What happened with the amante? We haven't heard about her for a while. A strategic disconnection?

It sounds to me like dressed-up self-chastizing. Do you really believe in the absence of guilt and remorse?
That'd be a bit too beautiful to be.

Mr. Grunberg

May I ask about your plans in Podgorica?

Toxic selves

In the same article:

"Maybe, with rigorous philosophical inquiry, he could conclude that he was not a hazard to others and did not need to absent himself from the world to protect it."

There is a possibility that rigorous philosophical inquiry would lead us to conclude that we all pose a hazard to others.

Ironic

The ones to whom strategic disconnection should really be applied (or who would really need to apply it to themselves) will not agree to it I'm afraid.

Arnon, do you think you are a hazard to others sometimes?

But of course we are a hazard to others. Physically and emotionally.

Disconnection

This could make a great novel.

(Un)natural?

Reading chemical textbooks !
Reading a 30s French philosopher !
In French !
That certainly must seem unnatural.
To a 21st century psychiatrist.

This might suggest a great story by..., let's say Raymond Chandler:
the man in his apartment turned out to be murdered after all...

Bert

The dead man in the apartment was himself. It turns out the man is a ghost. This explains his disconnection.

Carlos, Bert

You both clearly lack the talent that's needed for writing a great novel.

Mieke

I don't see that plot so much for a novel as for a (Hollywood) movie. According to Philip Roth, novels are condemned to becoming a cultish curiosity anyway.

What is the plot of the novel you have in mind? The plot so far needs an ending or a beginning.

Sasja

Yes, all the time.

HS

“Amante” is thriving, but as of January 1 she will be homeless. Anybody who can help her with a swell apartment in Amsterdam will be rewarded with signed books, wine and French kisses.

@arnon

If she's an artist, she should try and look at the artist projects in North-Amsterdam, via Ymere, there's a bit of hope over there..Don't kneed no french kisses, if that's ok.

Carlos

I don't have a plot yet in mind, but I think it's a compelling story . His strategic disconnection , retiring from the world, refusing any success and yet keeping his dignity -and sanity-by reading serious books. We all are a hazard sometimes to the other, few of us take such drastical measures.

Strategic Disconnection

Isn't (strategic) disconnection already one of the main themes in some of Mr. Grunbergs novels?

Most of his protaginists are struggling with their (often painfull) interaction with the world (other people), resulting in either role-playing/mystification-games (Phantom Pain), or, more radically, total (Beck in The Asylumseeker) of partial (Hofmeester in Tirza) disconnection from the harmfull gaze of The Other.

Carlos

Do you think Ph. Roth is right. Will we , humans, in the future not be able to concentrate on books any longer?

Arnon

With you at her side, Amante will never be homeless.

And what if you're a hazard to yourself? How do you disconnect then other than by means of a suicide, which isn't a very productive method after all? I would like to know the answer, if only for curiosity's sake.

BTW, I don't think it's that noble or whatever to withdraw yourslef from society only because you have difficulties with being a link in the chain. Everyone would like to be an island sometimes, but I think it is more of a penance to stay within, if only to bang your head against the wall. Unless..., he actually feels no remorse and disconnected himslef out of well-kept egoism. Well, there's something to consider....

Carlos, Mieke

Carlos, you're right of course.
If seems as if Mieke cannot even read:
"You both clearly lack the talent that's needed for writing a great novel."
Where did we imply that we were going to write the 'Great American Novel'? Or any novel for that matter. I for one - I don't know about Carlos - happen to be just a reader, certainly not a(n) (aspiring) writer.

She just didn't like our comments I think, because her one-liner seems a real non-sequitur.

And to inform her on Philip Roth's ideas about the future of the novel:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-30/philip-roth-unbound-interview-transcript/

A little quote from this interview:

"Tina Brown: You said in an interview that you don’t think novels are going to be read 25 years from now. Were you being provocative or do you believe that to be true?

Philip Roth: I was being optimistic about 25 years really. No, I think it’s going to be cultic. I think always people will be reading them, but it’ll be a small group of people—maybe more people than now read Latin poetry, but somewhere in that range."
Etc.

