
‘Coupledom is very oppressing': Swedish author Gun-Britt Sundström on the revival of her cult anti-marriage novel
Engagement is not, after all, a traditional love story, but a study of a young woman's fierce resistance to what she feels is the oppressive effect of being loved by a man. Martina and Gustav meet at college. Gustav wants their relationship to progress along traditional lines, an ambition that, Martina feels, risks leading her like a sleepwalker into a tedious, conventional life. At the casual level the pair's relationship is loving and stable, but, observes Martina caustically, 'Gustav is building so many structures on top of it that it's shaking underneath them'. She wants to be loved but she also wants to be alone. She wants Gustav to stop repeating himself. When he asks her what's wrong, she muses, 'you can't answer something like that. You can't tell someone who wants to be with you always that he should be reasonable and ration himself out a little – if I saw you half as often, I would like you four times as much – no, you can't say that.'
The novel is often described as a 'feminist classic', which Sundström resists – the implication being that any political objective undermines its integrity as a novel. 'Feminist books ordinarily end with a happy divorce. And this doesn't.' Instead, Engagement is a dense, thoughtful book that takes on questions of sex, boredom, self-esteem and what Sundström calls, 'the moral issue; the question of can you treat another person this way, the way Martina [treats Gustav]? At the end, she herself comes to the conclusion that you can't, it isn't right. She can't go on exploiting him, because he's helplessly in love with her.' The book is less about the experience of loving someone than about being the object of love, and given current discussions around young women 'decentring men' and 'heteropessimism', it is a startlingly modern novel.
It is also a dark comedy, something Sundström says tends to be overlooked. 'It is a funny book! I often regretted that reviewers failed to mention that aspect.' How could it not be? Sundström herself is full of merriment. She turns 80 this summer and says, 'I can't believe it myself. Most of my friends are more or less the same age, and none of us can believe it. We are the young ones, aren't we?' With her pageboy hairstyle and unlined face, she could be comfortably 20 years younger. ('Genes,' she says, flatly.) At the beginning of our conversation, Sundström mentions she is going through old diaries wondering what to keep and what to burn. 'I'm cleaning up with the perspective of soon dying,' she says, matter of factly, and although the gentle art of Swedish death cleaning is a well-known phenomenon, it strikes me that even for a Swede, Sundström is thrillingly, inspiringly brisk.
Like her protagonist, she is also immune from groupthink to the point of awkwardness. In the novel, Martina wonders: 'How can it be that most people lack self-confidence? And how can it be that I have enough self-confidence for an entire army? Of course I am beautiful and intelligent, at least intelligent enough to consider myself pretty enough – but that doesn't usually help, does it?' It is still mildly confronting to read a young woman calmly assessing herself in this way, and Martina's confidence is Sundström's, the development of which goes all the way back to two key influences in her childhood. She was a great reader and identified most with swashbuckling heroes – the Scarlet Pimpernel and the Three Musketeers. And, along with her family, she attended a progressive Swedish church. 'I grew up imagining that, to God, we are all equal and that my relationship to God, if I had one, was just as important as any man's.'
Sundström's political development as a feminist, meanwhile, was influenced by the cautionary tale of her mother's life. Sundström's father was a journalist, while her mother gave up work to raise Sundström and her sister in what, looking back, the novelist calls 'a kind of tragedy'. Although she was never bitter, Sundström recognises that she was, 'in a way, disappointed'.
The hardship of her mother's generation makes Sundström sceptical of some aspects of the modern feminist movement, which she thinks has failed to acknowledge just how much has been gained. 'We've had a backlash. Unfortunately, we were freer in my generation than in my children's. My daughter told me she's envious of my youth in that respect. They are much more concerned about their looks than we had to be back then. So many young people don't have self-confidence nowadays.'
Sundström started writing as a child, in journals and diaries, and at some point in late adolescence started to feel that it was inevitable she would write a book. In 1966, she published Student-64, a novel of rebellious youth, and 10 years later came Engagement, her third novel and a huge and instant hit. Since then, she has written 14 further books, six of them for children, and in a tone of dismay wonders if becoming a novelist was perhaps a mistake. She is also a translator and found working alongside Kathy Saranpa, the English translator for the new edition of Engagement, an interesting exercise in learning to let go. (After the interview, Sundström emails to correct several English words she used and for which she has thought of more precise translations.)
