Jag vägrar dö nyfiken

In my early days in Sweden, I tried to get my sambo to watch Swedish TV with me to help me pick up the language. It ended up being a half-hearted effort at best (my sambo isn’t really one for Swedish TV), and I don’t know if it ever helped my language acquisition as such, but it at least helped me recognize a few Swedish celebrities. One of them was Babben Larsson, and since I’d always thought she was funny, I was happy to snag a copy of her book Jag vägrar dö nyfiken (English: I refuse to die curious) when it appeared in my neighborhood buy-nothing group. This was two years ago, so it also definitely counts to working through my own library at home!

Jäg vägrar dö nyfiken isn’t a chronologically ordered life story, or the journey into show business, or an account of triumph over anxiety and burnout; it’s a loose collection of anecdotes and observations that travel back and forth in time and theme. It isn’t filled with jokes, exactly, but the tone is still lighthearted and there are quotes from her stand-up routines sprinkled throughout.

It’s an easy read, it’s fun, a little bit like sitting down with your cool aunt and hearing her stories about the crazy stuff she did when she was your age. An updated version came out in 2023, apparently, but I read the first edition from 2010 so I can only comment on that. An overall lovely time!

No et moi

I’m unsure how Delphine de Vigan’s No et moi ended up on my TBR. The best I can surmise is that it was mentioned in an issue of Karavan, which is where I get most of my French language recommendations. But as luck would have it, someone in the neighborhood buy-nothing group was giving away a copy in French and I was the only one who wanted it.

No et moi is the story of what happens when Lou, a precocious 13-year-old, befriends a young homeless woman named Nolwenn, or just “No.”

Spoilers abound here, even though the book has been out for nearly twenty years, because I think the spoilers matter a lot in the experience and because the ending is what I want to talk about the most. Assume the spoilers apply for the 2010 movie, too, though I haven’t seen it.

I mentioned in my international WhatsApp book club that I was reading this book, now that I’d finished Varats olidliga lätthet, and another member asked me what I thought of it, since she’d read it too. I was at the halfway point of the book when I answered:

So far I’d say it’s only okay, it feels a little…saccharine? I like how she writes, Lou is a very charming narrator, but the Feel Good vibe makes me dubious.

Because at this point in the book, everything is going right. No helps Lou with her presentation on young homeless women, and despite her skyrocketing anxiety Lou aces it. Lou’s parents agree to let No move in with them and they love her. She’s able to help coax Lou’s mother out of the severe depression that she fell into after the loss of a younger daughter to SIDS. The process of helping No also brings Lou into closer contact with her crush and popular boy Lucas, who just so happens to have an entire apartment more or less to himself following an implausible series of events: a father who ran away to Brazil and a mother who decided to move in with another man but occasionally returns to the apartment to see her son. (This is the part of the review where I’m most likely to have stuck my foot in my mouth, because it’s always this kind of happenstance that actually happens in real life, even if it sounds absurd in a book.) Lou has skipped a couple of grades—and I think Lucas had to repeat a year or two?—so he’s old enough to quasi-responsibly live by himself, but still. The convenience is a bit much.

Then the shit hits the fan. No finds a not-entirely-legal job cleaning at a hotel, which often ends up with her working extra hours in the bar, and soon she’s back to drinking and (presumably) prostitution. Lou even catches her stealing some of her mother’s pills, but says nothing. No looks up her mother and tries to visit her, but the childhood trend of rejection continues and No’s mother refuses to open the door to her daughter. The bottom finally falls out when Lou and her parents go to visit a freshly divorced aunt. Without the structure of family life, without Lou, No tailspins. She fails to call and check in with them after a few days, the phone goes unanswered, and they come home to find No in such a state that Lou’s parents ask her to leave. From their perspective, No isn’t a safe person for their young daughter to be around.

Lucas to the rescue! They move No in with him, but it’s rough work keeping No’s presence hidden from the weekly cleaning lady. No’s condition isn’t improving, if anything it’s getting worse, and finally Lucas’s mother cottons on that something is happening and announces a visit. No calls Lou and begs her to help her with her plan to move to Ireland. By now, Lou’s relationship with her parents is at an all-time low. She’s been lying to them about where she’s been after school, and despite her mother’s return to relative normalcy, the relationship between mother and daughter is still frosty and stilted. From Lou’s perspective, her mother doesn’t love her, never treats her with warmth or affection or encouragement. Might as well go with No!

