Subtitles

An illustration of the simple fact that there's quite a difference between understanding / observing / watching etc and taking part.
Between an outsider and a participant. Between audience and players.
Between 'listening (or reading) comprehension' and 'fluency' in whatever language; even your own mother tongue.
It's true: I can (could) watch TV5, watch some French film (with or without French subtitles), or some animated discussion on whatever subject (- those wonderful literary/book programs by what's his name !) and think my French wasn't that bad.
But try and play the language game with some native speaker!
I would no doubt be able to survive in Paris, ordering meals, asking for some hotel room, directions to the nearest parking space and so on, but that would be it.
It also 'explains' the difference between readers and true writers who are not only exquisite readers but consummate players of the language game as well.
Mr Grunberg, your fluency in Dutch (& German) leaves little to be desired, (English?) & French are sure to follow.
If I may be so bold as to suggest this.

On TV, if available, I always switch on the subtitles, even for programs in my mother tongue.

@bert hesper

Comparing outsiders-participants to readers-writers or players-audience should not be that simple.
I think i understand what you want to tell according to today's post. But your examples cut into a whole new -and subtle- philosophical cake.

bernard

Is it so noisy?
Don't they distract you from the complete story?
Or do you want to understand every single word?

or bernard, do the Dutch subtitles give you the illusion that you are quite fluent in your mothertongue?

Hanny Verheezen

Being a 'Lord of Poverty & Unemployment' (Yasha), this shouldn't come as a surprise. I mean my getting into some 'subtle' philosophical cake (?!) [What could be a subtle cake, let alone a philosophical one? Nice metaphor or simile, but rather puzzling nonetheless.]
It's not that subtle I think: being an outsider, an onlooker, an observer of life itself, of your own life as well (amor fati / carpe diem), as opposed to the real artists/masters in the art of living.
And I admit that among writers there's this same dichotomy: some are pure onlookers (Kafka, J.D. Salinger, John Kennedy Toole, Wittgenstein), some are real masters in the art of living, real participants (Multatuli, Norman Mailer, W.F. Hermans, Arnon Grunberg, Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell).
Still. it's a truism: there are listeners/talkers, readers/writers, watchers/players, etc.
"There are two kinds of people in the world, observers and non-observers..." — John Steinbeck (Travels with Charley: In Search of America) ...
There isn't much more to be said about this, although of course this difference has all sorts of consequences/implications.

Funny though, how this post has led from subtitles (understanding a language) and being a fluent speaker of some language, to a philosophical 'discourse'.

Onlookers/participants

I couldn't disagree more with you about the status of Grunberg and Hermans. If there ever were two onlookers/observers to mention among the literary family, I would mention those two. Flying all around the world, meeting a lot of people, dining in restaurants, working as a professor in fysical geography surely doens't mean you can't be an observer pur sang?

On what basis do you divide writers in onlookers and participants, and what arguments do you have to include Hermans and Grunberg in the last category?

@bert

What is your act in this context: the observer or the skydiver?

observers/onlookers/bystanders

@M. Hordijk
It goes without saying that all writers are observers, the great writers being great observers (more or less by definition).

I think you fail to understand my distinction between onlookers and participants: the pure onlooker just doesn't act, doesn't undertake much.
He/she will live (almost) like a hermit.
(See next post: comments on living without hope; inaction.)
Living like Kafka or Wittgenstein.
They may just be able to write. And write great works, sure.
But you will have to admit that people like Hermans and Grunberg are masters in the art of living as well, besides being great observers of life.
But observers 'pur sang' they are certainly not!
So, point is: what exactly constitutes a 'master in the art of living'?
I was discussing the difference between e.g. Bertrand Russell (master in the art of living) and Wittgenstein (yes, an 'observer pur sang'!).
And people like Hermans and Grunberg most definitely belong in the first category.

@Hanny
Nice question. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by my 'act in this context'; what context is this? This post? My comments?
Or this question about passive onlooker versus active participant?
I cannot deny I'm acting by commenting of course...
Still, I'm an observer I guess, not a skydiver.
Always have been.