'I'm very good at Swedish language, and I regret a bit that I didn't devote my life to linguistics instead of literature,' she says. 'It's awful to say, but I don't think literature is all that interesting. There are more interesting things in life. Language; etymologies; the developing of different languages.' In Swedish, the novel is called Maken (The Husband) and she wonders if 'Mate' would've been a better title in English. 'I learned that 'mate' was originally written with a 'k'. So it is 'make', originally.' There is a puzzled silence. 'But that doesn't help.' Or, she wonders, ''Uncoupling': I think that would've been pretty adequate. Both as a criticism of the idea of coupledom, and also the problems of divorcing.'
Sundström herself has been divorced for 30 years and for the past few decades has had a romantic partner with whom she doesn't live. 'To me,' she says, 'it's the ideal; to be a couple, and to see each other when we wish, and still have our own lives. And not least because each of us has children with different parents. I never wanted to be a stepmother, and I didn't want him to be a stepfather to my children because they had their own father.' Although, she adds, 'I'm very thankful for the years I was in a family in the traditional way.' She recalls driving with her husband at the wheel and two children in the back thinking how lucky she was. 'An ideal! And it's me!'
This is a classic example of Sundström's resistance to any one hard and fast position. She gravitates naturally away from political orthodoxy and believes – the translator's curse, perhaps – there is always more than one way to see things. 'By nature, I'm allergic to everything that is the truth of the day,' she says. 'You know, everybody writes the same things in the papers. For example, the #MeToo movement; it wasn't possible to make any objections in that discussion. I would never have said anything publicly then, but I didn't feel quite happy about it; these demonstrations against the Swedish Academy [which awards the Nobel prize in literature], organised as a kind of feminist action. I felt very strange [about] all that; it seemed simplifying. All conflicts can't be seen in that context.'
These are the ambiguities Sundström tackles so well in her fiction, where she can allow all the nuances absent in the headlines to play out. She created Engagement's Martina as neither heroine nor cautionary tale, which is why she continues to be surprised at the fervour with which some young women take her up as a role model. A few years ago, she says, 'I met a young girl who showed me her copy of Maken, and it was full of Post-its. And she said, 'When I'm in trouble, or unsure of something, I think: what would Martina say?'' Sundström looks astonished. 'I don't know if I am supposed to be happy about that. Not for a moment was it my intention to propagate anything at all.'
Instead, she conceived of the book while going through a period of being single, wondering about the long-term prospects of any relationship, and thinking that, as the culture war around marriage and divorce in the 1970s took hold, it might be good grist for a novel. 'In 1976 the Swedish king got married, and all of us radicals, of course, were republicans – I have been a member of the republican association for as long as I can remember. And although [regard for the monarchy] wasn't as mad as it is in Britain, I really was depressed about people engaging with that bloody wedding. And me walking around feeling single.' She laughs. 'This idea of coupledom is even more oppressing to young people today than it was in my day. That means it is very oppressing.'
We return to the subject of death. Sundström's parents were unhistrionic about it too, she says. 'My mother was a widow for five years, and when she was in hospital, I asked her: 'Are you afraid of dying?' And she seemed surprised at the question. 'No! Why should I be?'' They didn't talk about her being reunited with Sundström's father, which is something, she notes disapprovingly, that people extend to their cats and dogs these days. 'Imagine... what a crowd.' As it was, her parents, 'were both so very calm, because they had lived in the conviction that this world isn't the only one'.
This is not what Sundström believes. And yet, thanks to those admirable, religious people in her background, she sees the world much as they did, in terms of social engagement. If she was young now, she says, 'I'd be a Greta Thunberg'. For Sundström, to look at the world and see potential for something better puts the novelist and the activist in a single category: those with the ability 'to imagine something else than this world'.
