Johann Forsyth is a famous Norwegian playwright whose works are often compared and studied with classic playwrights such as Ibsen and Strindberg. Fosser had a critical attitude towards drama when he was young, but later began to create drama due to economic reasons. His work is not a report on the reality of western Norway, nor a true portrayal of family ethical dilemmas, but rather a transformation brought about by approaching mysterious experiences. Fauser likened art to religion and claimed to be a secular mystic who writes automatically. His plays are often written in a very short amount of time, like poems written in one breath. Fosser's dramatic creation has its own particularity, requiring researchers to go beyond the limitations of intentionalism and avoid relativist speculation. Bourdieu's concept of temperament is the perspective of analyzing Foucault's plays. Temperament is a system of choice and expectation that lies between subjective intention and objective structure. In Fosser's plays, there is a dual nature of silence and trembling. His plays are always invaded by unrestrained silence, and character dialogues often come to an abrupt end, as if concealing an unspeakable secret. The frequent stage prompts in the script require brief silence, and the language is concise and blank, giving the play an overall restrained style. However, beneath its minimalist text surface lies an unquenchable unease. The characters in Fauser's works cannot remain silent. They feel anxious about the unknown and repeatedly repeat similar lines. The characters in the drama attempt to find some support in uncertainty by repeating their lines. Silence not only refers to the retraction of words, but also implies a lack of communication norms. As language is the carrier of order and Tao, its withdrawal means that people lose a stable value system to follow. The void created by silence has a dual characteristic: it may cause anxiety of being unresponsive and at a loss, or it may bring ecstasy of breaking free from constraints, both of which manifest as a trembling state in the face of unfamiliar things. Fauser attributed his writing tendency to secular mysticism or mystical realism. What he pursues is the sense of strangeness inherent in daily life. The secular dimension of Fosser's drama is reflected in his emphasis on the limitations of the world. Limited means constantly leaving one's original position, unable to achieve the perfect lasting retention. For creations in time, if there are no differences, gaps, or gaps, and if there is no risk of possible annihilation, then there is no future or life, and everything will come to a standstill. In short, the absence and emptiness that silence relies on create a tremble towards the unknown, which at the same time nurtures panic and hope. The similar ideological temperament presented in Fosser's plays is not accidental, as it is closely related to his upbringing and intellectual choices. Fosser's family belief atmosphere is closely related to mysticism. In his childhood, he had a mysterious experience of detachment from himself due to an accident, and exploring the possibility of detachment from himself is his long-term writing goal. In addition, during his youth, Foucault studied Derrida's deconstruction theory and repeatedly cited the latter's discourse on writing on many occasions. In the two ideological traditions mentioned above, silence and trembling happen to be important themes, providing nourishment from both secular and mystical dimensions for the formation of Fosser's temperament. The ideological resources from non artistic fields constitute the prerequisite for analyzing Fosser's plays. By examining these premises, we can better grasp Fauser's writing tendency and provide indirect assistance for understanding his dramatic creations.

Time as the 'protagonist'

Fosser's dramatic creations were influenced by his youth's Marxism and sociology, but he gradually turned to exploring mysterious fields that are difficult to explain with sociology, such as the soul and the mind. His dramatic works do not emphasize moral criticism or obvious oppressors, but instead depict the indifference and perfunctory nature of intergenerational relationships. In Foucault's plays, time becomes the true "protagonist", and the actions and lines of characters are influenced by the movement of time. He portrays the intervals and divisions of time through drama, rather than sudden plot twists. Fosser's attention to time is closely related to Derrida's ideas, who believed that time is the key and fundamental issue. Fosser regards silence as a 'second language', namely 'writing', which lies within the gaps and alienation of language itself. The emotional anxiety and juxtaposition of time and space in his plays directly present the ontological movement of interval time, revealing the essential situation that humans face. In Fosser's play, the laughter of the characters reveals the temporary collapse of the symbol kingdom, while the dialogue of the characters rotates between different attitudes, presenting the presence of the movement of time. In his works, characters often express panic about standing, reflecting the interference of standing and staying desires under the movement of time. In Fosser's plays, characters adopt a defensive posture when facing potential violence from future events, but he also provides temporary support, such as objects or space, to provide comfort to the characters. This contrasts with Ibsen's works, where Foucault's plays contain love, care, and reconciliation.

The 'Spark' of Trembling People

Explored the fusion of deconstructionism and mysticism in Foucault's plays, and analyzed how they shape the core characteristics of Foucault's works. The concept of "writing" in deconstructionism introduces the primal violence of time movement, causing drama to exhibit oscillation and trembling, while mysticism brings dimensions of reconciliation and brightness to Foucault's thought. Fosser was influenced by spiritualism, Quakerism, and Eckhart's philosophy of non attachment, which formed another foundation of his plays. Although deconstructionism and mysticism share intellectual resources, there are differences at the ontological level. The extension of deconstructionism remains neutral on the issue of "existence," while Eckhart confirms the existence of the Supreme by denying theology.