4. A Lodger Returns: Change in Narrative Voice Across Epigenetic Versions and Works

Josefine Hilfling

©2024 Josefine Hilfling, CC BY-NC 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0426.04

Introduction

The first edition of the Danish Nobel Prize-winning author Henrik Pontoppidan’s major novel A Fortunate Man (Lykke-Per 1898a) opens with a chapter introducing the protagonist, Per Sidenius. In the second chapter, however, readers are suddenly confronted with the hitherto unknown characters Senior Boatswain Olufsen and his wife in Nyboder, Copenhagen. In the rather long second chapter, it seems for a while as if the protagonist is no longer the young Per Sidenius, but instead the retiree Olufsen. This is the impression readers initially get, until Per is reintroduced in the newly established context as a lodger at the Olufsens. Given Henrik Pontoppidan’s working method, characterised by rewriting and revising his works after publication, creating new works from old ones, and changing plans and ambitions during the writing process, it becomes relevant to investigate where this new environment comes from and to investigate why Per becomes a lodger at the Olufsens.

A Fortunate Man (1898a-1904; 1905; 1907; 1918a; 1920a; 1931; 1937) is, like almost all Pontoppidan’s works, told by a heterodiegetic omniscient narrator. However, a short section of the novel was originally published as part of the short story ‘Fra Byen. Hjærtensfryd’ [‘Heart’s Delight’] (1885a). This first edition of the short story is told by an unknown and barely present homodiegetic narrator, the lodger, but at the same time it possesses characteristics that are normally only seen in heterodiegetic omniscient narration. In the revised, second edition of the short story (1886) the narrator is changed to heterodiegetic, thereby matching the omniscient context. Due to this change of narrator, the lodger disappears from the text. Yet the change of narrator serves as a prerequisite for Pontoppidan’s later incorporation of the story into the heterodiegetic context of A Fortunate Man (1898a).

It is not uncommon for authors in the writing process to change the narrative voice from homodiegetic to heterodiegetic (Van Hulle 2022, 157ff). To my knowledge, however, such a change has not been studied in the epigenetic phase of a work’s genesis, that is the genesis of a work after the first publication (Van Hulle 2014, 97; 2022, 14ff). Likewise, homodiegetic narration resembling omniscient narration has been described by narrative critics anchored in single versions of texts (e.g. Skov Nielsen 2004; Shen 2013). Here it is studied across versions and works.

This essay gives insight into the origin and the genesis of a snippet of A Fortunate Man and offers an explanation to how and why Per became a lodger at Olufsens. An analysis of the change in narrative voice from the first to the second edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’, where the most significant and influential changes are located, will show how little change it took Pontoppidan to change the narrative voice completely. From the analysis it will become apparent how the narrative voice that would dominate Pontoppidan’s oeuvre (heterodiegetic, omniscient, past tense) was already present in his early writings—even when it was unintended. The analysis serves as an example of how the combination of genetic criticism and narratology can explain inconsistencies in single texts and across versions and works.

The Author Pontoppidan

Pontoppidan made his literary debut in 1881 during the so-called Danish modern breakthrough. He wrote, published and revised his works up until his death in 1943 (Stangerup 1977, 268ff). Writing and publishing over half a century, Pontoppidan can be classified as neither modernist, nor realist, naturalist, or romanticist. He wrote novellas, short stories, novels and newspaper articles but is mostly known for his three novels The Promised Land (Det forjættede Land 1891–95; 1898c; 1903b; 1918b; 1920b; 1938), A Fortunate Man and The Kingdom of the Dead (De Dødes Rige 1912-16; 1917; 1918c [1919]; 1922). In 1917, after having published the second, revised edition of The Kingdom of the Dead, Pontoppidan received the Nobel Prize in Literature, which he shared with another Danish author, Karl Gjellerup. Pontoppidan was awarded the prize ‘for his authentic descriptions of present-day life in Denmark’ (The Nobel Prize in Literature 1917). While it was not unjustified to award the prize to Pontoppidan for his depictions of Denmark at the time, this recognition provides only a simplified and insufficient interpretation of his oeuvre. In the Denmark he depicts in his works, we find people and their destinies, often described in a morbid but realistic way, shuttling between the dichotomies of religion and science, provincialism and metropolitanism, vanity and impermanence (Ahnlund 1956). These themes are indeed present in A Fortunate Man, and thematic germs, especially regarding the latter two dichotomies, can be traced back to ‘Heart’s Delight’ (1885a), which was published twelve years earlier.

