To Arnon Grunberg

On the changing of the rules; does this have to do with the way a novel is presented? Namely, as a work of fiction, whilst your diary-like entries do their best to present glimpses from the truth.

(From which cannot be derrived that fiction doesn't lead us to true facts of the matter.)

Pjötr

A novel aspires to a different kind of truth, yes.

@Arnon

Is this your way of saying we should be worried about your next novel? Or am I giving 'us' to much credit?

Does the barbarism only apply to the surroundings of a writer? What about his/her own private thoughts?

Noa

Please, don't flatter yourself.

Jeanette

An author has private parts. An author doesn’t have private thoughts; he might have thoughts that are not useful for his work. If you wish we could call these thoughts private.
Is your sex life improving?

Arnon

Lol, as they say. Good entry, too.

@Arnon

Every person has private thoughts, unless one experiences psychosis (f.i. a person can experience external thoughts being inserted in his/her brain, etc.). Not every person has private parts however, although I 've never read a book from a writer without, at least not to my knowlegde.
Me and Foucault are doing fine, thank you for informing and not advicing this time...

@Arnon

We must all flatter ourselves, tickle our fancies, indulge, now and then. It's only healthy we desire to feel important, even if it's vicariously through the stories of someone else. You saying 'do not flatter yourself' is quite a pointer as to how you view yourself, or - if you like - me in relation to you. I know you're a god of some sort (yes, I too have acknowledged that many times around), now please simply because you are that god and oversee the workings of mankind, for once could you just indulge silly fantasies of a normal, plebian, nitwit like me? Give us a reaction that would surprise us, and scare as as much as it would please us. That would be truly godly.

A joke has the advantage that wit assures against harmful consequences of the truth- the lie which it exposed remains intact, this is inbuilt in the nature of the joke - it is a temporary relief, shattering the (often necessary) lie for an instant, but then it's back to business as usual - it's only a joke (this knowledge of he temporary nature of the exposition of the lie is part of the joy of laughter).
“Art” seems less innocent. When in art the truth is revealed (truth= negative: exposing the lie) we know it is not a “joke”, the damage could be permanent.
That’s what an artist should aspire to, anyway.

Dries

I would never proclaim that literature is innocent or should strive for innocence, but I’m not completely convinced that a joke is by definition more innocent than a novel.
Just think of certain bad novels. And certain bad jokes of course.

Jeanette

I’m pretty sure that the comments you like to post on this site are inserted into your brain by an extra-terrestrial.
Could you ask this extra-terrestrial to be a little less of a namedropper, at least while posting comments on this site?

Fozzy Bear likes to inform mister Kermit that Miss Piggy wants to be loved.
(By the way, all Arnon’s novels are about me, are they not?).

Gossip

Today in the train a bunch of girls were reviewing the movie ‘Sex in the City’ and gradually the discussion evolved into details about their sexlife. Out of decency I pretended not to hear (for obvious reasons ‘to pretend not to hear’ demanded more of the actor in me as ‘to pretend not to see’) but I had the impression – perhaps wrong – that a part of their excitement in the discussion was the fact that the others present aevesdropped.
In general, a part of the sexual satisfaction of women is found in talking about it. A common idea which I believe has some validity. It must be one of the sources of gossiping (and of writing).
Clearly there are many differences between an authors indiscrecy and gossiping, but it seems to me that the veritable gossiper enjoys the potential of the secret. That is the moment before the act of gossiping; she knows something, she alone, she is quite unique, and if her gossip is really succesfull its secrecy will spread. An author enjoys not so much what is confided to him, at least if he is not a reporter, it is not so much the knowledge and its imagened effects, but the writing about it and what is his style. After all, his style makes him unique and also, to a certain degree, makes up for indiscreteness.
So it is an authors privilege to be indiscrete with impunity. But as most of us do not master the noble art of writing novels, the noble art of gossiping is a great comfort.

