there is a big difference between the spoken and the written language, or between the spoken and the literary language. The spoken language is often a monological communication of a message that something should be like this or like that... The literary language is never like that – it doesn’t inform, it is meaning rather than communication, it has its own existence. — javi2541997-quoting-Fosse

I'm just reading Fosse's Trilogy (in English translation). We should be clear on the context: Norwegians have mainly written in Bokmål, and Fosse is a pioneer in writing instead in Nynorsk, a largely spoken, and a minority-use, language. So what he has done is to make his version of a vernacular language into a literary language. To me, at least in Trilogy, this has the effect of making the language almost incantatory, and often deliberately repetitive in the way people normally speak, but contrary to the way people normally write.

So he has found a unique way of carving out a form of language that is familiar to others, yet unfamiliar as written-and-literary.

It seems to me that in prose and drama, Fosse is arguing that he tries to escape himself into a way of writing which nevertheless, in a Bakhtinian way, has meaning only in multi-voiced dialogue between the writer and the reader. (He specifically contrasts poetry as a form whose meaning tends to refer only to itself)

His approach is very much about fiction. I'm not convinced that what he says can refer back to the sort of writing we do here, on a forum, about philosophy, where we are attempting dialogue relating to a previously-known set of ideas and writings. But it holds to this extent, that as soon as one writes, an identity sprouts up on the page, me-as-writer, who uses words in ways that sometimes surprise me.

Do you think this is a better way to confront suicide and fear? I mean, thanks to the act of writing by yourself? — javi2541997

For the same or similar reason many people are drawing, painting, dancing, exercising, playing music, socializing etc. Some need professional help. I suppose Fosse discovered that writing is for him.

That is such an honest, humble, and illuminating speech. Now I want to read his work some more.

Mrs un writes to save her life, and writes from an unknown silent source. I do not try and save my life very much, but am content to spend it, day by day, dialogue by dialogue.

So if I should use a metaphor for the action of writing, it has to be that of listening. — Fosse

This is an ancient tradition. One listens to the Muse, and allows Her to speak through one. "Invocation", it is called and that is everything that he is talking about in that speech, but doubtless not at all what his books and plays are about, but what they exemplify.

I discussed with Vera Mont and @Bella fekete whether literature or the art of writing is an individualistic or collectivist act. I want to know what you think because, following Fosse's thoughts, it helped him in pure loneliness, giving him a sense of safety. He faced and overcame fear by starting to express himself in an individual language.

...

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

I would be careful not to attempt this type of wide ranging generalization. It's bound to be flawed induction. There is clearly many different factors which motivate writing, as there are many different forms of writing. Distinct motivating factors would produce distinct forms of writing, but the distinctions are not made clear. So, the different forms are not as separate and distinct as a critic might like them to be, or even represent them as being. So, as you describe with Foss, fiction crosses into philosophy. Such a crossing of genres is common, and fuels the attempt at wide ranging generalizations, which are very poor inductive conclusions

Plato was very critical of the way that narrative infiltrates philosophy. There appears to be no line of division between fact and fiction within the narrative. In Plato's time the moral lessons were passed down from generation to generation through narrative, without such a line between fact and fiction. The fact/fiction line was unimportant so long as the moral lesson could be taught. However, what Plato disliked was that the lack of such a line allowed for various different types of narratives, providing for degradation of the moral lesson.

In other words, teaching morals through narrative allows for "bad", or faulty morals to be taught through "good" narrative form. This can be seen in the content/form distinction employed by some critics. Good writing form is very pleasing and entertaining, but if the content is flawed, bad moral lessons may be taught through this good form.

This is indeed beautiful. However, I've discovered a new way to perceive suicide. When I read Mishima back in the day, I interpreted suicide as an artistic act of dying with honor, and this author genuinely romanticized it.
Suicide has always been a key component in art and literature, but a significant difference emerges between Western and Japanese culture. Fosse even felt uneasy about writing extensively on suicide, but he understood that it was a necessary topic to explore. — javi2541997

This may be a very good example of such a degradation of the moral lesson. It may actually be morally wrong to glamourize, or romanticize, the suicidal artist. This could motivate the suicidal inclinations of individuals who might feed on the thought of looking to create a big splash, the flash in the pan, going out with a bang, or some misguided idea of being a hero.

