Professor Andersens natt

by Dag Solstad

An existential murder story. A master of Norwegian literature critiques contemporary society with wry wit.

It is Christmas Eve, and 55-year-old Professor Pål Andersen is alone, drinking coffee and cognac in his living room. Lost in thought, he looks out of the window and sees a man strangle a woman in the apartment across the street.

Professor Andersen fails to report the crime. The days pass, and he becomes paralysed by indecision. Desperate for respite, the professor sets off to a local sushi bar, only to find himself face to face with the murderer.

Professor Andersen's Night is an unsettling yet highly entertaining novel of apathy, rebellion and morality. In flinty prose, Solstad presents an uncomfortable question: would we, like his cerebral protagonist, do nothing?

Genres: Fiction, Novels, Literary Fiction, Mystery, Literature, Scandinavian Literature, Roman

140 pages, Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Dag Solstad was a Norwegian novelist, short-story writer and dramatist whose work has been translated into 20 languages. He wrote nearly 30 books and is the only author to have received the Norwegian Literary Critics' Award three times.
His awards include the Mads Wiel Nygaards Endowment in 1969, the Nordic Council's Literature Prize in 1989, for Roman 1987 and the Brage Prize in 2006 for Armand V. Solstad is among Norway's top-ranked authors of his generation. His early books were considered somewhat controversial, due to their political emphasis (leaning towards the Marxist–Leninist side of the political spectrum).

Reviews

[Mahtab Safdari · Rating 5 out of 5]

Professor Andersen’s Night employs the framework of an existential murder mystery to probe themes of middle-class apathy, moral paralysis, and the identity crisis of the aging intellectual left. At its core, the novel examines the consequences of inaction and the ethical void that emerges when ideals fail to translate into behavior.

The pivotal event occurs on Christmas Eve, when Pål Andersen, a 55-year-old literature professor, witnesses a woman being strangled in an apartment across the street. Immobilized by indecision, he fails to report the crime—a non-action that shapes the rest of the narrative. Rather than unfolding as a conventional thriller, the novel turns inward, tracing Andersen’s self-reflective monologue as he rationalizes his silence. His inability to act triggers a profound midlife crisis, forcing him to confront guilt, self-doubt, and the collapse of his intellectual identity.

Andersen’s refusal to call the police functions as a central metaphor, exposing the gulf between professed values and lived behavior. Solstad uses this paralysis to critique the generation of radical students from the 1960s and 1970s, who once championed revolution but have since assimilated into the establishment. Their youthful fervor, the novel suggests, was superficial, and their present comfort rests on moral compromise.

The fragility of identity is another key theme. Andersen’s sense of self—anchored in his career and intellectual pursuits—crumbles under scrutiny, leaving him uncertain of what he truly believes. His indulgence in fine cognac and Italian suits underscores the novel’s broader critique of Western affluence, which fosters complacency and distracts from global crises such as poverty and environmental degradation.

As an Ibsen scholar, Andersen eventually questions the relevance of literature and art to real-world suffering, raising the unsettling possibility that intellectual life may fail to inspire genuine moral action. Solstad’s prose style reinforces this introspection: long, flowing paragraphs with minimal dialogue capture the meandering quality of Andersen’s thoughts. Efficient, ironic, and detached, the narrative voice highlights the tension between philosophical reflection and ethical responsibility.
Ultimately, Professor Andersen’s Night is less about the crime itself than about the moral failure it exposes. Through Andersen’s paralysis, Solstad delivers a sharp critique of a generation that traded radical ideals for comfortable conformity, leaving behind unanswered questions about the role of intellect, art, and morality in the face of human suffering.

***

“All of us would like to become wiser individuals as the years pass, but is it true that we do? In my case it definitely isn’t. I’m not a wiser person now than when I was twenty-five years old, I’m just older. The experiences I’ve had aren’t worth much to anyone but myself. My experiences are of no value so they can be passed on to others, and younger individuals; they are a burden I have to bear alone. I have to relate to my experiences, mainly as impediments that make me mindful of my age, so I don’t continue to act ‘youthful’, ‘young in spirit’, something which is distasteful, if I may say so.”


Was There Really a Murder?


One of the most striking aspects of Professor Andersen’s Night is its deliberate ambiguity. It is entirely possible that the murder Andersen claims to witness exists only in his imagination. This uncertainty shifts the novel away from the conventions of a crime story and toward an existential inquiry. The reader never sees a body, nor is the crime corroborated by external sources such as police reports or newspaper articles. Andersen even searches for news of a missing woman but finds nothing.


“Was it possible that one could just disappear without further ado, and no one would notice?”

The event takes place on Christmas Eve, a time the professor finds particularly alienating and devoid of meaning. He is drinking coffee and cognac, already lost in reflections on his life and identity, when the supposed murder occurs. The narrator hints that the “insidious Christmas spirit” may have distorted what Andersen believed he saw. In this sense, the novel’s core is not ‘whodunnit’ or ‘what happened’, but why Andersen fails to act. The possibility that the murder is unreal only intensifies the focus on his moral paralysis and inner turmoil.

Later, Andersen encounters the man he believes to be the killer in a sushi bar and even invites him home for a drink. This bizarre episode further blurs the line between reality and subjective perception, as Andersen cannot bring himself to confront the man or even discuss the incident with a friend. Ultimately, the ambiguity is intentional: Solstad uses the potential of a murder to expose Andersen’s identity crisis and the disjunction between intellectual life and moral action. Whether the crime occurred in reality or solely in Andersen’s mind remains unresolved, forcing the reader to grapple with the professor’s ethical dilemma rather than the mechanics of the crime.

[Adam Dalva · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good Dag - I've read a bunch of his books (and interviewed him last year for PW: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...) and this one stands out. The conceit (the lead has witnessed a murder and, for reasons he dooesn't understand, chooses not to report it) invests the slim novel with a tension that allows for meandering digressions (Ibsen, grandparents, what drink to serve with what food, the 70's). It can be vexing, stylistically, but it hums along and is a lot of fun when it wants to be.