This trip to Ireland has long been in the making. No’s plan has always been to move there to find her crush? childhood sweetheart? Loïc, who she claims works in a bar and lives in a fantastic country manor and has been writing her piles and piles of letters about his life, encouraging her to come join him. Now, she tells Lou, she’s finally saved up enough money to go. They spend the day shopping (to Lou’s misgivings, as she expects No is overplaying how much money she actually has) and then finally take the subway to gare Saint-Lazare, where No tells Lou they’ll switch trains to continue their journey to Ireland. Instead, No ditches Lou, who has to walk all the way back home.

No completely drops off the face of the earth. Lou finally has the relationship she wants with her mother. Lucas and Lou find out from a friend of No’s that Loïc never sent her a single letter; she only found out where he was working by happenstance. The book ends with a kiss between Lucas and Lou.

The mood whiplash with the visit to Lou’s aunt was impossible for me to square with what came before. So much in the early story defied expectations, even reality, that you start to think you’re in for some light feel-good fare. Then I expected some friction when No moved in with Lou, and that the conflict would be learning to adjust to a new life and new routines, or maybe struggling with guilt, but no: everything is perfect. By the time No starts to struggle, your only thought is, ah hah, finally, here’s the conflict, but all of the other problems in the book so far have been solved so this one will be, too.

No et moi won the prix des Libraires, so it clearly has some cultural cachet. And I want to stress that it’s written beautifully. de Vigan captures the voice of a gifted, anxious child perfectly, striking that difficult balance between intellectual and emotional capacity without condescension on the one hand or making them into a tiny adult on the other. After all, no matter how bright a 13-year-old is, they’re still 13 years old. But the limits of Lou’s first-person perspective is maybe part of what makes the mood whiplash so strong. We learn, eventually, about No’s traumatic childhood, and so we can assume that her homelessness and her alcoholism are connected to those early years, but being told that isn’t the same as being in No’s head or living in No’s own feelings. Nor do we even see previews of that trauma in the beginning; there’s no foreshadowing of what’s to come. Instead No just drops in like a cursed fairy godmother to bring Lou everything she wants before disappearing into the ether.

Varats olidliga lätthet

I was particularly interested in the International WhatsApp Book Club selection for August, The Unbearable Lightness of Being (which I read in Swedish: Varats olidliga lätthet), because it’s a long-time favorite of my Bloomsday book buddy and in all the years I’ve known him he’s proven to have impeccable taste. Once again, he didn’t let me down!

Lätthet follows four interconnected people around the time of the Prague Spring and some years beyond: Tomas, his wife Tereza, his friend and lover Sabine, and Sabine’s lover Franz. The timeline is slightly disjointed: we learn about a character’s death in one section, and then the next section will circle back to the same character several years before and follow what happened to them up until their death. All of this is held together with the glue of intense philosophizing, either on the part of the perspective character or of a nameless and unconnected first-person narrator who we can only assume is the author and therefore Milan Kundera himself interjecting. (As opposed to the perspective-shifting in Lol V. Stein, where the first-person narrator is most decidedly not Duras or any otherworldly author.)

The story and the characters exist solely as case studies or tools for Kundera to engage in philosophizing, but he still manages to capture distinct and nuanced personalities rather than flat stereotypes. There’s nothing more exhausting in a book than a blowhard author using characters as puppets in little morality plays; perhaps the difference between Kundera and a blowhard is that Kundera raises and debates questions he doesn’t seem to have an answer to, while a blowhard almost by definition has decided they have all the answers.

The Swedish translation was from Ulla Bruncrona, and I have nothing to add about the translation itself. Mostly I want to remark that out of nowhere J. M. G. Le Clézio has decided to haunt me. I’d never heard of him until a book friend mentioned him last week and it’s been a bit of Baader-Meinhof phenomenon since. The day after that conversation, I finally got around to starting a French novel I had picked up weeks ago from our neighborhood buy-nothing group, only to be greeted with an epigraph from Le Clézio, and now in writing this up, I’ve learned that Ulla Bruncrona is his primary Swedish translator. Well then, universe. I’ll give Le Clézio priority in my TBR.

