Torborg Nedreaas’s controversial, 1940s novel is riddled with contradictions and ambiguities – it’s no wonder it’s sparked a series of furious debates. Considered culturally and socially significant, it’s a Norwegian classic: decades after it was written, it resurfaced during Norwegian women’s struggle for reproductive rights particularly access to safe, legal abortion. But, despite that, I’m not convinced women are Nedreaas’s primary concern here. Their experiences are inextricably entangled with a broader investment in exposing the harsh conditions of Norway’s working-class.
After a nail-biting, noir-ish beginning this morphs into an unusual frame narrative – a story about a story about a story. In a Norwegian city, a troubled man’s searching for someone he once met, a woman who spent a single night at his apartment before vanishing. The bulk of Nedreaas’s novel is taken up with what happened that night, it’s centred on a seduction but not the one you’d expect. Instead, the brief interaction between this man and this nameless woman resembles scenes from a confessional. The woman’s desperate to unburden, to talk about her past, to have the man acknowledge her every trauma and shameful secret.
At fifteen, not long after WW1, the woman fell for Johannes an older teacher, the start of an on-off relationship that shaped her existence for almost twenty years. Their affair made her an outcast in her rural, mining community. Over the course of time the woman’s father died from a disease caused by working down the mines and her remaining family was plunged into poverty. The woman struggled to simply survive, nearly dying from the aftereffects of a backstreet abortion and later a pregnancy self-terminated with knitting needles – for a piece from the 1940s Nedreaas’s recreations of these incidents are exceptionally explicit.
But, although power’s key here – who has it, who hasn’t - this isn’t a conventional Hardyesque portrait of a working-class girl succumbing to fate and voracious men. Nedreaas’s anonymous woman is no Tess, she has a degree of agency and her own intense, sexual desires. She’s undone, not purely by individuals, but by systems and institutions; a mere cog in the machinery of a relentlessly unequal, capitalist society. Its hypocrisy, its destructive values reinforced by the established church with its insistence on the primacy of marriage, the nuclear family and the domestication of women. All of which is then mirrored in the beliefs and negative reactions of her community.
Nevertheless, there’s a sense that Nedreass, a lifelong communist, is asking us to judge the woman’s choices. Her framing of the woman’s obsessive love for Johannes reads like an object lesson in false consciousness, a delusion that both masks and denies wider political realities. This is reinforced through the woman’s friendship with former political agitator Morck. He’s a washed-up musician who sometimes reads like a stand-in for the author – Nedreaas trained as a classical pianist. Morck’s growing despair seems to echo Nedreaas’s personal frustrations about the “failure” of large swathes of Norway’s working-class to embrace radical alternatives – it seems telling the narrative’s most identifiable historical reference is to the Russian Revolution. Nedreaas’s structuring of her material highlights issues around representation, what stories are told and who gets to tell them. Yet, I found Nedreaas’s take on the working-class oddly distancing and distanced, bourgeois even - I frequently felt Nedreaas’s characters were little more than vehicles promoting a particular political standpoint.
These impressions were reinforced by Nedreass’s take on pregnancy and abortion. Literary critics have noted that it sometimes coincides with a contemporary pro-choice stance but can also verge on pro-natalist - there’s an ongoing emphasis on the sentience of the unborn. Moreover, these foetuses are always assumed to be boys – their loss that much more tragic because of their future potential as workers? The woman at the heart of Nedreaas’s novel grieves after each termination, yearning for children but keenly aware of the condemnation “invited” by being an unmarried mother. However, I don’t think Nedreaas’s portrayal of the woman’s actions and “maternal” dilemmas is randomly inconsistent. Her stance roughly aligns with the position held by the Norwegian Communist Party (NKP) – she was a member when she wrote this. The NKP supported the decriminalisation of abortion in favour of improving the economic and social status of working-class women, as well as combatting discrimination against “unwed” mothers. Nedreaas also appears to be restating aspects of Bolshevik policies in the Soviet Union during the 1920s - women had access to abortion but motherhood was framed as their highest calling; to be strongly encouraged and enabled.
I had very mixed reactions to this. As a snapshot of a time and place, and as a cultural and historical document, it’s undeniably fascinating. But as a novel it’s wildly uneven. Its very visual, lyrical images of nature form a commentary on the restrictions and rigid, oppressive conservatism of Norwegian society. Nedreaas’s structure falls somewhere between theatrical two-hander and prolonged monologue – which could be a bit wearing. It also undermined the notion that we’re eavesdropping on a spontaneous outpouring, underlining its artificiality. At times the woman functions like a kind of working-class everywoman striving to ensure that the interplay between capitalism and gender isn’t consigned to the margins of political debate. The tone varies between feverish and didactic, and the plot can lean towards melodrama – so much so it reminded me of nineteenth-century morality tales. Translated by Bibbi Lee.
Thanks to Netgalley and Penguin Modern Classics for an ARC