[Konserve Ruhlar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mahcubiyet Ve Haysiyet kitabını çok beğenmiştim. Bu kitabını onun kadar etkileyici bulmasam da Profesör Andersen gibi saygın bir edebiyat profesörünün yaşadığı ikilemi okumak ilginç bir deneyim oldu. Profesörün yaşadığı ikilem kendi zihnindeki varoluş sorgulamalarıyla birleşince ortaya muazzam bir zihin fırtınası çıkıyor. Tanık olduğunu düşündüğü cinayet romanda tetikleyici bir an. Kırılma noktası gibi. Bir anda zihninde müthiş bir sorgulama başlıyor. Sorgulamanın şiddeti öyle büyük ki hem yaşamını hem de yaşadığı çağdaki değişimlerin sonuçlarını kapsayan bir varoluş krizine dönüşüyor. Bir sonraki okuyacağım kitabı T. Singer olacak ve orada da Mahcubiyet ve Haysiyet'teki Elias ve Profesör Andersen gibi ikilemle ve varoluş krizleri ile mücadele eden bir karakterin daha beni beklediğini düşünüyorum. İskandinav edebiyatının çok sevdiğim renkli karakteri Doppler'den sonra Dag Solstad'ın profesör, öğretmen vs karakterleri sanki Doppler'in çok ciddi arkadaşları gibi :)

[Lee Klein · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rest in peace, Dag Solstad (July 16, 1941 - March 14, 2025)

So thankful I didn't read the back cover copy on my edition until after I finished, otherwise this would be devoid of the plot momentum, intrigue, narrative drive, thriller/suspense mechanics that propel it through sections involving dinner conversation with established academics/artists in their mid-50s, including former radicals, and later discussion of the professor's career devoted to Ibsen. A short novel that uses a Rear Window scenario to propel discussion, backstory, and essayistic insight mostly about the utility of literature, reading and teaching it, living with it, how at best it invigorates the life force, how it spans time from late '90s Norway to Ibsen's 1880s to the plays of Sophocles et al, and how occasional recognition of this makes student eyes gleam.

As with the other Solstads I've read so far, he's a master of ambiguity, ambiguity is always the answer, the punchline. In this the phrase "the ambiguity of the joke" appears after two female student "barmaids"/servers playfully, half-jokingly invite him to visit their bars one day. Similarly, the whole novel functions as an ambiguous joke -- alone on Xmas in Norway, a vision like Scrooge's not of Xmas past, present, or future, but of a murder, but did he really see it, should he report it and tell people about it, and what if he's really only seeing his own past, some physical manifestation of a psychic struggle with his own ex-wife who may as well be dead to him now? He's more than ambivalent about it -- he's multi/polyvalent, crossing and triple-crossing his tracks, deciding essentially not to decide what to do about it. And then when confronted with the killer himself, when able to take action or continue waffling, when the killer himself dares to question the utility of the professor's wall of books, each of which he holds in his head, do those books rise to the occasion or do they just present a precedent for further waffling in psychological/emotional/intellectual conflict that sends the professor to his sick bed for a bit?

Generally this functioned like a thriller, formally -- I was rapt, reading at an elevated pace three-quarters through as the prof encountered the killer in person etc, and the narrative drive created by the possibly imagined murder seen across the way served to propel reams of perfectly enjoyable interpretation and abstraction mostly about literature and its role in lives dedicated to it. There's also a spiritual catharsis at one point, but at the pivotal point my engagement was interrupted by my wife showing me something silly she saw on Instagram. Such is life.

Maybe I'll read it again one day. My reading experience generally was interrupted by New Year-related activities and recovery days on which I couldn't quite read much. Would've liked to read this in two solid sittings. For now, on to the next!

[Teresa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pål Andersen é um professor de literatura e estudioso da obra de Henrik Ibsen. Tem 55 anos, e está divorciado há 10. Não sendo religioso, cumpre as tradições celebrando a noite de Natal e, ao olhar pela janela, vê um homem matar uma mulher.

O crime ou o castigo não é relevante neste romance; diria mesmo que de romance tem pouco sendo mais um texto sobre a passagem do tempo e as inquietações do ser pensante; a efemeridade das relações humanas e a inutilidade do Conhecimento.

"Tu tens oito bisavós e, provavelmente, mal passaram cem anos entre o nascimento do mais velho deles e o teu. E já desapareceram por completo da tua consciência. Ou, pior ainda, nunca existiram na tua consciência."

"nós não somos intelectuais intemporais, somos intelectuais numa época comercial e profundamente influenciada pelo que agita os corações das massas. O que agita o coração das massas são as consequências da nossa própria inadaptabilidade."

"Não sou uma pessoa mais sábia do que quando tinha 25 anos, estou apenas mais velho. As experiências por que passei só têm um grande valor para mim, e não para os outros."

A resolução final levou-me a memória para A Campânula de Vidro de Sylvia Plath:
"Deve haver certamente algumas coisas que um banho quente não seja capaz de curar, mas eu não conheço muitas."


=================================

"A falta de sentido pode ser considerada demasiado vasta, mesmo num mundo que acredita na imortalidade por meio de grandes feitos intelectuais que sobrevivem à corrosão do tempo." (A Noite do Professor Andersen)
— Dag Solstad



Dag Solstad nasceu em Sandefjord, Noruega, no dia 16 de Julho de 1941. Publicado em várias línguas, é um dos escritores noruegueses mais conceituados.

[Ernst · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ich hätte nicht gedacht, dass ich noch mal einen Autor für mich entdecken werde, der mich derart fasziniert wie Dag Solstad. Nachdem ich alle 6 Romane gelesen habe, suche ich regelmäßig das Netz nach möglichen Neuerscheinungen auf Deutsch ab, oder es passiert noch das, worauf man kaum hoffen darf, er schreibt noch mal was Neues, aber warum nicht, so steinalt ist er ja noch nicht. Ich freue mich jedenfalls dass er noch lebt und hoffentlich noch lange. Vorerst wäre es aber schön wenn der Dörlemann Verlag, zumindest etwas schneller, weitere Übersetzungen vorhandener Romane anpackt, ein paar gibt es ja bislang weder auf Deutsch noch auf Englisch.