Johan

You make a few assumptions I don’t necessarily agree with.
Did you pretend not to listen out of decency or did you pretend not to listen because you wanted the ladies to continue their conversations without unnecessary inhibitions?
Do you think that it is more important to talk about sex for women than for men, and is this your explanation for the fact that women read more novels than men? What about those novels without sex?
Do you think that gossip is about power -- the power of passing the secret on to another person?
If novels are about truth, which I think they are, you might have a point.
Literature is an “investigation into the deepest, most primary forces that drives us” as a friend of mine wrote. A successful investigation reveals something.
Gossip of course reveals something too, ideally, but I’m not sure if gossip is really an investigation into the primary forces that drives us.
Adam Phillips wrote: “It is only because of sexuality that we think about truth at all; that we find honesty and kindness at odds with each other.”
I’m not sure if this is really the case. But you seem to be sympathetic towards this statement, at least the first half of it.
What did the women on the train reveal about themselves?

Jonathan Coe had some interesting thoughts on the truth in novels. As James N. Frey called it the subjective truth. I'm not sure if I want to read truth. I like -for instance- Murakami, who isn't known for his truthfull depictings.

As long as there's a basic truth, I'm a content man.

Today I saw this BEAUTIFUL publishing of The JEwish Messiah (in Dutch). Published in 2008, it didn't say "1001th print", isn't that obligated?

Dens

As to mentioning the edition in the colophon, ask the publisher.
They are not obliged to do it, but it is definitely good habit doing so.
Please don’t confuse “truth” with so-called realistic depictions of certain events.

How can a fiction be truth? Quest maybe. Truth? Gossip may not always be quest and not always be true, but it is closer to truth than fiction.

I think the quest for thruth via literature is rather accidental. I met nobody who came any inch closer to truth by reading. If by chance through reading one reveals a personal truth then it is a success. For all the more general so called truths, one can just directly study philisophy, sociology etc.

I like to think a novel like "notes from the underground" conveys a truth. i'll respond later when i have more time

Arnon

Adam Phillips is right. It is a basic freudian idea that there is a traumatic encounter in human sexuality about which: 1) we cannot talk about, 2) we cannot stop talking about. And yes, I believe in general that man is on the side of the former and woman on the side of the latter. There is undeniable a male discourse on sexuality, but it is very different from the female discourse and, importantely, most women enjoy to talk about sex. Or do you think this is too much a cliché?
At least it could explain why for women not getting an orgasm is easier to cope with as for men; at least there is something to talk about. And indeed also why women read more novels.
Novels with or without sex seems to me less relevant, for clearly sexual matters are often easily mixed with matters of love – by women especially and literature often deals with love affairs.
Literature also deals with truth (I disagree with Neria). Absolutely. But the truth is like a little stone in your bread; you did not expect it and your first reaction is to spit it out. The merit of literature is that it can make us swallow it.
It would indeed be a bit nihilistic to equal literature with gossip, which was not my intention. But there are similarities. The way a gossip can evolve into a fictionalized truth shows that it is not unrelated to literature, and in good gossiping there is indeed, in all its viciousness, something of a truth-effect about ‘the primary forces that drives us’, even if it is untrue.
And as to the women in the train, of course I was eager to listen to them, what do you think? Concerning the content of their revealments; I would rather not gossip. But all in all it was quite comical, about curousity as a motivation to engage in sex, about expectations of men and how they played with those expectations.
To talk comically about sex is a talent that I admire in women.

@Johan, the chance element i mentioned equals the little stones. I'm afraid human beings are not made to digests stones anyway, so it is a waste of time to stuff them with such food (though the bread around might worth the inconvinience).

'justify' i meant (not worth).

Johan

The women who talk openly and comically about sex in public is the 'Sex and the City' virus. Never trust them. It's just a show.

PS

Gossip is a really interesting phenomenon. I once heard that is a civilised act because the gossiper's deepest wish is to kill the object of gossip. That implicates that is also a fearful act. Look at the faces of gossipers, for instance on late mediecval paintings, never a glimpse of human understanding, only a combination of malice, fear and stupidity.