Hematom

To absolutely no one’s surprise, on my first day in Kiruna I managed to find the local book store. Despite the pile of reading I had with me, I couldn’t resist picking up a couple of books from the local authors and topics shelf. One of them was Hematom by Per Teofilusson, native to Malmfälten but now living in Stockholm. It was small and short and the text on the back was intriguing so I figured, why not?

Wuthering Heights was required reading in school and we all hated it. Everyone was so miserable and bitter and cruel to each other. But now as an adult who’s tasted misery and bitterness and cruelty—and who’s had to endure Jane Austen, whose twee novels of manners are even more insufferable than unrelenting unhappiness—I have to say I get it now. I think. Wuthering Heights is on my list of high school reads to come back to with my adult perspective and experiences, to see if my opinion has changed.

I think I need to do the same with Hematom. Bokliv gives the following (AI-generated?) summary:

The book examines changes in the body as well as emotions through a personal, contemplative narrative.

A profound novel about life’s complexity.

Examines human emotions and the mysteries of the body.

(My translation from Swedish.)

I did not find profundity or mystery or complexity in these brief, autofictive-feeling texts. Here and there I glimpsed moments of genuine tenderness and pathos, when Teofilusson described aging, isolation, or fatherhood—but they were few and far between, greatly outnumbered by wistful fantasies about younger women’s bodies. Since I’m closer in gender and in age to the women on the sidewalk or subway he’s constantly sexualizing, it’s hard to ignore those moments. But maybe if I come back to Hematom in 26 years, they’ll hit differently.

Livet måste ha mening

I won’t be spending too much time* on Viktor Frankl’s Livet måste ha mening (translated from German and English by Margareta Edgardh), and that will more be focused on how the book is discussed in a broader context than the content of the book itself. Bluntly put, I’m not diplomatic enough to feel confident leveraging criticism against a Holocaust memoir. It feels more appropriate to discuss the context around it.

I usually hear this book described as Frankl’s account of “psychological discoveries” that he made while in a concentration camp, usually given as Auschwitz, and the best historical evidence seems to suggest this was not the case. It’s more likely that he had already refined his idea about meaning and logotherapy as a civilian, and that it was a pre-established framework for dealing with the horrors rather than an inspired response to them.

While Frankl refers to Auschwitz several times, he was only held in depot there a few days before being sent to Dachau (he  also spent time at Thereseinstadt). The bulk of the testimony he provides, therefore, comes from those two camps and not Auschwitz. It feels petty to name this, because it’s not like any of the concentration camps were luxury resorts, but neither Dachau nor Thereseinstadt were built to be the kind of murder factory that Auschwitz was designed to be. This isn’t to say that people didn’t die there, because they absolutely did—but Auschwitz was next level. Indeed, one of the few (perhaps only) times Frankl brings up Dachau, he specifically describes the relief of himself and his fellow prisoners at being sent there because they know their chances for survival will be much greater than at Auschwitz.

If you go into the book knowing this facet of Frankl’s biography (which I did), you can’t help but be struck by his presentation of things. He’s certainly honest about being sent away from Auschwitz, like I mentioned, but the timeline is quite muddied and Dachau itself can’t be mentioned by name more than once or twice; in a couple of other places he only makes oblique reference to “the camp where I was freed.” Auschwitz, on the other hand, comes up over and over again. A dozen, two dozen times at least.

(Timothy Pytell goes into this in detail on his blog as well as his biography of Frankl, Viktor Frankl’s Search for Meaning.)

Given that, I think the takeaway people have from this book is that the horrors of Auschwitz led Frankl to develop his theory. That’s the context I was referring to earlier, and I think it’s a misunderstanding of what the book is. I also think this misunderstanding is a driving factor behind Livet måste ha mening‘s perennial, perpetual success. A therapist recommended it to me, for crying out loud.

I also don’t think Frankl’s idea of logotherapy, with meaning as the underlying driver, is as universally applicable as he presents it. First of all, his biography seems to flatly contradict his main thesis. Frankl periodically comes back to his drive to recover his lost psychology treatise as the “meaning-maker” (my word, not his) that fueled his will to live, that allowed him to survive the camps. But in just as many places he mentions how the favor of the barracks capo had saved him from certain doom, or how sheer dumb luck kept him from ending up in the wrong shipment, wrong train car, wrong work detail, etc. Neither of those had anything to do with his meaning, or even anything under his control.