Eine Inhaltsangabe (50jähriger Mann der alleine Weihnachten feiert, was er alljährlich mit kindlicher Vorfreude zelebriert, meint im Haus gegenüber einen Mord beobachtet zu haben, woraufhin natürlich erst der eigentliche Roman startet: was macht Professor Andersen mit dieser vermeintlichen Beobachtung?) ist eigentlich nicht nötig, auf den Plot kommt es bei Solstad nicht an, es wäre ganz egal worüber er schreibt. Durch seinen unvergleichlichen Stil entsteht eine ganz eigene Atmosphäre, meist, so wie auch hier, geht es um einen Protagonisten im „mittleren“ Alter, der schon einiges erreicht hat, aber noch irgendetwas vom Leben will und nicht genau weiß, was es ist, gleichzeitig aber große Sehnsucht und einen unstillbaren inneren Drang verspürt etwas zu ändern. Und dabei begleiten wir den „Helden“ ganz nahe bei seinen Gedanken, Entscheidungen und Handlungen. Es sind natürlich keine Siegertypen, Fehlentscheidungen sind vorprogrammiert, an sehr vielen Stellen prustet man los, aber nicht nur darüber was der Protagonist macht sondern auch über uns selbst.

[A. Raca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yine sıradan bir insanı anlatıyor Solstag. Ama bu sefer karakterimiz Andersen, noel gecesi pencereden dışarı bakarken bir cinayete tanık oluyor.
Ne yapması gerektiğine karar vermezken biz de onun hayatına dahil olup kendi sorgulamalarına şahit oluyoruz.
Polisi aramalı mı? Ölen kişiyi merak eden yok mu?

Kısacık bir kitap çok şey söylemeye gerek yok.

[Gary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alone on Christmas Eve, while drinking coffee and cognac and lost in thought, 55-year-old Professor Pål Andersen witnesses a man strangle a woman in the apartment across the street. "I must call the police," he thinks. "It was murder. I must call the police." But he does not. Instead he returns to his apartment window, hoping to catch glimpses of other people's lives--an indication that the real mystery here will be an existential mystery rather than a murder mystery. The next day (Christmas), while dining with his friends, Professor Andersen struggles with disturbing feelings that in one night he has become separated from his lifelong friends, and that he is now living in an "end-time." Things soon take a turn when Professor Andersen encounters the murderer in a downtown Oslo sushi bar. To say more would spoil an unexpected plot twist. There are thoughtful parallels between Dag Solstad's intriguing novel of human loneliness, alienation, and isolation and the existential novels of Camus and Thomas Bernhard, which makes Professor Andersen's Night my kind of novel.

[Mayk Can Şişman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Norveçli yazar Dag Solstad benim “Ne yazsa okurum” dediğim yazarlardan. ‘Mahcubiyet ve Haysiyet’ 2018’de okuduğum en iyi romandı. Yazardan okuduğum üçüncü kitap olan ‘Profesör Andersen’in Gecesi’ Noel gecesinde başlayan bir ‘kayıtsızlık’ romanı. Kitap boyunca profesörün kayıtsızlığına, kararsızlığına ve bir türlü noktalandıramadığı sancısına ortak oluyorsunuz. Norveççeden pek çok çevirisini okuduğum Banu Gürsaler Syvertsen yine çok başarılı. Kısacık bir metin olsa da ve az çok hikâyenin nasıl biteceğini tahmin etseniz de bunların hiçbiri kitaptan alınan zevki etkilemiyor. ‘Profesör Andersen’in Gecesi’ bir ‘Mahcubiyet ve Haysiyet’ asla değil. Ama ‘Lise Öğretmeni Pedersen’den de çok daha derli toplu ve nokta atışlı. Solstad’ı seviyorum merkez!

[Cosimo · Rating 4 out of 5]

L'opzione assente

“Non mi dire”, s'intromise sprezzante, “ma se hai appena ammesso che non saresti riuscito a denunciarlo neppure se avessi saputo che l'omicidio era premeditato. Sarebbe potuto capitare anche a te? - No, no” si rispose. “Non dico che avrei potuto programmare di uccidere a sangue freddo. Ma provo compassione per chi l'ha fatto. Un atto così crudele, un delitto, per di più compiuto con piena deliberazione anzi con calcolo: è insopportabile immaginare di essere al suo posto. Per questo desidero che sia libero, che la scampi, perfino che dimentichi tutto, davvero, e comunque non posso collaborare alla sua cattura”.