@David
I assume you are an admirer of Ensor as well (I do).

David

that "sex and the city" comment somehow is heart warming to me.

gossip

gossip is off course nothing more than this: two aim their malevolence at a third one, thereby guaranteeing that the two are protected against each other's malevolence.
that is the joy of gossiping: you are completely safe yourself

Johan

If literature is an investigation “into the deeper and more primary forces that drive us” then I would say that in your example the novelist is more on the female side of things. Not to talk about a thing, or not to write about a thing at all, means at the end denying the existence of this particular thing or act or event. If literature, if beauty is not connected to truth we might as well do away with literature. The denial of this connection comes close to Camus’ definition of nihilism: To deny what’s in front of you. To deny what you see. Your description of the conversation of the girls point in the direction of sex as a game -- I guess this is the only way we can handle, we can our survive our fantasies, to treat them as a game, to live them out as it’s all a game. The refusal to turn sex into a drama is for some people extremely offensive. After you praise gossip you refuse to gossip, you risk that other people, I for example, will start gossiping about you: this man talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk. Did you find the girls on the train attractive? Could you imagine sleeping with them? Or just one? Or all at the same time?

Johan,

This is a great change in my thinking but I am willing to admit that literature is bonded with truth. You may even say that literature is the modern form of prophecy and I will not rush to contradict you. Only I'm afraid the massa of readers do not read literature for the purpose of learning the truth, the same way, in ancient times, people probably regarded prophets as street theatre performers and did not usually take them too seriously too. For some reason Donne's line "[b]atter my heart" pops up in my mind now. To enable the shift from facade to core readers as writers first have to get acquainted with their own truths. I doubt it if literarture can significantly help in the transition to preparedness of incorporating more and more truth into our lives, this doesn't mean however that literature is superfluous.

Jan Thys

Yes, I like James Ensor a lot. Strange, I was really thinking about Ensor while I wrote the comment.

Dries

When we go the women we must not forget the whip.

Johan (or others)

who is Adam Phillips? I've googled the name but i only found a cartoonist by that name. Thanks

Dries

See this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Phillips_%28psychologist%29

Thanks Arnon! I'll bear the name in mind the next time i step into a bookshop or public library.

Arnon

I did not deny at all that literature is about truth. It is the only valid reason why we should be interested in literature, because it is about the truth and everybody has a relation with the truth. But, at least in the way as I understand it, and very general : man wants the truth, but he cannot live with the truth : characteristically he turns away from it in the very act of his discovery.
Not to talk at all about the truth, does not mean one is not effected by it. And there are different degrees of denial. Perhaps the opposition of male/female literature is an unhappy one, but to talk continously about what concerns you, sex for instance, can be just as well a way to deny the truth which is manifested in that particular theme as the refusal to speak at all about it (in which one rarely succeeds completely as every freudian knows).
Anyway, I can see that the girls in the train are a much more interesting topic to you. Rightly so ! To write on this site about my fantasies, would be funny, I am affraid I could not stop. But I was thinking, if there is a truth in those fantasies – romantic fantasies, fantasies of pure male potency, slightly pervers fantasies – perhaps it is my biggest fear that in the end I just would be the object of the gossip of those girls, and a truth would be revealed in their talk which no fantasy of mine can hide.
And I had the feeling the girls in the train knew this ; you can look at us, you can fantasize about us, but look what in the end you will be : a laughing matter.
And yes, perhaps this was nothing but an imitation of a movie, Sex in the City, but for me it felt as a game of female superiority.

Neria

Yes, it is easier to search for the truth as to accept it, but if literature can blow the fire of truth in us, that is make us search for the truth, is that not already a big step?

