I understand you better now. I agree that maybe my original post is generalizing the process of writing. My intention was not to divide this into two parts but to discuss with you to what extent you agree with Fosse's lecture on the Nobel ceremony. Although it is only a seven-page paper, I think it is very worthwhile to read because he focuses on some philosophical questions and topics, apart from literature itself. — javi2541997

On your advice, I've read the speech, and will provide some suggestions of interpretation for you. To begin with, and in general the speech is loaded with ideas which are not well presented. One could say there's abundant content with poor form. However, you should keep in mind that this piece of writing is meant as a speech, therefore it is principally a spoken act of language, rather than a written act of language, so it demonstrates that difference between the two, where content rather than form is usually more important to spoken language, and form over content is usually more important to written language.

The paradox I referred to is well expressed at the bottom of page two.
"One thing is certain, I have never written to express myself, as they say, but
rather to get away from myself."
The writing act as explained by Fosse can be seen as a retreat into oneself. So he's describing a way of hiding from himself within himself. It's so paradoxical, that we must really question his form of presentation. To "express myself" implies others, whom I express myself to. We cannot truly escape the reality of others, so this reality, "others" must be included into this statement. Therefore, what I suggest is really meant by Fosse with this statement, in order that we avoid the paradox of hiding from oneself within oneself, is 'to get away from others'.

This allows us to make sense of that statement, and also put the division between spoken language and written language which he speaks of into a better context. The spoken language provides a communion with others, while the writing provides a communion with oneself. It cannot be described as "to get away from myself", because despite the fact that it might allow me to relate to myself as if I am another, like I might be communicating with myself as another person, allowing myself to be other than myself, I am not really getting away from myself by hiding within myself, rather I am getting to know myself even better.

This act, of getting to know myself better, I think is essential to any artist. It is how the artist comes to know one's own capacities, skills, inclinations, ambitions, etc.. Notice how he describes moving away from music to focus on writing. There is also another essential feature of artistry which he describes quite well, and this is the process of being recognized by others, which produces what is known as success.

The existence of "others" is paramount to success. The artist turns inward, hiding from others within oneself, as I described above, and this is well explained by Fosse with his innate fear of public speaking, originating as the fear of reading out loud. The fear is centered on reading the words of others, probably because he does not necessarily know those words which originate from others, and would mispronounce them or something like that, causing great embarrassment. So the fear is based in the possibility of misrepresenting what is wanted by others. Therefore Fosse retreats into himself, to find and do what he better knows is wanted, wanted by himself.

Success, however, has the prerequisite of providing for others, what they want. Now there is a fine line of balance for the artist to walk. You can tell me what you want, and I can give that to you, hopefully resulting in my success, or, I can show you want you want, by giving it to you, thereby influencing you to want what I have to offer. Notice that the latter is what provides real success for the artist because it allows the artist to maintain the internal relation with oneself, as knowing what is wanted, without succumbing to the desires of others. But of course, these are idealistic representations, and the artist will always be "corrupted" to some extent by the desires of others.

This process which I call corruption, he describes as turning toward writing drama. It is a paid job, where he must write the form of material which he is paid for. His form is then very much restricted. However, he describes a way of retaliation, what he calls "the silent speech", where the content, imagination, is allowed to overpower the form. This is an example of what I referred to as the artist showing the audience what they want, and giving it to them, rather than having them tell you what they want. That amounts to the success of an idiomatic form.

Notice how he describes using that technique when he goes back to writing novels like "Septology". Also notice how this "corruption" of the artist, when he is paid to write dramas, becomes very evident as a negative feature, when he goes back to writing prose. " And during the writing process of that novel, I experienced some of my happiest moments as a writer...". At this point he has freed himself from the formal restrictions which he had forced upon himself by the need to be financially successful.

However, he also describes how writing dramas had provided him with a very important, positive lesson. That is that he got to observe his own plays, allowing him to, in a way, see himself as others see him. I believe that this is an extremely important aspect of how an artist relates to success. Notice at the beginning he is very adamant that he is not expressing himself. But then he has to realize the reality of the situation is that if he has any degree of success, others inevitably will see him as expressing himself. This is when he must realize that he has to play to the audience, and actually see himself as expressing himself, otherwise he would be forever locked within the paradox, never being able to relate to his own success.