The tension between meaning and luck aside, meaning according to logotherapy rests on three pillars, or rather is derived from at least one of the following options: accomplishing a great feat, experiencing something sublime (it seems to be love for another person, but sometimes the language Frankl uses, at least in translation, makes it sound like “an experience” could count), or suffering. The first two seem harmless enough (though I wonder, does a stalker in the throes of obsession have a sound, morally acceptable meaning to their life, when the object of their focus might well be living in terror? hm), but telling my loved ones with chronic pain to find some vague, muddy “meaning” to their suffering would land somewhere between insulting, condescending, infuriating and ignorant. I would never dream of it. It doesn’t help, either, that Frankl is very vague on what “meaning” is. Fair enough that we all have to find it for ourselves, but it would be nice to have a definition or examples or guiding prompts or something.

He throws us a couple bones, at least, when it comes to suffering. One example is a young man who becomes paralyzed after a diving accident at 17 and decides to study psychology as a result, obtaining a degree and son. According to Frankl, the young man assured him that he would have never pursued psychology otherwise, and that he found his life so much more rewarding and enriching than it was before. To my mind, that doesn’t seem like meaning in suffering, but meaning from a great feat. The great feat just happened to be preceded (and perhaps caused?) by great suffering. The other example is a grieving rabbi who survived the Holocaust, while his wife and children did not. According to Frankl, the rabbi came to therapy distraught at the idea that he would be unable to be reunited with his loved ones in the afterlife because they died a martyr’s death, elevating them above whatever death he can hope to achieve.* Frankl then suggests that surely the suffering the rabbi is experiencing now on Earth is something that will purify him and make him worthy of seeing his loved ones again. The rabbi thanks him and leaves Frankl’s office with a new framework for his grief (so we are told). While I think this is a much better example of meaning in suffering, it’s still meaning predicated on particular religious ideas, including about the afterlife. It was the right answer to suffering for a religious Jewish man, and Frankl was wise to make that connection, but there’s no way pointing to the afterlife or God can be the right answer for everyone. Obviously it doesn’t work for atheists; it also doesn’t work for belief systems where memories and consciousness don’t survive death.

So in addition to being uncomfortable with the popular misunderstanding of Livet måste ha mening‘s factual origins, I also have to admit to being uncomfortable with the advice and life philosophy Frankl advocates for, since it seems to me they can easily be irrelevant, or even do as much harm as good. Indeed, a member of my philosophy study group found a study suggesting that meaning, even as Frankl describes it, might in some cases be a net negative:

The findings have demonstrated that search for meaning appears to be uniformly harmful with relation to overall burnout and its composite dimensions.

I’m glad I read it, I guess, because now I can say that I have. Now I know what one of the twentieth century’s most popular self-help books contains, for whatever that’s worth. Mostly it reminded me that we read Elie Wiesel’s Night in ninth grade, and that I don’t remember much about it except that I didn’t like it. I wonder if I might feel differently about it now.

*The final wordcount of this blog post determined that this statement was a lie.

**This is my memory of Frankl’s description. I’m not read up enough on Jewish theology to know exactly what I’m talking about or to know if Frankl’s getting it right, either.

Le ravissement de Lol V. Stein

Marguerite Duras, my beloved weirdo! I can always count on you when I’m falling behind in my French reading.

On its face, a simple chain of events: Lol V. Stein, a bit of an aloof and withdrawn odd duck, falls madly in love with Michael Richardson, who abandons her at the town ball for an older woman. Lol is heartbroken and suffers a nervous breakdown, but eventually marries Jean Bedford and moves away. They have three daughters together, and while Lol has kept a very strictly regimented life throughout their entire marriage, Jean is always worried that Lol hasn’t fully recovered from the incident. Ten years later, they return to Lol’s childhood home for Jean’s job, and Lol manufactures a meeting with her schoolgirl friend Tatiana. The two of them fell out of touch after  Lol’s breakdown, largely due to the orchestrations of Lol’s mother, so they haven’t spoken in ten years. Tatiana is now married to a surgeon, and having an affair with one of his subordinates, Jacques. Lol and Tatiana have an awkward reunion, at turns warm and cruel, and things reach their peak when Lol and Jacques travel to the resort town where Lol had been jilted all those years ago. The two of them spend the night there, Jacques is in love with Lol, Lol wants him to continue seeing Tatiana, maybe he also loves Tatiana too, Lol kind of spies on them during their assignations, it’s a mess because that’s all Marguerite Duras writes and I’m here for it. And as usual the ending leaves nothing settled: Jacques is waiting for Tatiana at their usual no-tell motel, Lol is hiding in the rye field outside their window, that’s it, the end!