Pontoppidan’s Working Method

Pontoppidan is known to have destroyed his manuscripts and to have revised his published works considerably through numerous later editions. This is also the case with both ‘Heart’s Delight’ and A Fortunate Man. ‘Heart’s Delight’ was published in three editions of which the first two differ significantly from each other.1 A Fortunate Man was published in seven editions, of which especially the second and fourth editions contain significant variants (1905; 1918a). These epigenetic layers make it possible to trace Pontoppidan’s creative process and the development of his work. Pontoppidan generally changed elements regarding the theme, motives, characteristics and descriptions (Behrendt 1971, 122ff; Kielberg and Rømhild 1997, 80f; Skjerbæk 1970, 59; Gottlieb 2022; Gottlieb and Rasmussen 2023, 48f, 60ff). Besides the change in narrative voice in ‘Heart’s Delight’, there is one other case of change from first to third and back to first-person narration in the short story ‘Af Pigen Marthas Historie’ (27 August 1884), later published as a part of the novel Ung Elskov (1885b; 1906) (Behrendt 2006). As it appears, Pontoppidan tended to create new works from earlier published works by incorporating them into new narratives (Gottlieb and Rasmussen 2023, 57f; Haarder 2002, 27; Andersen 1917, 19; Behrendt 2003). The texts that he incorporated in his later works could thus be considered sketches related to the genesis of another work. Pontoppidan’s oeuvre is intertwined and interconnected. A Fortunate Man is a single work, yet it is a complex one—a mosaic of works. One piece in this mosaic is the short story ‘Heart’s Delight’.

The first edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ was published in the Nordic literary weekly Hjemme og Ude on 15 February 1885, only four years after Pontoppidan’s debut as a writer. It was published under the pseudonym ‘Urbanus’ in the column Fra Byen [From the City]. At this time, Pontoppidan published under two pseudonyms: ‘Urbanus’ and ‘Rusticus’ (Behrendt 2018). The former he used for his publications on city life in Copenhagen, the latter for publications on country life. The first edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ is in the present tense, narrated by a homodiegetic narrator—an unknown lodger at the house of the Olufsens. The lodger is barely present as a character in the text, we do not even know whether they are male or female, but the story is, nevertheless, narrated by him or her. The story is set in an actual street in Copenhagen named after the lemon balm herb, which is nicknamed ‘heart’s delight’. It is a satire on life in the city and on the Olufsens and their many parties, celebrating not so much the official and religious holidays but their numerous private and self-invented occasions:

[…] Aarsdagen for Kanariefuglen “Peter”s højtidelige Indlemmelse i Familien, endvidere Mindefest for Højbaadsmandens salig store Taa, som for tredive Aar siden blev klippet af for Bénedder, samt Madammens Kopsætningsdag, der gjærne indtræffer ud paa Foraaret (Pontoppidan 1885a, 249)

[the annual celebration marking the solemn admission of “Peter” the canary into the family, furthermore, the commemoration of the day thirty years ago when Senior Boatswain Olufsen lost part of his blessed big toe due to a severe bone infection, and the Madam’s blood-letting day, which often occur well into the spring season]2

As it appears, the Olufsens would use any event as an excuse to arrange a gathering—to eat and drink. The short story can be divided into two parts. The first part purports to provide a general description of how all their parties are held. Yet they are described with such accuracy that it can hardly serve as a general description. The second and longer part of the story contains a description of how one party, which differs from all the others, is planned and carried out.