"man wants the truth, but he cannot live with the truth : characteristically he turns away from it in the very act of his discovery. "

what about :man wants the truth, but he cannot live with the idea there is only one truth: characteristically he turns away from it in the very act of his discovery.

woman (aka girls)want the truth, and they can live longer with the idea there is only one truth": but they must be kidding and characteristically they too turn away from it in the very act of his discovery.
?

its olways now,now,now..

ps: female superiority, my ass

Johan

I wrote Jan few days ago that I am a romanticist, but I call it naivety to attach such grand mission to literature. It does speak truth but even a Shakespearean clown is heard better. To make it stirr us we have to get addicted to it as Eastern meditator to their meditations.

Gee, Arnon

According to your definition of masculinity all the women I know, including me, are extrememly masculine.

+

Men's frustration at their inabily to perform which is vented through violence is pretty pathetic. I have more respect for men than you do. Think of a different definition of masculinity.

Neria

The fact that I stopped objecting to your presence on this site should not give you the impression that you can use the imperative while speaking to me.

Johan

I changed a typo or two that’s why this comment changed its place.
Anyhow the idea that you at the end of listening to the gossip of girls on the train turns out to be a laughing stock reveals more about your fear than about the gossip itself, which might or might not have been meant for you to listen to.
I’m not sure if it is possible and desirable to speak about your fantasies, I’m not even convinced if it is really possible to know all your fantasies. To be a laughing stock can be a powerful position, as can the submissive position of for example a woman be very powerful. In all modesty I think my novel “The story of my baldness” is an exploration of the typical male fear of being a laughing stock, in the eyes of women and thus in the eyes of the world.
I’m afraid that when everything is said and done masculinity is perceived as the ability, the willingness and the readiness to kill.

Johan II

You may argue that a Shakespearean clown is a literary agent, but I meant to say that the volume of litearay text which wrap this clown from all sides are very thick, sometimes thick with deaper truths which no one wants. But I already repeat myself endlessly, let's be happy with the one achievement we already have, that literature is telling a truth .
PS - you can go back to the discussion which was held here about this topic, few months ago. I didn't put it that way then, but I'm perfecting it now: literature speaks truths to the point that men consumes them in order to avoid other, more urgent truths.

Arnon

I didn't use an exclamation mark but I'm ready to artificially soften my language when speaking to you. I'll rephrase it: I suggest there might be other definitions for masculinity. Better?

Arnon

I) What was the original reply? You've changed more than typos to my impression. II) I have thousands of grammatical and typos which I cannot go back and correct like you do. This is not a fair game (I wonder about the connection between your priviledge to do so while we don't, and the title of this entry).

Arnon

Unfortunately you are right concerning my own fears. Everything that fascinates me seem to end up with my own fears.
However, the idea that being a laughing stock can be powerfull is a sign of hope - in case of submissiveness it is clear to me, but I have never thought about the power of being a laughing stock.
But if being a laughing stock is a fantasy of mine, a fantasy that I fear to be true, I have to change that fantasy and incorporate the element of power into it.
That would not be a case of Cognitive Behavioral Change Therapy but of Fantasy Change Therapy. I will try it.
I have to think about your description of the supposed male characteristics (by women).

@Johan
Now I remember, some time ago I had the same experience in a train when teenage girls were talking about their sex life. They did not noticed me and soon details about boy’s behaviour were revealed. It was a bit embarrassing so I made clear I could hear them, I looked at them as if I was startled and heavily disrupted, but in a comical way.
First they looked surprised but then they laughed at and very soon they seemed to ignore me, and they raised their voices even more. But after a while I got bored and I forgot all about it.

"the idea that being a laughing stock can be powerfull - or submissiveness , or whatever what makes ppl suffer."

isn't that why some things must be kept a secret, and 'you' shouldn't have to know all about 'me' . and also the key tric to deal with the rage one feels when witnessing all the unbearable suffering in the world?

i wonder how the dalai lama deals with the fact that all those monks (some are just still kids, do they deserve this ?) are suffering so much right now, being watched constantly, totrtured mentally and psysically...
you think he must feels rage ...

i guess at least they'll learn to be compassioned..

?