The fun part of this is how Duras plays with perspective. Much of the story is presented as a third-person omniscient narrator, even though the narrative never lets us forget that it’s actually a first-person account. Sometimes the narrator is involved in what’s happening in the story, sometimes they relay what other people have told them, sometimes they state flat-out that they’re imagining or hypothesizing. The “reveal,” such as it is, takes some time and gives everything a bit of extra tension.

The parallel translation I had with me was Lol V. Steins hänförelse, by the controversial Katarina Frostenson. It’s hard to think of her anymore without also thinking about the Swedish Academy scandal, Jean-Claude Arnault and corruption. Is that entirely fair? Who’s to say? But speaking of, now seems like a good moment to recommend Matilda Voss Gustavsson’s The Club. It’s still commercially unavailable in English but a sample translation seems to be floating around in the literary circles, so maybe one day it’ll be picked up.

Resan till Armenien

Osip Mandelstam’s Resan till Armenien (Journey to Armenia) was the first book off my vacation TBR and I managed to finish it in one day of dedicated reading. It’s a short book, but it required a lot of my attention—or at least more attention than I could spare back in February. There were more than a few references to geography, literature, and Soviet history I needed to look up, in addition to the occasional Swedish word.

As I mentioned, this one was a recommendation from a book friend so it was at the top of the list. When I texted him that I’d finally finished, he replied: “Read it again. It’s a new book every time.”

It’s not only a new book every time; it’s a new book in every edition. Since the actual travelogues are so short, publishers seem to like to bundle them with some of Mandelstam’s other writing. My Swedish edition, for example, includes his “Armenia” cycle of poems, which aren’t part of the English translation available on Archive.Org. The newer 2018 edition from Penguin includes “Conversation About Dante,” which my Swedish edition lacks.

I also joked with my friend that the title seems like a bit of a misnomer, because it’s about more than just Armenia—it includes reflections on French painters and Moscow neighborhoods and evolution.  I suppose that’s part of what makes it a new book every time. But the bulk of the text is, indeed, travels in Armenia, a notebook of observations, images, impressions and thoughts from a poet who was terrified that he might be losing his gift. In a lot of ways it’s kind of the inverse of Krleža’s Journey to Russia: Krleža is an outsider visiting Russia, while the Polish-Russian Mandelstam is leaving Russia to travel in the Caucuses; where Krleža deals in thorough-going concrete arguments, narratives, and strong opinions, Mandelstam’s pieces are brief, moody, and image-heavy. (This didn’t stop him from getting in trouble with censors, but who didn’t get in trouble with Soviet censors?)

The Swedish translation is from the award-winning Russian-Swedish translator Bengt Samuelson, and I don’t have much comment there. I wondered if his other Russian translations included Idioten, the only Russian novel I’ve attempted in Swedish, but no.

In short, a difficult book to summarize like I normally do for these dorky little book reports! Though I only got three or so hours of sleep last night, so that’s probably not helping either. But Resan till Armenien is so short, and so many of the episodes are so striking, that you don’t lose anything by reading it. Or even reading it again—a new book every time.

Filterworld

If I find myself somewhere bored and bereft of a book, I like to dig back through my TBR and find something I can get as an ebook from one of my libraries. This is how I came to be sitting in my favorite neighborhood haunt, drinking a beer and reading Kyle Chayka’s Filterworld. In brief, Filterworld is a snappy history of how recommender algorithms have come to shape our Internet, and our broader cultural, experience. It covers a lot of the same territory as Chokepoint Capitalism, though with less pissed-off creator-side rage in favor of a more anxious user-side perspective. “Do I actually like the things I like?” is Chayka’s recurring question.