The second edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ was published on 9 December 1886 as part of a collection of short stories by different Danish authors, entitled Hjemmekinesere og andre Fortællinger (Skjerbæk and Herring 2006, 66). In this edition, Pontoppidan does not mask himself behind a pseudonym. Instead, his name is explicitly listed in the index. Furthermore, the text is accompanied by a genre declaration, that is ‘En Fortælling’ [‘A Tale’]. The text is similar in its structure to the text in the first edition, but adjustments have been made. Text has been added, removed and revised. The number of deletions—or omissions—is greater than the number of additions. In that regard, the text has been shortened and tightened, which is typical of Pontoppidan’s revisions (Skjerbæk 1970, 59). The most significant difference between the two editions is, as described, the voice, which changes from homodiegetic to heterodiegetic, along with a shift in tense from present to past.

In A Fortunate Man, the first and second parts of ‘Heart’s Delight’ are incorporated into two different places and contexts of the work. The first part is located in the beginning of chapter 2, pages 55–58. The second part is located in the fourth chapter, pages 165–72.3 In this essay, I will focus on the essential change of the narrator’s voice in the first part of ‘Heart’s Delight’.

A Fortunate Man, First Edition

The first edition of A Fortunate Man was published in eight booklets over a span of six years (1898a-1904). It is a bildungsroman narrated by a heterodiegetic omniscient narrator chronicling the life journey of Per, the son of a rural clergyman. Per aspires to succeed as an engineer. However, the narrative transcends a mere career pursuit, interweaving a love story and an exploration of the fundamental meaning of life. The novel proposes that the quest for existential meaning cannot be found exclusively through the city’s high society, material acquisitions, or professional aspirations. Instead, it suggests that true meaning must be found within oneself. The following recapitulation of chapters 1 and 2 sheds more light on the context in which the passage from ‘Heart’s Delight’ is incorporated.

Chapter 1 sets the scene, describing the main character, Per, his family and the environment. Readers learn how Per feels estranged from his family and friends, and why he feels the urge to separate himself from the Christian home he is embarrassed to be associated with. Out of this far-from-easy, far-from-glamorous childhood emerges a dream of material success and recognition as an engineer in the Danish capital, if not in the whole of Europe. Per wants to distance himself from everything his life has been so far: Christianity, his family and the countryside of Jutland. The first chapter ends with a scene in which Per, at the age of seventeen, sails away from Jutland towards Copenhagen to embark on his studies at the Polytechnical Institute. Chapter 2 begins with a rather long passage of the hitherto unknown characters of boatswain Olufsen, his wife and their foster daughter and maid, Trine (1898a, 49–53). The introductory passage is an adaptation of two other, earlier publications ‘Enetale 19. April’ (19 April 1897) and ‘Den sorte Aline. En fortælling’ (1889). The adaptation of these texts is followed by what I have referred to as ‘the first part’ of ‘Heart’s Delight’, introducing the main character Per, now a lodger at the Olufsens’ (1898a, 56).

Change in Narrative Voice from ‘Heart’s Delight’ to
A Fortunate Man

Every version of the examined story contains a description that purports to specify not just one party but every party held at the Olufsens for the last forty years (1885a, 249; 1886, 47; 1898a, 55). Especially with a homodiegetic narrator, as in the case of the first edition, the description is too specific to be believable. Furthermore, the homodiegetic narrator conflicts with elements of omniscience. I do not argue, however, that this is a case of unreliability. Rather it is what James Phelan has defined as deficient narration (2017, 235). In both unreliable and deficient narration something is ‘off-kilter’, meaning that there is a disruption ‘of the alignment of authors, narrators, and audiences that characterizes most reliable narration’ (231). The difference is that unreliable narration is off-kilter intentionally whereas deficient narration is not (195). When readers recognise the narration of a text as unintentionally off-kilter, their expectations run counter to the progression of the story. Phelan describes how he identifies off-kilter elements in his reading of Joan Didion’s publication The Year of Magical Thinking (2005):

Why would I or any reader notice that this clause [in Didion’s text] is off-kilter? Because of our unfolding responses to the progression. In my own experience, the clause seemed to jump off the page because it ran so counter to the expectations and desires I had developed by attending to the narrating-I’s quest for something that could have made a difference. (Phelan 2017, 208)

