Language and nationality: Swedish
Pages: 140
‘Hemsöborna’ is one of August Strindberg’s most famous works of prose; Strindberg himself being, perhaps, the finest of all Swedish authors.
‘Hemsöborna’ starts out with the story protagonist, Carlsson, arriving to the small archipelago community Hemsö, outside Stockholm. The book sets in what is perceived to be the the end of the 19th century, a time when Sweden is still, largely speaking, a strong monarchy with few signs of a wide spread and prospering parliament; that is to say, that Sweden is ruled by the privileged upper class. (As opposed to from the 1930’s and onwards, from when Swedish democracy has been coloured by a strong Social Democratic tendency.)
Carlsson is to be working as a farmhand on a farm estate; the farm has previously been in the hands of ‘old (Mr.) Floden’, but since his passing away, the state of the farm has been declining steadily, and an outsider leader, experienced with the business, has to be called in to bring the farm back to its previous order.
Head of the farm is, at the time of Carlsson’s arrival, Madam Flod – ‘old Floden’s’ widower – together with her young son, Gusten. Madam Flod immediatly takes a liking to Carlsson, though Gusten, the son, remains suspicious and questioning about the newcomer. He fears that Carlsson, who is of a lower class than Madam Flod and Gusten, will aspire to take over the farm – or rather, steal it away from them. Gusten is quite right in suspecting this, as becomes evident later on in the book.
Carlsson, a skilled handyman, raises the farm from its disorderly state, to becoming a small luxury summer resort for wealthy city-dwellers, to be gaining benefits from trade, and he manages to sustain good harvests throughout the years of his stay.
On an overall, Carlsson becomes an influential figure in the small community, and even gets voted to hold political office as the communal spokesman. In addition, he marries the old widower, Madam Flod, and in effect, tried to lay his hands on the ownership of the farm estate. The book does, however, come to a tragic defilation, when both Madam Flod and Carlsson dies; Madam Flod from symptoms of age, and Carlsson from being swallowed by the lake, after falling through the winter ice.
What takes place in ‘Hemsöborna’ is, essentially, what I would call – with some arrogance, I am willing to admit – a Nietzschean drama. Nietzsche mentiones in one of his minor essays that he has pen correspondants all over Europe; correspondants of genius character; in this context, he mentions Stockholm. I am inclined to believe that this correspondant of Stockholm was Strindberg, seeing as the two were contemporary, and that Strindberg’s many works contains the same ideas that Nietzsche consistently expresses throughout his vast collection of works – this is to be seen, particularly, in Strindberg’s play Miss Julie.
Evident in ‘Hemsoborna’ is a power struggle; here, the subordinate working class, in the form of Carlsson, meet the upper class in the form of Madam Flod and her son, Gusten. Carlsson has learned many skills and knows how to run a farm, this in contrast to the farm’s real owners. Carlsson, almost on his own, makes the farm a good and prosperous one. On the other hand, Madam Flod and Gusten enjoys the privilege of being of a noble, or somewhat noble, trait. The books many smaller intrigues explores precisely this topic; how one who is willing to have power, may achieve it, but who those who truly have power, in the end always will be protecting it. Carlsson, desperatly wanting to achieve something, wanting to be cherished and praised, does his best to attain power and status, whereas Madam Flod and Gusten lazily sits back, and watches him bring money to the farm.
The way the book ends, with Carlsson facing death in the most horrible and painful of ways – by drowning in a frozen winter lake – and Gusten living (it suits to be mentioned here, that Gusten abandons Carlsson on the ice that is about the crack), in order to keep leading the farm as its rightful owner, clearly shows what Strindberg thinks of society’s current standings. In Sweden at the time when Strindberg wrote this work of literature, a good name meant more than personal excellence, ambition and success.
The same conflict, revolving around the power theme, occurs between men and women – this in particular between Carlsson and Madam Flod, but also between Carlsson and one the summer guests, a noble girl called Ida, whom Carlsson falls desperatly in love with. Strinberg does here again explore the same ideas that Nietzsche has been perceived to have done. Nietzsche writes in ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’, through the character of an old lady who speaks to Zarathustra, that ‘when you go to women, don’t forget the whip’. However sadomasochistic this may sound, and however much undeserved critique Nietzsche has received as for being misogynistic (as have Strindberg), this applies to something different than merely taking on a violent side when dealing with women. In life, men and women fight on equal terms, and nothing is to be said against that the two genders carry out an eternal fight in between them – for power. “A woman who wants to be equal to men lacks ambition”, someone is known to have said.
Carlsson marries Madam Flod in order to attain a higher level of class, and more status as a true owner of an estate, rather than being a mere farmhand. Madam Flod marries Carlsson for the reason that, as it seems, her flesh is aching for lust; in addition, she marries a strong man, a leader even, that is sure to make her farm prosperous for many years to come.
What seems to be Strindberg’s point in this drama, however, is that the women always appear to have the last word in an intrigue. Before her death, Madam Flod makes sure that her son, Gusten, burns the legal contract that makes Carlsson the rightful owner of the farm after marriage has been ended. Instead, Gusten will inherit the farm estate, and Carlsson will be left with nothing.
The small affair that Carlsson has with the noble Ida, before his marriage with Madam Flod, also ends in a way that is to Carlsson’s dismay. Over the summer, Carlsson and Ida has had an affair, but when Ida goes back to Stockolm over the winter, she scolds Carlsson in front of her friends, makes fun of him and his manners, and calls him a poor peasant. Here it is obvious that both class and gender issues are involved. Carlsson is of course no-one to defend himself – he is merely a farmhand, and more, he is not a man of the city and its ways.
