Finn Janning is a Danish writer and philosopher living in Barcelona, Spain. His most recent publication is the nonfiction book, The Happiness of Burnout: The Case of Jeppe Hein. In 2016, he will publish his second novel, Who Killed Gilles Deleuze? (in Danish). But basically, he is just the proud father of Askild, Hjalte, and, Smilla.
When did you start writing and why? What inspires your writing now?
I know it to the date because I started writing when my brother died. I was nineteen. The impact of his death brought me into literature and philosophy. I have always liked being alone, to play with the voices in my head, to think and invent other forms of life, but from around that age this inclination became more literary. I took notes, wrote in the margins of books, etc. From the very beginning, I wrote short stories and essays—often not able to distinguish where one genre ends and another begins.
What inspires me to write is never an urge to say something specific—that is, relive my heart and stuff like that—rather, I write to unwrap what is to me interesting, noteworthy, or unexplainable. The unsayable is what drives my pen. I think that literature is something that can actualize or bring to life what is missed, what is just dying to live and breathe. Literature can make life more present or show what it really means to be a human being.
You illustrate how you have always struggled to accept “Finn” as part of your identity, what made you choose this particular incident to demonstrate that internal turmoil?
Many believe a name says something significant about who you are, as if a cool name makes a cool person (but then what is a cool name?). There is also so much focus on identities today: sexual, political, national, etc. This pressure to be someone specific is quite tiring for me. I believe that to write is to lose your identity. To let the words flourish the author must disappear. That is why it is so liberating.
So, you may ask, how does the author disappear when he is writing about how he suffered from having a certain name? It is difficult to explain this process in words. I would liken it to dissolving; you must immerse yourself in the writing, remove all your armor and allow yourself to follow the story. Nietzsche said that philosophy is to overcome yourself, become someone else. For me, writing is the same. You should become something other than a writer as you set down your words. Writing is not a profession to me. It’s a blessing and a curse.
While writing “My Name Is Finn,” I came to realize that it wasn’t so much the name that caused my problems, but instead my insecurity and vulnerability that made me want to become another. I became aware—or, rather, Emil did—that Finn didn’t have to change his name to become someone else. This process happens by itself if you have no desire to be somebody specific. Saying this, I wouldn’t mind being Jim Morrison for a day.
How much do you think a name contributes to one’s identity, and why?
In general, I think it contributes a lot but always on a fictional level. Some parents—especially today—think that the name they chose tells something about them. This is pure vanity. Of course, the kids may be affected during their childhood depending on who else shares their name, how they live up to their parents’ fictional expectations, etc., but eventually we all grow up and realize that names are just a way to help us organize social and institutional relations. In a world ordered by capitalism and juridical laws, your name makes you the owner, the one responsible.
A name is just a name. Instead of seeing every Eva or Adam as a shadow of the famous Eva and Adam, each new Eva should be recognized as her own self. A name can stand in the way for some people—including myself for a while—but I truly believe that we all are many different identities. It may sound schizophrenic, but why limit ourselves to one, two, even three identities, when we can break out of this identity prison?
You characterize yourself as a philosopher. How do you think this impacts what you write about and your writing style?
For me, philosophy is a way of living and not an academic discipline that requires you to swallow a certain amount of information to pass. Most great novelists are philosophers. The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard once said that literature in order to become philosophy must become fiction. I like that. It also shows that the distinction between philosophy and literature is rather new—perhaps stemming from Kant—but does it matter if Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, de Beauvoir, and all the others are classified as philosophers or writers?
My approach to everything is philosophical in the sense that I take nothing for granted. I am quite comfortable with raising more questions than I can answer myself. I like to create problems, not to annoy or attack people, but to look at things differently. Mentally, I don’t like to settle down. There is always something that slips away from the categories we use. From philosophy, I have learned not to ask for the meaning, but what something produces, opens for, makes possible. Walking into the unknown with a notebook is what makes writing the best thing.
What events do you think warrant a story or should be written about?
As a writer you should honestly believe that you say something new, even if the subject is old and full of clichés like love, hate, war, or families. To write is a delicate balance of being extremely humble but also suffering from megalomania. Yet, a story should never be told out of vanity. Some people seem to forget that auto-fiction never is (or should or even could be) a self-portrait; rather, it intensifies some of the forces that make this particular life interesting, enlarging the extraordinary in the triviality of human life.
In short, you can write about everything, it simply depends on how you approach it. The only concern you should take as a writer is in regard to the story being told—be loyal to what happens regardless of how stupid it may appear. What might seem stupid at first may in fact be incredibly insightful with a closer look.
Why do you think happiness comes with change and dynamism?
There are many forms of happiness, For example, my son is happy when Real Madrid or Spain wins in football. But on a more profound level, I think experiences of joy and happiness always come with the acknowledgement or acceptance of certain changes, such as accepting getting older, our mortality, that I will never become a professional football player or pianist, etc. Once you can live with these recognitions, you mature in a way that makes you feel good. It’s like, “I can go on living despite of that.” It’s a bit similar to accepting the fate of being given a certain name by your parents; once you have you become conscious of how this particular name may restrict or give advantage (e.g., who is Finn, that’s me! I am one in a million with that name in my generation).
Literature is something joyous because it can change the way we perceive the world. Think of Imre Kertész who in his novel Fatelessness shows how happiness can exist in a concentration camp. Instead of dwelling in all the terror and horror, he enlarges our world by showing what else a human being is capable of. Sometimes it’s the smallest gestures that make life beautiful, such as a blanket when we are cold.