I asked a friend who grew up in Sweden to recommend some Swedish literature, as I couldn't remember ever reading any. Söderberg was the first writer they mentioned. I subsequently found a lovely 1963 Chatto & Windus edition of ‘Doctor Glas’ in the university library, which was a delight to the senses. It has that lovely old books scent, satisfyingly thick paper, and appealing typography. It reminded me that modern bindings are of such inferior quality by comparison. I very much doubt that most would survive more than fifty years in such excellent condition. Given the age of the edition, the introduction was a little dated in a quite amusing fashion, including this gem:

Söderberg - which translates simply as Southrock - comes up against an absurd but common prejudice in English hands, the fear of unfamiliar Swedish names and occasional Swedish words. [...] I have seen a book of Scandinavian short stories criticised pejoratively in a leading London literary paper for being spattered with names such as - well, Söderberg. Even these many decades of Ibsen and Strindberg do not seem to have bettered the distance and the nonsense. But the aeroplane will, and in the meantime we must adjust a stiff upper lip.

Personally, I have never felt that I had to be able to pronounce an author’s name in order to read their books. Apparently things were different in the early 1960s! Anyway, turning to the novel itself, ‘Doctor Glas’ is told in the form of a diary. A little like [b:The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge|93405|The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge|Rainer Maria Rilke|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1348925210s/93405.jpg|314321], in fact, except Glas has a job and actually does things, rather than being such a flâneur. The narrative centres on his interference in an unhappy marriage. His perspective is quite progressive for the time of publication (1905) as he discusses abortion, adultery, and sex in a dispassionate fashion. He is himself celibate and lonely. I found his voice distinctive and largely interesting, especially in conversation with his friends. This speech by his friend Birck was a favourite:

"...And your answer reminds me for the hundredth time that all philosophy lives by, and wholly feed on, verbal ambiguities. Against the happiness-pancake so ardently desired by the mob, one person sets up his birthday-cake of salvation and another ‘his work’; and both deny that they so much as know what is meant by trying to find happiness. An enviable gift this, of being able to deceive oneself with words. Haven’t we all, always, a need to see ourselves and our efforts in the light of a certain ideality? Perhaps then in the last resort the deepest happiness lies in the illusion of not desiring happiness."

Although I appreciated this sort of byplay, the overall turn of the plot did not greatly move me. I can’t really say why without spoilers, however. The main event is, of course, Glas deciding to murder Rev. Gregorius and doing so remarkably easily. (A striking reminder that prior to forensic science, it must have been pretty easy to get away with murder.) I found the whole business rather unsatisfactory. Glas seemed to consider this murder ‘ethical’ without adequately considering the other options available. Obviously divorce would have been preferable if possible, but could he not have assisted Mrs. Gregorius in fleeing? Had she no family to take refuge with? Given that he was able to poison the reverend, why not give him a less severe poison that would debilitate but not kill him? I found the dichotomy of Do Nothing or Cold-blooded Murder rather forced. Glas also did not pause to reflect on his hippocratic oath, which does not exactly condone killing people because they are mistreating their wives. Gregorius certainly seems a repulsive and horrible character, however that doesn’t mean killing him without consequences is just fine. Who would trust a doctor that would do such a thing based entirely on their own supposed moral authority? This is not to say that the narrative invites unequivocal sympathy for Glas, just that the implications of his actions are not fully explored. Perhaps because it is quite a short book and much of it is taken up with scene-setting.

I read the introduction last as usual and agreed with a comment in it that ‘Doctor Glas’ has the feeling of a French novel of the same period. Slightly less melodramatic, perhaps, but only slightly. I enjoyed parts of it very much, but the narrative-by-diary put more pressure on Glas as as character than I felt he could really sustain. He spends a great deal of time alone, yet is most intriguing when interacting with others. Moreover, it’s frustrating that Mrs. Gregorius acts as the catalyst of events without being given her own voice or much in the way of identity. She remains rather an enigmatic cypher. Finally, Glas can be more than a little pretentious. In a way this is incongruous with his job, which requires a very visceral engagement with human bodies. At times he really needs someone to bring him down to earth. ( )

Revisiting classics is always an interesting experience.
I had read "Doctor Glas" when I was about fifteen, as a school assignment. I liked it then.
So, what did I think this time?
- Söderberg's writing is still marvellous. I found myself rereading certain sentences, just to savour them better. (I was reading the original, not the translation ;-))
- Every Söderberg novel I had read paints Stockholm beautifully. These glimpses of my city are very precious.
- I really liked the sense of time and place, and all those philosophical and not so philosophical conversations between friends.
- The moral dilemmas are going to be interesting to talk about in my book club...
- Doctor Glas is a masterfully created, and very disturbing character.
- It's interesting to see how far ahead of his time Söderberg was, discussing marital rape and euthanasia. Yet, there are things in this book that have not aged well. I wish Helga was more of a "real" character, instead of a symbol/catalyst/object of obsession. Sometimes I put the book down to say STOP.WRITING.ABOUT.WOMEN.THIS.WAY! (I wonder how many classics pass the Bechdel test? This one does not.)

Four stars, because I don't know what else to do. I have to confess that the last point made it more difficult for me to like "Doctor Glas". It doesn't happen with all the books I read, I CAN make allowances. This time, I had trouble doing that...
( )

Pubblicato nel 1905, suona come un romanzo dell'Ottocento debitore di Dostoevskj e Poe, anticipando al tempo stesso lo spirito intimista e psicologico di molto del romanzo novecentesco. La vicenda, ambientata a Stoccolma, tocca temi profondi legati al senso etico e al desiderio. Il dottor Glas è un personaggio immediatamente indimenticabile, che sfugge alle catalogazioni e offre molti spunti di riflessione. Libro che meriterebbe di essere più conosciuto (personalmente l'ho trovato per caso in aeroporto a Stoccolma). ( )

Doktor Glas är en dagboksroman av Hjalmar Söderberg som utkom 1905. Romanen skildrar en ensam läkares liv i Stockholm under några månader – från 12 juni till 7 oktober – i slutet av 1890-talet.

Having trashed Camilla yesterday, I’m going to try to redress the balance...

http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/doktor-glas-by-hjalmar-sod...

---------------------------------------------------------------

Book read, more to say here:

http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/doktor-glas-by-hjalmar-sod... ( )