The identification of the off-kilter elements depends on readers’ expectations. Phelan distinguishes between three kinds of deficient narration: deceptive, inadvertent and intratextual (237). Deceptive and inadvertent forms of deficient narration concern nonfiction. Here the deficiency is measured in correlation with external facts. Intratextual types of deficient narration can relate to both nonfiction and fiction. Here the deficiency exists within the frames of the text. In Phelan’s definition intratextual deficient narration ‘reveals its deficiency through some inconsistency or other flaw in the overall design of the narration. To put it another way, intratextual deficient narration is deficient in relation to the terms set by its own larger narrative’ (Phelan 2017, 236f).

In this analysis, I argue that the narration in the first edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ appears deficient because its homodiegetic narrator resembles an omniscient heterodiegetic narrator, recounting too many details. However, because the first edition already had features of an omniscient heterodiegetic narrative voice, the analysis will show that it only took Pontoppidan one omission to resolve the deficiency and change the narrative voice to heterodiegetic. The analysis is split into two parts focusing respectively on two discrepancies: 1) between the homodiegetic narrator and the features of omniscience; 2) between the homodiegetic narrator and the number of details offered.

The first sentence of the first edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ informs readers about the narrator’s identity, the atmosphere and where the story is set. It provides information about the narrative situation, making readers expect a reliable, homodiegetic narrative: ‘Der fejres aarlig mange Festdage hos min Vært, pensioneret Højbaadsmand Olufsen i Hjærtensfrydgade’ [‘Many festive days are celebrated annually at my host, retired Senior Boatswain Olufsen in Heart’s Delight Street’] (1885a, 249). The homodiegetic narrator is the unnamed and unidentified lodger. There are no first-person singular references to the narrator themself, other than the possessive pronoun ‘my’ in ‘at my host’, and no further direct information on the character-narrator is offered. In the second edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’, the little descriptive phrase ‘at my host’ is omitted: ‘Der fejredes mange Festdage hos pensioneret Højbaadsmand Olufsen i Hjærtensfrydgade’ [‘Many festive days were celebrated annually at retired Senior Boatswain Olufsen in Heart’s Delight Street’] (1886, 73). Since the omitted phrase is the only direct reference to a homodiegetic narrator in the first edition, it only takes a single omission to ‘transvocalize’ from homo- to heterodiegetic (Genette [1983] 1988, 109ff). The ease with which Pontoppidan accomplishes this resembles the genesis of another work. In her study of Franz Kafka’s manuscript for Das Schloß (1926), Dorrit Cohn describes how Kafka employs a homodiegetic narrator, ‘Ich’, for the first 42 pages but then decides to change it to a heterodiegetic narrator, ‘K’ (1968, 29). Cohn argues that there were no obstacles in changing the narrator’s voice because the text was ‘a first-person narrative in grammatical form only, not in structure’ (Cohn 1968, 33; Van Hulle 2022, 158). The same goes for the first edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ except it barely was a first-person narrative in grammatical form at all. When, twelve years later, ‘Heart’s Delight’ is incorporated into A Fortunate Man, Per becomes a lodger at the Olufsens’: ‘Denne lystige unge Mand er Olufsens Logerende, den enogtyveaarige Polytekniker Sidenius’ [‘This merry young man is Olufsens’ lodger, the twenty-one-year-old engineering student Sidenius’] (1898a, 56). To sum up, there is a movement from the first edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’, where the narrator-character is an unknown and almost invisible lodger; to the second edition where the narrator-character is omitted and replaced with a heterodiegetic narrator; to A Fortunate Man where the heterodiegetic narrator introduces the protagonist Per as a (or maybe the) lodger.

