Realism, Affect, and the Battle of the Senses: Historicity and Cultural Memory in Dag Solstad’s War Trilogy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is overall a very strong article that contributes to the current scholarship. It concentrates upon some of Solstad's less known and researched works, and examines them convincingly in the light of such concepts as cultural memory, realism and historical novel as such. I have very few critical comments, and some of them can be considered suggestions the Author(s) might choose to not take into consideration if they consider them unnecessary.

However, what definitely must be taken a closer look at, are the references to Solstad's works themselves. On pages 5-6 (verse 225-225), they Author(s) quote what they call one of Solstad's "most important essays of the period". I assume they mean "Et langt foredrag om materialismen..." (which, by the way, I think should be communicated explicitly in the text), but the reference "Solstad 2000a" does not have a corresponding record in the Bibliography on page 12-13 (at least as far as I can see). From what I can see, there has been some mix-up in the "Solstad 2000" and "Solstad 2001" part of the reference apparatus, and this should be looked into. However, this is only a technical issue that does not influence the overall very high quality of the article.

Some other things to consider: if we assume that the article will be read by a non-Norwegian reader who does not have a full overview of Norwegian (literary) history, I would recommend to further contextualize:

1. Page 5, verses 185-187: "At that time, individuals affiliated with the communist party AKP-ml were subjected to state surveillance and political isolation, and Marxist cultural production was often dismissed as tendentious or doctrinaire" - the reader might benefit from an explanation of what AKP-ml was, and why it was considered such an important phenomenon in the cultural life of the 1970's Norway.
2. Same page, verses 194-195: "was frequently dismissed as dogmatic or tendentious, and seen by many as out of step with the literary norms of the time". I think the paragraph would benefit from a clarification of who those "many" are, and maybe a specific example of such criticism.
3. The abovementioned quote on pages 5-6 (verse 225-225), where the Author(s) quote what they call one of Solstad's "most important essays of the period". Personally, when I think about the most iconic text Solstad has written on the importance of realistic writing, I think about "Vi vil ikke gi kaffekjelen vinger", and this is the text I would mention, but this is perhaps a personal preference.

Again, in conclusion, this is a very well-written and researched text, and I look forward to seeing it in print.

Author Response

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for their careful reading and insightful comments on my article. The suggestions have been helpful in clarifying the historical and referential framework of the discussion, as well as in improving precision and readability throughout the text. I have addressed all points raised in the review, as detailed below.

COMMENT 1
Reviewer: On pages 5–6 (lines 225–225), the author quotes what they call one of Solstad’s “most important essays of the period.” I assume they mean Et langt foredrag om materialismen... (which, by the way, I think should be communicated explicitly in the text), but the reference “Solstad 2000a” does not have a corresponding record in the bibliography on pages 12–13 (at least as far as I can see). From what I can see, there has been some mix-up in the “Solstad 2000” and “Solstad 2001” parts of the reference apparatus, and this should be looked into.

Response: Well spotted! I have now explicitly included the title of the essay (Et langt foredrag om materialismen...) in the main text and corrected the references throghout the article. I must admit that it was quite a mess ...

COMMENT 2
Reviewer: Page 5, lines 185–187: “At that time, individuals affiliated with the communist party AKP-ml were subjected to state surveillance and political isolation, and Marxist cultural production was often dismissed as tendentious or doctrinaire.” The reader might benefit from an explanation of what AKP-ml was, and why it was considered such an important phenomenon in the cultural life of 1970s Norway.
Response: You are absolutely right. This is a complex topic that cannot be treated in depth within the scope of the article, but I have added a clarifying sentence in the text (verses 199-206): “At that time, individuals affiliated with the Maoist Workers’ Communist Party (AKP-ml)—a small but culturally influential organization at the center of Norway’s radical left—were subjected to state surveillance and political isolation...” I have also added a corresponding footnote (4) offering a brief explanation of the party’s role and cultural significance during the period.