Chayka’s proposed solution to The Algorithms, to the extent it is a workable solution (and to the extent he even calls it a solution), is to slow down our focus:

If there is a simple answer to breaking down Filterworld, then it might be something like a version of the slow food movement, as it was popularized in the 1990s, but for culture…We need to bring that same understanding of sustainability and specificity to the way that we consume and support culture online, too. Resistance to algorithmic frictionless requires an act of willpower, a choice to move through the world in a different way. It doesn’t have to be a dramatic one.

He then gives the example of visiting a local cafe that he’s always passed but never visited because he didn’t find it appealing; in his own words, it wasn’t “Instagrammable”:

I felt both bemused and sad that this was a rare experience, something like visiting a museum. Our phones and feeds absorb so much of our attention and dominate so many of our preferences that stepping out of their conveniently predetermined paths and choosing an experience not immediately engaging feels somewhat radical. This applies to fashion choices as well as food, which television shows we watch, which books we read, which furniture we buy, where we travel. If we shift our priorities away from the space of algorithmic digital platforms and once more to the physical world, in which everything is not instantly evaluated in terms of engagement, we might find ourselves building not only better culture but better communities, relationships, and politics as well.

I’m cutting to the chase partly because that’s what struck me most about the book. Chayka is describing an experience that I know a lot of people have, and yet that I don’t (not entirely). I only begrudgingly acquired a Twitter as a means of freelance self-promotion, but never became hooked on the platform and stopped Tweeting as soon as I no longer needed to promote myself. I’ve never used Spotify as my primary music library or my means of discovering new music. My partner periodically subscribes to Netflix, and we’ve been known to occasionally bingewatch particular series or short docuseries, but the last one was An American Conspiracy: The Octopus Murders back in 2024. I never rely on Yelp or similar to find cafes, or online travel agencies to plan my international vacations. I post to Instagram but am not really invested in comments or hearts or followers. Only posts, no reels, maybe the occasional story. Admittedly, I can get sucked into watching a comedy reel about Philly if the feed finds me in a moment of weakness, but I have no desire to follow those accounts. I do not, and will never, have TikTok. The only thing I will cop to is a YouTube history that is probably wildly schizophrenic, since I use it for background music while I’m working and my tastes run from symphonic to techno to “this song popped into my head when I woke up and now I need to listen to it on repeat all morning or I won’t get any work done.”* And while I never sign into my Google account on either of my work computers, I’m sure that nonetheless the algos have managed to connect my legal person to those dozens, possibly hundred or so plays of “Takin’ Care of Business” that one day last February.

Every time Chayka observed his algorithmic behavior or reactions in a state of what I’d call “vaguely befuddled despair,” I couldn’t help but think, “But you could just…not.” So in the end, when his solution is to, indeed, “just…not,” I didn’t find it much of a revelation.

Chayka has an art history background, so it’s no surprise that what I found most compelling (and what he spends the most time on) is how once again the medium has shaped the message: “BookTok” and the proliferation of autofiction in literary bestsellers, the lack of key changes in pop music, art exhibits so specifically designed for Instagram selfies that they become meaningless otherwise. Chokepoint Capitalism outlines the structural inequities of such recommender systems, but Filterworld also reminds us that they’re also having direct influence on the culture itself—one that exists for all of us, regardless of whether any given one of us subscribes to Spotify, Netflix, etc.

It with immense satisfaction, then, that I can wrap up this post by pointing out that the algorithms weren’t the ones to bring me to this book. A guest on a podcast recommended it; that podcast in turn had been recommended to me by a friend. It was human connections all the way through, made specifically and deliberately by people to make a point. The podcast guest was on to talk about social media generally, and felt it relevant to mention; my friend recommended the podcast because the show often touches on things that he knew we both were interested in. I think Chayka would be happy to hear that.

* Here I have to say that I’m grateful to Chayka for highlighting the streaming service Idagio as a better alternative than Spotify for classical music. The platform detects and counts plays differently, using calculations more appropriate for longer classical pieces than three-minute pop hits, and recommendations are picked by human experts with care and deliberation rather than statistically driven recommenders. I might go ahead and subscribe once I’m back from vacation, since this post is going live while I’m at a cabin in Kiruna.

