I do, however, find it strange that Beatles fans can be so ambivalent towards him.
The Beatles are Bob Dylan, Bob Dylan is The Beatles.
With respect OBS, that is nonsense. Dylan is no more The Beatles than Monty Python are. All are contemporaries who grew up at the same time and are (irritatingly) frequently lumped together by commentators who should know better... but in stark terms of output/product, they are nothing like each other. The Beatles dallied with a Dylanesque influence but they're no more like him than they are like The Shirelles and they are vastly (yes, vastly) better than either.
No "ambivalence" from THIS Beatles fan towards Bob... I think he is very overrated, though his influence (including on the fabs) is undeniable. Chuck Berry had a massive influence on the proto-Beatles but for what it's worth I think he's very overrated too. But that's just my opinion, there is no definitive "right" or "wrong" here, although I do get a bit irked when people learn I'm a big Beatles fan and assume I therefore surely also really like Dylan (which kind of bolsters your assertion, come to think of it!) But I know a number of Dylan fans who respect but dislike The Beatles, and several Beatles fans who acknowledge but don't care for Bob.
Paul actually WAS a Beatle, which Bob will never be, so I'm firmly in the school of Wings being far more relevant in "Beatle" terms than Dylan or Brian Wilson or any of the rest are. I know you kind of mentally "ring fence" the sixties and so link them as an entity to their contemporaries, and I respect that. But for me they were John, Paul, George, Ringo + that intangible magic - OK, that magical "something" evaporated when they went their separate ways but a vestige of "Beatleyness" remained in each of them forever after. I'd play "Ringo's Rotogravure" in preference to "Blonde On Blonde" every time (seriously).
If you like 'Paperback Writer' how on earth can you dislike 'Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window'?
Very easily! The first is irresistible and expertly sung with fast, jangly guitars & drums. The second is much more reminiscent of a Paul Simon type number, with a more plodding rhythm and (I'm going to have to say it) badly sung. I could be kind and call Bob's vocals an idiosyncratic/acquired taste but I'd be pandering to the Emperor's clothes mentality which holds him in such awe, but for me, he's a lousy singer, simple as that. And one of THE greatest things about The Beatles was their emphasis on vocals, and their accessibility. Bob is very hard work; they never were.
If I had to sum up the big difference between them I'd say The Beatles were very charismatic
whereas Dylan was very enigmatic
. They were at least his equal in terms of influence and "credibility", but they also had a string of number one hits to their CV and an easy to love aura about them; Bob had neither, even though I accept he couldn't care less.