Good luck with that javi. I hope it gives you at least something to chew on. The speech is jammed full of "stuff", as I said abundant content, and the lack of form leaves interpretation wide open. The chronological order appears as the principal logical form, so it is sort of an expression of a life of learning.

But the receptors can disappoint the writer's desires. This actually happened with some other artists such as Kurt Cobain, for instance. — javi2541997

Consider the fine line between simply giving the audience what they've said they wanted, and showing the audience what they want, and giving that to them, which I described above. It's a very delicate balance, which destroys the artistry, and perhaps even the artist, if taken too far one way or the other.

I don't know to what extent it is a social activity. — javi2541997

To the extent that one can experience social life by writing about it. A writer constructs, discovers, reconstructs and in some sense participates with the characters that he or she writes about. Also when writing about oneself.

I just read your answer, but I need time to develop mine and think deeply about what you wrote. I promise I will respond in the next few hours. I just need more time to focus on the topic...

:smile:

Just commenting the urge, the gnosis, the doubly took semblance of it, not to appear dilettantish or trollish , but merely to signal a fascination with this here forum, and appropriate it accordingly to some structural hierarchy with which identity can be flushed out, as remarkably telling,

That urge, succeeds where other means fail in the ascription of a dilettante’s paradox,

before daring to even touch it, glance back while breaking the continuation implicit within the spectrum of ambiguous designation.

They didn't come to me, I knew them through projects I worked on in the media here. They were not seeking assistance and I am not sure about their level of self-awareness.

@Metaphysician Undercover

I am back again. Thank you for reading the lecture.

I think Fosse meant to be contradictory, actually. He expressed how this feeling was a part not only of his writing process but also of growing as a person. Everything started when he was a kid. He was not able to read facing a public, but he started to write some poems or short stories at home. He felt conflicted about this mindset, but I don't know if he ever felt paradoxical. I think the line between paradoxical and contradictory is blurred here.

On the other hand, you explained very well the difference between spoken and written language. It is obvious that the main idea is that Fosse feels more comfortable with the latter, and he even considered it as a completely different way of expressing oneself.
The existence of 'others,' as Fosse stated and you also pointed out, is basic for literature. Fosse argues here that although literature is a lonely act, its sharing depends on others, and he felt here contradictory with himself again but he never gave up on the idea that he is a lonely person, so he is not really aware to what extent 'we' (the readers) are part of his life. He even states: Through the fear of reading aloud I entered the loneliness that is more or less the life of a writing person – and I’ve stayed there ever since.

It is interesting how you pointed out writing drama as corruption because it is a paid job, and Fosse was not free in this expression of literature. However, he surprisingly entered in a new dimension which he was not very confidence in the beginning. Yes, drama needs dialogues, and it is out from the written language which he always rooted for. Nevertheless, he also found a way to feel comfortable with writing drama- as you also pointed out - and this was with the use of 'pause' in his works. Fosse argues that this is how he approaches to silence in a spoken language art as drama, and it is indeed the most important word in his experiences of theatre plays.

Lastly, I still wonder why he feels worried about writing on suicide. He admitted that his works have many suicidal characters... I think I will discover it when I start to read his books! :smile:

To the extent that one can experience social life by writing about it. A writer constructs, discovers, reconstructs and in some sense participates with the characters that he or she writes about. Also when writing about oneself. — jkop

Absolutely. But I think this still is an individual and lonely act; it does not lead us to construct social connections. With my plot and my characters, only I exist, but this self-awareness seems to need some connection with the rest, and this is why Fosse speaks about sharing culture.

With my plot and my characters, only I exist, but this self-awareness seems to need some connection with the rest, and this is why Fosse speaks about sharing culture. — javi2541997

I agree, and would like to add that the nature of our languages is such that it connects its users with what the words or its uses refer to. Language is based on shared labor, causal constrains and such, not whether an individual user happens to be alone.

Language is based on shared labor, causal constrains and such, not whether an individual user happens to be alone. — jkop

Hmm... are you suggesting that language exists because we interact with each other? And, consequently, it can't exist if we express ourselves in loneliness. On the other hand, it is interesting how you express that language has causality. I would like and appreciate it if you could elaborate on this.