A homodiegetic narrator’s insight is normally limited to the character it represents, and what he/she can experience, recount and recollect (Prince [1987] 2003, 40). In contrast, an omniscient narrator possesses potential insight into everything at any given moment (Niederhoff 2013). Yet features of omniscience in homodiegetic narrative fiction are not unusual (Skov Nielsen 2004, 135f). The final three lines of the examined passage in the first edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ (1885a, 250) are a sign of a latent omniscient narrator: ‘Endelig henad Morgenstunden sejler de hjemad, hver til sit, i en Lyksalighedstilstand, fra hvilken der endnu Dagen efter hviler et Skjær over dem, som fra en nedgaaet Sol.— —’ [‘At last, towards the morning hours, they sail homeward, each to their own, in a state of bliss, from which there still lingers a glow over them the next day, like that of a setting sun.— —’] (1885a, 250). There are several indications of omniscience in this passage. First, it describes how the guests go home in a state of pure happiness (‘bliss’). This indicates that the narrator has insight into the guests’ feelings. Second, the narrator has insight into the way the light falls upon not only one, but all the attendees’ faces at the same time, the day after the actual parties. To possess this insight, the homodiegetic narrator would have to (always) be present at several different places at the same time. The quoted passage is adapted into the heterodiegetic narratives of both the second edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ and A Fortunate Man. The passage shows that there is an element of omniscience in all three versions of the story, but the context differs. In the first edition, the passage appears in the context of a homodiegetic narrator. In the second edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ and in A Fortunate Man, it appears in the context of a heterodiegetic omniscient narrator, where it does not come across as off-kilter.

In both editions of ‘Heart’s Delight’, the descriptions of the parties are meant to be general but are detailed to a degree that would make one suppose that it was a description of a single event rather than several events. A good example is the passage in which the narrator refers to a recurring exchange between Madam Olufsen and one of the guests, Riveter Fuss. After the guests have been seated and Madam Olufsen has placed the ‘duck or ham roast’ on the table, Fuss throws himself back in the chair exclaiming a joke about Madam Olufsen being a hen and the roast a giant egg she laid, whereupon she ‘berates’ him as ‘an old fool’ and invites the guests to ‘treat her abode as if it were their own’ (1885a, 149; 1886, 74; 1898a, 55). The accuracy in the description of the events would make it possible to recreate a typical party at the Olufsens’. It can be compared to an already tried recipe for how a party is held at the Olufsens’. But, as David Herman states, a recipe is not narrative (2002, 88). This impression of a narrative created from something non-narrative containing a description of a general phenomenon as if it were specific makes readers experience something in the narrative as off-kilter.

The accuracy and the number of details appear off-kilter in the first edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ due to the limits in the narrative voice of a homodiegetic narrator, but in the second edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ and in A Fortunate Man it is less so, because they are narrated by an omniscient heterodiegetic narrative voice. Furthermore, the number of details decreases in each of Pontoppidan’s revisions. Below is an example from the same scene across the three different editions. In both editions of ‘Heart’s Delight’ (1885a, 1886), time is referred to with exact time markers; in A Fortunate Man, the proceedings of the events depend to a higher degree on the causality of earlier events:

Note the parenthesis in the second edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’, ‘(hvor Bordet stod dækket)’ [‘(where the table had been laid)’] (1886). The text inside the parenthesis serves as the narrator’s commentary clarifying Olufsen’s use of the term ‘parlour’ to signify a room where the dinner table is set. This kind of explanatory narrator’s comments can be found in both editions of ‘Heart’s Delight’ but have been removed from the passage contained in A Fortunate Man (Behrendt 1971, 122f). In this regard, the heterodiegetic narrator in A Fortunate Man appears more neutral because this style of narration places less emphasis on the storytelling.

Another change that may contribute to making the narrative voice in the second edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ and the first edition of A Fortunate Man appear more neutral is the change from present to past tense. Present tense narration is not necessarily ‘unnatural’ in Brian Richardson’s sense (2015). Yet in Pontoppidan’s time, when epic preterite was the dominant form of narration, (homodiegetic) present tense narratives were not as ‘conventionalized’ (Skov Nielsen 2011, 85) as they are today. Therefore, if the second edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’, narrated in the past tense, seems more neutral to its contemporary readers, it may have seemed even more so to readers in Pontoppidan’s time.