COMMENT 3
Reviewer: Same page, lines 194–195: “was frequently dismissed as dogmatic or tendentious, and seen by many as out of step with the literary norms of the time.” I think the paragraph would benefit from a clarification of who those “many” are, and maybe a specific example of such criticism.
Response: A very good point. While a full overview of the reception would go beyond the scope of this article, I have added a representative example from Harald Bache-Wiig’s 1978 review in Vinduet (verses 207-219). Bache-Wiig’s critique captures a broader tendency in the reception: he praised Solstad’s realist depiction of social environments but rejected what he saw as the author’s apologetic stance toward the Soviet Union, which he described as a “distortion of perspective.” This example clarifies the nature of contemporary criticism while situating the later reevaluation of the trilogy within a broader historical context. I have also added comments to later reception by Øystein Rottem (1997), Espen Hammer (2011) and Torgeir E. Sæveraas (2022), verses 220-258=.

COMMENT 4
Reviewer: Regarding the quoted essay on pages 5–6: when I think about Solstad’s most iconic text on realism, I would point instead to Vi vil ikke gi kaffekjelen vinger.
Response: I see your point—"Vi vil ikke gi kaffekjelen vinger" is indeed more widely known, especially in educational contexts. However, in my opinion that essay belongs to Solstad’s earlier modernist poetics of the 1960s. "Et langt foredrag om materialismen...", by contrast, directly articulates the realist and materialist position underlying the War Trilogy and is therefore more relevant to the argument of this article.

Closing Statement
I hope these revisions address the reviewer’s concerns and clarify the historical, political, and aesthetic contexts in which Solstad’s War Trilogy is discussed. I am grateful for the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which has helped strengthen both the precision and the depth of the article.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The article offers a rich and thought-provoking reflection on Dag Solstad’s War Trilogy, situating the novels within a dense theoretical framework and engaging with questions of historical representation, affect, and memory. However, there are several areas where the piece could be strengthened.

Solstad’s novels function as modern historical narratives, constructed around factual elements from Norway’s war, political, and social history. Yet, Solstad approaches these decades—the 1930s and 1940s—less as a historian and more as a politically engaged writer. His literary project is shaped by ideological concerns, and this activist orientation often takes precedence over historical fidelity.

 

The article is impressively saturated with theoretical references—Lukács, Jameson, Assmann, Erll, Rigney, Berlant, among others—but at times this risks veering into name-dropping. For example, the invocation of Kristeva’s theory of the abject seems tenuously connected to Solstad’s realist depictions of hygiene and bathrooms in the 1930s. In such moments, the theoretical density becomes overwhelming and could benefit from more selective and clearly motivated use of concepts.

 

The discussion of the trilogy’s “dual historicity” is one of the article’s most compelling contributions. However, the concept is introduced midstream, which may hinder reader comprehension. A clearer and earlier definition would help foreground its analytical importance and guide the reader through the subsequent discussion.

If the sensory dimension—what the article refers to as “the battle of the senses”—is intended as a central theme (as the title suggests), this aspect deserves further elaboration. Currently, it feels underdeveloped relative to its prominence in the framing.

 

Stylistically, the article would benefit from simplifying some of its more abstract and densely packed sentences. Breaking these into shorter, more digestible units would enhance readability and accessibility, especially for readers less familiar with the theoretical terrain.

 

For international readers, the article could offer more historical context about Norway’s WWII experience and postwar political landscape. This would help situate Solstad’s trilogy within a broader national narrative and clarify its stakes.

The brief mention of mixed critical responses to the trilogy opens a valuable avenue for further exploration. Engaging more deeply with reception history—perhaps by referencing scholars such as Øystein Rottem (in Cappelens litteraturhistorie), Espen Hammer (Genanse og revolt), and T. Sæverås (Agora, 2022–23, nr. 4)—would enrich the article’s cultural memory perspective.

 

Finally, a comparative lens could broaden the scope of the analysis. How does Solstad’s trilogy relate to other WWII literature in Scandinavia or Europe? Even a brief comparative note could illuminate the trilogy’s unique contributions and limitations within a wider literary-historical context.

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their careful reading and insightful comments on my article. The feedback has been both encouraging and intellectually stimulating, and the revisions prompted by these suggestions have, I believe, significantly strengthened the argument, structure, and clarity of the text. In what follows, I address each comment point by point, indicating the changes that have been made and explaining how they contribute to refining the article’s analytical focus and accessibility.