There are many suicides in my writing. More than I like to think about. I have been afraid that I, in this way, may have contributed to legitimising suicide. So what touched me more than anything were those who candidly wrote that my writing had quite simply saved their lives. — javi2541997

I find today's constant trigger warnings about suicide in fiction to be appalling. Made by uneducated people, probably over-protecting parents who knows nothing of mental issues believing suppression of exposure to complex issues would in any way help people and children from handling such things and then ignoring the very reasons why bad things happen. It's anti-intellectual and stupid.

What Fosse is writing there is exactly what happens with fiction in relation to reality. No serious author is promoting suicide, not even Camus did so as he positioned it as the negative relation to his solution for the absurd. People who experience suicidal thoughts need to find good exploration of the concept they experience, it gives perspective and in almost all cases exposure to such ideas in fiction lead to calming such thoughts rather than triggering them. I've seen stuff in fiction that makes fun of suicide to the point of almost being tasteless and it still seem to help suicidal individuals overcome their negative thoughts.

We need more writing like his than we need overprotective uneducated anti-intellectuals stumbling around thinking they are helping other people.

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

We can each describe only how we see it. Fosse was discussing his own experience - and yet, it sounds to me that he was, in contradiction of his own words, attempting to communicate with other people.
For me, it is always an attempt to communicate - else, why would I learn the intricacies of a shared language?
Painting is somewhat the same way. Artists often say they're just doing it for themselves - and for some of them, like Frida Kahlo, their work is intensely self-reflective, self-involved. And yet they are eager to show the pictures in public. I believe we are all lonely; that we all hope to communicate and be understood.

So he has found a unique way of carving out a form of language that is familiar to others, yet unfamiliar as written-and-literary.

It seems to me that in prose and drama, Fosse is arguing that he tries to escape himself into a way of writing which nevertheless, in a Bakhtinian way, has meaning only in multi-voiced dialogue between the writer and the reader. (He specifically contrasts poetry as a form whose meaning tends to refer only to itself) — mcdoodle

Firstly, thank you for sharing your experience and thoughts on reading Fosse. I am now very interested in searching and buying a book of his. I am open to the genres he worked with: drama, playwright, or poetry.

On the other hand, he actually quoted Mikhail Bakhtin in his lecture. Basically, Fosse argues with the quoted author that expression has two voices: the voice of the person who speaks and the voice of the person who is spoken about. And he states: These often slide into each other in such a way that it is impossible to tell whose voice it is. I don't know to what extent he is referring to the writer-reader union, but how these play solo in his writings.

I wonder about this because he concluded that writing is a lonely practice, and that's how he felt during his life and how he faced fear or problems.

What Fosse is writing there is exactly what happens with fiction in relation to reality. No serious author is promoting suicide, not even Camus did so as he positioned it as the negative relation to his solution for the absurd. People who experience suicidal thoughts need to find good exploration of the concept they experience, it gives perspective and in almost all cases exposure to such ideas in fiction lead to calming such thoughts rather than triggering them. I've seen stuff in fiction that makes fun of suicide to the point of almost being tasteless and it still seem to help suicidal individuals overcome their negative thoughts. — Christoffer

It is true that not taking suicide seriously is tasteless. But I think that in every expression of culture, suicide pops up, even unintentionally. This is why Fosse said that his works seemed to legitimize suicide when this was not his principal idea for the plot and characters. Although he was brave enough to have suicidal characters in his plays and poems, he feels, somehow, overwhelmed due to this state of mind. Facing death, and more specifically suicide, is not everyone's cup of tea. But, I guess it is important to write about this, not hide its existence, and try to interpret this act in different manners. I think the conclusion of Fosse is that, despite always using escapism, he never thought about suicide that deeply. A different perspective from Mishima who thought about suicide as an act of escaping from the rotting of Japan.

We need more writing like his than we need overprotective uneducated anti-intellectuals stumbling around thinking they are helping other people. — Christoffer

I agree.

After rereading your answer, I am not sure if you're actually scolding me or just disagreeing with Fosse.

But I think that in every expression of culture, suicide pops up, even unintentionally. — javi2541997

Because it is part of the human experience. Death by sickness, death by old age, being murdered and committing suicide are constant outcomes in our human lives. It is impossible for us to ever rid ourselves of it, regardless of losing all knowledge in the world and starting over. Immortality is the only redeemer to these concepts, but even with that, and maybe even more so, suicide will still exist as a concept in need of exploration for the sake of sanity.