Engagement by Gun-Britt Sundström, translated by Kathy Saranpa, is published by Penguin Modern Classics (£18.99). To support the Guardian, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Sun
16 hours ago
- The Sun
The more comical the action at women's Euros, the more woke BBC get – one pundit's pearl of wisdom was red card offence
A SIMPLE equation is at play with the BBC and ITV's coverage of the women's Euros – the funnier the football gets, the more earnest the pundits must become. To the point, when things go really haywire, they sound more like they're dissecting Garry Kasparov versus the Deep Blue chess computer than the latter stages of a football tournament. 7 7 7 A sly reference to the exquisite mayhem of the England/Sweden penalty shoot-out, in Zurich, on BBC1, which has to be a contender for the funniest ever climax to a quarter-final. Eventual winners England seemed determined to turn it into a Gentlest Back Pass contest, while the slightly more gung-ho Swedes were playing a game familiar to every nine-year-old boy on the planet: Who can kick it the furthest? A challenge eventually ended by Smilla Holmberg, who nearly landed her effort on base camp at the Matterhorn. So long had this farce been going by that point, however, there was no time for the Beeb team to do anything more than agree with co- commentator Rachel Brown-Finnis's assessment that it had been a penalty shoot-out, 'worthy of any final'. Final of what? She didn't say, but I'd like to believe Rachel was referring to the carnage of It's A Knockout's old pan-European spin-off Jeux Sans Frontieres. It seems unlikely, though, as absolutely everyone at the BBC and ITV is in a state of denial about this tournament's wretched quality, aided and abetted by dozens of useful media idiots who've cast themselves in the Sir Galahad role and will go to any credibility-knackering lengths to protect the honour of the women. A self-deceiving charade that reached new levels of condescension, in one broadsheet newspaper, after the Sweden game, when a journalist argued that gross incompetence wasn't so much the issue as 'goalkeepers improving'. You treat readers like mugs, you get the response you deserve, which in this case was the comment: 'You won't get laid trying to be their ally.' You're also missing an easy trick, though. For just as the great Jock Stein said, 'without the fans, football is nothing,' it's also nothing without laughter. And for once, I really know what I'm talking about here. For I have seen Scotland play in 31 countries and lose in seven different time zones, since 1986, and frankly it's only the laughter that's kept me going. It's the very last thing you'll hear on either channel in Switzerland though, where instead of taking the light-hearted approach they've gone to the extraordinarily controlling lengths of reinventing the pundit lexicon in an attempt to disguise what's really happening here. ITV's Karen Carney has a particularly grating habit of saying 'vertical pass' when she means forward, but the real blood-boiler is the BBC's maddening use of the T-word which made the quarter-final pre-match banter sound more like a cult meeting. Gabby Logan kicked it off by saying: ' Fara [Williams], an area you're worried about is the transition.' 'Yes, Sweden will much prefer the transitional game,' agreed Fara before Ellen White butted in to say: 'It's frustrating when you're conceding on that transition and Sweden really do like to play in that transition.' Which was the cue, apparently, for Jonas Eidevall to chip in with his observation that: 'If the game is played in transition, it's advantage Sweden.' At no point, however, did anyone ask: 'Transition? What the f*** is the transition?' A huge shame as someone would've been forced to admit it just means losing possession and the reason they were trying to blind us with science is because, in this tournament, it happens roughly every second or third pass. Pull at the honesty thread, everyone clearly believes, and the whole of women's football unravels. It's not the case, obviously. Viewers will watch football, no matter what the quality. Ten million tuned into ITV's coverage of the England/Italy semi-final, on Tuesday. Most of them, like me, probably praying it would end in more penalty shootout mayhem. It was narrowly avoided, sadly, but the night did at least benefit from the presence of Ian Wright and the absence of the terminally tedious Eni Aluko, who'd accused him of 'blocking women' from punditry jobs. Less gracious men than Wrighty would've told ITV to shove their invite, after they left him out of their original roster. But he was present, adding more passion, honesty and animation than the rest of them had managed in the previous 34 games combined. Given TV is so lost to the cult of woke, though, my worry now is it'll simply cut and paste the dull, pompous, dishonest, language-mangling insincerity of the women's game over to the blokes. Especially when Wrighty left a pregnant pause on Tuesday night. 