The described changes in ‘Heart’s Delight’ and A Fortunate Man signal changes in Pontoppidan’s intentions, at least for that specific moment when they are made. In this genetic-narratological analysis, the knowledge of Pontoppidan’s working method and the insight into his revisions in the three versions of the story can serve as a retrospective authorial confirmation: Pontoppidan’s intuition that something is off-kilter in the first edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ confirms the narratological analysis of the deficiency.

In the earlier quoted description of deficient narratives, Phelan writes: ‘intratextual deficient narration is deficient in relation to the terms set by its own larger narrative’ (2017, 236f). What he means by ‘larger narrative’ is not unfolded. On the one hand, it could be the narrative presented at first, shaping readers’ expectations; in that case, it is the omniscient, heterodiegetic elements that appear off-kilter. On the other hand, it could also be the narrative that takes up more of the actual space in the text; in that case, it is the homodiegetic phrase ‘my host’ that appears off-kilter. In 2006, the eminent Pontoppidan scholar Flemming Behrendt wrote that there is no first-person narrator in the first edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’. Fifteen years later, he corrected this mistake, identifying the narrating ‘I’ in the first paragraph (2021, 706). The fact that Behrendt overlooked the homodiegetic narrator and mistakenly concluded that there is none supports the argument that the homodiegetic narrator in the text is almost absent, to such a degree that it makes readers overlook it and therefore read the text without even finding the text deficient. This also goes some way towards explaining why the inconsistency was there in the first place: maybe Pontoppidan as his own first reader simply overlooked it.

In a manuscript study, we would be able to trace the genesis in the documents and observe where the inconsistencies appeared. In an epigenetic study such as this one, where the genesis is in print, it is only the result of the writing process that is left in the document. Therefore, the conclusions depend to a higher degree on interpretation. Still, it is possible to draw a few conclusions from this kind of epigenetic study. Pontoppidan’s plan for, and concept of, A Fortunate Man changed both during the endo- and epigenetic writing process of the first edition (Pontoppidan in a letter to Otto Borchsenius, 3 July 1898). This working method suggests that Pontoppidan was not an author who made a thorough plan of his works beforehand. When he had just published the first booklet of the first edition, the ambition was to create a novel in six booklets published over two years, concerning five different homes in Denmark. One of these homes was the Olufsens’. By the time the first edition was finished, eight, not six, booklets had been published over a span of six, not two, years. The Olufsens’ home does play a part in the novel. Still, it is not central to the story and its relevance is, perhaps due to the revisions and to the decreased importance of the foster child Trine (Gottlieb and Rasmussen 2023, 48), further reduced in the later, revised editions (1905; 1918a). This could indicate that the incorporation of ‘Heart’s Delight’ in A Fortunate Man was not part of a great plan. Due to the context of the incorporation which followed two further incorporations of earlier works, Pontoppidan at this moment in the writing process had likely reread some earlier published works in search of texts that would fit in with the established narrative. Incorporating ‘Heart’s Delight’ in A Fortunate Man may have reminded him of the homodiegetic narrator, the lodger, in the first edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’, which possibly inspired him to turn Per into a lodger. Pontoppidan did not have much experience with writing first-person narratives. In his entire oeuvre, he mainly worked with heterodiegetic narrators. His apparent preference for heterodiegetic narrative voice is reflected in the lack of coherence in the first edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’, but also in the genesis of the narrative voice across the versions of the story in ‘Heart’s Delight’ and in A Fortunate Man.

In this essay, I have described how little revision it took Pontoppidan to change the narrative voice in ‘Heart’s Delight’. This was because the first edition already possessed characteristics inherent to omniscient narration. I have argued that the inconsistency in the narrative voice in the first edition of ‘Heart’s Delight’ was unintended, and that the shift from a homodiegetic narrator to a heterodiegetic narrator in ‘Heart’s Delight’ enabled Pontoppidan to incorporate the short story into A Fortunate Man. Removing the unidentified lodger and changing the narrator opened the door for another lodger at the Olufsens’ in A Fortunate Man, namely, the protagonist Per Sidenius.