Grupp Krilon

Eyvind Johnson’s Group Krilon went on my TBR after I stumbled onto a panel about him at last year’s Stockholms Litteraturmässan. An anti-Nazi allegory and condemnation of Sweden’s policy of neutrality during WWII? Writing allegorical fiction to circumvent censorship in the press? Sign me up!

And yet, Grupp Krilon would have languished on my TBR for a good while longer if the Storygraph TBR challenge I signed up for in  January didn’t include a prompt about reading the first book in a series. Given the other prompts, and what seems to be fair assumptions to make about the reading habits of most of the people using Storygraph or Goodreads, this prompt seemed to be an acknowledgement of more recent popular fiction, seemingly endless series of novels as constant content. The total opposite of what I usually read, in other words—especially with the break up of the Austin Feminist Sci-Fi Book Club, which had been one of the few tethers I had to new books. We read the first book in a few series that I either continued reading (A Memory Called Empire, Gideon the Ninth) or intend to continue reading (Ancillary Justice).

Did I have anything to fit the bill I had added to my TBR myself, though?

As I scrolled through, I saw in small text under the title that Grupp Krilon was labeled “Krilon #1”. Bingo! Not necessarily the kind of book the creator had in mind with the prompt, probably, but what did that matter for me?

On a plot level, Grupp Krilon circles around a group of friends in Stockholm during World War II. The original core of the group is the protagonist Krilon and Hovall, who meet on a streetcar and then strike up a friendship at the tobacco and newspaper stand. Other men are quickly drawn into their company: first Minning, a widowed carpenter who Hovall was on his way to meet when he crossed paths with Krilon; then the cousins Odenarp and Arpius, the builder Frid, and the surgeon Segel. They meet every Sunday to discuss heady and important topics, a rotating dinner club.

One Sunday evening, on the way home from such a meeting, Frid has a moment straight out of “Once in a Lifetime” (this is not my beautiful house! this is not my beautiful wife!) and decides to retreat to the summer cabin he’s been restoring to contemplate the anxieties of his ascendancy into the middle class. He sneaks out without telling his wife, she panics and calls Krilon. Not the police—she doesn’t want to involve them. Krilon calls the rest of the group and decides to organize a search effort.

The search effort is half-hearted at best. Things come up for some of the members: Arpius is out of town, Segel’s ex-wife Ann needs emergency surgery, Minning’s daughter has been kidnapped. Odenarp and Hovall make a search of different neighborhoods, while Krilon stays at home to call around, including (I assume) the private detective firm he’s hired. Frid, meanwhile, has two squatters living in his cabin. Even Odenarp and Hovall have such bizarre experiences on that first night of searching that their allegiance to Krilon is sorely tested.

Because Krilon, as it turns out, has enemies. And they’re not above trying to work through Krilon’s friends to get to him. (Remember the kidnapping?)

A few days go by, but Frid eventually sends a note to his wife explaining the situation, and the search is called off. Whether because of the rumors or personal crises, Krilon’s friends have just about decided they’re tired of this friendship, or at least his friendship. Even though Krilon can sense this, he tries to rally everyone again to intervene in the case of the wildly depressed Segel, who has just lost Ann. They refuse; Krilon tries on his own and is immediately rebuffed. A few days later Segel kills himself.

This news prompts Krilon to make a last ditch effort to get the gang back together. He writes Hovall, his first and oldest friend, to explain that the men should continue meeting, even if they vote Krilon out; but can’t they at least meet one last time to get this all straightened out? Hovall passes the message along to the other men, and they all agree for one more meeting at Krilon’s. One by one, the members of “grupp Krilon” turn up, telling Krilon not to expect anyone else. No one wants to admit to anyone else that they’re going to visit their old friend, it appears.

They hold a last meeting, where Hovall formally lays out their complaints and charges against Krilon. He’s been a busybody, he’s put them in uncomfortable or even dangerous situations, he’s refusing to change with the times, etc. Krilon responds to these charges and makes a plea for their friendship, and in the end the group resolves to meet without Krilon and take the matter of his membership to a vote. They promise to let him know by ten o’clock in the evening a following day (maybe the next day). In the very last scene of the book, Krilon is wandering around Stockholm in the early spring while he waits for the result of the vote, contemplating nature and noting topics for discussion “in case I am allowed back, otherwise I shall mention it to Hovall.”

