I en hermeneutisk metod analyseras Kerstin Ekmans Grand final i skojarbranschen (2011) med syftet att porträttera och analysera protagonisterna, Lillemor och Babba, i förhållande till identitet som kvinna och författare. I diskussionen urtolkas en möjlig medveten intention med verket, som rör såväl genus och feminism som identitetsskapande. De båda protagonisterna utgör ett gemensamt författarskap, där deras personligheter smälter samman. Det är uppenbart att Lillemor, i flera anseenden, agerar Babbas ansikte utåt och att Babba fungerar som Lillemors kreativa begåvning. Ur ett feministiskt perspektiv påverkas deras förhållande av ett misogynt tillstånd, som samtidigt är oundvikligt för att nå framgång. En generell signifikans ligger i ett författarperspektiv, där denna som individ är personlighetskluven befäst i ett disharmoniskt tillstånd. Författarskapet är uppsplittrat i kropp och själ, där sociala normer styr kraven och där kvinnans utseende har en avgörande roll.

The focus of this study is the two autobiographical novels Den högsta kasten (1997) and Djävulsformeln (2000) by Swedish author Carina Rydberg. Both novels generated lively public debate regarding how they ought to be read and understood, what genre they belonged to, and the ontological status of the narrating “I”. The aim is to investigate why the protagonist, Carina, is perceived as unintelligible by many readers and explore how she can be understood in relation to what constitutes an intelligible identity from a literary and cultural perspective. The novels, as well as their protagonist, are approached from the perspective of genre theory, the argument being that Carina’s unintelligibility is directly dependent on what genre she is read in relation to. In the first part of the thesis the ambiguities of autobiographical texts are discussed, and the narrative and protagonist are analyzed in relation to the autobiographical genre. In the second part of the thesis the consequences of reading the texts as examples of the Gothic with emphasis on monstrosity, the uncanny and sexual transgression are examined. The two readings demonstrate how interpretations of text and character are highly influenced by the reader's expectations connected to genre. Rydberg’s transgression of the norms of genre, gender, and identity leaves the reader with a contradictory set of genre-specific expectations, which in turn makes it difficult to understand and accept the protagonist. The main theme of both novels is Carina’s unsuccessful attempts to reconcile what she sees as two separate, essentially incompatible identities: woman and author. The final chapter includes a comparative study in which Rydberg’s novels are linked to works by other Swedish female writers, both past and contemporary, to demonstrate that the conflict of woman versus author is a common problem for female writers. The thesis closes with a discussion about the possibility of placing Rydberg in a specifically female literary tradition and demonstrate how a feminist analysis can make the unintelligible intelligible.

Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka synen på författarroll, skrivande och genus i Virginia Woolfs ”Professions for Women” och Karolina Ramqvists Det är natten. Författaren och den som skriver utifrån följande frågeställningar: Vilka hinder för författarskap gestaltas? Vilka er­farenhet­er av kvinnligt författarskap förmedlas? Vilka likheter och skillnader finns i Woolfs och Ramqvists perspektiv? Teorin hämtas från genusvetenskapliga perspektiv, hos främst Simone de Beauvoir och Yvonne Hirdman, samt litteratursociologiska perspektiv från Johan Svedjedal. Undersökningen utförs genom komparativ metod samt närläsning och knyter an till bland andra Anne E. Fernalds och Sue Roes forskning om Woolfs ”Professions for Women”, samt bidrar till ny forskning om Karolina Ramqvists författarskap som är relativt outforskat inom litteraturvetenskap. Virginia Woolf anser att författaryrket utgör ett friare alternativ för kvinnor än andra yrken, och ser sin väg till detta arbete som enkel. Hon uttrycker också att hennes val att skriva inte inneburit några problem för omgivningen och att hon inte hindrats av ekonomiska omständighet­er. Ramqvist berättar att hon inte trodde att hon det var möjligt för henne att bli författare i egenskap av kvinna och att skrivandet utgör ett problem för hennes relationer. Hade hon haft högre ekonomisk status menar Ramqvist att hon inte nödvändigtvis hade arbetat som författare. Hon kommenterar Woolfs ”Professions for Women” och menar att Virginia Woolf kunde bli författare just för att hon hade ekonomiskt kapital. Woolf lyfter inre omständigheter och genusrelaterade attityder som centrala problem­ för kvinnliga författare medan Ramqvist redogör för yttre omständigheter, som främst är samman- kopplade med omgivningens och offentlighetens förväntningar och krav. Woolf kan sägas göra större anspråk på att hennes erfarenheter ska anses vara en kollektiv erfaren­het hos kvinnliga författare, medan Ramqvist främst diskuterar utifrån ett eget perspektiv. Ramqvist uttrycker exempelvis också en distans mellan sin egen uppfattning om moderskapets påverkan på för­fattarskap jämfört med sina kvinnliga författarkollegor. Woolf diskuterar inte moderskap i sin text men tar sin utgångspunkt i ”ängeln i huset”, som ska förstås som ett ideal och en attityd där kvinnan är insmickrande och uppoffrande mot sin om­givning, samt framstående inom hem och familjeliv. Ramqvist kommenterar Woolfs begrepp och anser det vara Woolfs egen upp­fattning om kvinnoideal. Hon diskuterar inte sina egna omständigheter utifrån ”ängeln i huset”, men det är möjligt att tolka exempelvis hennes yttrande om att göra sig otillgänglig för mäns behov som en del av vad Woolf kallar att döda ängeln i huset: enligt Woolf alla kvinnliga författares uppgift.

