Mellan sanning och lögn

era. Hamsun’s writings belong to a modernistic tradition and his works are characterized
by reluctance of the focus of the individual self. Hamsun’s symbolic figure, the wanderer,
represents the modern “I” without a stable identity, who constantly re-negotiate earlier
experiences in order to find a “new” self. The language cannot be a true representation of
the self, as the influential American deconstructuvist Paul de Man has pointed out. But this
does not implicate that autobiography is not referential. Hamsun claims a strong reference
by the implicit language – the metaphors – which refer to a literary bound context.
It is obvious that Hamsun has a defence to deliver and that the text refers to
historical biographical facts and events. Hamsun defends himself by presenting some
authentic legal documents and letters, but his defence is more subtle than this. In order to
regain the respect and honour as an author Hamsun refers to his writings from the early
years of the 20 th century. The textual references to his work I Æventyrland has an
underlying agenda, namely to explain to the reader his never failing love for the nature and
his native country.
Hamsun had, as it appears by the textual references to his earlier authorship, his
own logic, which he uses for explanations of his actions during the world war. But to say
that Hamsun, because of his reactionary views, was a typical old Nazi is, in my point of
view, a simplified solution of “the problem Hamsun”. Hamsun’s political views must be
seen in accordance to his contemporary perspective. Hamsun had a strong aversion for the
British, which opinion he shared with many other Norwegians at that time. But this does
not mean that most people were Nazis. The difference, however, was that Hamsun
defended his opinions even when most people had realized the consequences of the
German actions and the war was over. Still, what I find interesting in Hamsun is not
whether he was a Nazi or not. What I find interesting about Hamsun is the complex and
contradictable character of his writings, which avoid simple explanations and definite
truths.
106