Fair enough, mate. It was an interesting exchange and I appreciate your contributions to my thread. I will be honest: I ran out of ideas and arguments to keep posting and replying to you. So, instead of wasting your time, I think I must stop because I am ending up in a meaningless circle, the victim of my own comments. My only, I promise the last, conclusion (regarding our exchange on the perception of suicide by the receivers) is that if I kill myself, people in the 'real' (outside the internet) world would not care. Maybe you will care cohabiting with me on the world and reality of The Philosophy Forum.

But there is another world, my daily life. The latter is a big difference in terms of socializing and exchanging concerns with the rest, as I do here. Then, my supposed suicide in the real world outside the internet would not have a special impact.

Is it a contradiction or a paradox? I don't know which one to pick up. This is why I used the example of the falling tree. The main point is as it follows: If I were absent for many months here, I think that some of you would wonder and ask what is going on with Javi. If, in this case, you noticed my death, you would care, even if you haven't even seen my face yet. But, paradoxically, it will not have the same impact on the people who see me every day.

My suicide would be like the tree which fell down unnoticed in the physical (non-virtual) world.

I hope I explained myself a bit better this time...

And, as you highlighted, I also want to know with more detail the thoughts of Fosse regarding suicide after reading some of his novels.

Fair enough, mate. It was an interesting exchange and I appreciate your contributions to my thread. I will be honest: I ran out of ideas and arguments to keep posting and replying to you. So, instead of wasting your time, I think I must stop because I am ending up in a meaningless circle, the victim of my own comments. — javi2541997

I think this conversation has pretty much run its course. Thank you very much, I enjoyed it.

My only, I promise the last, conclusion (regarding our exchange on the perception of suicide by the receivers) is that if I kill myself, people in the 'real' (outside the internet) world would not care. Maybe you will care cohabiting with me on the world and reality of The Philosophy Forum. — javi2541997

I think it is a mistake to exclude the internet world from the real world. Let's say you have a dual identity, you inhabit two distinct social worlds. The issue being that one, the one you call the real world is not a social world at all, it is a world of social exclusion, within which you are alone. However, you have also the internet world within which you are socially active.

Is it a contradiction or a paradox? I don't know which one to pick up. This is why I used the example of the falling tree. The main point is as it follows: If I were absent for many months here, I think that some of you would wonder and ask what is going on with Javi. If, in this case, you noticed my death, you would care, even if you haven't even seen my face yet. But, paradoxically, it will not have the same impact on the people who see me every day.

My suicide would be like the tree which fell down unnoticed in the physical (non-virtual) world.

I hope I explained myself a bit better this time... — javi2541997

Are you saying that people who see you every day would not even notice if suddenly you were not there? Is this to say that they see you without noticing you? That's not quite the same as the tree falling in the forest example. It's more like the inverse of "can't see the forest for the trees". The person who can't see the forest is too intend on looking at particular trees, and does not see the whole, the forest because of this. But what you describe is people who see the whole, crowds of people every day, but do not notice any individuals, like yourself. So. in seeing the forest everyday, and you being a tree in the forest, if you were suddenly gone they would still see the forest, and not even notice that an individual tree went missing. This is a matter of inattentive seers, who do not notice what they are seeing.

And, as you highlighted, I also want to know with more detail the thoughts of Fosse regarding suicide after reading some of his novels. — javi2541997

I don't know if I will ever read any of Fosse's novels, but let me know if you do.

Are you saying that people who see you every day would not even notice if suddenly you were not there? — Metaphysician Undercover

But what you describe is people who see the whole, crowds of people every day, but do not notice any individuals, like yourself. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think not, and my thoughts are not unjustified. This will be embarrassing to share, but it is a good example of why I state that if I disappeared, people (in my daily life) would not care. Last week we had a Christmas meeting and lunch. We are like 35 people overall. With this small number, you would consider that it is easy to get along with people or at least be noticed, right? Well, it is clearly the opposite. Most of my colleagues already had a strong relationship between them, and it is difficult for me to integrate with them. Honestly, I am very shy, so it is true I never made a big effort to integrate myself, and I don't even feel comfortable doing so.

Well, back to the main point, when I left nobody noticed my absence. I feel I am that kind of person who is unnoticeable to most people. The one who nobody reminds of. The mates of my school and university? No... they probably don't remember (or care) about my existence.