Otherwise it's like constantly telling children up into their adult life that Santa Claus is real because you cannot accept that they will grow past innocence and eventually die. Even if we become immortal beings incapable of dying and a culture forms out of that in which death has no meaning or existence, the end point of the universe, heat death and destruction of reality would surely still end us, thus making death a concept that still exist even in absolute immortality.

The tyranny of black and white thought warps and twists the gradations of reality. — Vaskane

And in our modern times all of society is infected by binary structures of thinking and ideologies.

Couple of possibly irrelevant remarks about suicide.
It is quite prevalent - and therefore, I suppose, a subject of discussion - in the northern latitudes. Why? Climate may factor in, culture and a historically fatalistic disposition? It has always figured in the literature, even oral tradition of self-sacrifice and self-destruction.
In North America, the Protestant tradition absolutely forbids it, and that has influenced the legal system and induced a culture of dread and denunciation regarding all forms of suicide, for any reason. Idealistic North Americans, in any case, are far more prone to denial, even of what is staring them directly in the face, than are the more realistic and pragmatic North Europeans.

Because it is part of the human experience. Death by sickness, death by old age, being murdered and committing suicide are constant outcomes in our human lives. — Christoffer

Then, it is understandable how some authors incorporate suicide or suicidal characters. It is natural and even more realistic than some other fictional environments, plots, dialogues, etc. Stating this doesn't endorse actual suicide but provides another perspective in an artistic way. At least, a portrayal of suicide in a story can be more relatable than a plot where characters go to Mars and come back.

It has always figured in the literature, even oral tradition of self-sacrifice and self-destruction. — Vera Mont

I agree.

Why? Climate may factor in, culture and a historically fatalistic disposition? — Vera Mont

I remember debating about this a few years ago. Even ChatGPT argues that suicide is universally frowned upon and doesn't distinguish among cultures, something that I fully disagree with.

Idealistic North Americans, in any case, are far more prone to denial, even of what is staring them directly in the face, than are the more realistic and pragmatic North Europeans. — Vera Mont

Do you think that idealistic North Americans tend to avoid suicide rather than romanticize about it?

Then, it is understandable how some authors incorporate suicide or suicidal characters. It is natural and even more realistic than some other fictional environments, plots, dialogues, etc. Stating this doesn't endorse actual suicide but provides another perspective in an artistic way. At least, a portrayal of suicide in a story can be more relatable than a plot where characters go to Mars and come back. — javi2541997

And writing fiction is also about metaphors and allegories, and in this we turn to archetypes and the exploration of the extreme ends of experience and perception of reality of the human condition. So suicidal characters in good writing transcends just being characters in the plot, they aren't just devices or causes for dramatic tensions or tragedy, but a communication of ideas that exist on the fringes of our experiences as people and individuals in and beyond society.

I remember debating about this a few years ago. Even ChatGPT argues that suicide is universally frowned upon and doesn't distinguish among cultures, something that I fully disagree with. — javi2541997

What suicide is culturally, directly or indirectly, seem to be regarded as an act of rebellion against everyone's existential struggles. When everyone else is suffering through the different major acts in life, suffering through the hard times, then someone taking their own life is considered an act against them, not the one committing the act. This is probably why it is frowned upon. And it also seems that people are utterly terrified that they would start to be seduced by the idea, that they would somehow get infected by the thought and do it to themselves.

It's probably why some religions, primarily the Catholic church view the act as something to be punished by blocking you from getting into heaven. You cannot cheat your way into heaven, you need to be tested in life. It would bypass a key part of the whole package; that your life is judged and the judgement decides where you end up in the afterlife. So if you kill yourself, you would essentially bypass a lot of years that would risk you not getting into heaven. This is a major problem for a church that wants to communicate that the afterlife is true and that their doctrine is valid truth.

But I think the main part is that suicide is primarily a failure of society and the people around the person committing suicide. And people cannot cope with the fact that they were partly responsible for failing to help that person. And they cannot cope with questioning society for pushing people to such thoughts. Instead, we frown upon it, we try to ignore the issue, we create religious doctrine around it and we blame the people doing it.

In my perspective, it's one of the clearest indications of how naive and mentally lazy the majority of society is. Turn away from the subject, ignore it, ban anything related to it, stop talking about it. In many people's eyes it's worse than murder, because there's no perpetrator in the same way as with murder. The murderer and the victim are one and the same and the victim's rationale behind the act can be empathized with and people are really bad at empathy when it comes to violent concepts and conflicts.