 

COMMENT 1

Reviewer: The article is impressively saturated with theoretical references—Lukács, Jameson, Assmann, Erll, Rigney, Berlant, among others—but at times this risks veering into name-dropping. For example, the invocation of Kristeva’s theory of the abject seems tenuously connected to Solstad’s realist depictions of hygiene and bathrooms in the 1930s. In such moments, the theoretical density becomes overwhelming and could benefit from more selective and clearly motivated use of concepts.

Response: I take this point fully and agree that the theoretical density of the article could at times feel overwhelming. I have therefore removed the reference to Kristeva’s theory of the abject, which was indeed only loosely connected to the broader argument. However, I have chosen to retain the other theoretical references, as they serve to situate the discussion within an interdisciplinary field where memory studies, aesthetics, and the study of the historical novel intersect. I have revised several passages to clarify how each theoretical framework contributes to the argument, ensuring that these references now appear as integral to the analysis rather than as peripheral citations.

 

COMMENT 2

Reviewer: The discussion of the trilogy’s “dual historicity” is one of the article’s most compelling contributions. However, the concept is introduced midstream, which may hinder reader comprehension. A clearer and earlier definition would help foreground its analytical importance and guide the reader through the subsequent discussion.

Response: I very much appreciate this observation. I have now moved the introduction of the concept of dual historicity to an earlier point in the article—specifically, to the section where I discuss the historical novel and cultural memory (verses 71–87). In this revised version, the concept is explicitly defined when I first describe the temporal constellation between the 1930s–40s and the 1970s, before it is developed further in the following paragraph. This clarification ensures that readers understand from the outset that dual historicity designates the novel’s simultaneous positioning within two temporal layers: the remembered past of World War II and the 1970s context of Marxist cultural production. The earlier definition now provides a conceptual anchor for the argument that follows, making the analytical trajectory clearer and more cohesive. See also verses 203-205, 426-432, 572-576, 580-585.

COMMENT 3
Reviewer: If the sensory dimension—what the article refers to as “the battle of the senses”—is intended as a central theme (as the title suggests), this aspect deserves further elaboration. Currently, it feels underdeveloped relative to its prominence in the framing.

Response: Thank you for this valuable observation. I have expanded the discussion of the “battle of the senses” to give it greater conceptual and thematic weight throughout the article. Specifically, I have added remarks in the introduction (verses 35–40 and 78–90) to establish the sensory dimension as a key framework for the analysis. In the discussion of Jorunn’s hygienic routines, the passage now treats cleanliness not only as a symbolic act but as an aesthetic and sensory technology of purification (verses 170–173). Finally, I have strengthened the treatment of the theme in the section on Rigmor’s relationship with the German soldier, emphasizing how affect and perception operate as sites of historical and moral tension (verses 532–556).

 

COMMENT 4
Reviewer: Stylistically, the article would benefit from simplifying some of its more abstract and densely packed sentences. Breaking these into shorter, more digestible units would enhance readability and accessibility, especially for readers less familiar with the theoretical terrain.

Response: I appreciate thisremark and agree that clarity of expression is essential. At the same time, I regard the article’s density of formulation as partly immanent to the argument itself, which seeks to navigate the intersection of aesthetics, realism, and cultural memory within a theoretical framework. Nonetheless, I have carefully reviewed the text and simplified several longer sentences to improve flow and accessibility, particularly in the introduction and theoretical sections.

COMMENT 5
Reviewer: For international readers, the article could offer more historical context about Norway’s WWII experience and postwar political landscape. This would help situate Solstad’s trilogy within a broader national narrative and clarify its stakes.

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. To assist international readers in navigating the historical and political background, I have added contextual remarks on the Maoist Workers’ Communist Party (AKP-ml) in section 2 (verses 197–206) and a discussion of the contemporary reception of the first novel in section 3 (verses 207–232). I have also inserted a brief passage outlining the German invasion of Norway in 1940 and the subsequent exile of the legitimate government, which helps situate Solstad’s critique of Norway’s wartime leadership within its broader historical frame. While I have sought to clarify this context, I have also been careful not to overburden the article with historical exposition, so as to preserve its analytical focus (407-412).

COMMENT 6
Reviewer: The brief mention of mixed critical responses to the trilogy opens a valuable avenue for further exploration. Engaging more deeply with reception history—perhaps by referencing scholars such as Øystein Rottem (in Cappelens litteraturhistorie), Espen Hammer (Anstendighet og revolt), and T. Sæveraas (Agora, 2022–23, no. 4)—would enrich the article’s cultural memory perspective.