With these premises or 'background', I personally believe that if I committed suicide, people would not care at all. Maybe you are right that they would feel a bit 'shocked' because suicide is something that impresses people... but it will not go beyond just that...

The issue being that one, the one you call the real world is not a social world at all, it is a world of social exclusion, within which you are alone. However, you have also the internet world within which you are socially active. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, exactly. I feel more comfortable here than in the 'non-virtual' world. It will be impossible to talk about these topics for me in the latter...

With these premises or 'background', I personally believe that if I committed suicide, people would not care at all. — javi2541997

I would care a lot, Javi. And I'm sure others here would too. You are a valued member here, my friend. :smile:

I would care a lot, Javi. And I'm sure others here would too. You are a valued member here, my friend. — Tom Storm

Thank you so much for your kindness, my friend Tom. :smile:

I am aware that I am respected and cared for here at TPF. Yet, what I attempted to explain to Metaphysician is that I have to deal with another 'reality,' which is very different from my presence in the 'virtual 'world. I promise I am unnoticed in the 'physical' world.

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. — mcdoodle

Nynorsk is not a spoken language. It is purely a written language; and I don't mean that practically; there is no standard, official way to pronounce Nynorsk words (the same is true for Bokmål). I am not too familiar with Fosse's work, but I don't think he writes with a vernacular language, and if he does, then he does not write Nynorsk.

That said, the creation of Nynorsk was meant to capture different Norwegian dialects, so as to create a truly Norwegian language, as opposed to the Danish-influenced Bokmål. So in that sense, what you write is kind of true. However, Ivar Aasen, in his quest to create a quintessentially Norwegian language, ignored the northern dialects due to their Sami influence. Given that the Sami people have been in Norway just as long as their Germanic counterparts, the Sami people, and northern Norwegians, are most definitely Norwegian. Therefore, Nynorsk is not really the written form of a true amalgamation of Norwegian speech, instead, it is just the vision of some racist cunt that made every Norwegian kid's schooling doubly shitty. But, it sure does look pretty!

Thank you for sharing your explanation on this thread. Norwegian philology looks interesting and unique. Although you stated that you are not familiar with the work of Fosse, I wonder how the silent language is understood, used and commonly established in the truly Norwegian language or Danish-influenced Bokmål. We were discussing this because it is interesting how Fosse distinguishes silence and pauses.

I think that you are Norwegian and that's why you have such an important background and knowledge of both written and spoken Norwegian.

Otherwise, just ignore my comment and merry Christmas!

...it is just the vision of some racist cunt... — Ø implies everything

An expression of strong feelings says much in the silent language. Do I detect a hint of social rejection, detachment?

I stand corrected on the nature of Nynorsk.

I wonder how the silent language is understood, used and commonly established in the truly Norwegian language or Danish-influenced Bokmål. We were discussing this because it is interesting how Fosse distinguishes silence and pauses. — javi2541997

I am indeed Norwegian, but I don't quite understand your question. I think I'm lacking the context surrounding the meaning behind the silent language. I haven't heard Fosse's speech, but I am contemplating watching it.

Both rejection and detachment, yes, which is not abnormal for Norwegians regarding Nynorsk, especially not those my age.

I reject Nynorsk because of its failure to do what it was supposed to do, and I am detached from the goal simply because I do not believe it achievable. Norwegian dialects are so diverse that any language that tries to capture it will just be pulled apart by opposing forces, winding up as a language of no-one.

I wonder if the dialects of Norway are more diverse than the dialects of the average country. Norway is a large country, and with a geography that tends to isolate communities. Therefore, I think there's a greater diversity of dialects in Norway than in most countries. In any case, the degree of dialectical diversity is why a programme like Nynorsk is doomed from the get-go.

I think there's a greater diversity of dialects in Norway than in most countries. — Ø implies everything

I thought so too but then compare Norway with UK, for instance. There are no mountains or fjords that separate groups of people, yet there are many diverse dialects. Possibly because groups of people are kept spart by social barriers.

Yes, but also perhaps due to a diversity in the ethno-lingustic origins of the UK people. Gaelic, Brittonic, Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Latin and French influences makes for quite some dialectical diversity, I would think.

I start to wonder if written language has musicality or not, or if it is just monotonous... — javi2541997

Even though I have not read half of the thread, I will chime in. If you subvocalise a text that has assonance, rhymes, alliteration, and strategical uses of punctuation [, ; ! —], you can surely say it has musicality.