It is interesting how you pointed out writing drama as corruption because it is a paid job, and Fosse was not free in this expression of literature. However, he surprisingly entered in a new dimension which he was not very confidence in the beginning. Yes, drama needs dialogues, and it is out from the written language which he always rooted for. Nevertheless, he also found a way to feel comfortable with writing drama- as you also pointed out - and this was with the use of 'pause' in his works. Fosse argues that this is how he approaches to silence in a spoken language art as drama, and it is indeed the most important word in his experiences of theatre plays. — javi2541997

What I called "corruption" is a part of the way that a relation between the artist and the "others" is established, and I think it is a necessary part of all art forms. Generally, there is a system where the art is delivered to the public, and the system varies by art form and society. In the music industry for example, there is the record companies. In Fosse's case there was what he called a publicly funded initiative to support Norwegian drama.

The system takes what is desired by others and impresses it onto the artist. Basically it tells the artists that if they want to be financially successful they need to follow the rules of the system. In Fosse's case the rule was to produce drama. Many artists are fiercely independent and refuse to succumb to the "corruption" of the system. However, many artists, like Fosse, are capable of striking a balance between what is wanted by the others (the rules of the system), and the true freedom and independence of oneself, the individual, to create freely as one desires. Your example of Kurt Cobaine may be a case of imbalance.

This balance is what I see as the context of Fosse's "silent language". Notice that I called it a retaliation, and this is because many artists who feel unduly constrained by the rules of the system will find a loop hole, or a secret way within their own mind of getting around the rules or making fun of them, ridiculing the system, or whatever, within the art itself. That's how I see "the pause" which he used.

The pause allows the others (audience) to use one's own imagination, free from the influence of the rules implied by words, to develop a separate understanding of the meaning or intent of the author. So in this sense it is a communication without words. Notice also, that in drama there is acting as well as speaking, which is already a sort of communication without the requirement of words, so I think Fosse borrowed from this reality of drama to extend this idea of what is said by the author (or more appropriately what is shown, "to express the unsayable"), with out the use of words. It is the meaning conveyed which is not actually said by the words.

In his speech he develops this a bit further, as "the totality of a work". I think of this as what is implied by the work, as separate from what is explicit to the work. In my first reply to the op, this is presented as "the moral" of the story. We commonly use that expression "the moral of the story" to refer to a lesson learned from the writing which is not explicitly written by the author, it is somehow implied by the story. But "implied" here is not used in the sense of any formal logic, so interpretations of "the moral" may vary greatly. There is no explicit words to get at what the author intended as "the moral", but the writing is arranged in such a way as to indicate that the author intends some sort of secret or "silent" message, so we must conclude that the author intends some sort of hidden message.

In different forms of writing, the silent message varies from being extremely obvious, such that the audience cam easily agree on the meaning of "the moral", to being very veiled and obscure. Fosse gives an example of "Septology" in the relation of one Asle to the other Asle, and the hidden message one could conclude concerning the "now" of time. (I'm not familiar with the writing.)

It is in this context that I approach what he says at the end of the speech, concerning suicide. He says that there are many suicides in his books. But we must take these representations as part of what is explicit. However, he seems to have some fear of the possibility that some people could interpret the implicit part, the hidden or silent part, as legitimizing suicide. Notice though, that he does not express guilt, so this was never his intention, never the hidden message he desired to convey, so such interpretations of the silent part would be faulty. Furthermore, he states that numerous people have expressed to him the opposite, that his writings have saved there lives, so I think that what he says through the silent part, the not saying, is meant to guide people away from suicide rather than toward it.

It is in this context that I approach what he says at the end of the speech, concerning suicide. He says that there are many suicides in his books. But we must take these representations as part of what is explicit. However, he seems to have some fear of the possibility that some people could interpret the implicit part, the hidden or silent part, as legitimizing suicide. Notice though, that he does not express guilt, so this was never his intention, never the hidden message he desired to convey, so such interpretations of the silent part would be faulty. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you sure that he does not feel guilt? He expressed in his lecture that he actually received correspondence from readers or 'fans' who thanked him for preventing suicide. He felt guilty because he accepted suicide in his writings. Thus, he feels comfortable or safe speaking about this taboo through his writings. As much as he faced the fear of speaking in public thanks to writing, he faced suicide as well. Maybe he thought that due to his acceptance of suicide or suicidal characters, many readers would question whether he actually legitimizes this or not. To be honest, I think he does, but he doesn't want to go further because Fosse is not confident enough about whether people understand him or not.

I mean that is his real concern.