Questo racconto di Dag Solstad è stato definito ”giallo di inazione” o noir esistenziale, nel senso che l'elemento centrale del contenuto e della trama non è basato su ciò che il protagonista, un professore di letteratura norvegese specializzato nell'opera di Ibsen, evidente alter ego autoriale, nel mezzo degli eventi di un Natale ad Oslo, sceglie di fare, di compiere, di mettere in azione, ma al contrario su quello non fa; e quindi il focus della vicenda diventa ciò che il professore essenzialmente è, la sua esistenza completa e trascendente che in qualche modo sostiene e esplica questa scelta del non-agire, opponendo al corso logico delle cose una resistenza, una anomalia, un rifiuto critico e irrazionale. In un contesto che richiama il testo hitchcockiano, il prof. Andersen assiste dalla finestra alla scena dell'omicidio di una donna per strangolamento e ancora sconvolto dall'estraneità della morte immediatamente corre al telefono per avvisare la polizia, ma al momento della decisione l'aura dell'imprevisto in qualche modo gli impedisce di proseguire nel gesto più ovvio, quello di denunciare l'assassinio. Di colpo sente che fare questa azione, vestire i panni di questo ruolo, gli crea un disgusto, un'opposizione, un'avversione, una ripulsa morale. Non vuole essere l'uomo che denuncia il criminale, la sua volontà si arresta. E allora comincia un'odissea filosofica di pensieri e ragionamenti a smontare il fatto e interrogarne forme e contenuti, mentre la vita in qualche modo riprende un percorso di normalità. Così il romanzo rivela la propria natura di domanda su un insieme di cose, di dilemma etico e sociale sulla posizione dell'intellettuale in crisi, e non già una risposta corredata di verità. Ad un discorso fondato sul senso comune e la ragionevolezza si sostituisce una disillusione che riflette l'indefinibilità della morale individuale e della giustizia come valori universali. La realizzazione creativa dello scrittore norvegese muove da un modernismo ispirato all'assurdo e al simbolico verso una maggiore concretezza narrativa e stilistica, verso lo storico sociale e il satirico-grottesco. In effetti il tema acquisisce una consistenza classica, addentrandosi nel discorso dell'identità e della vita come teatro e gioco nel quale si interpretano dei ruoli. Nel saggio critico Ingrid Basso scrive che i suoi personaggi sono “eroi cerebrali” (hjiernehelter) che cercano possibilità all'esistente, producono una riflessione continua che diviene ossessione spesso pessimistica e disillusa, ma sempre rivolta alla ricerca di nuovi valori e ricorda che il nome del protagonista discende come omaggio dal racconto L'ombra di H.C. Andersen, dove si narra in parallelo la storia dello svanire di una parte della personalità e della coscienza nell'incontro con un perturbante doppio da sé. Quindi al centro della scena stanno i fantasmi della coscienza, come ne Gli Spettri di Ibsen. Allora ci chiediamo, dove sta il confine tra realtà e finzione nella mente del professore, tra fatto e interpretazione, tra colpa e responsabilità? L'omicidio è avvenuto veramente? Potrebbe essere stato un inganno della percezione, una contraddizione nella storia del soggetto? Si tratta qui di disperazione intellettuale, di nichilismo, di un sentirsi fuori dai giochi: di dovere quindi affermare una propria libera volontà. Solstad conduce così un'indagine su di sé, sulla relazione tra noi e gli altri, sulla crisi della coscienza moderna accerchiata da un vuoto di valori, in un'orizzonte antropologico radicale e disincantato. L'autore vuole forse suggerire che non sempre mettersi sotto accusa equivale a negare se stessi e che c'è un senso nascosto e segreto persino nell'apparenza più elementare.

“Non desideriamo tutti diventare individui più saggi con il passare degli anni, ma è poi così?. Nel mio caso direi proprio di no. Non sono più saggio di quando avevo venticinque anni, sono solo più vecchio. Le esperienze che ho fatto valgono solo per me stesso. Non costituiscono un valore che posso trasmettere ad altri, più giovani. È un carico che devo portare da solo”.

[Maria Yankulova · Rating 5 out of 5]

Малко, изчистено, елегантно издание. Определено това е почеркът на издателство Аквариус. Нещо в тази книга ме привлече силно, но известно време се колебаех дали да я чета. Не бях напълно сигурна дали ще ми допадне. Тази година съм решила да чета само книги, за които съм убедена, че са точно по вкуса ми - без излизане от комфортната зона и експерименти. Четенето за мен е удоволствие и не ми се играят игрички в тази посока да се предизвиквам, да експериментирам и т.н.

Толкова съм доволна, че се доверих на вътрешното си усещане и прочетох книгата! Какво литературно гурме! Романът започва камерно - разведен, 55 годишен професор по литература, почитател и изследовател на Ибсен е в дома си вечерта преди Коледа. Приготвил е вечеря, отпива класно питие и размишлява над коледните традиции в Норвегия. В един момент на умиротворение и чиста наслада от благата на живота става неволен свидетел на убийство в отсрещната сграда. Да се обади в полицията или не - това е въпросът! От този момент историята добива плътност и насищане с много философия и литература. По някакъв начин ми напомни “Нощен влак за Лисабон” на Паскал Мерсие. Донесе ми същите емоции и ме караше да препрочитам цели абзаци. Една от водещите теми в романа е ролята на литературата и изкуството в живота на човека. Новото и модерното срещу дългогодишни литературни образци и класики. Беше истинско удоволствие да бродя из мислите на професора!

“Тъй като не сме интелектуалци извън времето, ние сме интелектуалци от епохата на комерсиализма и сме дълбоко белязани от онова, което докосва сърцата на масите.”

“В края на краищата професор Андрршен изпитваше силни подозрения, че е отдал живота си на мещо, което беше обречено на гибел. Беше преподавател по литература, но вече не можеше да каже, че литературата има същата стойност, каквато си беше мислил, че има, когато я избра за свое поприще.”

“Професор Андершен полагаше ревностни усилия да разбере авангардното изкуство, което принадлежеше на нашето време.”

[Alice-Elizabeth (Prolific Reader Alice)]

DNF

The writing style really didn't work for me. Long paragraphs with ramble and slow pacing, not a fan!

[Sahiden35 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Çevirisi çok iyi.
Dag Solstad yine insanın iç hesaplaşmasını başlatan bir kırılma anı ile hikayesine bağlıyor okuyucusunu.

[Telma Castro · Rating 4 out of 5]

4,5⭐
O acontecimento inesperado que o professor Andersen presenciou foi gatilho para o fazer divagar sobre a passagem do tempo, sobre a modernidade, sobre literatura. Como sentença da sua consciência desassossegada, o professor começa a levantar uma série de questões existenciais. Enquanto deambula por Oslo questiona-se sobre o seu papel social, o lugar que ocupa no mundo e na insignificância que temos nesta vastidão do universo. Aí encontrei muitas semelhanças com o protagonista de Fome, de Knut Hamsun (1890), enquanto percorria as ruas com uma fome vital.
Nesta obra, o pecado de omissão do crime presenciado leva Andersen a questões divinas. Bem ao jeito nórdico, Deus assume destaque, na reconciliação com o seu comportamento.
Foi a minha estreia com o autor e recomendo muito.

