Reviewed by: Rifbjergs homoerotiske fascination Ann-Sofie Lönngren Bo Elbrønd-Bek . Rifbjergs homoerotiske fascination. København: Underskoven, 2010. Is it possible to draw conclusions about the author based on his main characters? This is the central question in Bo Elbrønd-Bek's book on male homoeroticism in the works of Klaus Rifbjerg. The approach is psychoanalytic in that Elbrønd-Bek drawing on Sigmund Freud proposes that recurring themes and characterizations can be seen as acts of compulsory repetition in the author. The compulsion develops as a consequence of the psychological defense mechanism known as suppression and becomes highly visible, according to Elbrønd-Bek, when an author makes use of historical persons in his fiction or when unpleasant experiences are consistently repeated. In spite of a question about what unpleasant experiences Elbrønd-Bek means and the fact that the project at this stage appears somewhat confused and not altogether relevant, it appears as fairly harmless. Unfortunately, this description applies only to the first two pages of the book. As early as page three, it becomes obvious that the author has neither the knowledge nor the insight necessary to handle the subject. Firstly, the heteronormative analysis Freud makes of his patient Dora as an example of suppression is related without any critical distancing or comment. Secondly, Elbrønd-Bek refers to a number of anecdotes about Rifbjerg's aggressivity and lability that in a footnote he relates to the homophobic understanding of homosexuality in Charles W. Socaride's book The Overt Homosexual published in 1968. Homosexuals are, Socarides writes, characterized by a pathological personality type. Elbrønd-Bek also argues that the foundation for homosexual activity is a strong aggression and/or self-centered narcissism (130).1 Using this logic he affirms that Rifbjerg probably is homosexual, a conclusion that justifies his own study. Only three pages, but a confused array of over simplifications, misunderstandings, outdated sources, irrelevant questions and—honestly spoken—homophobia. Homosexuality as a field of research has arisen within an emancipatory context, whose purpose is to make individuals, groups, narratives, and sexual practices visible that are divided from the "grand narrative" of the two-sex system and heterosexuality. To claim expertise in a field in the way Elbrønd-Bek does while at the same time allying himself with the homophobic discourse that has motivated its origin is an unforgivable fault with scientific, social, political, and ethical [End Page 153] implications. Perhaps it would have helped if Elbrønd-Bek had read Maja Bissenbakker Fredriksen's excellent analysis of Den kroniske uskyld in her dissertation Begreb om begær (2005) or Dag Heede's books on Karen Blixen and Herman Bang—or at least some text dealing with literary studies on sexuality that was written over the past thirty or forty years. Most readers will probably conclude their reading after page three. But I had a mission to review the book, so I finished it. The analysis of various works differs considerably in length but mostly concerns the novels Den kroniske uskyld, Skiftespor and Nansen og Johansen. The irrelevant discussions of varying symbols—e.g. the nut-metaphor (50)—mingled with speculations on how the author might have thought when he wrote (108) are not much better than the foreword. Now and then Elbrønd-Bek seems to remind himself of his initial question and in an ad-hoc manner turns his attention to some aspect of the novels that he thinks confirms Rifbjerg's homosexuality. The notion that the author and his work can be used to illuminate one another is an established view in modern comparative literature and a wholly legitimate perspective to use in literary analysis. But Elbrønd-Bek should have asked himself why he regards Rifbjerg's supposed homosexuality as the key to his works. Would he make the same connections with an author he presumed to be heterosexual? Why is it interesting to speculate on someone's sexual orientation? It is furthermore apparent that Elbrønd-Bek is totally unfamiliar with the literary context of the theme he is studying. For example, this fact can be seen in his reading of Nansen og Johansen, a narrative based...
Read full abstract
Jul 25, 2023
Daniel Hauer Queiroz Telles + 1
Open Access