Let's have a little (trivia) quiz:
'Who might have been this '30s French philosopher he was reading?'
Mieke?
=============================================

M. Hordijk

[ full -- beautiful / harmful / painful / faithful etc.
Exception: Marianne Faithfull ! ]
[ ... protagOnist, just call him/her the 'main character']

"(...) disconnection from the harmfull gaze of The Other."
'The Other' with capital letters: you don't mean 'God', do you?
What exactly would constitute a 'harmful gaze' ?
(Just 'staring' at you, looking at you derisively, with utter contempt?
For whatever reason. The clothes you're wearing, your hairdo, your face...)
Being able to ignore that gaze = disconnect ?

The disconnection of the man in the article we are talking about most certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

In short, I'm rather puzzled by what you say.
Could you elaborate/explain?

Mr. Hesper

Did I touch a sensitive nerve. Is it your ambition to write a compelling novel? Don't be ashamed , most people who comment on this blog have literary ambitions. In fact I suspect the most of us are desperate for the attention of Arnon, hoping that the light of his fame will shine on us.

Ms Dutoit

You didn't (and don't - ever) touch anything... I think.

You completely misunderstood: I don't have any ambitions (a bit like the man in AG's blog; but then I happen to be 59, which makes me an entirely different 'case'! Have lots of relatives, a place to live, etc.)
And, besides, why the hell would I be ashamed of some ambition to do anything?

FYI - again - please note carefully: I most certainly DON'T have any of these literary ambitions you are talking about.
I'm also not 'desperate' for his (or any contributors') attention / reaction.
I just post some words/comments/observations etc.: whether anyone wants to reply/take them to heart/whatever, I really don't care.
[Take e.g. my language/spelling corrections (my 'copy-editing'): it might/must be the old schoolmaster in me, but it's just to point at something. You are free to take it or leave it: learn something (perhaps), or just don't give a shit.]
That's all up to you out there.
They are only given for your information (FYI), not meant to insult.

I admit, being an avid reader & admirer of AG, any reaction he addresses to me will no doubt 'titilate' me, send some extra electrons down my spine. [Apart from the fact that he might teach ME something! That's really what I'm after I think, by participating in this blog of his...]
I'm a 'fellow-traveller' of his, that's it....
And sometimes we really disagree or misunderstand each other.
Which is all right, I love discussions, especially with someone who might have some out-of-the-ordinary, and even valuable arguments.
Some food for thought, that's the whole point.

But please don't mistake me for some 'groupie'!
I couldn't care less if the 'light of his fame'- as you state - will ever shine on me!
Too old, much too old for that sort of feelings...
Hope I don't offend you: if you want to be his groupie it's ok with me, feel happy being whatever you want to be to him....

So, your suspicions were unwarranted, as far as I am concerned.
In other words: please leave me out of those considerations.
'Include me out' as they say.

OK, forget these remarks, please...
Could you go back to my posts and try and give another reaction?
Be factual, deal with the subject that I (and others) were discussing.
Please don't give any 'ad hominem' answers. (!)
And please don't take MY 'ad hominem' remarks (above) too seriously.
To make a final one, can't resist it, put in other words:
You have a remarkable & somewhat endearing way (sorry, that's how I read it), to avoid any real to-the-point answers to what others might say....
Never mind.

Any further thoughts on this homeless man reading (really 'highbrow') books - I wonder where he gets them, this hobo (?), who more or less explains his 'disconnection' from the world around him from his childhood experiences?
[Ah! That's why! Of course, of course...]
==============================================

Bert

First of all, I was under the impression that it was kind of common to use the word 'protagonist', I don't read or write that much in English, does it sound pretentious? In that case, I'll stop using the word immediately and start talking about main characters from now on.

Then, what was I trying to say?

