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
But the receptors can disappoint the writer's desires. This actually happened with some other artists such as Kurt Cobain, for instance. — javi2541997
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. — jkop
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
Language is based on shared labor, causal constrains and such, not whether an individual user happens to be alone. — jkop
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
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
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
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
The causality and the division of labor that I refer to are used in arguments for semantic externalism...language has causality. I would like and appreciate it if you could elaborate on this. — javi2541997
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
literature or the art of writing is an individualistic or collectivist act. — javi2541997
See what I mean? — I like sushi
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
We cannot act outside of human social interactions. — I like sushi
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
If Fosse considered the reviews as 'poor,' then he cared about whether people were following his writing path or not. — javi2541997
Fosse knew how to use silence in written language, and he was comfortable using it in his novels despite receiving criticism. — javi2541997
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
It is not clear to me to what extent we are dependent on social interactions. — javi2541997
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
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
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
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.Do you agree that writing is a process of approaching only ourselves? — javi2541997
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
Any writer who thinks they came up with everything on their own is confused. But the experience, is very alone. — Bylaw
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.