It has passed twenty days since I answered you in this thread. I was starting to read Fosse's trilogien. This book was translated by a Norwegian-Spanish girl (Cristina Gómez Baggethum), so I guess it suits what Fosse wants to express in his writings. I was thinking of starting a new thread related to him and his sense of melancholia and suicide, but since you posted the answer here, I think I will keep posting in this thread my concerns about Fosse. I will try to explain myself the best I can. Sorry if you don't understand me because I am a non-native speaker and my grammar is somehow limp.

After reading the first novel of Fosse I ended with these thoughts:

Silence is key in his literature. But this noun or verb only appears in delicate moments. For example: a suicide or death. Fosse does not state: X character dies because of hara-kiri. He beautifully writes: she hears the waves crashing and she feels the rain against her hair, against her face, and then she goes into the waves and everything cold and hot, the whole sea is Asle and she goes deeper and then Asle surrounds her completely, just like the night they first talked, and everything is Asle and Alida and then the waves cover Alida and goes into the waves, keeps going, goes deeper and deeper into the waves and then a wave covers her gray hair.

The last paragraph describes a silent suicide. It made me cry, because it is perfectly written, and I think I somehow understand Fosse. Since you are Norwegian like him, I wonder how suicide is treated and seen in Norwegian society. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to be pretty different from the Japanese. Your conception seems to be romantic, legitimized and aesthetic. Maybe this is just the author's literature and suicide is a very serious issue in Norway.
Here in Spain, it is a taboo topic and nobody speaks about it. Which is not the same as Fosse, who speaks about the topic but with silent and pauses.

Fosse uses pauses with the aim of replicating them in Norwegian theater. I don't have a big background on this matter because I haven't read his plays yet. I will gain more knowledge in the future because he is an excellent writer, and I will keep reading him. He also states: 'For me, writing is a kind of listening. I don't know what I'm listening for, but I'm listening'

Thanks for your answer and point, Lionino. Lesson learned. I fully recommend this thread to you. I enjoyed discussing the meaning of silence, 'pauses' and suicide with @Metaphysician Undercover. It is a worthy thread, and I am not saying this because it is mine...

The more I hear about Fosse, the more interested I am in reading his stuff.

As for your question about how Norwegians look at suicide; I have some trouble answering, since it is a relative matter. I don't know how taboo it is in Norway compared to the rest of the world, but it definitely isn't so taboo that people won't casually mention that a person that happens to be discussed killed themselves. Coincidentally, this happened a few hours actually. The conversation happened to include a random person my grandparents knew, and they mentioned that he killed himself. Now, when I say casually, I don't mean that people talk about it flippantly in cases regarding actual suicides. When actual suicides are mentioned, they are mentioned in either a serious or neutral tone.

But suicide in general is topic often joked about with younger people in Norway (millenials & Gen Z), but I reckon this more flippant attitude to the topic is generally more prevalent with younger people around the world, not just in Norway.

As for romanticizing or legitimizing suicide, I would wager that Norway does it more than e.g. the U.S. First of all, Norway is quite secular, so that's a factor demonizing/stimgatizing suicide almost entirely removed. Beyond that however, I base this observation on my personal experience versus what I've seen in American media. I have for example mentioned to my family that if certain illnesses were to befall me, I would just kill myself or get euthanasia if possible (which is not legal in Norway currently I believe). My family and friends have never reacted with shock to this, and if anything seem to respect it, though perhaps not to think it a superior choice.

Lastly, I'd like to mention that there seems to be a general empathy/understanding of people who have comitted suicide among Norwegians. Maybe I am just projecting, but when the topic comes up, it seems like people have a face of "too bad they couldn't resist", or something like that. Personally, I have some suicidal ideations (though no suicidal thoughts), and as a result, I don't find cases of suicide (regardless of how well the person seemed to be) shocking. I know how fundamentally disappointing reality can be, regardless of how good things are on paper; this attitude is something I feel is shared amongst Norwegians to some degree, but I have no idea if I am just projecting or not.