'England can't quite find enough in . . . in . . . ' In the transition, Ian. The sacred bloody transition. Shaz: 'A dandelion.' Ben Shephard: 'Which letter that appears in the word for a song of praise known as a 'hymn' is silent when spoken out loud?' Richard: 'P.' And Impossible, Rick Edwards: 'Which settlement is situated at the southern tip of Loch Ness?' Callum was given the choice of 'A) Fort William' or 'C) Fort Augustus,' but chose 'B) Fort Lauderdale.' RANDOM IRRITATIONS THE new Royal Mail advert provoking us with Judi Love, Josh Widdicombe and Micah Richards so soon after the Horizon IT scandal. BBC2 putting a 'no longer active' disclaimer on Live Aid's 1985 phone lines. Channel 4 newsreader Cathy Newman even sounding smug banking money on The Weakest Link. And Good Morning Britain starting every show with half an hour of Labour Party PR from Kevin Maguire, who is the very last thing TV needs right now: A complete irrelevance disguised as a minor nuisance. LOOSE Women, Monday, Charlene White: 'You will never guess Janet Street-Porter 's summer holiday job.' 7 Pulling tourist carts round the Fez medina? Giving Princess Anne her next ride at Trooping the Colour? Mounted crowd control at the first Old Firm game? Actually, you're right. I give up. C4 LOST PLOT ON KNIFING 7 THE title of Channel 4 's documentary One Day In Southport has to be the most grotesque misnomer of the year. Just seven minutes and 30 seconds, plus a brief sentencing update at the end, was devoted to Axel Rudakubana 's barbaric murder of three young girls at a dance class, while the rest was consumed by the bone-brained riots that followed the outrage. No time at all, apparently, was available to discuss the systemic failings of the state preceding Rudakubana's savagery or indeed anything that happened before July 29, 2024, other than a Tommy Robinson march, two days prior, which had zero bearing on subsequent events but seemed to vex the C4 production no end. And if you even begin to doubt this was because the network was engaged in a political crusade, rather than the moral one the victims' families deserved, you need only question the undue prominence given to a counter-protester called Weyman Bennett. He's billed here as 'Stand Up To Racism, Secretary', and portrayed as very much an 'honest broker' but is also a hardcore member of the Socialist Workers Party and, indeed, part of the central committee infamously accused of covering up rape allegations against a far-left ally. All of which means there is still a huge gap in the network's schedules for a proper documentary about the Southport murders, which isn't afraid to point fingers at the Home Office and its anti-extremism Prevent scheme, which refused three times to deal with Rudakubana. But as well as dropping its infantile political agenda, that would require Channel 4 to find its moral compass, and I'm not entirely sure it ever had one in the first place. URGENT clarification required Re: A cosmetic surgery consultant called Cindy Jackson, who looked ITV2 's Price Of Perfection host Olivia Attwood straight in the face and said: 'I think there are a lot of ways you can lower your visual IQ and come across as someone who's not very bright.' 'Cos that's all natural, Cindy, and I'll challenge anyone else who says Olivia's stupidity isn't God given. LOOKALIKE OF THE WEEK THIS week's winner is Love Island's Yasmin and Morticia Addams. Emailed in by Michele M. ELLA TOONE: 'We kept going until the first minute.' Ellen White: 'Winning is everything but it's not.' Rachel Brown-Finnis: 'You have to draw a line behind what's happened before.' (Compiled by Graham Wray) TV (NOT QUITE) GOLD 7 NOTHING really deserved the description 'TV Gold' during this terrible TV week. But I feel I should mention BBC2's Top Gear repeats and screening of The Searchers, with John Wayne (a classic). Plus, Martin Lewis, of all people, making a genuinely unexpected cameo on the new series of Mandy (BBC2) to deliver the line: 'Just give her a paper receipt, you dirty wet wipe.' And ITV2's Love Island: Unseen Bits, which is the last reminder this show used to be quite funny, rather than simply soul-destroying, and made a point of flagging up Tommy's breakfast preparations, on Saturday: 'How the f*** do you squash avocado?' Conor: 'You literally just . . . mate, that's not an avocado. That's a lime.'


The Independent
19 hours ago
- The Independent
Spacey told actor ‘don't worry about it' after alleged assault, documents claim
Kevin Spacey allegedly sexually assaulted a young actor at a party at The Savoy hotel and then told him 'Don't worry about it', court documents for the High Court legal claim suggest. Ruari Cannon is suing Mr Spacey as well as two organisations connected to the Old Vic Theatre in London, claiming he suffered psychiatric damage as a result of sexual and emotional abuse. The 33-year-old has waived his anonymity in the claim. In court documents seen by the PA news agency, Mr Cannon alleges that Mr Spacey, who was a 'powerful figure and a world-famous actor and celebrity' at the time, assaulted him in about June 2013, when he was 'a very vulnerable young man'. Oscar-winning actor Mr Spacey has previously denied allegations of inappropriate behaviour and wrongdoing, and details of his defence are not yet available. According to the documents, filed in June, Mr Spacey was working as artistic director at the Old Vic Theatre at the time of the alleged assaults on a production of a play by Tennessee Williams known as Sweet Bird Of Youth, and Mr Cannon was a member of the cast in this production. They claim that Mr Spacey 'took a particular interest' in Mr Cannon for 'reasons