<p>In this paper I make an analysis of the play Järnbörd (By burning Iron) written by the swedish author Magnus Dahlström. In this play all the characters has committed horrible crimes wich they easily describes the violence. The starting-point of my analysis is the text itself and not any stage-setting. The reason for this is that I find it interesting to see what can be found in the text only. I investigate if the language itself can tell something.</p><p>Furthermore I discuss Magnus Dahlström´s literary language and if he has any distinguishing quality, and if so what it may be. I examine each characters discourse and I describe certain aspects of the language such as the characters incapability to really interact and how the violence is described.</p><p>I focus on the text and it´s characteristic elements. My main sources is therefore two literature studies. Dramatiskt berättande (“Dramatic telling”) by Mats Ödeen and Drama i tre avsnitt (“Drama in three parts”) by Gunnar Brandell. In particular I use the chapters in which they discuss the language and it´s significance in the world of drama. In the study Det moderna dramats teori 1880-1950 (“Theory of the modern drama 1880-1980”) by Peter Szondi, he writes about how the classical drama went from taking place between persons to take place inside the characters mind. I use this study to discuss Järnbörd as a modern play.</p><p>I also want to discuss the discourse from a philosophical aspect of language. I discuss Emilé Benveniste and his thoughts about language as a ”tool” of communication. Furthermore I discuss Friedrich Nietzsche´s study Om moralens härstamming (Geniality of morals), in which he writes about our human moral as something created and not as some “higher power” that judges us.</p>

In this paper I make an analysis of the play Järnbörd (By burning Iron) written by the swedish author Magnus Dahlström. In this play all the characters has committed horrible crimes wich they easily describes the violence. The starting-point of my analysis is the text itself and not any stage-setting. The reason for this is that I find it interesting to see what can be found in the text only. I investigate if the language itself can tell something. Furthermore I discuss Magnus Dahlström´s literary language and if he has any distinguishing quality, and if so what it may be. I examine each characters discourse and I describe certain aspects of the language such as the characters incapability to really interact and how the violence is described. I focus on the text and it´s characteristic elements. My main sources is therefore two literature studies. Dramatiskt berättande (“Dramatic telling”) by Mats Ödeen and Drama i tre avsnitt (“Drama in three parts”) by Gunnar Brandell. In particular I use the chapters in which they discuss the language and it´s significance in the world of drama. In the study Det moderna dramats teori 1880-1950 (“Theory of the modern drama 1880-1980”) by Peter Szondi, he writes about how the classical drama went from taking place between persons to take place inside the characters mind. I use this study to discuss Järnbörd as a modern play. I also want to discuss the discourse from a philosophical aspect of language. I discuss Emilé Benveniste and his thoughts about language as a ”tool” of communication. Furthermore I discuss Friedrich Nietzsche´s study Om moralens härstamming (Geniality of morals), in which he writes about our human moral as something created and not as some “higher power” that judges us.

Den här uppsatsen undersöker Sture Dahlströms ambivalenta förhållande till den svenska arbetarlitteraturen. Den kvalitativa analysen är inspirerad av den franska kultursociologen Pierre Bourdieu och syftar till att synliggöra de valmöjligheter, orienteringspunkter och handlingsalternativ som låg till grund för Sture Dahlströms omstörtningsstrategier och motstridiga ställningstaganden för att positionera sig i riktning mot det arbetarlitterära delfältet givet hans bakgrund, erfarenheter, referensramar och medhavda kapitaltillgångar samt vilka konsekvenser det fick för litteraturkritikernas framställning av hans litterära profil. Materialet utgår huvudsakligen från Sture Dahlströms egen föreställningsvärld, framför allt gestaltat genom hans romaner, men även från ett antal intervjuer, biografier och artiklar under 1980-, 1990- och 2000-talet.  Uppsatsen visar att Sture Dahlströms biografiska erfarenheter och sociala bakgrund genererade en naiv övertygelse om den svenska arbetarlitteraturens förändringspotential samtidigt som han var oförmögen att investera i de drivkrafter som grundlägger det arbetarlitterära delfältets spelregler. Hans radikala omstörtningsstrategier och motstridiga ställningstaganden resulterade snarare i att han motarbetades av de kritiker som redan innehade en dominerande position i det litterära fältet. Uppsatsen visar därtill att Dahlströms perifera avantgardeposition var en förutsättning för utvecklingen av hans erhållna kultstatus.