Neria

All I ask you is not to overwhelm us with your comments and please try to hide your paranoia as best as possible.
FYI once again, I changed a few typo’s and added the word “perceive” in the last sentence.
Please take my allergy to you as a compliment and try not to engage me in unnecessary conversations with you. I hope you will be able to fulfill this request

Johan

The laughing stock stops being a laughing stock when he shows that it doesn’t hurt him to be a laughing stock, that he does not expect anything else to be, that his humiliation is for him perfectly normal, that he gets a kick out of it. By doing this he changes the rules: he is the one who takes pleasure, instead of only giving pleasure at his expenses.
In our culture femininity is open and being celebrated, although often in slightly perverse ways. Masculinity and all its symbols are much more covert, are banned to the outskirts of our society, war should not interfere with summer sales and the more poignant celebrations of manhood are considered -- for good reasons -- lower class.

Arnon

Nobody forces you to read me, this is absolutely your business if you do or not.
I am not at all paranoid, a word may shift the whole meaning. I was just pointing out that you are privileged to do something that others in this blogs cannot do. If you delete and repost a comment after others had already commented on it, you might make their replies look rediculous. I usually don't mind being ridiculed for not being bright or tactful or graceful enough, but this is something else, this is cheating.

Neria

I feel obliged to read the comments on my site. Often but not always this is a pleasure.
Before you get another outburst of paranoia once again and for the last time: The content of this particular comment didn’t change, and even if I added the word "perceive" this does not warrant your petty accusations of "cheating."

Arnon

The idea of a laughing stock who accepts his role with eagerness and enthousiasm and by doing so, is subversive for the social rules, is indeed an attractive idea.
Is the tramp in the Charlie Chaplin-movies an example?
Thus we enter into the century of the feminization of society.
Today I heard on the radio a feminist politician, who was active in Hillary’s campaign team, saying triumphantly: ‘scientific investigations are showing that the testosteron levels of western men are low and declining’.
The subversive laughing stock injecting himself regularly with testosterone subcutaneously, would that not be a charming figure?

Arnon,

Just give it up. I do. This is not a matter to waste so much energy on. Since I cannot prove anything because when I do leave my comments here, I usually do it for the fun, and I don't hold a grudge enough time to think of ever copy and paste your replies, just in case, there's no point discussing this matter anymore.
I don't trust you, that's all. I think we can both live with it quite well.
Do not feel obliged to read my comments, free yourself from this self imposed mission. Honestly. I find it digusting when people do these charity/polite stuff against their real interests. I don't need you to read me. If you enjoy reading my comments you're welcome to continue, but you (and maybe Sander) will be the only people to appreciate the sacrifice and expression of good manners devoid of any real substance to them. I think I've got the point ages ago, there's no need to repeat it over and over again. And if out of jovial spirit I happen to read you and I do specifically turn to you it is because I, unlike you, do not suffer from allergy to Arnons. And believe me, I will no fall apart if you will not answer.

Johan

The laughing stock who enjoys being exactly that is subversive, but it is very well possible that he has lots of testosterone.
Is you fear being subversive, is your fear being not accepted by society?
Maybe you fantasize about women laughing out loud about you, ridiculing you and showing no respect for you at all, but you fear is that society will punish a man for having such subversive fantasies.
Is your mother still alive?

Arnon

I am a bit lost: did I express a fear for subversion?
To answer your question: my mother died.
But you flater me that you bothered to give an interpretation; your ‘investigation into the deeper and more primary forces that drive us’ is clearly paying off.

Johan

In hindsight my question about your mother was inappropriate.
You mentioned that you might secretly enjoy being laughed at by women, but that the laughing stock who enjoys being laughing stock is subversive, with which I agree by the way.
Hence my question: is your fear being subversive?
I don’t consider this small conversation part of my literature.
My weakest point is that I can loose myself in the game without noticing that the I’m still the only one playing.

Arnon,

You wish it was your weakest point.

@Arnon

I know this really cool rhyme I learned in school and somehow never forgot which I think you may appreciate: "I before E except after C." Try it, it always works and I guarantee you'll never forget that rhyme now that you've heard it.