of sexual interest' and sent him a 'lavish' gift of a framed poster of the 1985 production of the play directed by Harold Pinter. After the press preview of the show on June 12 2013, Mr Cannon attended a party at The Savoy in London organised by The Old Vic Theatre Company (The Cut) and The Old Vic Theatre Trust 2000. It is claimed that one of the alleged assaults took place at the event. Setting out the allegations, Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel KC, for Mr Cannon, said: 'Kevin Spacey pulled the claimant towards him, turned him around through 45 degrees and placed his left hand on the claimant's buttocks and lifted up the recess material of his suit.' It is alleged that Mr Spacey then pushed Mr Cannon's underwear 'as far up' into his bottom as possible, 'so as to cause pain and distress'. Ms Gumbel added: 'Mr Kevin Spacey pulled the claimant closer to him and whispered into the claimant's ear 'Don't worry about it'. 'Mr Spacey made more uncalled for and unwelcome advances to the claimant during the evening.' The following day, Mr Cannon reported the alleged assaults to his stage manager at the Old Vic Theatre, but no action was taken. According to the documents, it is accepted that Mr Cannon did not ask for any action to be taken, and was scared about how any further action might affect his career. Later that year, during the run of the show, Mr Cannon saw Mr Spacey at the Old Vic bar. Mr Spacey allegedly said to him, 'I hear you have a dirty secret', and then said: 'Open up.' Ms Gumbel said: 'Kevin Spacey then forced open the claimant's mouth with his fingers and thumbs and commented 'quite a bad boy' before the claimant could pull away. 'The claimant then left the bar. The forcing open of the claimant's mouth was another assault for which Kevin Spacey was responsible and for which the second and/or third defendants were vicariously liable. 'Further in 2017 when the Old Vic set up a confidential complaints email on October 31 2017 the claimant reported the above complaint again to the Old Vic.' She added that the alleged assaults were carried out by Mr Spacey in the course of his work for the organisations connected to the Old Vic, and they are 'vicariously liable' for the alleged assaults carried out in the context of a theatre production.


The Sun
19 hours ago
- The Sun
What are the Love Island Grafties?
THE Grafties are returning to Love Island tonight. Viewers of the ITV2 show will tune in for a night of both hilarity and potential drama in the famous Majorca villa. 5 5 Love Island will host its very own award ceremony in the villa for several standout moments, as voted for by the public. The red carpet is laid out for the contestants before clips are shown on a big-screen inside the villa like on movie night. This will bring up either old drama or hilarious moments that most of the group would not have previously seen. All the Grafties categories At this year's ceremony we have six categories that are highly contested. Eat, sleep crack on, repeat Award (Nominees: Conor, Dejon and Helena) Flirtiest performance (Nominees: Harry, Jamie and Harry & Angel) Unfinished business (Nominees: Emma & Harry, Conor & Megan, Shakira & Harry) Best double act (Nominees: Dejon & Helena, Helena & Meg, Shakira & Toni) Most emotional moment (Nominees: Cach, Shakira and Toni) The bestie no filter moment (Nominees: Dejon, Harry and Toni & Shakira) Who is nominated for a Graftie? A number of this year's islanders have been nominated in what is the most anticipated ceremony in reality TV. Harry Cooklsey is up for five awards across three categories. He has been nominated twice in the flirtiest performance and the unfinished business categories. He's also up for best no filter moment. Coming in second is Shakira Khan with four nominations, all in different categories. She did miss out on the Eat, sleep crack on, repeat category despite being coupled up with four of the boys during her tenure on the show. Helena Ford, Toni Laites and Dejon Noel-Williams all have three nominations each, whilst Conor Phillips has been nominated in two categories. Meanwhile, Meg Moore, Megan Forte-Clarke, Angel Swift, J amie Rhodes and Cach Mercer have not been overlooked. Love Island first look: Watch the moment screaming row kicks off after Love Island star is branded 'a snake' in villa challenge However, it looks as though Ty Isherwood, Yazmin Pettet and Blu Chegini have made it out scot-free, but will they be unaffected by the drama? What do Grafties winners get? All the couples sit at individual tables in the garden as the winners are announced to the villa. Each victor will get their own trophy and a chance to make a speech, either to laugh, cringe, or apologise. Despite what could be a great moment in the villa, the contestants are forced to confront potential feelings and deal with unresolved issues. We all remember when the drama exploded in the villa when Messy Mitch was forced to accept the award for 'Mad Moves'. Who decides the winner? Although the ceremony is decided by the public, unfortunately for Love Island fans, the vote has already closed. The show's official Instagram account announced the categories and the nominees on the 22nd July. Loyal viewers of the long-running dating show were able to have their say via an exclusive vote on its Instagram stories. 5 5 5