It's maybe a reminder of their own fragility, that it hints at a clarity of thought underneath all the noise that keeps them occupied in life. They are terrified of dipping their toes into such existential clarity because "what if" they come to the same conclusions as the one committing suicide?

And that's why things like this NEED to exist in fiction and discussions in society. In order to improve society's ability to find a place of comfort for people who fall into the idea of giving up. That means also questioning everything about life, how we live a good life in general, what meaning we create for ourselves. There's no wonder that suicide rates go up when we live in a neoliberal free market clusterfuck of a Baudrillardian nightmare. As long as people ignore dissecting and deconstructing this modern life, we will keep seeing people take their own lives.

Do you think that idealistic North Americans tend to avoid suicide rather than romanticize about it? — javi2541997

Without question! They romanticize courage, ingenuity, physical prowess, overcoming adversity, survival against all odds, victory in single combat and battle. They're okay with death in any kind of battle from street gangs to war, while banning assisted suicide for sick old people. They romanticize things like the Alamo - glossing over the fact that it was pointless mass suicide. But they smuggled in the coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq and never publicize the suicide rate in their own country and refuse to deal with the causes for it, just as they refuse to deal with the daily public shootings. Americans are so steeped in contradiction, they deny the very existence of objective reality.

So suicidal characters in good writing transcends just being characters in the plot, they aren't just devices or causes for dramatic tensions or tragedy, but a communication of ideas that exist on the fringes of our experiences as people and individuals in and beyond society. — Christoffer

Yes, exactly. I tried to explain this as well, and I think that's what Fosse is referring to.

And it also seems that people are utterly terrified that they would start to be seduced by the idea, that they would somehow get infected by the thought and do it to themselves. — Christoffer

I fully agree with this. There have even been some political and organizational campaigns on this issue. Japan has usually set the highest standards for avoiding suicide, considering this act as an offense. Although the rates go up and down, they remain at 'high' numbers, with more than 800 suicidal persons per year. Initially, I thought this was a cultural phenomenon, but the government there expresses concern about the numbers. Well, this problem has reached Europe too, with citizens deciding to end their lives. Some see ending life as suitable when it is not worth living, rather than continuing until death 'approaches us' due to age or sickness.

But I think the main part is that suicide is primarily a failure of society and the people around the person committing suicide. — Christoffer

Is it a failure of society rather than the sloppiness of the state? While citizens who die from terrorism or gender violence are recognized as failures of the state, those who die by suicide are not given the same status. This surely happens because of the significant influence of religion in the state over centuries. A suicidal person tends to be considered as 'sick,' a mad person. Generally, the only backup is to provide pills to people with suicidal thoughts, creating an atmosphere of perpetual disorder with reality, instead of sitting down and listening to what is going on with this person.

Furthermore, I believe that we should consider a new approach to speaking and interpreting death. This is something that we will all experience sooner or later, but we often sweep it under the rug.

If we are not able to speak about death freely, we will continue to reject the existence of suicide.

Japan has usually set the highest standards for avoiding suicide, considering this act as an offense. — javi2541997

Making it illegal is fruitless for most people committing suicide. They give up on life, they give up on everything, making it illegal only put more pressure on them. They need guidance, help and better understanding from people around them. One thing to do is to instead stop making villains out of them, stop the sigma around the subject and make it a non-issue to talk openly about suicidal thoughts. having it so that it is shameful to be suicidal makes them hide everything, hide their depression, sorrow, their thoughts and all.

While therapy has done wonders in our modern era, one problem of it is akin to the problem of us not handling the care of our dead ones ourselves. We have outsourced these things. We let a hospital or funeral agency take care of our dead, we do not take care of their bodies and bury them or do rituals anymore than what is necessary... show up to the funeral, eat cake, go home.

So therapy is good as it can be a place away from people around us to deal with issues maybe related to them, but it has also become an outsourcing of all difficult topics that friends, family, loved ones should be part of helping with. The common reply from those who lost someone who took their own life is a cry about how they never opened up to them. But how could they when we treat mental issues as something outsourced to a therapist while shunning any difficult topics in day to day discussions. Even though the reaction might seem harsh, I almost laugh every time someone cries out that their friend who took their life never opened up about their issues, because the irony of it all has went over everyone's head so hard people should have gotten bald.