This balance is what I see as the context of Fosse's "silent language". Notice that I called it a retaliation, and this is because many artists who feel unduly constrained by the rules of the system will find a loop hole, or a secret way within their own mind of getting around the rules or making fun of them, ridiculing the system, or whatever, within the art itself. That's how I see "the pause" which he used. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree.

But I wonder if Fosse wanted to make fun of the system or perhaps find a way of feeling safe with himself. Remember that his lecture started by admitting that since he was a kid, he always had to face different challenges, with fear included in all of them. Fosse felt a bit intimidated by writing drama - despite it being necessary for earning an income - because he had to switch from written language to spoken language. He didn't feel confident, but this was one of his main successes as a writer paradoxically. This is why he said that he found a way to use silent language in drama, the pause. When Fosse learned that this could be included in the plays, he started to see drama in a different way. He was back to written language and silent expressions.

Fosse gives an example of "Septology" in the relation of one Asle to the other Asle, and the hidden message one could conclude concerning the "now" of time. (I'm not familiar with the writing.) — Metaphysician Undercover

I bought the first book of the septology. I will be in touch with you, and I promise I will share relevant fragments of the work in this thread.

---------------------------

I agree with the rest of the paragraphs of your post.

..language has causality. I would like and appreciate it if you could elaborate on this. — javi2541997

The causality and the division of labor that I refer to are used in arguments for semantic externalism.

In the case of Fosse's speech one might want to say something about the nature of metaphors as he describes (metaphorically) his experience of writing as if sitting in a place inside himself. He refers to the poet Hauge who (metaphorically) compares being a writer to being a child building leaf huts in the forest where the writer sits feeling safe. Talk of places and meanings inside the mind is fairly common in the arts, especially in the romantic and modern traditions.

The metaphorical meaning of a word is causally constrained by some property that its literal meaning has. For example, the inside of a literal hut is detached from its outside, and that's a property it shares with the metaphorical hut in the mind of a writer. Arguably there is no hut inside Fosse's head, yet it is a useful way for him to describe how he experiences writing.

Writers withdraw from busy social activities in order to think, observe, and write, and one's use of language might then, perhaps, acquire a "silent" or "listening" quality. To find out whether there is such a quality, or whether the description is meaningful is not obvious to me, but it seems to be a meaningful description for Fosse as he titled his speech 'A Silent Language'.

For example, the inside of a literal hut is detached from its outside, and that's a property it shares with the metaphorical hut in the mind of a writer. Arguably there is no hut inside Fosse's head, yet it is a useful way for him to describe how he experiences writing. — jkop

Yes, well explained. I like this example.

Writers withdraw from busy social activities in order to think, observe, and write, and one's use of language might then, perhaps, acquire a "silent" or "listening" quality. To find out whether there is such a quality, or whether the description is meaningful is not obvious to me, but it seems to be a meaningful description for Fosse as he titled his speech 'A Silent Language'. — jkop

I don't believe it was obvious for Fosse either. It wasn't easy for him to incorporate silence and pauses into his writings. I think this became a semantic or reference that he gradually experienced over the years, reinforcing what he believed from the beginning, back when he was a child: that written language is safer than spoken language because he can convey silences. This technique was developed through his dramatic experiences, particularly through the use of pauses.

Are you sure that he does not feel guilt? He expressed in his lecture that he actually received correspondence from readers or 'fans' who thanked him for preventing suicide. He felt guilty because he accepted suicide in his writings. Thus, he feels comfortable or safe speaking about this taboo through his writings. — javi2541997

If he feels comfortable in it, then he does not feel guilt. Feeling guilt is a matter of knowing oneself to have done wrong and it is an uneasy feeling. When he says that fans thanked him, this is confirmation that he does not feel that he has done wrong. Therefore he is expressing that he does not feel guilt.

Whether he is being truthful in this expression is another question. The silent, hidden message, is most often not explained by the author, even when questioned in retrospect. Perhaps at some point in his life he actual wrote with the intent of conveying a silent meaning which legitimized suicide, and that could be an intended hidden message somewhere in his work, which he afterwards felt guilty about. Then he might be inclined to turn to the "thanks" from his fans, to overcome that feeling of guilt, justifying that portrayal of suicide as not a wrongful act, through some sort of rationalization. But I do not presently think there is a need for such speculation.

