Knulp, the protagonist of this book, is a wanderer without a family or profession, someone who spends his time traveling from place to place. He is described as a man who has learned to take part in life as a spectator, which suggests a rather remarkable degree of self-awareness. Having neither a fixed job nor a home, he stays for several nights at a friend's house. Even there, he passes his days meeting people, taking walks, or simply spending time alone in his room.
What does it mean, then, to participate in life as a “spectator”? A spectator is someone who watches a story unfold without participating in it. Yet Knulp, contrary to this definition, seems to possess a powerful sense of agency over his life. He pursues his own happiness and well-being, living as he wishes; in this respect, he sometimes appears more self-directed than almost any other character. He interacts actively with others and pursues his ideals with enthusiasm (there is even a scene in which he flirts with a servant next door). Seen this way, calling him a spectator of life seems rather strange. Of course, I have not yet read even half the book, so perhaps that explains my confusion.
Let me turn to a second question. Is Knulp's free way of living good? In other words, does it have value? I suspect Knulp himself would answer with a resounding yes, and I agree. Certainly, such an attitude might look like an attempt to avoid the responsibilities he ought to bear. Indeed, he might actually be doing just that. What matters, however, is that he possesses both the freedom and the courage to pursue his own ideals, whatever he truly wants. In that sense, perhaps he is better off than I am. His life may look utterly wasted, but he is continually shaping and expanding it. I wonder whether I, too, need more of that kind of agency.