I thought this was a cultural phenomenon, but the government there expresses concern about the numbers. — javi2541997

Culture is more than the composition of state and people.

Some see ending life as suitable when it is not worth living, rather than continuing until death 'approaches us' due to age or sickness. — javi2541997

It's important however to differentiate between euthanasia and suicide. If one really do suffer in a way that cannot be fixed or helped without just prolonging the suffering, I see no reason for these people to have to suffer just because people cannot cope with the idea of their death. The campaigns against euthanasia just points out how immature and childish society behaves around the topic of death.

Is it a failure of society rather than the sloppiness of the state? While citizens who die from terrorism or gender violence are recognized as failures of the state, those who die by suicide are not given the same status. This surely happens because of the significant influence of religion in the state over centuries. A suicidal person tends to be considered as 'sick,' a mad person. Generally, the only backup is to provide pills to people with suicidal thoughts, creating an atmosphere of perpetual disorder with reality, instead of sitting down and listening to what is going on with this person. — javi2541997

It's both, society is the general culture of the people and their relation to the suicidal person. It's about how we culturally handle these topics, and how we talk and act around them. State has more to do with the result of culture, what laws will the society demand from the politicians to help mitigate the issue. It needs to start with the people in society growing up on the topic before the state starts to make changes that help people. As mentioned, making it illegal is a naive move against suicide rates. It may make people less prone to it if they know their family will suffer economically, but as mentioned, that only put more pressure on them and is just damaging society further, maybe even creating more people with suicidal thoughts as a result of criminalize the ones who need help the most.

We can call suicidal people sick, but I would call them a symptom of a sickness in society. As long as we tend to hold onto a culture that form depression and suicidal thoughts in some individuals, we are keeping the sickness alive.

I agree with your post, and I appreciate your contribution to my thread.

I don't know to what extent facing death, not only our own but that of our loved ones, will survive in the next generations. We are currently living in a period of time where people care very little about everything. There are no initiatives to do much, and the sense of comradeship has been lost. Instead of being an individualistic society, it is a selfish one. We can be lonely and individual yet show some affection to others when they are approaching death; it is not that difficult to do. Sadly, most people don't consider mental health and its issues a big deal; they just move on, trying to fill their lives with basic needs: work, watching TV, sleep, etc. But not sitting down and realizing whether we are happy or not, or if we want to live or die, etc.

We are not ready to talk and debate about death, nor suicide. Most of the younger generation misunderstands those concepts and tends to overreact or overuse them. For example, they may feel depressed or overwhelmed because the landlord is raising the leasing fees.
This attitude only leads to not treating depression and suicidal thoughts seriously. I doubt that a person would take their own life just because their income is low, but it is more plausible if they consider this option when they don't see any projects in their lives, etc.

But, do you know what is the worst? We have established a sense that not having a purpose for living is normal because Millennials are screwed, etc.

I discussed with Vera Mont and @Bella fekete whether literature or the art of writing is an individualistic or collectivist act. — javi2541997

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

There's a lot of nonsense said about writing. I've known a number of successful writers and I think it's not unusual for people to be drawn to writing because it is solitary and some people who write may be compelled to write to work through anxiety or deal with trauma. This is Alain de Botton's view. But in the end there are likely to be as many reasons for writing as there are styles and genres. Most people seem to write for themselves and an audience of readers they hope to acquire.

Reasons for suicide are similarly diverse. Some people are just fed up with living. Some people are unwell. Some are unable to deal with trauma. Some are reacting to situational factors. Suicide is one word for many situations.

We have established a sense that not having a purpose for living is normal because Millennials are screwed, etc. — javi2541997

I know quite a few Millennials. While it is pretty easy to complain and find fault in life, the ones I know are busy being active in the world - working or volunteering and they seem far more hopeful and motivated than we were at that age.

Reasons for suicide are similarly diverse. Some people are just fed up with living. Some people are unwell. Some are unable to deal with trauma. Some are reacting to situational factors. Suicide is one word for many situations — Tom Storm

Although the reasons for suicide can be diverse, do you agree it is usually based on escapism as a common factor? Notice that I debate about this side because it is what I interpreted from reading Fosse's lecture.