[Héctor Genta · Rating 4 out of 5]

Erano ancora contro il potere, intimamente opposizionali, anche se ormai di fatto erano i pilastri della società.
Con questo libro Dag Solstad prosegue il cammino ideale iniziato con Timidezza e dignità, vale a dire una riflessione sul ruolo dell’intellettuale nella società norvegese contemporanea. Un ruolo che sembra aver perso le solide basi su cui fondava, di qui la sensazione di spaesamento, il sentirsi fuori posto, isolato e privo di prospettive del protagonista ( e anche dell’autore).
In quest’opera Solstad disegna una specie di dramma psicologico. È la vigilia di Natale quando il professor Andersen si trova ad assistere per caso ad un omicidio e la storia, nel senso di azione, è tutta qui, perché il resto del libro è dedicato a ragionare sul motivo per cui non sporge denuncia: una lunga serie di congetture che lo porterà molto lontano con le sue speculazioni ma che al tempo stesso non lo condurrà da nessuna parte.
Sa perfettamente che è suo dovere telefonare alla polizia, eppure non riesce a farlo. Perché il delitto ormai è avvenuto – si dice – e non può più essere impedito e lui non si sente di far arrestare un uomo (“Mi ripugnava essere quello che interviene perché giustizia sia fatta, lo immaginavo già tanto inorridito della propria azione che non volevo aggravare le sue sofferenze”). Eppure sa che il suo comportamento è sbagliato (“Il suo peccato d’omissione era indifendibile. Tutte le civiltà si fondano sul fatto che un simile atto sia indifendibile. È un principio assoluto, valido in ogni circostanza. Non rispettarlo faceva di lui un reietto, insieme all’assassino”) e nel suo immergersi nelle pieghe del ragionamento arriva – lui che non è assolutamente religioso - a tirar fuori Dio come arbitro della situazione.
Dalla riflessione sulla scelta di non denunciare l’omicidio, il professor Andersen passa a riflettere su se stesso e sui motivi per i quali avrebbe voluto legare il suo destino a quello dell’assassino: un goffo tentativo di essere ancora “alternativo”, diverso, non omologato? Probabilmente, ma al tempo stesso un pensiero quanto mai contraddittorio, considerato il ruolo centrale che riveste in quella società che pure critica.
Cosa è successo? Quand’è che le cose hanno cominciato a prendere questa direzione e lui a finire invischiato nei meccanismi di una macchina che voleva distruggere? Questo è a mio avviso il punto nodale intorno al quale si snoda il libro e a questo proposito molto interessanti sono le riflessioni di Solstad su come la modernità ha cancellato la coscienza storica riducendoci a vivere di presente o poco più e su come la letteratura moderna abbia perso la capacità di dialogare con quella del passato (“Negli Spettri come nelle tragedie greche. Il turbamento che può dare la creazione poetica. Era il turbamento che i borghesi di Kristiania avevano provato nella platea di un teatro, durante la prima rappresentazione di Spettri, lo stesso turbamento. […] Ma allora, perché noi quel turbamento l'abbiamo perduto?" […] "È molto peggio di quanto credessi", pensò. "Solo cent'anni ci separano da quel turbamento, che per tutta la storia dell'umanità è stato una condizione essenziale per una vita ricca di significato, e non siamo più capaci di afferrarlo. Così vicini, e tuttavia esclusi. È finita. Siamo esclusi da una delle possibilità più originali, più sostanziali della natura umana, documentata almeno per duemilacinquecento anni? Se questo è vero, vuol dire che sta nascendo una nuova tipologia umana e io, che lo voglia o no, ne sono un rappresentante, e anche i miei studenti, che nemmeno lo sanno", pensò il professor Andersen. "Poveri studenti miei", pensò, "che non lo sanno.").

[Sofia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rear Window with a different moral dilemma

We have a murder, an undiscovered crime and a choice. To tell or not to tell - what to do?

Whilst dithering about trying to decide what to do, to take action, Professor Andersen thinks a lot

he thinks about:

Being modern by being radical

and

How limited generational knowledge is.

This does not solve anything of course, because no action is taken from his end, he still dithers ......

Probably it easy to point a judgemental finger at him but would I be any better in the same situation? Fortunately for me I've never found myself in this kind of situation. The thing is, if I had indeed found myself in such a moral dilemma and done nothing, would I tell you about it, don't forget that nobody knows about the crime apart from the victim, the criminal and me, hmmmmmm.........................

[Paul Fulcher · Rating 4 out of 5]

A non materialistic dandy in an Italian suit, alone at a table by the window in a restaurant. Fifty five year old Professor Anderson, a representative of the small minority within his age group who could rightly claim to be a distinctive generation. Maybe the distinctive traits associated with their ways of acting and thinking could be traced back to a lifelong infatuation with the spirit of modernity, which had hit them and struck them down like lightning in the Sixties. The avant-garde. The overriding futuristic alliance between political radicalism and the avant-garde in art. It was lodged deeply in their mind, as though still lightning-struck, like a lifelong infatuation. How much was left of the radicalism now was difficult to say.

The central conceit of this novel - man sees, while gazing through his window, a woman seemingly being murdered but doesn't report it - is a set-up reminiscent of a short story or a Hitchcock movie, and initially rather distracts from the rest of the book.

However, where as as a murder mystery (who was she? what happened? and why?) the novel could be a disappointment, it instead excels as a psychological study of a mid-life crisis, and of the meaning of modernity.

The protagonist Pål Andersen "a professor of literature at the country's oldest university" analyses in detail his own motivation for not reporting what he saw, and this leads him in turn to examine his life and literary career>

Because I had witnessed the murder and been negligent with my eyes open, I had sunk into a state of desperation which had long ago transformed my action from an apparent revolt into a form of damnation.

In his university days, in the Sixties, he was part of a radical group of friends,an "alliance who shared radical political attitudes and a pre-occupation with (or polite regard for) avant-garde art, in other words, members of the special minority who represented the New, modernity, the distinctive modernity of their. Time, and who cultivated being against them.

But thirty years later they have become, in their 50s, establishment figures - "professors, medical consultants, celebrated actors, heads of administration, senior psychologists". Except they are still, at least in their minds, marked out as distinctive from their establishment peers by their "refusal to be pillars of society".:

They didn't feel they conformed: not to the authority, or rather duties, which they enacted, nor to the social group to which they belonged. They denied being what they were...They were still against them, the others, although they could scarcely be distinguished from them any longer...They continued to be against authority, deep inside they were in opposition, even though they were now, in fact, pillars of society who carried out the State's orders, and no one besides themselves (and old photographs from the year 2020) could perceive that they were anything other than State officials, part of the fabric, and the fact that most of them voted in elections for the ruling party would hardly surprise anyone other than themselves.