To be honest, I think he does, but he doesn't want to go further because Fosse is not confident enough about whether people understand him or not. — javi2541997

I don't think it's a matter of whether people understand him or not, the silent language does not work this way. The silent language provides the conditions for the reader to understand oneself. So the hidden message is intentionally vague, and perhaps I ought not even call it a "message". It is often an intentional ambiguity so that there is nothing specific intended by the author, other than to give the reader a chance to think about possibilities. Notice the use of the "pause", and how the silence brings one to "God's voice", God's voice coming from somewhere other than the spoken words of the play.

So the silent language, rather than confining the reader to the restrictions of conventional meaning of words, allows the reader freedom of interpretation. In a way it transfers the artistic license of the author to the reader. I think this is what is commonly known as reading between the lines. Careful attention to how you read between the lines helps to reveal much about your own mind. So for example, if we gave the same piece of prose, with significant silent language, to a number of different people, and a psychologist asked each one of them what they got from it, the psychologist would be able to say a fair bit about the different people, by comparing the different interpretations.

That's why I say it's not a matter of whether people understand him or not. When it comes to the silent language it's a matter of understanding "silent language" in general. When you understand that it works with possible meaning rather than actual meaning, you can start to see how powerful it is in its capacity to persuade people. The meaning comes from somewhere other than the words of the author. God? Maybe. Consider for example, Donald Trump as an artist of the silent language. He didn't actually tell those people to storm the palace, yet the silent language told them that it had to be done.

But now we approach speech, and spoken language, and that's where the silent language inheres. and is derived from. The unspoken, implied meaning is an essential part of spoken language. The spoken language evolved for efficiency in the moment, so the majority of what is said is not actually said, to make things quick and easy. The written language is formal and true unequivocal relations between symbol and meaning is essential to it. So it is this process, whereby the thinker who is naturally inclined to use true symbolic unequivocal relations, so as not to mislead oneself, turns to the outside world, "the others", where the silent aspect of language rules the use of language, that inspires the writer to incorporate the tricks of the silent language into the writing, slipping away from the true unequivocal meanings.

But I wonder if Fosse wanted to make fun of the system or perhaps find a way of feeling safe with himself. Remember that his lecture started by admitting that since he was a kid, he always had to face different challenges, with fear included in all of them. Fosse felt a bit intimidated by writing drama - despite it being necessary for earning an income - because he had to switch from written language to spoken language. He didn't feel confident, but this was one of his main successes as a writer paradoxically. This is why he said that he found a way to use silent language in drama, the pause. When Fosse learned that this could be included in the plays, he started to see drama in a different way. He was back to written language and silent expressions. — javi2541997

I would suggest, and this is pure speculation, that when he was asked to write plays, he was immediately confronted with what was until that point, a personal problem, the issue of the difference between spoken and written language. He knew of this difference, from childhood, and retreated into himself, and the world of written language rather than confront the problems he had with spoken language. (As an aside, Dick Feynman in his book "Surely You're joking, Mr. Feynman!" describes how at a young age he was uninterested in school, but very interested in electronics, electromagnetism, mathematics, etc.. He came up with his own symbols for things, and when he went to university, he had to learn conventional symbols for things he had already symbolized in his own language.)

I propose that when Fosse was asked to write drama he saw the need to confront the difference head on, in order that he could proceed into the public sphere. This is when he discovered the silent aspect of language, which he was not familiar with, because he was immersed in writing only. Then he found the means for incorporating it into the writing. And this is an essential aspect of all drama, because if it is simply written material, it's very dry and boring. So the author needs to know what it is about spoken language, which separates it from written language, and bring this into the writing of the drama in order to make it entertaining. All sorts of different tools may be employed, actions, body language, even the pause.

In the case of Fosse's speech one might want to say something about the nature of metaphors as he describes (metaphorically) his experience of writing as if sitting in a place inside himself. He refers to the poet Hauge who (metaphorically) compares being a writer to being a child building leaf huts in the forest where the writer sits feeling safe. Talk of places and meanings inside the mind is fairly common in the arts, especially in the romantic and modern traditions. — jkop

The "metaphorical" meaning is one type of implied, hidden, or silent meaning, meaning not spoken by the words. But metaphor is only the tip of the iceberg here. Since the silent language is essentially possibilities, as I explain above, there is no limit to the types of silent meaning which an author might employ. So the silent language opens up a huge realm of possibilities to the author, by allowing the author an entrance into the minds of the readers by finding a way to employ those minds for the development of meaning, rather than relying solely on one's own mind.