Coincidentally, this happened a few hours actually. The conversation happened to include a random person my grandparents knew, and they mentioned that he killed himself. Now, when I say casually, I don't mean that people talk about it flippantly in cases regarding actual suicides. When actual suicides are mentioned, they are mentioned in either a serious or neutral tone. — Ø implies everything

Thank you for this information. It is something that helps me to understand Fosse a bit more. I think I am getting closer to Norwegian culture. Fosse uses a neutral tone when a character decides to kill himself. He doesn't use an overreacted nor gimmicky message. He only expresses and accepts suicide because he understands it is a legitimized way of ending life. What you explained reminds me of Fosse, and it makes me jealous of a culture (or sociology) which is neutral towards this topic.

For example: Occasionally, my family has also mentioned a person who killed himself in the past, but my grandparents expressed themselves in a quiet voice, saying: Yes, Mister X, after ending up in bankruptcy, he hung himself... What a pity, and why does this happen at all?
They express this topic with a lot of affliction. They are not neutral, they just feel a lot of sorrow for a suicidal deceased. It makes me sad, because I think they have a fear of death due to the experience of a Catholic education.

As for romanticizing or legitimizing suicide, I would wager that Norway does it more than e.g. the U.S. First of all, Norway is quite secular, so that's a factor demonizing/stimgatizing suicide almost entirely removed. — Ø implies everything

Yes, being a secular is so damn important. Being raised and born in a country which suffered from having an abusive religious educational system, can get me into a false statement where my death needs the approval of the rest or God. It is very hard to find someone here who accepts suicide. I commented that I wasn't fearful of this matter one day, and my parents went crazy. They said I needed a therapist urgently.

Well, although suicide has been spontaneously increased in Spain, the victims are still invisible, and it makes me mad. Even when someone is a young person, this topic gets more twisted into explanation, because most people think: Why are you thinking this? Are you OK? Come on, you are young, and you have a lot of time and experience to live... Etc. It makes me sick, they don't understand life (nor death).

But suicide in general is topic often joked about with younger people in Norway (millenials & Gen Z), but I reckon this more flippant attitude to the topic is generally more prevalent with younger people around the world, not just in Norway. — Ø implies everything

I agree.

Maybe I am just projecting, but when the topic comes up, it seems like people have a face of "too bad they couldn't resist", or something like that. — Ø implies everything

Exactly, they [the people] think we were not able to resist. But exactly to what? And they consider our action as a loss... But what do we lose at all?

Personally, I have some suicidal ideations (though no suicidal thoughts), and as a result, I don't find cases of suicide (regardless of how well the person seemed to be) shocking. — Ø implies everything

Me too, and I usually felt alone because I never found a person of my age (I am of the millennial generation) thinking in a way like I do... And, people tended to isolate me obviously, because we are young and there is no time to think about this! Since I read Mishima, I have seen suicide as an idealised-beautiful ending. Furthermore, Fosse helps me to see it even clearer.

Me too, and I usually felt alone because I never found a person of my age (I am of the millennial generation) thinking in a way like I do... And, people tended to isolate me obviously, because we are young and there is no time to think about this! Since I read Mishima, I have seen suicide as an idealised-beautiful ending. Furthermore, Fosse helps me to see it even clearer. — javi2541997

It's a shame you don't have people you can talk to about this IRL.

I think no activity is above scrutiny, including that of being alive. How can we scrutinize it without considering the alternative, to the degree we can? I find that thinking about death makes life better, it makes me live it more fully. I take healthy but scary risks most wouldn't simply because I don't take it for granted that life is inherently worth living. Maybe it is, but I am not so sure. So, I make sure to make life worth living, even if that means risking it. This is of course not promoting reckless actions, because we don't have a right to risk other's lives, nor are there that many things worth risking one's life for.

I wonder if the dialects of Norway are more diverse than the dialects of the average country. Norway is a large country, and with a geography that tends to isolate communities. Therefore, I think there's a greater diversity of dialects in Norway than in most countries. In any case, the degree of dialectical diversity is why a programme like Nynorsk is doomed from the get-go. — Ø implies everything

Judging by your reaction, I think I see part of the reason for the degree of dialectical diversity in Norway. When individual people are fiercely independent in their attitude, as you seem to be, then this will be reflected in their language. imagine if every individual insisted "I will only use my language" and each time two people met there was a lot of resistance toward compromise. This would produce extremely localized dialects. So the degree of dialectical diversity is not only dependent on geographical features, but also on the disposition of the people. A person with a different kind of attitude might accept Nynorsk as a welcomed change, inclined to give up the old with a view toward improvement..