<p>The dissertation describes a crucial step in the development of a modern writer's identity in Sweden. It applies the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s theories of the autonomous ”literary field” to the development in eighteen-eighties, one of the most important periods in Swedish literary history.</p><p>During this decade a large group of authors appeared, with August Strindberg in the front. In accordance with the dominating esthetical view of the nineteenth century, ”ideal realism”, the writers had an ethical responsibility. But they differed from their predecessors by not being loyal to the bourgeois society and its values, as codified in the concept of ”decency”, that contained, among other things, rules for what could be said in public. On the contrary, the new generation of authors attacked the bourgeoisie in novels, dramas and articles, especially in the singularly most controversial area, the regulation of sexuality and the ideals of bourgeois women.</p><p>This study argues that the new authors in their radical criticism aimed at the position of power in society traditionally upheld by the State church, which supervised education and ethical values. They did this by creating a role for themselves as young and oppressed, something that made it possible to deny any responsibility for the present state and furthermore to speak up, despite their own bourgeois background, for other oppressed groups like the working classes, the poor and women. But this also meant that they could not be successful in their ambitions to gain influence without loosing their identity. This was especially the consequence of the fact that an autonomous ”literary field” did not yet exist. That is, there were no internal literary institutions that, seemingly independent of the rest of society, decided what was ”good literature.” Instead, the singularly most important judge of interesting literature was the bourgeois public. Strindberg seems to have realised this early, and achieved an identity as ”uncontrolled”. He thereby lost his intellectual credibility, but gained a much bigger freedom to write and also got the attention of the large audience. At the same time, his writing undermined the values of decency by breaking the bourgeois society’s fundamental wall between the private and the public sphere, not least by writing what was regarded as facts about his own private life. </p><p>The conservative reaction accelerated towards the end of the decade while the authors grew more and more bitter about the public’s lack of understanding. At this point the author Verner von Heidenstam took the opportunity to declare a new literary era, dissociating his aesthetics from the one of the Eighties and proclaiming the necessity of an aristocratic, ethically indifferent literature (with himself as its leader). </p><p>Confronted with the new concept of what ought to be regarded as “modern”, the established male authors were generally quick to separate themselves from the female authors, and to identify the attacked literature solely with the one that critically discussed the situation of women in society - a description that has been largely adopted in the history of literature. A number of male authors also wrote novels separating themselves from the Eighties. Thus, they could continue into the new period, while female authors in general were silenced or forced to write in less esteemed genres (”popular literature”, children’s books). </p><p>Ultimately the result was a more distinct male domination coupled with a growing contempt for the large audience. This, in turn, created a need for internal institutions that could interpret, value and support literature - scholarships, elitist critics, and a writers’ union. These institutions subsequently were founded or developed during the nineties – all of them steps towards autonomy.</p>

The dissertation describes a crucial step in the development of a modern writer's identity in Sweden. It applies the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s theories of the autonomous ”literary field” to the development in eighteen-eighties, one of the most important periods in Swedish literary history. During this decade a large group of authors appeared, with August Strindberg in the front. In accordance with the dominating esthetical view of the nineteenth century, ”ideal realism”, the writers had an ethical responsibility. But they differed from their predecessors by not being loyal to the bourgeois society and its values, as codified in the concept of ”decency”, that contained, among other things, rules for what could be said in public. On the contrary, the new generation of authors attacked the bourgeoisie in novels, dramas and articles, especially in the singularly most controversial area, the regulation of sexuality and the ideals of bourgeois women. This study argues that the new authors in their radical criticism aimed at the position of power in society traditionally upheld by the State church, which supervised education and ethical values. They did this by creating a role for themselves as young and oppressed, something that made it possible to deny any responsibility for the present state and furthermore to speak up, despite their own bourgeois background, for other oppressed groups like the working classes, the poor and women. But this also meant that they could not be successful in their ambitions to gain influence without loosing their identity. This was especially the consequence of the fact that an autonomous ”literary field” did not yet exist. That is, there were no internal literary institutions that, seemingly independent of the rest of society, decided what was ”good literature.” Instead, the singularly most important judge of interesting literature was the bourgeois public. Strindberg seems to have realised this early, and achieved an identity as ”uncontrolled”. He thereby lost his intellectual credibility, but gained a much bigger freedom to write and also got the attention of the large audience. At the same time, his writing undermined the values of decency by breaking the bourgeois society’s fundamental wall between the private and the public sphere, not least by writing what was regarded as facts about his own private life. The conservative reaction accelerated towards the end of the decade while the authors grew more and more bitter about the public’s lack of understanding. At this point the author Verner von Heidenstam took the opportunity to declare a new literary era, dissociating his aesthetics from the one of the Eighties and proclaiming the necessity of an aristocratic, ethically indifferent literature (with himself as its leader). Confronted with the new concept of what ought to be regarded as “modern”, the established male authors were generally quick to separate themselves from the female authors, and to identify the attacked literature solely with the one that critically discussed the situation of women in society - a description that has been largely adopted in the history of literature. A number of male authors also wrote novels separating themselves from the Eighties. Thus, they could continue into the new period, while female authors in general were silenced or forced to write in less esteemed genres (”popular literature”, children’s books). Ultimately the result was a more distinct male domination coupled with a growing contempt for the large audience. This, in turn, created a need for internal institutions that could interpret, value and support literature - scholarships, elitist critics, and a writers’ union. These institutions subsequently were founded or developed during the nineties – all of them steps towards autonomy.