Bert

You still haven't made clear what exactly makes someone a 'master in the art of living.'

Wittgenstein studied, worked as an engineer, fought in the first world war, was a schoolteacher, a gardener, worked in the second world war as a medic, gave lectures in Cambridge.. That isn't a very reclusive life, I can't speak for you, but it's got a lot more of adventure than my life in it. Is it the kind of activity that makes you a master in the art of living? Does it include a lot of sex and good food? Sunshine? Please enlighten me, I'm dying to become a master in the art of living myself.

Nonsense

The more I think about it, the more your statement becomes complete nonsense. You seem to think of Grunberg and Hermans as some sort of 'vital poets', who live life to the maximum and are the typical 'redskins', when in fact, they are completely the opposite. And don't believe Mr Grunberg to ever make a move he hasn't thought out beforehand, both he and Hermans seem to me to be very, very cerebral types, always in control, their writing is very sophisticated, it is definitely writing, not typing (as Capote called On the Road - Kerouac being the typical Redskin), their work is very thought out, I don't believe them to ever completely loose themselves in anything.

They both are the archetypical bystanders, emotions in check, afraid of danger out of any direction, machiavelists, intellectual and very much on their own.

@Hanny
The subtitles gave me certainty that I can follow the conversation ( the pitch and speed of the spoken word sometimes confuse me).

I agree with M. Hordijk. Arnon is the cerebral type, trying to be in control of his emotions.

I think of Arnon as a very sane person. In this crazy world, it's nice to have people like him around. Maybe that's why I am so attracted toward him.

cerebral/rational

@M. Hordijk
loose = lose
You lose yourself in something. Get lost, lose your heart etc.
(to loosen = make loose).

"That's not writing, it's typing." (Capote)
Or is it “It isn't writing at all - it's typing”?
- http://thinkexist.com/quotes/truman_capote/2.html
(What's the source ?
(I'll try and figure this one out for myself...
(Perhaps somewhere in George Plimpton, "Truman Capote.
(In Which Various Friends, Enemies, Acquaintances, and Detractors (Recall His Turbulent Career" (1997) ?
(Or on the internet possibly (tried some searches to no avail so far).

Yes, well..., indeed, what exactly is 'a master in the art of living'?
Everything to do with 'savoir-vivre', to know how to and be able to take advantage of each and every opportunity your own life has to offer.
And, I agree with you on this (I think), or totally disagree; WHAT ACTIONS someone undertakes has little or nothing to do with it.
Some bum in the street living 'the rough life' may just as well be a master in the art of living.

I think you confuse being an observer, being rational, being sensitive, being a famous philosopher/writer or just being some 'ordinary' housewife or whatever with each other...
Any one of these (concepts, notions, words) doesn't exclude any other.
This dichotomy between being rational and having feelings is BS anyway.
Talking about nonsense...
I think this is like discussing the difference between 'body' and 'soul'.
So to start with: whether any of the persons mentioned was/is 'rational' or not is of no relevance whatsoever.
[My 'feeling' is: the more 'rational' the more 'sensitive'.]

I understand from what you say that you don't acknowledge the immense difference in 'savoir-vivre' between Russell & Wittgenstein.
That's the point. Whether you & Wittgenstein differ in 'savoir-vivre' is beside the point really.
(Perhaps you underestimate your own 'savoir-vivre'!)
I only mentioned this example to illustrate the difference between the (pure) 'observers' and the (pure, unadulterated) 'participants' (in every aspect of their lives in society).

We have stumbled into quite some quagmire of philosophical problems, like Hanny Verheezen suggested (see above).
Obviously your connotations aren't mine.
Talking about outsiders/the audience and players/participants.
Getting into 'rational' and 'sensitive' as well.

What's an outsider, what isn't?
What's a 'displaced person', what (who) isn't?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outsider_(Colin_Wilson)

I hope I have given at least some explanation of what I meant originally.
Otherwise we will forever remain on separate planets.