If he feels comfortable in it, then he does not feel guilt. Feeling guilt is a matter of knowing oneself to have done wrong and it is an uneasy feeling. When he says that fans thanked him, this is confirmation that he does not feel that he has done wrong. Therefore he is expressing that he does not feel guilt. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I expressed myself incorrectly. I attempted to explain that Fosse—this is speculation because I haven't read anything from him—didn't feel comfortable with having suicidal characters. This is why he admitted that he used this issue so much that it seems he legitimized suicide. He was afraid of how the readers would perceive him or his writings. Just as Fosse had a fear of speaking in public, maybe he also had a fear of addressing suicide. We have to keep in mind that he writes to run away from himself... I guess this is why he addressed suicide in his writings, to confront this problem.

That's why I say it's not a matter of whether people understand him or not. When it comes to the silent language it's a matter of understanding "silent language" in general. When you understand that it works with possible meaning rather than actual meaning, you can start to see how powerful it is in its capacity to persuade people. The meaning comes from somewhere other than the words of the author. God? Maybe. Consider for example, Donald Trump as an artist of the silent language. He didn't actually tell those people to storm the palace, yet the silent language told them that it had to be done. — Metaphysician Undercover

Although I agree with you on the point that silence is not about whether the readers understand or not, I think he actually cared about it. He states on page number six: 'My first books were quite poorly reviewed, but I decided not to listen to the critics. I should just trust myself, yes, stick to my writing.'
If Fosse considered the reviews as 'poor,' then he cared about whether people were following his writing path or not. He trusted himself and decided to keep writing in the style he was comfortable with. Yet, the contradiction came later in his life when he was offered to write drama. He also says:'I wrote novels and poetry and had no desire to write for theatre, but in time I did it because – as part of a publicly funded initiative to write more new Norwegian drama – I was offered what was, to me, a good sum of money to write the opening scene of a play, and ended up writing a whole play, my first and still most performed play, Someone Is Going to Come.'

I wonder what Fosse considered a 'poor' or 'poorly reviewed' writer.

I propose that when Fosse was asked to write drama he saw the need to confront the difference head on, in order that he could proceed into the public sphere. This is when he discovered the silent aspect of language, which he was not familiar with, because he was immersed in writing only. — Metaphysician Undercover

Really? I personally think it is quite the opposite. Fosse knew how to use silence in written language, and he was comfortable using it in his novels despite receiving criticism. When he was asked to write plays, he hesitated at first because this is an art of spoken language, and he was not sure how to introduce silence there. Later on, he discovered the power and importance of 'pauses' during the plays. Since then, he started to see theatre in different ways and understood that silent language could have a place in plays as well.

literature or the art of writing is an individualistic or collectivist act. — javi2541997

It is a false distinction. Assuming one can exist with the complete absence of the other is clearly just that, an assumption. One that has little to no ground to hold it up once you analysis what is actually being suggested.

I disagree, and I personally believe that you didn't take the effort to read the thread, as that's what Metaphysician, jkop and I were discussing.

Either it is not a 'false' distinction, nor can one exist without the other. Writing is an individualistic (or lonely, as Fosse states) act because it is a written language where the writer expresses their fears and concerns, and it is even a refuge for exposing oneself publicly. But, paradoxically, once the writing is done, it needs reception. Here is where Fosse states that when his writings end up being read by the public, it is sharing the culture, but not the act of writing itself...

You can agree or not with him, absolutely. But you can't say it is a 'false' distinction, because it's not.

It is a gradable antonym at best.

antonym??

Wow, I think Fosse's lecture goes beyond just semantics...

I was commenting on that particular sentiment because when we write or speak it is undoubtedly done within a communal framework. What is said can be heard or read by anyone, just as anything we think is also partly imbued with the community held in mind.

We cannot act outside of human social interactions. On a superficial level we can state that we do not write something for anyone but by stating so we do actually appreciate that we usually do and therefore cannot escape that expressing anything is a reaching-out into the world not some isolated incident.

See what I mean?

See what I mean? — I like sushi

Yes, I see what you mean now.

On a superficial level we can state that we do not write something for anyone but by stating so we do actually appreciate that we usually do and therefore cannot escape that expressing anything is a reaching-out into the world not some isolated incident. — I like sushi

I agree, and I like that.