Response: This is an excellent suggestion, and it resonates strongly with my intention to foreground the novel’s multiple historicities—those of Solstad’s depiction of World War II, his own position in the ideological debates of the 1970s, and the evolving critical reception of his work. I have now expanded the discussion of the trilogy’s reception to include precisely these perspectives. In the revised section (verses 222–247), I integrate Øystein Rottem’s retrospective critique of the War Trilogy as a “literary party programme,” and Espen Hammer’s more recent view of the trilogy as a complex and partially autonomous artwork that nonetheless exposes the limits of Marxist aesthetics (220-240). I have also included a comment on Torgeir E. Sæveraas’s historical assessment of its factual accuracy in relation to official wartime accounts (245-258). While Hammer’s and Kittang’s readings emphasize the trilogy’s aesthetic autonomy, Sæveraas offers a historian’s corrective by underscoring its ideological bias and factual deviations. My own argument seeks to bridge these positions—not to reduce the trilogy to either autonomous art or historical inaccuracy, but to interpret it as a work of cultural memory, mediating between historical record and lived experience.

COMMENT 7
Reviewer: Finally, a comparative lens could broaden the scope of the analysis. How does Solstad’s trilogy relate to other WWII literature in Scandinavia or Europe? Even a brief comparative note could illuminate the trilogy’s unique contributions and limitations within a wider literary-historical context.

Response:
I fully agree that situating Solstad’s War Trilogy within a broader Scandinavian and European context helps clarify its distinctive qualities as both realist fiction and work of cultural memory. I have therefore added a brief comparative passage near the conclusion (verses 606—615) that positions the trilogy alongside contemporaneous and later engagements with World War II, such as Väinö Linna’s The Unknown Soldier (Finland, 1954), and Günter Grass’s Danzig Trilogy (Germany, 1959–63). These examples highlight how Solstad’s trilogy differs in its focus on ideological formation and class consciousness rather than national trauma or moral redemption. The comparison underscores that while much postwar fiction turned toward memory, guilt, and reconciliation, Solstad’s realism probes the structural contradictions of war and modernity themselves, revealing how collective memory is shaped not only by suffering but by the political and sensory conditions under which it is narrated.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a thoroughly well-structured and interesting article, very clear and informative.

I have just two minor points, the first relating to content, the second to form: 

1) Materialism:  I found it a bit difficult to understand your (or Solstad's) understanding of materialism. Maybe you could explain it a little more? (See also his "distinctly materialist position", line 274.)  It becomes clear from line 231ff that materialism in Solstad’s definition is to be understood “as a literary method: a way of navigating complexity, mapping contradiction, and representing social totality through a particular lens”, but considering all the various forms of materialism (or material turns) in contemporary theories (in f.ex. material ecocriticism or material feminism where material/matter means concrete entities, material actors, non-humans, “the outside world” etc) it would be illuminating to know whether materialism in this context means ‘real things’ or just ‘material effects of immaterial processes’.  

Furthermore (especially in light of the discussed media-specific potential of Solstad's trilogy) I would appreciate a more detailed explanation to what extent ‘material’ is equated with (or different from) ‘media’ / ‘media-specific qualities’.

When you in line 467f mention as the two impulses “a materialist mapping of structural antagonisms and an affective attunement to the textures of lived experience” I understand that the first point must be different from the second point, i.e. that materialism must be different from “affective attunement to the textures of lived experience”. Is this right? And what then is materialism if not concerning affects and senses?

2) At the beginning the original text is given in the footnotes (see f.ex. 108-111). This is not the case in lines 385-388 and 389-390, as well as 413-416 and 439-441. It should be consistent. (Otherwise you should explain in footnote 1: "The original text of longer quotations is given in footnotes.")

Author Response

OVERALL COMMENT
Although the reviewer modestly presented their feedback as “just two minor points,” the comments proved both fruitful and thought-provoking, prompting substantial revisions and refinements throughout the article. I am very grateful for the reviewer’s close and perceptive reading, which helped clarify several key aspects of the argument—especially regarding the notion of materialism, its relation to affect and perception. The feedback also led me to ensure greater consistency in the treatment of quotations and translations. The resulting revisions have, I believe, strengthened both the conceptual precision and overall coherence of the article. Below, I address each point in detail.