Imagine if every individual insisted "I will only use my language" and each time two people met there was a lot of resistance toward compromise. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is indeed a factor in Norway; dialectical pride, that is. We are often told to hang onto our dialect when we move. Personally, I have not done too good of a job with that, especially when I have moved to places with an easier dialect (if the brain can reduce computational complexity, it often will).

So, I do not think your description fits me too well, nor most people of my generation. I do have some dialectical pride, as I think my dialect is beautiful, but I am not so proud that I'll actively resist myself going over to another dialect.

The attitudes towards Nynorsk and Bokmål are quite separate from this, however. Nynorsk/bokmål are not competing with the dialects; the Norwegian dialects have no standardizes written form, and Nynorsk and Bokmål have no standardized spoken form. Nynorsk is the language that fits my dialect the best, so if dialectical pride played a part, I would prefer Nynorsk. Yet, I prefer Bokmål, because at least its construction was not as stupid as that of Nynorsk.

The attitudes towards Nynorsk and Bokmål are quite separate from this, however. Nynorsk/bokmål are not competing with the dialects; the Norwegian dialects have no standardizes written form, and Nynorsk and Bokmål have no standardized spoken form. Nynorsk is the language that fits my dialect the best, so if dialectical pride played a part, I would prefer Nynorsk. Yet, I prefer Bokmål, because at least its construction was not as stupid as that of Nynorsk. — Ø implies everything

The main reason you gave for dislike of Nynorsk was the way that the author treated certain dialects. So I still believe there is an issue of "dialectical pride" here, though complex and perhaps disguised. If there was no dialectical pride involved you would not concern yourself with the way the author preferred some dialects over others.

The main reason you gave for dislike of Nynorsk was the way that the author treated certain dialects. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you referring to Fosse when you say author, or Ivar Aasen? If the former, then you need to re-read the conversation. If the latter, then your argument falls apart given the fact that I do not speak one of the dialects excluded by Ivar Aasen. In fact, the dialect is speak is one of the dialects best represented by Nynorsk, an epitomic example being ikkje, meaning not; which is written in Nynorsk exactly as how my dialect pronounces it.

I meant the latter, the author of that language.

It doesn't matter that your dialect is not one of the excluded ones. Your attitude towards the exclusion indicates an underlying instance of what you have termed "dialectical pride". Otherwise the exclusion would not have significance to you. In other words the exclusion only becomes significant in relation to an attitude of dialectical pride, and, the exclusion is significant to you.

In other words the exclusion only becomes significant in relation to an attitude of dialectical pride, and, the exclusion is significant to you — Metaphysician Undercover

I see your point, but it is not the mechanism behind my dislike for Nynorsk. The exclusion of the Northern dialects is significant because it is an instance of ethnolinguistic discrimination. It is significant because it is a message; "you people are not my people, you people do not belong here, you people are not worthy of representation, etc."

It's not about the dialects, it's about the people that speak them.

I stand corrected then. Dialectical pride is like the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is not the dialectic exclusion which is evident as the symptom, but rather an underlying ethnic discrimination.

Yes, and also just a failure to execute a goal. I have issues with people lauding Nynorsk as something it never was, and even less is today (since the dialects it was based on have developed faster than Nynorsk can keep up with).

I find praise of Nynorsk to be naïve and ignorant.

@Metaphysician Undercover @Ø implies everything @mcdoodle

Hello again! I am currently reading Melancholia by Fosse. I have only read 132 pages, but I feel I need to express my emotions and thoughts with you guys. This great writer always have me in tears.
Context: This novel is about the tumultuous life of the Norwegian artist Lars Hertervig. Sadly, this painter suffered from schizophrenia and died in a mental care center in Norway. Basically, Fosse tries to write a story about the daily life of Lars when he was a student at Düsseldorf Arts Academy. I remember talking with you about Fosse's use of silence. In this story, this method is more important and emotional. For example (the following is translated by myself, sorry if the emotion is lost):

And my father raises his arm, my father raises his arm in the air and takes off his peaked cap, raises his peaked cap in the air and waves at me with his peaked cap. My father comes running down the pier, waving his peaked cap in the air.

I personally believe this is a nostalgic, familiar memory, very beautifully written by Fosse. I imagine Lars missing his dad and the old days living in Norway. Everything is in silence. Non verbal communication here.

