[Zvmwissq]

(Note: this is an old review I wrote several years ago and only translated (and expanded a bit upon) just now... but since it came up, I figured why not.)

When Hjalmar S?derberg wrote Doctor Glas, the focus was almost entirely on the doctor’s dilemma (which of course, being fiction, had universal appeal.) The case, from the doctor’s perspective, was made pretty clear: Reverend Gregorius is a bad man, Helga is the maiden in distress... does this mean Glas has the right to kill even the most heinous human being to save an innocent?

Ohlsson re-tells the exact same story from the other side – from the perspective of the supposed villain Gregorius - and all of a sudden it seems to become even more complicated. Gregorius still commits the same deeds, still acts the same way, but we get to follow it from inside his head as Ohlsson attempts to make Gregorius as transparent as his aptly-named counterpart. And he does it for a hell of a lot of pages (it’s more than twice the length of Doctor Glas), in a looooong monologue where Gregorius tries to justify his actions. He turns S?derberg’s carefully constructed moral dilemma upside down by making Gregorius into a living, breathing, three-dimensional character who certainly deserves contempt and maybe pity, but probably not hatred and execution.

So far so good. The problem is that like most attempts to make the villain of an allegorical tale more sympathetic, Ohlsson tends to overdo it and throws everything in there – starting with Gregorius’ father disliking him and his brothers teasing him when he was small, and so on. He’s simply too sensitive, you know; that’s why he turned into an oppressive rapist with slight pedo tendencies. (In fact thinking about it now, one could probably get some mileage out of comparing Ohlsson’s Gregorius to Humbert Humbert, both as characters and narrators. Though Ohlsson is no Nabokov.) And as much as I like the idea on principle – more moral complexity is a good thing – I can’t quite get rid of the feeling that as competent a writer as Ohlsson is, it feels more like an experiment in countering an argument (S?derberg’s, that is) than a novel in its own right. The form it takes – one long pseudo-Proustian internal monologue – doesn’t necessarily help either; there’s a lot of “I felt” and “I thought.” Where S?derberg was sharp and succinct, Ohlsson rambles.

Nevertheless, Gregorius is a pretty well-drawn character study, a well-argued defense for the value of every human life that adds some more shades of grey to what might be a slightly black and white moral. S?derberg worked in one era and wrote what he knew, Ohlsson does the same. As fan fiction goes it’s pretty darn impressive, but like all fan fiction it needs the original more than the original needs it.

Now let's see a writer take on Helga's story as well.

3/5.

[SingleMan]

Ohlsson re-tells the exact same story from the other side ? from the perspective of the supposed villain Gregorius - and all of a sudden it seems to become even more complicated. Gregorius still commits the same deeds, still acts the same way, but we get to follow it from inside his head...in a looooong monologue where Gregorius tries to justify his actions.

Thanks for taking the time to translate your review. In the above bit you say that he tries to justify his actions. In Doctor Glas it was Glas and Helga who came together in disliking his actions. Does he know they are disliked and therefore try to justify them? Or is it justifying, more on Ohlsson's part, to give him his side of the story for the sake it it. I recall Gregorius pretty much seeing his actions as being his rights and, with such conviction in mind, I wouldn't have thought he needed to justify himself to anyone.

[Zvmwissq]

Does he know they are disliked and therefore try to justify them? Or is it justifying, more on Ohlsson's part, to give him his side of the story for the sake it it. I recall Gregorius pretty much seeing his actions as being his rights and, with such conviction in mind, I wouldn't have thought he needed to justify himself to anyone.

To be perfectly honest, it's been over 2 years since I read the book and I can't find it just now so I'm not really sure... as I recall, though, he's mostly justifying himself to himself, since he has a conscience deep down and all that.

[Jwskwhdo]

I just started to read Gregorius last night and was positively surprised. Positive in the sense that I was very much aware of the fact that this book was written in 2004 and "Dr. Glass" in 1905 and its not a book by Hjalmar S?derberg.

So before I opened the book I was curious of how the tone of the book would be and so far I think that Bengt Ohlsson has managed very well to keep the feel of "Dr. Glass". I would have hated if "Gregorious" was too modern in style and tone.

I agree with Bjorn that one of the strenghts with "Dr. Glass" is the precise and sharp descriptions of the whole story, the time and its characters. Thinking back its hard to believe that its only 140 pages, when the characters are written with such depth and the plot of the story so deep and intense. A brilliance I have only seen in the work of Dostoevsky!

Now back to see what Ohlsson does with 445 pages and if he starts to ramble....

[Jwskwhdo]

I have just finished the novel today and I thought it was great!

Bjorn,
I dont agree with you that Ohlsson rambles. I actually like that Ohlsson did NOT try to copy S?derberg in style as he would only fail and what would be the fun and point in that?

I think that Ohlsson has managed to find his own style without the reader looses the orginial touch of the story and that is very hard to do and keep in a 445 pages long novel. I actually admire Ohlsson for taking a stand in doing his own thing and not trying to copy S?derberg.

The book would not have worked on its on as you only get the psychological insight of Gregorius where as Dr. Glass presents all the 3 main charachters very well. So read Dr. Glass first, then Gregorius.

[Zvmwissq]

Fair enough, Flower; it's been a few years since I read the book, so I can't really agree or disagree. I'm glad you enjoyed it, it's certainly an interesting novel.