Another of their distinctive traits was their relationship to the good things in life. They ate as became their position, resided likewise, had holiday homes and cars and boats and ever-increasing affluence, but it meant nothing do they claimed, and rightly so...They behaved as though those material goods were encumbrances in their lives. They didn't define themselves through these objects which they enjoyed and which were there for one and all to see. This was particularly evident when one of them owned something that was extremely expensive or conspiciously striking...it would be explained as a personal deviation...Professor Andersen had another vice: a passion for italian suits. In his wardrobe hung five light-weight woolen Italian suits, bought in Italy, it's true, while there on literary conferences, so they didn't cost more than an ordinary suit at home, he made a point of stressing - a whopping lie by the way.

Professor Andersen realises that in reality the one of his friends who has remained "most loyal to the spirit of his youth" is the "one who on the face of it had changed the most", selling out by moving from a position as a public sector psychologist to a director of a private sector commercial advertising agency. He "was the man of the future. That made him unflinchingly radical, he claimed, because he was able to consider without prejudice, and not least without old prestige, the new problems which arose....because their radicalism had perhaps only been a chance expression of the spirit of modernity."

And he also comes to question the lasting impact of great literature, his life's passion; the very modernity in which he so passionately believes negates it.

'I'm in doubt, I'm so terribly in doubt about my own function in this age, which I really cannot stand any longer. The ravages of time, this is what gnaws at me, destroying everything. The ravages at time gnaw at even the most outstanding intellectual accomplishments and destroy them, making them pale and faded.'

'But you must be able to accept the patina of time,' his colleague said suddenly. The essential thing to recognise, and enjoy, was the noble patina which rested on a work of art which had lasted beyond it's own century.'

The suspicion that human consciousness was not sufficient to create works of art fit to survive. 'The patina is necessary to cover up this horrifying state of affairs, their own period. 'That is what I am afraid of,' said Professor Andersen, 'We have such a burning desire for something we are incapable of achieving, and we can't bear to face up to this lack of ability.

And he wonders whether the study of Ibsen, his life's work (and incidentally a preoccupation of Solstad) is really just a charade to cover up this truth; referring to Ibsen's Hedda Gabler, he tries to dispel his doubts:

"Which wasn't just the suspicion that the play does not stand a chance of returning its force in our own day and age, other than as a poor reflection of the original from 1890, but also to get rid of the cynical question which continually accompanied his inspired interpretations, and which ran like this, mockingly, over and over again: 'Is this really all that good, when all said and done? That a general's daughter who marries in a state of panic, and who gets bored, causes a damned lot of trouble for others, and then finally shoots herself? Is that something to apply oneself to, with all one's mental faculties and emotional intensity, for centuries?'

Or as it is put rather more crudely by the "murderer" when the Professor finally meets him:

If every Chinese were to eat an egg for breakfast the world would come to an end. It's as simple as that. 'When it has happened, these books can't tell you anything any more', he said pointing at the bookshelves which covered the walls in Professor Andersen's study. 'And you who have all of that in your head!' he exclaimed, 'Poor you!

Professor Andersen felt obliged to say: 'It might just be that one day it may give me a quiet sense of pleasure which will only be granted to a few people'.

Although Professor Andersen later admits to himself, when examining his dilemma as to why, months afterwards, he still hasn't done anything about what he saw:

All these conflicts he had read about, all those men under duress, at crossroads, forced to make a choice, metres and metres of books on the shelves dealt with just that, but these could not help him at all now. 'Oh, but I have learnt nothing,' he sighed, 'because there is nothing to learn.'

If, at times, Andersen descends into monologues reminscent a Thomas Bernhard narrator, in practice the tone is much lighter, almost playful, there is much more sympathy and less misantrophy in his view of his fellows, and he alternates between gloom and optimism rather than remaining permanently in the former condition.

Overall, an excellent novel, commendably translated by Agnes Scott Langeland, and I look forward to reading more of Dag Solstad's work.

[Bettie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bettie's Books

[iva° · Rating 3 out of 5]

ovo će vjerojatno biti više osvrt na važnost naslova, nego na samu knjigu.

1. ovoj knjizi privukao me naslov. nekako mi je bacao na dobar psihokrimić,
2. počinje u skladu s očekivanim (badnjak, profesor andersen, samac, kroz prozor svjedoči ubojstvu mlade žene u zgradi preko puta), ali ubrzo se mijenja smjer: sljedeća njegova dva mjeseca zbir su druženja s raznoraznim prijateljima/poznanicima i pratimo njegovo kretanje koje se daleko odmiče od događaja s početka: upadamo u njegov tok svijesti kroz kojeg dobivamo uvid u praktički cijeli njegov prošli i sadašnji život,
3. osjećam se preveslanom,
4. počinjem se ljutiti jer mi je na početku obećano nešto što je u skladu s mojim očekivanjima, a onda me preusmjerilo na skroz drugu stranu,
5. s obzirom da je tekst dobar (zna dag pisati), idem dalje sa čitanjem, ali oduševljenje mi splašnjava,
6. završavam knjigu, djelomično utučena,
7. sjedam napisati review,
8. tek bacim oko na originalni naslov knjige. "noć profesora andersena",
9. krenem misliti o važnosti naslova i manipulacijama koje nam se prijevodom mogu servirati.

knjiga "ubojica, i njegov tihi svjedok ": ***
knjiga "noć profesora andersena": ****
kužiš?

[Laurent De Maertelaer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Begeesterende bespiegeling over normen, waarden en geweten. De vereenzaamde Ibsen-kenner, professor Andersen is 55 jaar, leeft alleen in Oslo tussen zijn boeken en is er op kerstavond getuige van hoe in een flat aan de overkant van de straat een jonge vrouw wordt vermoord. Andersen gaat een gewetensstrijd aan, zoekt soelaas bij vrienden en in de drank, maar meldt het misdrijf niet (Andersen noemt dit zijn 'omissiedelict'). Solstad graaft diep in de gekwelde ziel, met lange, vlot lezende, beschouwende zinnen, vol panache en mensenkennis. Deed me vaak denken aan 'Dood in Venetië'.

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

This little novella from Norway has been tagged crime fiction by the library, but I suspect that most readers of the genre might be rather disappointed in it. Because although there is a murder right at the beginning of the book, the mystery which unfolds within its pages is the mystery of life. Professor Andersen’s Night is more about French existentialism than urban crime.