This sense of melancholia continues:

And my father stops at the edge of the pier and asks me if I'm not doing well, if I want to go home. Yes, I have to go home, I say. And suddenly, my father is on the edge of the dock, and he takes a step forward. Just like that, my father walks on the water and then the waves swallow him up. And what's wrong with my father? Is he drowning? Or has he simply fallen into the water? Don't drown, father. Why did you jump into the water? Father! Father! You have to get out of the water.

Does Fosse refer to suicide here again? I think it was a traumatic experience lived by Lars and Fosse captured it very well. There is a lot of emotion in that quote.

What do you folks think?

By the way, if you are interested on seeing paints by Lars Hertervig, here is a nice link. His paints are dreamlike and hazy. Lars Hertervig.

@mcdoodle Did you read Melancholia by Fosse?

@Ø implies everything How much is Lars Hertervig appreciated in Norway nowadays?

What do you folks think? — javi2541997

I'll express an opinion on this, even though it's difficult to say anything confidently without knowing the greater context. Also, I'm really not familiar with any of the author's material, so I really do not know his style at all. Furthermore, i do not know your translation technique, nor the accuracy of your translation.

What exactly is the context of the father walking toward the pier? Is it possible that this is imaginary, a sort of daydream of the narrator? Notice that the father asks "if I'm not doing well", and this is completely different from asking "how are you doing" or something like that, because it implies that the speaker is already aware that the person is not doing well. So the father is already 'into the mind' of the son, as if a product of the son's imagination. That is a very strong indication that the son is doing very poorly, wants to go home, and is imagining, and hoping, that his father is coming to take him home. Instead, the imaginary father walks right into the water, dashing all hopes of taking him home, showing him a completely different direction, suicide.

Remember the use of silence, and the power of the imagination which we discussed earlier in the thread. Silence is the cue to use your own imagination, fill in all the blanks, where the author led you toward something, but did not explicitly say it. The silence says it better. So if the narrator is on the pier daydreaming, using his imagination, then it's better that you the reader, use your imagination to better understand the situation described.

Of course, I do not know the context of the expressed passage, so further explanation would better reveal whether my interpretation is what is intended by the author, or not.

Thank you for your answer.

I will try to be more specific regarding the context.

The plot of the story is about the life of Lars Hertervig. A Norwegian painter of the 19th century. He suffered from schizophrenia, but apart from this mental disorder, he suffered a cruel prank played by his fellow students. It is shown that the classmates laughed at him in the book for being a Quaker and poor. This fatal experience in Germany led him to end up in an Asylum in Norway. Dying at the age of 72.

Fosse was inspired by the tumultuous life of this painter, and decided to write Melancholia, trying to put the reader in the painter's shoes. Following Fosse's writing technique, Lars Hertervig communicates himself in two different ways: with the characters around (dialogue) and speaking alone (soliloquy). When he speaks alone in the street or at home, he suffers from melancholia. He seems not to be really happy in Germany and misses the old days in Norway.

The reason why the father of Hertervig walked towards the pier is unknown. What I can tell you is that the pier itself always comes in the 'hallucinations' of him. Sometimes his father appears, another his sister, for example. In my own opinion, I think it is not a dreamlike scene. He experienced it in real life when he was young and lived in Norway.

For example: there is a scene in the book where his classmates are laughing at him because one of them says his family is Quakers. Instead of getting angry with them, he experiences a sense of melancholia (the pier appears again. His sister and mother are there, in silence. Smiling) and then suffers a mental breakdown in front of his classmates: he starts to shout 'mother' and 'sister' without control.

(The mother and sister remain in silence at the pier in this breakdown of the painter).
And the bullies start to saying to him: why are you talking alone? Who is Elizabeth? (Elizabeth is the sister of Hertervig). Here I feel that the noise of the bullying crash with the silently melancholia of Hertervig.

So if the narrator is on the pier daydreaming, using his imagination, then it's better that you the reader, use your imagination to better understand the situation described. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree. But what makes me wonder about how Fosse wrote the book is whether the silence is a reference to death (his parents and sister passed away and he feels alone) or the inability to say to them that he wants to go back to Norway. In this novel, the silence is a key factor and, most of the time, is confusing because even the protagonist feels scared of why his family remain in silence at the pier.