Most people seem to write for themselves and an audience of readers they hope to acquire. — Tom Storm

I thought about this after reading the attachment. I mean it is true that writing is individualistic, but it is needed to acquire some feedback. I would not say 'audience' because I would sound arrogant. Fosse, himself, admits that he received very poor comments and reviews on his works, but he never changed the idea of keeping writing in what he believed was the best technique: loneliness and self.

do you agree it is usually based on escapism as a common factor? — javi2541997

I wouldn't use that word. For some suicide is to punish others. For others it is a grand gesture. For others still the goal is to end suffering (however that might look). I think escape is too nebulous a term.

I would not say 'audience' because I would sound arrogant. — javi2541997

I would think most write for an audience and to be understood. Sure, some arrogant writers might think that the average person is incapable of understanding their great subversive thoughts and may expect a small audience of cognoscenti. Others write for the money - which means a large audience. If you are not writing to be read by others you are keeping a journal. :wink:

After rereading your answer, I am not sure if you're actually scolding me or just disagreeing with Fosse. — javi2541997

I was trying to be careful not to provoke sensitivities, so most likely I was not actually doing either of those two. I was just trying to find a way to bring some sort of objectivity to bear on a very subjective issue.

The point being that this question you ask, "Do you agree that writing is a process of approaching only ourselves?" is sort of paradoxical in nature. If writing was only about approaching oneself, then each individual's reasons for writing would be just as unique as that person is, the writing being solely a reflection of the person. But then the generalization which produces that statement, that writing is only about approaching oneself, would be false, because some individuals would have reasons other than approaching oneself for writing, and the writing would reflect this.

Writing ought not be portrayed as essentially different from any other art form. And like any art form, the reason why any individual artist partakes in the art that one actually does partake in, is particular to the artist. So your question about whether this specific art form, writing, can be portrayed as a relationship with oneself, could at best, only be partially answered, as it would be more true for some, and less true for others.

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.

It could be somewhat paradoxical. Nevertheless, I think Fosse makes a good distinction: while writing is an individual process, sharing this art depends on companionship. This statement makes me reflect deeply on myself, even right now, as I am answering you.

Lastly, literature has its own language, and it is very different from silence or a shout. I think this is why it is important to highlight how some writers, like Fosse, were able to confront suicide in the process of writing but may not be capable of going to a therapist and talking about it.

I think this is why it is important to highlight how some writers, like Fosse, were able to confront suicide in the process of writing but may not be capable of going to a therapist and talking about it. — javi2541997

This highlights some interesting quirks of human nature in general. The psychologist whose own relationships are out of control. The actor who has social phobia. The genius who can't manage their own life. The writer who can't communicate. I've met several iterations of most of these over the decades. People are contradictions.

I've met several iterations of most of these over the decades. People are contradictions. — Tom Storm

I usually considered contradictions as negative behavior, but after debating in this discussion, I think I am embracing a different idea. Being contradictory in some terms can't be that bad, and I sometimes confused this term with hypocrisy, which are not even related.

What is interesting about these quirks is that they arouse our talents in different fields.

I think we all are a bit 'weird' as Fosse considered himself when he was a kid, and then when he started his writer career. Because it is contradictory to have a fear of speaking in public, but at the same time, writing stories or plays.

sometimes confused this term with hypocrisy — javi2541997

Yes, I think that's right.

Personally I love contradictions and imperfections - almost a form of wabi-sabi - and delightful for similar reasons to me.

Having a fear or inability in some aspect of your chosen field may be common. I worked with actors some years ago and most were pretty shy and fearful of public speaking. Comedians are often sour and glum. Etc.

Having a fear or inability in some aspect of your chosen field may be common. I worked with actors some years ago and most were pretty shy and fearful of public speaking. Comedians are often sour and glum. Etc. — Tom Storm

When they came to you, what were they asking or specifically seeking? Were they in search of safety as Fosse found in writing?

I'd say writing is a social activity that one can practice privately. In this sense it can benefit the introverted or socially isolated. It can also benefit the readers and our society to understand what it's like to be introverted or socially isolated. More on social activity and mental health: Social activity can be good for mental health.

I'd say writing is a social activity that one can practice privately. In this sense it can benefit the introverted or socially isolated. — jkop

Although I agree with writing can benefit the introverted, I don't know to what extent it is a social activity. Yes, a writer needs a public, and this is what, among other aspects, he is looking for. But the receptors can disappoint the writer's desires. This actually happened with some other artists such as Kurt Cobain, for instance.