Behrendt, Flemming (2018), Meninger og holdninger (1994) (Henrik Pontoppidan Netstedet). https://www.henrikpontoppidan.dk/text/kilder/boeger/meninger.html.

Behrendt, Flemming (2021, 2. e-book edition), Livsrusen. En bog om Henrik Pontoppidan (Gads forlag).

Bernaerts, Lars and Dirk Van Hulle (2013), ‘Narrative across Versions: Narratology Meets Genetic Criticism’, Poetics Today, 34.3: 281–326, https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-2325232.

Cohn, Dorrit (1968), ‘K. enters The Castle: On the Change of Person in Kafka’s Manuscript’, Euphorion, 62: 28–45.

Niederhoff, Burkhard (2011, rev. 2013), ‘Perspective—Point of View’, in: The Living Handbook of Narratology, ed. by Peter Hühn, et al. (Hamburg: Hamburg University). https://www-archiv.fdm.uni-hamburg.de/lhn/node/26.html.

Genette, Gérard [1983] (1988), ‘Person (II)’, in: Narrative Discourse Revisited (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), 109–13.

Gottlieb, Katja (2022), Smagssag. En editionsfilologisk undersøgelse af Henrik Pontoppidans Lykke-Per med særligt henblik på inspirationen fra Nietzsche (Henrik Pontoppidan Netstedet). https://www.henrikpontoppidan.dk/text/undervisning/opgaver/eksempler/gottlieb_smagssag.html.

Gottlieb, Katja and Krista Stinne Greve Rasmussen (2023), ‘Litteraturens mange versioner: Metodiske overvejelser for litteraturstudier og Henrik Pontoppidans Lykke-Per’, in: Boghistorie i Skandinavien, ed. by Krista Stinne Greve Rasmussen, et al. (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press), 47–70, https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.3643869.5.

Haarder, Jon Helt (2002), ’Henrik Pontoppidan’, in: Danske digtere i det 20. århundrede, vol. 1, ed. by Anne-Marie Mai (København: Gads Forlag), 11–30.

Herman, David (2002), ‘Sequences versus Stories’, in: Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press), 87–92.

Kielberg, Esther and Lars Peter Rømhild (1997), ‘Efterskrift’, in: Det forjættede Land, vol. 2, ed. by Esther Kielberg, Lars Peter Rømhild (København: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab; Gyldendal), 11–188.

The Nobel Prize in Literature (1917), NobelPrize.org, The Nobel Prize in Literature 1917. NobelPrize.org.

Pontoppidan, Henrik (27 August 1884), ‘Fra Landet: 2det Kapitel af Pigen Marthas Historie’, in: Ude og Hjemme, 356: 525–26.

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1885a), ‘Fra Byen. Hjærtensfryd’, in: Hjemme og Ude, 20: 249–52.

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1885b), Ung Elskov (København: Gyldendalske Boghandels Forlag (F. Hegel & Søn)).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1886), ‘Hjærtensfryd’, in: Hjemmekinesere og andre Fortællinger (København: N. C. Roms Forlagsforretning), 71–82.

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1889), ‘Den sorte Aline. En Fortælling’, in: Folkets Almanak for det Aar efter Christi Fødsel 1890, ed. by Niels Christian Rom and Christian Andersen Thyregod (N. C. Roms Forlagsforretning), 2–12.

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1891), Muld. Et Tidsbillede (København: P.G. Philipsens Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1892), Muld. Et Tidsbillede (København: P.G. Philipsens Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1892), Det forjættede Land. Et Tidsbillede (København: P.G. Philipsens Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1893), Det forjættede Land. Et Tidsbillede (København: P.G. Philipsens Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1895), Dommens Dag. Et Tidsbillede (København: P.G. Philipsens Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (19 April 1897), ’Enetale 19. April’, in: Politiken.