In my interpretation of Grunberg's work, a lot of the actions of his main characters have to do with Sartre's famous remark: Hell, that's the other. That's what the two capitals were about, be assured, they had nothing to do with God. I find in his work quite a few simillarities with Existentialist Philosophy, for that matter, and dealing with other people and their judgement about you is one of them. Dealing with the 'dreaded freedom' is another. We find ourselves thrown into this absurd world, surrounded by cruelty and pointless suffering, be it by our fellow man or by the blind forces of nature, how do we deal with that?

One solution is accepting the chaos and absurdity of life, consider life a game and start playing. That's more or less Ewald Krieg's and Robert Mehlman's solution, start playing a role and have fun with it. It's not complete disconnection, it's playing with the connection. But then, after Mehlmans gets shot and ends up in a hospital bed, Grunberg seems to abonden the 'play your life' solution and his next main character, Beck in The Asylumseeker, pushes it up a notch: he just doesn't care about morality or other people at all any more.

One could call that strategic disconnection, couldn't one? Beck disconnects more or less from humanity and escapes into hedonism and the soft sedation of the kick.

Now that kind of disconnection is not the same as the disconnection of the man in the article, the man in the article doesn't seem to feel anything (maybe he's someting of a sociopath?) and draws the conclusion that he has to disconnect because he's a hazard to others, while Grunberg's characters play with the connection, or try to disconnect completely, because they seem to feel too much, because the world is a threat to them.

So there indeed is a big difference in the motive for disconnection, you're right about that, the man's motive seems to be altruistic and Grunberg's characters seem to have egocentric motives, but the theme of disconnecting from the world, I think is very apparent in Grunbergs work.

I hope I've made myself somewhat clearer now..

Mr. Hesper

Concerning Philip Roth, it was a small article I've read this week in a local newspaper wich stated that Mr. Roth feared people wouldn't be able to concentrate on reading any more in the future. As an avid reader you should be aware that reading is an endeavour wich needs a lot of attention of the reader. Training is essential if you want to become a good reader. The new media spread the information much faster , most often with the loss of in depth explanation as a result. I was just curious if others feel the same.
There is a whole range of French philosophers the man might have been reading. Teilhard de Chardin? Camus? Who knows.
There is the word 'groupie' again. Do you perceive me as one? Let me explain my interest in Arnon. I love reading myself and I like it when other people do. I have strong feelings of affiliation with people who spend their days writing and when it's performed with the seriousness and dedication Arnon so clearly demonstrates , one could describe me as a loving admirer. I truly believe Arnon is the most interesting writer in the Netherlands at this moment. Following him isn't a waste of time, but I don't see myself as a groupie. Besides on a more personal level, I have a lot to thank Arnon for. He managed to ease my pain.

@ M.Hordijk
Thank you, you have.
I only suggested 'main character' because you wrote 'protaginist' instead of 'protagonist' initially.
It doesn't sound pretentious to me, so continue using it if you like.

@Mieke Dutoit
I won't use the word 'groupie' again.
It was suggested by your reactions to Carlos Dee and myself.

Philip Roth

I think Philip Roth is wrong to worry only about the readers. Its the publishers he should worry about.

Look at the music industry today: hardly any creativity, just the same old shit cleverly repackaged, and most of the investment going into selling and branding second-rate musicians and singers rather than trying to find the new. I'm afraid the publishing industry is heading the same way.

Books do sell - even in supermarkets. Whether they are read is another matter.

Mieke

Are you afraid of being a groupie? I'm sure Arnon likes having a few groupies.

Civilization

This is why civilization exists: to minimize the hazards we pose to each other.

Carlos

I associate a groupie with someone who is attracted more by the status and the wealth of the celebrity person than his artistic merits.

Mieke

I think being a groupie is a form of love or at least blind adoration.

Carlos Dee

I haven't seen any of Arnon Grunberg's books in supermarkets.
(Wish his complete oeuvre was available there)

On whether you read the books you buy:
I used to buy books in a good bookshop by the dozens.
And before I went again to that bookshop to buy more, I never managed to have read all of the books I had bought earlier.

But I knew that wouldn't matter: given time and the right mood, I'll get to them, sooner or later.

[ Comment removed ]

how come you all of a sudden write amante as 'amante'?