COMMENT 1
Reviewer: Materialism: I found it a bit difficult to understand your (or Solstad's) understanding of materialism. Maybe you could explain it a little more? (See also his "distinctly materialist position", line 274.) It becomes clear from line 231ff that materialism in Solstad’s definition is to be understood “as a literary method: a way of navigating complexity, mapping contradiction, and representing social totality through a particular lens”, but considering all the various forms of materialism (or material turns) in contemporary theories (in e.g. material ecocriticism or material feminism where material/matter means concrete entities, material actors, non-humans, “the outside world” etc.), it would be illuminating to know whether materialism in this context means ‘real things’ or just ‘material effects of immaterial processes’.

Response: This is an important and well-taken point. To avoid confusion with contemporary “new materialist” approaches, I have clarified that Solstad’s understanding of materialism derives from the Marxist and Lukácsian tradition, where the term refers not primarily to matter or non-human agency but to the social and historical determination of consciousness and form. In this sense, materialism in Solstad’s work functions as a literary method that seeks to reveal how ideological, economic, and class structures shape lived experience and aesthetic representation.
To make this clearer, I have added an explanatory phrase in the passage where Solstad’s “distinctly materialist position” is introduced (verses 300–311). It now specifies that the materialism in question is not ontological but historical and representational: “Written from a distinctly materialist position—here understood not in the sense of contemporary ‘new materialisms,’ but in the Marxist–Lukácsian sense of a historical and representational method that links aesthetic form to material social conditions—…”
This clarification situates Solstad’s realism more precisely within the Marxist tradition of dialectical materialism, distinguishing it from later posthumanist or ontological uses of the term.

COMMENT 1.1
Reviewer: Furthermore (especially in light of the discussed media-specific potential of Solstad's trilogy) I would appreciate a more detailed explanation to what extent ‘material’ is equated with (or different from) ‘media’ / ‘media-specific qualities’.

Response: I appreciate this observation and understand how the discussion of sensory and aesthetic mediation might suggest a media-oriented reading. However, my use of material is not intended to invoke media-specificity in the technical sense. The article does not pursue a media-theoretical approach but rather a historical–aesthetic one, in which materialism refers to the social and historical grounding of perception and form. While Solstad’s writing is undoubtedly attentive to sensory experience, it does not foreground questions of medium or mediation as such. 

COMMENT 1.2
Reviewer: When you in line 467f mention as the two impulses “a materialist mapping of structural antagonisms and an affective attunement to the textures of lived experience” I understand that the first point must be different from the second point, i.e. that materialism must be different from “affective attunement to the textures of lived experience.” Is this right? And what then is materialism if not concerning affects and senses?

Response: This is an insightful comment, and I agree that the distinction between materialism and affective attunement needed clarification. In the quoted sentenc, i.e., I have altered "materialist mapping" to "Marxist mapping" (verses 458 and 565). I have also expanded the discussion already mentioned in section 2 (verses 300–311) to specify that Solstad’s materialism operates along two interconnected axes: historical materialism, which seeks to map the structural antagonisms and ideological formations that shape society, and sensual materialism, which focuses on how these structures are perceived, embodied, and affectively experienced. When Solstad calls himself a materialist writer, he aims precisely to fuse these two strands—to show how historical contradictions are not only produced by ideology but also lived through the senses. This clarification strengthens the connection between Solstad’s materialist realism and the article’s broader argument about the battle of the senses, situating the aesthetic and affective dimensions as integral rather than supplementary to his Marxist outlook.

COMMENT 2
Reviewer: At the beginning the original text is given in the footnotes (see e.g. lines 108–111). This is not the case in lines 385–388 and 389–390, as well as 413–416 and 439–441. It should be consistent. (Otherwise you should explain in footnote 1: “The original text of longer quotations is given in footnotes.”)

Response: Thank you for catching this inconsistency. I have chosen the second option and added an explanatory note in the first footnote, which now reads: “All translations from Norwegian are mine. The original text of longer quotations is given in footnotes.” This ensures consistency throughout the article while maintaining clarity for international readers.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is now much improved. Good work!