Alone in his apartment on Christmas Eve, Professor Andersen looks out through his window onto the streets of Oslo. He has made himself a special meal, has dressed up for the occasion, has opened the two presents he had received and placed underneath his ostentatious Christmas tree that no one else will see, and now has nothing to do but mull over a cognac and look out at other families enjoying their Christmas festivities. Four apartments in particular attract his attention: through their windows he can dimly see them in that familiar post-indulgence torpor and he feels a sense of rapport because, he thinks, they are all sharing in a ‘deep-rooted cultural ceremony’ even if most of them had no religious sensibility at all. The reader can almost feel the cognac coursing through his veins as his mind wanders over the irony of these quasi-religious celebrations and his tortuous rationalizations for his own conformity to them despite his unbelief….

This benign feeling of being at one with the fellow-citizens of Oslo is abruptly shattered when he witnesses the murder. A young woman comes to the window of the apartment opposite and a man steps up behind her, strangles her and then draws the curtains. Professor Andersen’s immediate response is to call the police. But he doesn’t do it.

To read the rest of my review please visit

http://anzlitlovers.com/2012/04/07/pr...

[Onur Y · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dag Solstad ile tanıştığıma çok memnun oldum. Profesör Andersen’in Gecesi, elli beş yaşındaki Andersen’in hayatı, sanat ve edebiyatı, kültür dünyasını ve geçmiş ve bugün arasındaki bağı sorguladığı kısacık bir roman. Solstad bu kitabında, tanık olduğu cinayet ile düşünceleri arasında gidip gelen Andersen karakteriyle birlikte, insan eylemlerini ve bunların ahlaksal boyutunu, bu eylemlerin Tanrı olan ilişkisini akıcı bir dille irdeliyor. Bir cinayet romanı olarak anılmasına rağmen bu eserin daha farklı janrlara ait olduğunu düşünüyorum. Severek okudum, şiddetle tavsiye ederim.

Ayrıca Banu Gürsaler Syvertsen’in çevirisi muazzam. Kitap sanki Türkçe yazılmış gibi.

[Takoneando entre libros · Rating 2 out of 5]

Es muy corto y se me ha hecho eterno.
Ha habido algunas partes que me han gustado, como el inicio y su relación con la navidad. O en la cena con sus amigos y el sarcasmo que usa para hablar de su posición social y económica.
Pero en general es muy pesado y vamos, que me he quedado igual con ese final tan abrupto.

[Murat Dural · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dağ Solstad kesinlikle çok iyi bir yazar. Cümlelerini, anlatım şeklini beğeniyorum. Tabii ki her şey kurgu değil ama bu kitapta gerçekten aradığımı bulamadım. (Spoiler!) Nasıl başlıyorsa o evhamlarla bitiyor. Buna rağmen gerçek bir yazarın Profesör Andersen'in hayatını, günlük düşüncelerini anlatan bu kitap cümleleriyle, anlatım tekniği ile beni büyüledi. Dediğim gibi, beklenti ile girince eserin kurgusu yetkinliğini hissettirmiyor. Hareket yok, düşünce akışı var ama o bile hareket edebilmemizi sağlayamıyor.

[ΑνναΦ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Giallo davvero sui generis, che ha l'introspezione psicologica e la narrazione lenta di un Javier Marìas. Il professore Andersen, protagonista di questo breve romanzo che forse sarebbe eccessivo definire un giallo, almeno non un giallo classico, è un uomo di mezza età, professionalmente appagato, benestante, divorziato e senza figli ma non per questo privo di una soddisfacente vita sociale, contornato com'è da colleghi e amici di lunga data, il quale si trova, del tutto fortuitamente, ad assistere ad un omicidio, un atto primordiale, come lo definisce lui stesso: la vigilia di Natale, vede nell' appartamento di fronte al suo, un uomo strangolare, di fronte alla finestra, una giovane donna bionda. Il primo impulso del professore, ovviamente, è quello di telefonare alla polizia, per denunciare l'accaduto, ma mentre solleva la cornetta del telefono, qualcosa lo ferma, nemmeno lui saprebbe dire che cosa esattamente, il timore di non essere creduto, di non saper dare informazioni precise, era buio, non ha visto in faccia l'assassino né la supposta vittima. E se non fosse accaduto nulla?

Inizia così la narrazione del percorso psicologico di un intellettuale benestante (esattamente il genere di individuo che Solstad vuole indagare, come si legge in un'intervista da lui rilasciata nel 1984, anno della pubblicazione del romanzo in Norvegia), abitante di un paese tra i più civili al mondo, che si confronta con il concetto di verità, di giustizia, di coscienza etica e civile.
I primi giorni lasciano il professore in preda a dubbi logici più che morali, cerca di capire chi abiti davanti a lui, se davvero sia stato compiuto un delitto, cerca di capire se sia stata denunciata la scomparsa di una giovane donna bionda, dubita persino dei suoi stessi occhi, delle sue facoltà percettive. Probabilmente questi sono solo escamotages con i quali cerca di impedire alla sua coscienza di emergere, impedimenti razionali di un intellettuale ateo, che pur tuttavia esclama, alla fine del suo logorante rimuginio, nemmeno un ateo può avere un Dio su misura!
L'emergere della sua coscienza etica, che sembra essere del tutto innata nell'essere umano, o che forse è quella presenza divina inconsapevole, non basta tuttavia a fargli denunciare l'accaduto, neppure dopo aver conosciuto il presunto assassino.

Quel che sembra emergere con chiarezza, è la critica alla società norvegese, già presente nel suo precedente romanzo «Tentativo di descrivere l'impenetrabile», critica soprattutto all'Intellighenzia norvegese contemporanea, e quindi anche un po' un'autocritica, prima stigmatizzata per l'incapacità di realizzare il sogno politico di una socialdemocrazia pienamente riuscita, qui per l'incapacità di essere classe e coscienza sociale a un tempo; la società norvegese contemporanea assurge a esempio della società contemporanea occidentale, chiusa nelle sue classi sociali incomunicabili e nel suo benessere, nel suo individualismo senza Dio e, alla fine, nella sua lunare solitudine. C'è tuttavia un segno di speranza, o forse sono io che l'ho voluto scorgere: la somatizzazione del logorio psicologico del professor Andersen, che alla fine del romanzo troviamo ammalato, in congedo dall'Università per “stress da troppo lavoro” è forse la crepa nell'individualismo estremo che può portare ad una nuova, più consapevole, umanità.