What a cliffhanger!

Given that ending, and that the whole trilogy was published in a single volume in 1948, one wonders if there was a Lord of the Rings style publishing decision there. “No one’s going to read this huge tome in one sitting, Johnson. Let’s split it up.” Even Grupp Krilon, the first book, is 500 pages.

The above 600 word summary still only skates over the absolute surreal weirdness the story takes, the sheer paranoia. Krilon, it seems, has crossed paths with everyone in the book. Random strangers that Krilon’s friends meet during Frid’s disappearance have dramatic stories about this or that man they remember, who did this fantastic or horrible thing, and of course the big reveal is that this man’s name was…Krilon. In another book it might be too much to take, but because other things get so weird, it makes sense. Especially considering the extremely clearly allegorical nature of the book as well.

A screenshot from "Garth Marenghi's Dark Place," with Matthew Holness in yellow-tinted aviators and a leather jacket with slicked-back hair as his Garth Marenghi character. At the bottom is the closed caption text, "I know writers who use subtext, and they're all cowards"

The book definitely starts off slow, with a deliberate attention to details in Krilon’s appearance and landscape that I initially found to be a hard slog. Not because of the writing itself, since it has a rhythm and a lyricism to it; rather it was because books today (or at least books I’ve read recently) move at a snappy, breakneck pace. Where are the careful, lingering descriptions of yesteryear? But Krilon is the central figure, and it’s important for the reader to have clear idea of how moral, thoughtful, considered (even how lagom) Krilon is, so Johnson takes his time. While the urgency of the book picks up soon afterwards, I think my focus also reset early on and I was able to get lost in a slower, more thoughtful pace.

Grupp Krilon  was the “Stockholm Reads” pick in 2018 and came out in an appropriate paperback edition for the occasion, the cover you see in the image at the top with dark purple Stockholm landscape and the author and title in bright yellow. It also has this quote underneath that perfectly encapsulates what the book is driving at, what Johnson wants to say:

“The world is so dark now,” said Krilon. “It is of the utmost importance that people gather together in groups and speak openly with each other, without lying; that they seek the truth without giving any thought to the threat of punishment, or the tempting promise of rewards of gold and honor.”

It hits harder when you actually get to the quote. Krilon is begging Segel to see him, if not to talk about anything then at least attend a concert or otherwise spend some time together. But Segel can only think of Ann’s upcoming surgery, and Krilon’s plea goes unanswered:

“What’s everyone else doing, do you know? Do you know why they’re drifting away now, when the world needs them?”

“No,” Segel replied tersely, “I don’t know.”

Heartbreaking in 1941, heartbreaking in 2018, heartbreaking in 2026.

To my absolute astonishment, Grupp Krilon has yet to be translated into English. For that you’ll have to be content with Return to Ithaca (maybe timely now with Nolan’s version of The Odyssey in theaters?) and The Days of His Grace.

Vacation Reading List: Kiruna

By the time this post goes live, I’ll be sitting on a train to? from? Boden, en route to Kiruna for an eleven-day break from the grind. My plan is to visit the big hole in the ground, maybe take in a couple museums, and catch up on my reading backlog. To that end, my list!

Resan till Armenien, Osip Mandelstam

This was a recommendation from a book friend. I started it back in February but quickly realized I would want the time to really focus on it, in part due to lots of new vocabulary. That time has come.

Livet måste ha mening, Victor Frankl

A democratically chosen book for the philosophy reading group I’m in. Unfortunately I find that as the group grows larger,  the suggestions devolve into academically dubious pseudo-intellectual New Age claptrap. But I’ll still read this to see for myself! And to remind the group members who suggested this that Frankl was out there trepanning suicidal Jewish people from 1940 to 1942.

Le ravissement de Lol V. Stein, Marguerite Duras

I am far, far behind on my French reading goal for the year. Duras to the rescue! I’ll also be reading the Swedish translation.

Bastarden från Istanbul, Elif Shafak

The July pick for my international WhatsApp book club. It’s the longest book on this list, so we’ll see if I finish it or even get around to it.