We cannot act outside of human social interactions. — I like sushi

This is the main cause we are debating. It is not clear to me to what extent we are dependent on social interactions. Fosse stated that, thanks to writing, he faced social problems such as speaking publicly.

Although he always (and still) considered the act of writing and being a novelist as solitary behavior, he admitted that his works had to be shared somehow. Yet, on this point, he states two different views:
1. The act of writing is solitary because it is based on the loneliness of the writer; 2. But the act of sharing this culture is common.

I think I expressed myself incorrectly. I attempted to explain that Fosse—this is speculation because I haven't read anything from him—didn't feel comfortable with having suicidal characters. This is why he admitted that he used this issue so much that it seems he legitimized suicide. He was afraid of how the readers would perceive him or his writings. Just as Fosse had a fear of speaking in public, maybe he also had a fear of addressing suicide. We have to keep in mind that he writes to run away from himself... I guess this is why he addressed suicide in his writings, to confront this problem. — javi2541997

Well, yes, he felt uncomfortable, but notice that this is referred to in the past tense. "I have been afraid that I, in this way, may have contributed to legitimising suicide." Then he goes on to say that he has been very touched by those who have said that he saved their lives. Therefore I think he had possibly felt some guilt, at some time, but has now vindicated himself.

Keep in mind also, that the silent message is not an unambiguous message. It is intended that the meaning come from somewhere other than the explicit meaning of the author's words, and this must be the reader's own mind. So if a reader thinks that suicide is being promoted through the use of the silent language, this is not necessarily the author's intention. And if the author's intent is to leave the subject ambiguous, thus allowing that one reader might see reason to move toward suicide, while another might be moved away from it, the author could feel as Fosse described.

If Fosse considered the reviews as 'poor,' then he cared about whether people were following his writing path or not. — javi2541997

Actually, I think he is saying exactly the opposite of what you conclude. He looked at some reviews by the critics, judged them as poor reviews, perhaps as complete misunderstanding, then he decided to continue writing regardless of the critics. Therefore we can conclude that he did not care "whether people were following his writing path or not". He decided to continue writing in the style that he had been, with complete disregard for what other people may derive from the writing.

Again, I think i's important to notice the past tense of these reflections on his life, making chronological order important. At that early point in his writing career he decided not to care about what other people said about his writing, thus allowing him to continue on, in his unique style. To be concerned about what others think, allowing this to influence one's work, is what I described as the corruption of the artistry. So he strongly resisted this in his early stages, which allowed him to produce a unique and original style, before he allowed corruption in the form being influenced by money to write drama.

Also consider that at some point in reflection he got concerned that he might have sent the wrong message concerning suicide. This is a clear indication that he became concerned about what others thought about his writing. But again, it's post hoc, he developed this concern much later, looking back in reflection, at the works he wrote earlier. This post hoc reflection is a big part of the "companionship" he described. He learned to look at his work, as a part of the audience, see it from that perspective, giving him an escape from the escape (the original escape being the supposed loneliness of writing), providing him a place in the community, and "a great sense of happiness and security". However, he has clearly produced a separation between the post hoc reflections which would "corrupt" his writings, and his act of writing which must remain prior to, and motivated by, what is prior to this.

Fosse knew how to use silence in written language, and he was comfortable using it in his novels despite receiving criticism. — javi2541997

Using silence, and using the silent language are two different things. I don't know Fosse's writing so I really cannot comment on his use of silence in his early work, but I think we need to distinguish between the use of silence in general, and the use of the silent language. One can use the image of silence within a piece of work, to convey a particular idea, and this would be a very intentionally directed, and meaningful image being produced. The silent language is somewhat different because it employs ambiguity to work with possibility, allowing the audience freedom to think and imagine these possibilities. So the silence is essentially ambiguous.

Fosse, describes his earlier writings as completely self-centered, therefore we cannot consider that he would think about how others would interpret himself. Thinking about how others see me is the corruption to the artistry. The artistic escape from that goes all the way back to his fear of reading aloud which was the original motivator of the art, to do something free from the influence of what others might think about me. So we ought not consider any use of silence here as being directed at a potential audience, or else we are making his early writings into speaking, and criticizing him on the basis that his work was corrupt from the outset. And that is exactly what he is saying that we need to avoid in order to truly understand his writing style.

Of course no author is going to admit to one's own original sin, so i would conclude that you are most likely correct here, and his use of silence as a form of what I earlier called "retaliation" toward any potential reader, goes right back to his most original writings.