[Mark · Rating 5 out of 5]

...”and I know it,” he thought, “but I’m not doing anything about it. I ought to have phoned, for my own sake, if for no other reason. It’s curious. I know I should have done it, but I can’t. That is how it is, I simply cannot do it.”

What an intriguing and introspective little novel is Professor Andersen’s Night, by three time Norwegian Literary Critic’s Award winner, Dag Solstad. I say intriguing because it’s almost boring in it’s inaction with no neat resolutions, yet riveting in it’s underpinning plot that is joined together by meandering and insightful detours through a variety of topics. And I say introspective because it’s almost like an essay that addresses the human condition where humanity as opposed to heroics is the central focus. Solstad digs deeply into the psyche in Professor Andersen, as he presents a middle aged man grappling with the to and fro of his action and inaction.

There’s an existential feel that permeates the narrative, as Solstad digs deep into a Professor Andersen’s thoughts, self talk and inner narrative. We feel the dilemma and indecision that engulfs the Professor as he grapples with how to respond after witnessing a murder from his window in the apartment across the street. (I almost had echoes of The Woman in the Window....). The right course of action somehow seems obvious but we are drawn into Professor Andersen’s torment over his repossessed and lack thereof and the inner talk that goes back and forth in a self justifying and then self chastising manner. I found myself completely immersed in this inner dialogue, recognising my own way of being and finding myself beginning to observe my own inner dialogue during the day.

There is a real richness in this novel which is kind of essentially about not much. Interspersed between the ever present dilemma are lush passages about a range of divergent thoughts and topics. I found these insightful passages incredibly interesting especially the one where Professor Andersen is contemplating on the behaviours of his friends during a dinner party, reflecting on the value that they all placed on the good things in life, yet in a way that emphasised how much of an actual encumbrance these luxuries were. This kid of paradox is the theme that runs through this book from beginning to end.

Professor Andersen epitomises the paradox that is actually each one of us if we cared to slow down our thoughts and pull them out of the actions that we undertake. This meta awareness and self observance is beautiful in the hands of Solstad. This book is quite amazing. My style of literature completely. 5 stars.

[Onur · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dag Solstad gerçekten güçlü ve vizyonlu bir kalem. Az sayıda sayfayla, bölümsüz olarak ilerleyen konsantre anlatı; siyasi tarih, edebiyat felsefesi, teoloji ve hatta göstergebilim üzerine anekdotlarla zenginleşiyor. Entelektüel zihnin, gündelik hayatta akıl yürütme tarzına bir eleştiri/hiciv olarak yorumladım ben bu öyküyü. Bir edebiyat profesörünün tanık olduğu cinayete ilişkin açıklanması zor tavrı ve profesörün kendi tavrını dışarıdan bir aktör gibi ele alarak çözümlemeye çalışması oldukça ilginç bir okumaydı. Hikaye belli ki Alfred Hitchcock'un "Arka Pencere" (Rear Window) filminden ilhamla geliştirilmiş ama hikaye sadece bu olay benzerliğini fikirlerin aktarılması için bir temel olarak kullanıyor.

[Melda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Profesör Andersen karşı apartmanın bir dairesinde işlenen cinayetin her saniyesine tanık oluyor, polisi arama niyetiyle telefonun başına gidiyor ama polisi aramıyor ve olaylar (aslında daha çok düşünceler) gelişiyor. Daha hareketsiz bir kitap okuyacağımı sanmıştım ama beni yanılttı ve 100 sayfaya bunca şeyin sığdırılması aklımı kaçırmama sebep oldu. Beyefendi topu topu 100 sayfadan dev bir roman çıkaramazsınız ya.

[Özgür Balmumcu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solstad'ı severim. Bu kısa romanını da sevdim aslında. Romanın baş karakteri bir edebiyat profesörü olduğundan olay örgüsünde kendine yer bulan edebiyat tartışmaları bolca var. Bir hikâyenin akışına usulca serpiştirilmiş entelektüel tartışmaları okumayı seviyorum. Kısa roman ifadesini kullansam da, 98 sayfalık bir roman olsa da doyurucu bir eser. Zaten Yapı Kredi Yayınları'nın büyük sayfa yapısını, küçük puntolarını, dar satır aralıklarını hesaba katarsanız metin bitmiyor hissi bile veriyor. Karakterin tanık olduğu olayın karakteri ne kadar gerdiğini satırlarda hissetmek mümkün. Bu açıdan atmosferi de iyi kuruyor roman aslında. Fakat bunu yeterince kullanıyor mu, işte bu noktada şüphelerim var. Karakterin tanık olduğu olayda kilitlenip kalması da, bunun gerçek olup olmadığı da, olayın üzerine gidişinin kendisi için oluşturabileceği riskler de hakkıyla işlenmiyor gibi geldi bana. Ben olsaydım karakterin şahit olduğu olay acaba zihninin ona oynadığı bir oyun mu sorusunu biraz daha deşerdim. Olayın üzerine gittiğinde oluşan bıçak sırtı atmosfere biraz daha kalem oynatır, okurda tehlike algısını deşerdim. Bunlar yerine Solstad finalde "bir anda" teolojik tartışmalara yönelmeyi tercih ediyor. Açıkçası roman boyunca izlerine hiç rastlamadığım bir tartışmaya finalde girmesi bende biraz gökten zembille inmiş etkisi yarattı. Hatta bir şeyi mi atlıyorum diyerek son bölümü tekrar okudum. Solstad bizi karakterinin zihnine sokuyor sokmasına ama o zihindeki bağlantıları çok sıkı kurabildiği kanaatinde değilim. Buna rağmen Solstad okumak keyifli, doyurucu benim için.

[Esther · Rating 1 out of 5]

Madre mía. Qué aburrimiento.