchers who encounter Judy’s story should consider obtaining permission from her or one of her heirs before disclosing or publishing her correspondence.

As with many areas of archival practice, the approach to correspondence in collections depends on context. The 1966 Bob Dylan Fan Mail Collection was initially processed and digitized at an item level. When digitization paused to focus on physical processing, I could no longer flag letters with privacy issues since I only had access to them digitally. Given the context surrounding these letters, some may consider this granular level of review justifiable. Other examples in which privacy concerns warranted this approach include fan mail sent to a domestic terrorist (the Ted Kaczynski Papers at the University of Michigan Library), letters expressing financial hardship sent to a twenty-one-yearold millionaire promising to give away his fortune (Michael Brody Jr. letters at Columbia University’s Rare Books and Manuscript Library), and correspondence of an organization dedicated to serving traditionally marginalized groups (The Daughters of Bilitis Collection at the Lesbian Herstory Archives).

Regardless of the approach, a clear and transparent access policy is essential for patrons to fully understand what they do and don’t have access to and any other information about their ability to view or use collections. Taking the research and the legal and ethical facets of this collection into account, the access policy I recommended for the collection is as follows:

"Materials are available for in-house research. Some materials may be restricted to protect the privacy of living, third-party individuals. By accessing this collection, researchers assume all responsibility for infringement of right to privacy in their use of the material and agree to indemnify and hold harmless American Song Archives, its agents, and employees against all claims, demands, costs, and expenses arising out of use of this collection."

Since I have not read all the letters, it is possible that others may contain private information worthy of restriction. Consequently, it was important to include a statement notifying patrons that, while the collection is open for research, the archivist may restrict materials if letters that compromise the privacy of living, third-party individuals are discovered. In addition to providing transparency regarding the archivist’s actions, this statement also serves to manage privacy issues in the aggregate, since an item-level review was not possible for a large portion of the collection.

Unfortunately, the ultimate decision regarding the accessibility of the 1966 Bob Dylan Fan Mail Collection was not mine to make, and it is currently closed. I did not receive a reason for this outcome, but I hope this collection becomes available to researchers at some point in the near future.

Regardless, this fan mail collection is fascinating and valuable. In addition to highlighting the adoration of Dylan’s fans, the letters give us a glimpse into the lives of teenagers and young adults in the 1960s and what Dylan’s music meant to their generation. While the access policy proposed for the fan mail is perhaps anticlimactic, it is important to evaluate the ethical and legal aspects of a collection before making this seemingly simple decision. In the absence of formal guidance, making an effort to identify potential issues, finding solutions to them, and documenting this work are all fundamental steps in ensuring that archivists fulfill their duties to both provide access to materials and protect the privacy of third-party individuals represented in their collections.

This article was originally presented as a graduate student poster at ARCHIVES*RECORDS 2022. Check out Nicole’s poster and others here.