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1898a), Lykke-Per, hans Ungdom (København: Det nordiske Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1898b), Lykke-Per finder Skatten (København: Det nordiske Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1898c), Det forjættede Land (København: Det nordiske Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1899), Lykke-Per, hans Kærlighed (København: Det nordiske Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1899), Lykke-Per i det Fremmede (København: Det nordiske Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1901), Lykke-Per, hans store Værk (København: Det nordiske Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1902), Lykke-Per og hans Kæreste (København: Det nordiske Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1903a), Lykke-Per, hans Rejse til Amerika (København: Det nordiske Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1903b), Det forjættede Land (København: Det nordiske Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1904), Lykke-Per, hans sidste Kamp (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordiske Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1905), Lykke-Per, Anden Udgave, Første-Tredje Del (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1906), Ung Elskov (København: Det Schubotske Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1907), Lykke-Per, Tredje Udgave, Første-Tredje Del (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1912), Torben og Jytte. (En Fortælling-Kres) (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1913), Storeholt. (En Fortælling-Kres) (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1914), Toldere og Syndere. (En Fortælling-Kres) (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghande; Nordisk Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1915), Enslevs Død. (En Fortælling-Kres) (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag.)

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1916), Torben og Jytte. (En Fortælling-Kres) [4. oplag] (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1916), Favsingholm. (En Fortælling-Kres) (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1917), De Dødes Rige (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1918a), Lykke-Per, Fjerde Udgave, Første-Andet Bind (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1918b), Det forjættede Land (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1918c), De Dødes Rige (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1920a), Lykke-Per, Femte Udgave, Første-Andet Bind (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1920b), Det forjættede Land (København og Kristiania: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1922), De Dødes Rige (København, Kristiania, London og Berlin: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1931), Lykke-Per, Sjette Oplag, Første-Andet Bind (København: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1937), Lykke-Per, Syvende Udgave, Første-Andet Bind (København: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag).

Pontoppidan, Henrik (1938), Det forjættede Land (København: Gyldendalske Boghandel; Nordisk Forlag).

Phelan, James (2017), ‘The Implied Author, Deficient Narration, and Nonfiction Narrative: Joan Didion’s The Year of Magical Thinking and Jean-Dominique Bauby’s The Diving Bell and The Buttery’; ‘Reliable, Unreliable, and Deficient Narration: Toward a Rhetorical Poetics’, in: Somebody Telling Somebody Else: A Rhetorical Poetics of Narrative (Columbus: Ohio State University Press), 195-214; 230–8, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv15rt209.15.

Prince, Gerald [1987] (2003), A Dictionary of Narratology (Lincoln, NE and London: University of Nebraska Press).

Richardson, Brian (2015), Unnatural Narrative: Theory, History, and Practice (Columbus: Ohio State University Press).

Shen, Dan (2011, rev. 2013), ‘Unreliability’, in: The Living Handbook of Narratology, ed. by Peter Hühn et al. (Hamburg: Hamburg University). https://www-archiv.fdm.uni-hamburg.de/lhn/node/66.html.

Skjerbæk, Thorkild (1970), Kunst og budskab. Studier i Henrik Pontoppidans forfatterskab (Odense: Gyldendal).

Skjerbæk, Esther and Thorkild, and René Herring (2006), Henrik Pontoppidans forfatterskab: en bibliografi, ed. by René Herring (København: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab; Det Kongelige Bibliotek).

Skov Nielsen, Henrik (2004), ‘The Impersonal Voice in First-Person Narrative Fiction’, Narrative, 12.2: 133–50, 10.1353/nar.2004.0002.

Skov Nielsen, Henrik (2011), ‘Unnatural Narratology, Impersonal Voices, Real Authors, and Non-Communicative Narration’, in: Unnatural Narratives—Unnatural Narratology, ed. by Jan Alber and Rüdiger Heinze (Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter), 71–88, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229042.

Stangerup, Hakon (1977), ‘Henrik Pontoppidan’, in: Dansk Litteraturhistorie. 2nd edition, vol. 4, ed. by Hakon Stangerup et al. (København: Politikens Forlag), 268-317.

Van Hulle, Dirk (2014), Modern Manuscripts: The Extended Mind and Creative Undoing from Darwin to Beckett and Beyond (London and New York: Bloomsbury). 

Van Hulle, Dirk (2022), Genetic Criticism: Tracing Creativity in Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846792.001.0001.