Arvid Stjärnblom could be any of us. In love with the young Lydia Stille, for some social and personnal reasons, he lets his chances go away. She slips out of his hands to marry a much metter match. As time goes by, they finally meet again and live together a few years. But Lydia cheats on him several times and finally goes away, in love with another man.Would things have been different if Arvid could have married Lydia ? Does he pay for his hesitations ? Contrary to the preface writer Nicole Zand, there are good reasons to doubt this novel would turn around missed opportunities, first of all as Lydia is descripted as an eternal lover who could perfectly marry a new man every year.
This "serious game" is much more a fatalistic view of relationship between men and women, confronted to love and loneliness : "We don't choose our destiny. We don't choose our wife, our mistress, our children. We have them, we keep them, sometimes we loose them. But we never choose !"
The fact is I would like to disagree with Söderberg. In a way, I still think we can choose a few things, at least that a relationship is something you build and not only something you're are subjected to. Arvid never really talks to Lydia, he's confronted to her behaviour, he tries to understand her but never manages to - I know, men can't understand women, but at least he could try !
Would things be different nowadays ? Well first of all, Arvid could have find consolation in watching Sex and the City in DVD and eating ice cream. More seriously, I must admit the fatalistic theory of Söderberg is still working. When you look around you, how many unhappy "good girls" or "good guys" do you see ? And how many happy couples who do not deserve anything in particular ? Who had the opportunity to choose anything ?
Reading this "serious game", we realize things are still the sames two hundred years later. We suffer with Arvid, and enjoy the talent of Mr Söderberd to describe with such accuracy the ups and downs of love.