There are numerous intrigues and problems in ‘Hemsoborna’ that is worth discussing, though at the moment, I will satisfy with having elaborated, if only just a bit, on the matters of gender and class in particular. What is most essential to mention is what an astonishingly excellent work of literature ‘Hemsoborna’ is. It is one those books that one can read five or ten times, and for each time find new problems, new intrigues and new ideas to discuss. It is not really one of those books that cathes your attention and makes you want to read and read until the book is finished, no – that would be another bullshit crime/mystery novel a la the Da Vince Code. This is a true masterwork of literature that explores our very central themes in life, and it teaches us of how to look at them, and perhaps, how to deal with them.
Reading your post I found myself agreeing more and more with you. I haven’t read the book myself, however, so one may wonder why and how I agree; luckily I can explain. Firstly you very aptly give a conciseish synopsis, and you analyse it with a specific theme, so it’s easy to relate to even though one hasn’t read the actual book. The peak of agreement though, came towards the end, when you assert the versatility of the text, and the endless features one could discuss. I was planning on pointing this out myself as I went along with the reading, but of course you had seen it too, which is good.
For one of the alternative views on the book one may adopt, I imagine it very well reflects the Swedish, if not Scandinavian, condition before and around the change from 19th to 20th century?
When I said “conciseish” earlier, I meant to allude to the fact that your synopsis was perhaps a little long. It isn’t necessarily bad, but in this case it seemed slightly pejorative.
Yes, the synopsis is perhaps a bit too long, though I found it necessary to give attention to this part, if I at all was going to elaborate on ‘the Nietzschean’ themes. Since I hadn’t really planned the text, but went along with it as it came, I simply wanted to be able to refer to the plot when structuring an argument, which would be sufficiently described for then in the synopsis.
On your own suggestion, I can’t but agree, and do think that the book reflects the political as well as social climate in Scandinavia at the time. This perhaps with some few differences though, even if I’m not read up enough to assert it with sureness; Norway would, correct me if I’m wrong, have had a developed parliament already from the mid-1870’s, and Denmark from the 1860’s even, whereas Sweden didn’t acquire such before the King lost political power after the dissolution of the Swedish/Norwegian union in 1905. Sweden is, therefore, probably economically more well of than Norway, and perhaps also Denmark, though we are, on some levels, more ‘barbaric’, if Democracy counts for anything. The same themes though, class war and gender issues, are of cours equally prevalent in all three countries.
It serves to mentioned, with reference to the last sentences of the previous comment, that I mean at the time of the turn of the century, and that I mean ‘well off’.
It is very true that both Sweden and Denmark were better off than Norway in these times, after all Norway saw it’s peak (except from today) before the Kalmar union; around the 12th century, and until ca. the 14th century. After this we declined both slowly and rapidly, until the 19th century when things finally started to happen again.
About the parliaments, I will indeed correct you, as Norway’s parliament was the first in Scandinavia, and started in Eidsvoll in 1814, where our constitution was formed, and we gained independence from Denmark. At the same time, it is worth mentioning, we elected (with emphasis on elected) the Swedish king at the time as head of our state, thus practically commencing the Swedish-Norwegian union.
I hope this is more or less correct, it should be. About the themes it’s easy to unite, Scandinavia isn’t very different today either, at least I would say, even though the countries’ economical success and policy in general differs.
Let me rephrase. I am well aware of the Eidsvoll constitution in 1814, though the constitution in itself did not mean parliamentarism. Norway did moreover not elect the Swedish King as their head of state, but rather, the Danish King. The Swedish royalty, disturbed by this, commanded its forces to Norway and swiftly removed any opposition against a Swedish influence in the country.
Norway did have a constitution in 1814, but actual political parties did not emerge until long after that, and as I mentioned earlier, I think this started to happen in the 1870’s, seeing as real parliamentarism was implemented sometime during the 1880’s. In Denmark, the development happened a decade or so earlier, I seem to recollect, with the ‘insert name here’ christian movement as ground breakers.
The Norwegian people did not elect the Swedes as their superior slave runners, but the Swedes forcively took power. Why? Because Sweden’s balls and manhood had been removed in the franco-prussian war that lasted up until apprx 1814-15; Sweden then chose to oppress the backpack people in the west, in order to retain some last bits of manliness.
Correct, parliamentarism was introduced in the 1880’s by Johan Sverdrup. However, Stortinget was established in 1814 and worked as a democratic institution until actual parliamentarism was introduced some 70 years later.
The year of 1814 was rather eventful in Norway. After the Danish loss in the Napoleonic wars, we were to be ceded to Sweden. The Danish prince Christian Frederik with others wished for an autonomous Norway. On the 17th May the Norwegian constitution was signed at Eidsvoll, by what was to become the Storting. Furthermore, the aforementioned Dane, Christian Frederik, was elected Norwegian King, also on the 17th May. However, because of Swedish aggression, Norway didn’t become an independent country, but was forced to unite with Sweden. To attain peace, the conditions set by Sweden were that we needed to get rid of Christian Frederik and let the Swedish prince (Karl Johan Bernadotte) take his place. In return Norway got to keep the constitution and Storting, the latter which elected (even though just a formality) the Swedish king as king of Norway.
After all, parliamentarism and parliament differ in meaning. A parliament is merely an assembly where people speak and decide things, a legislature. The Althing was such, around 930 AD, and the Storting the same, in 1814. It is true, though, that these did not have a parliamentary system in place at these times.