So the silent language opens up a huge realm of possibilities to the author, by allowing the author an entrance into the minds of the readers by finding a way to employ those minds for the development of meaning, rather than relying solely on one's own mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

We are pattern seeking creatures, and normally strive to make the most charitable interpretations of what there is to interpret, also when there is nothing to interpret but silence. But when less is said, our interpretations become more susceptible to whatever the context suggests. In this sense the meanings are not developed by the readers' minds but a context such as a romantic or modern tradition in which meanings are assumed to be hidden all over and in our minds.

It is not clear to me to what extent we are dependent on social interactions. — javi2541997

Every single extent. Humans need humans as much as they need food or water. Just because we can learn to survive longer and longer without human interactions does not displace the fact that imagination/psychosis will substitute the sensations of social interactions. Writing is clearly one method of ‘replacing’ social interactions.

So if a reader thinks that suicide is being promoted through the use of the silent language, this is not necessarily the author's intention. And if the author's intent is to leave the subject ambiguous, thus allowing that one reader might see reason to move toward suicide, while another might be moved away from it, the author could feel as Fosse described. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is the main point I wanted to discuss when I read his lecture for the first time. I nonetheless changed the name of the title of this thread because it seemed to be ambiguous. I think Fosse is a brave author for including suicidal characters in his works. Sadly, I don't know how they play their roles yet. Suicide and ambiguity have always been existentially linked. The first time I ever read characters purposefully intending to kill themselves was in Yukio Mishima's works, but I thought that this was just a 'cultural' or 'only Japanese' thing then. Mishima even stated that the concept of death differs from the Japanese view to the Western view. I always think and wonder about this, but after reading Fosse, it is more clear to me. Every author expresses suicide depending on how they interpret death. Maybe, according to Fosse, suicide is a silent language, while following Mishima, suicide is an honorable act that comes from the Samurai era. Both points are valid and interesting to me, and I am excited to read more about Fosse during this Christmas.

The silent language is somewhat different because it employs ambiguity to work with possibility, allowing the audience freedom to think and imagine these possibilities. So the silence is essentially ambiguous. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting what you brought up here. I even correlated it with what I wrote back to this post, unintentionally. You state that silence allows the audience the freedom to think and imagine. But, bringing in suicide again, I think this concept is only ambiguous if we dive into the mental state of the readers. Would you consider suicide as ambiguous? Sometimes I feel suicidal, others don't. I usually consider suicide as a legitimate and honorable act; at other times, I consider it as pure escapism, etc. This is how I have felt since I was 20 years old. The idea of committing suicide comes and goes. I thought Mishima was the only writer to write about this, but now I have discovered Fosse, and maybe he will help me understand suicide from a Western perspective.

Just because we can learn to survive longer and longer without human interactions does not displace the fact that imagination/psychosis will substitute the sensations of social interactions. Writing is clearly one method of ‘replacing’ social interactions. — I like sushi

Interesting.

Would you consider loneliness as a social disorder then? What about people who are scared of exposing themselves to others (like Fosse and myself, included)? Do we have to live in continuous contradiction because, although we can express ourselves in writing, we suffer when it comes to doing so publicly?

You are a social animal. There is no denying this.

Do you agree that writing is a process of approaching only ourselves? — javi2541997

For me I think there are two different kinds of facts mushed together here, at least potentially. It think writing is a lonlier and more solitary form of art and communication than other arts and also then spoken communication is. That is the experience. Now when I go in myself I will find stuff that I stole absorbed took in accepted from other people, including the whole language itself. Writing is communal in the sources sense but individual in the experiential sense. I create in a few art forms and one of the reasons I write much less than I used to is precisely because I want something more social...in the experiencing. Any writer who thinks they came up with everything on their own is confused. But the experience, is very alone.

I create in a few art forms and one of the reasons I write much less than I used to is precisely because I want something more social...in the experiencing. — Bylaw

When you say that you write less because you want something more social in experiencing, are you referring to acceptance or interaction? Because Fosse, as well as I humbly understand and interpret him, explains that writing is a lonely act because the meaning of language is different. The written language doesn't require interactions like the spoken language. Nevertheless, it is true that a written creation needs to be read... Right? This is why Fosse states that, rather than socializing, we are just sharing culture.

Any writer who thinks they came up with everything on their own is confused. But the experience, is very alone. — Bylaw

I agree. Good point.