AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
would have a great-granddaughter. The letter takes over the
behaviour of the human species, whose desire will never be
fulfilled. Although we are alerted to the possible effects of our
actions, we are not very interested in protecting the world: When
we use words like ´consumption´ I suppose it is because we don´t
want to see that there is an upper limit. The cup is never full.
A word which is hardly ever used now is ´enough´. Instead we
overuse another word, which is shorter: ´more´... „A word we
rarely use is ´save´. But words like ´eco-conscious´ and ´carbon-
neutral´ appear more and more in newspapers (Gaarder, 2016,
p. 157-158).
The plot again focuses on the character of Anna, who had
a dream about her granddaughter Nova and a devastated
environment. Anna wonders if there was anything real about the
dream and if it was just a fragment of her imagination. The story
continues and she dreams of Nova again. In a dream, Nova
criticizes her grandmother: I want monkeys, lions and tigers, too.
I want them all back. Why can’t you understand? I want bears
and wolves in Norway. And that funny sea parrot – what’s it
called? The puffin! And the curlew – don’t forget about the
curlew! I want bearberries and alpine speedwell and glacier
buttercups and dwarf willow. Did you know that the dwarf
willow was a bush even though it didn’t grow more than five
centimetres high? Or was it you who told me that?’; ´Do you
know what I want? Shall I tell you? I want a million plants and
animals to come back from extinction. No more, no less, Nana. I
want to drink clean water straight from the tap. I want to go
fishing in the river. And I want this clammy winter weather to
end’ (Gaarder, 2016, p. 36-37). The old woman´s ring, which
she received on her sixteenth birthday, then plays an important
role. She believes that the ruby ring has miraculous power. In
part, the author also shows understanding between generations:
Anna and grandmother are friends now. Nana was sixteen once,
too. Who hasn´t been? (Gaarder, 2016, p. 38). The
granddaughter and her grandmother talk about how they could
turn back time, make contact with their ancestors and warn them
against plundering nature. In addition, Nova wants to return rock
owls, otters and bluegills and their environment: ´And their
habitats too? There’s no use saving the animals two by two.
Plants and animals must have something to live off, they have to
thrive, so the rainforest must be restored, the acidification of the
sea must be reversed, the mountain temperature must be brought
down a few degrees, and the African savannah must be watered´
(Gaarder, 2016, p. 40). Anna considers the awakening from a
dream as a miracle that gave the world and nature a new chance.
The story is made special by newspaper articles, encouraging
readers of the story to think about the issues of the past and
especially the future: An important basis of all ethics has been
the golden rule, or the principle of mutual respect: do to others
as you would have them do to you. But the golden rule can no
longer only have a horizontal dimension – in other words a ‘we’
and ‘the others’ We are beginning to realise that the principle of
mutual respect also has a vertical dimension: do to the next
generation as you would have had the previous one do to you. It
is that simple. You should love your neighbour as yourself.
Which, naturally enough, should include the next generation. It
must include absolutely everyone who will live on this earth after
us. All of mankind does not live at the same time. People have
lived here before us, some are still living here now and some will
come after us. Those who come after us are our fellow humans
too. We have to treat them as we would want them to have
treated us – if they had been the ones who had inhabited this
planet first (Gaarder, 2016, p. 46).
Elements of philosophical topics are also contained in the school
work written by Jonas (Anna´s boyfriend), for example in the
sections: But man as a species has been so successful that we are
threatening our own existence. We have achieved so much that
we are threatening the existence of all species (Gaarder, 2016, p.
117) and To restore the planet´s biodiversity, we would need a
Copernican shift in our thinking. Living as though everything
revolves around our time is as naïve as thinking that everything
in the sky orbits the earth. But our time is no more significant
than any time to come. Of course our time is most significant to
us. But we can´t live as if our era is the only one that matters.
(Gaarder, 2016, p. 118). The topic of the futured is solved in
many questions of the main characters: ´Weren´t we wasting
resources that coming generations could use? Weren´t we letting
batteries go flat when they should lasted much longer? (Gaarder,
2016, p. 55).
The plot represents a reflection on the relationship between
reality and fiction ´In the past Anna had been introduced to
people she had never met in real life but had seen in her dreams.
She had learned it was wise not to bring that up early on´
(Gaarder, 2016, p. 62) and ´But what if her dreams are real?..
What was consciousness? And what were dreams?, even in the
speech of Jonas, for example: Wow. Even I´m beginning to
believe your dream (Gaarder, 2016, p. 112).
The story also has a value dimension in another area, e. g.: She
wasn´t really following watching a TV (Gaarder, 2016, p. 11). It
can also be inspiring for the reader that the main characters like
lectures, in one of them the reader can meet with philosophical
thinking about time: What is time? Time can be seen from many
perspectives: firstly, the perspective of the individual, then that
of the family, then that of culture and written culture, and then
what we call geological time (Gaarder, 2016, p. 75). Questions
of a philosophical nature also concern animals in the story: How
would it feel to be inside the head of a deer? Would it feel
different from being in the head of a camel? (Gaarder, 2016, p.
94) or: The animals swing nervously behind the netting and stare
at her through yellow-brown eyes. She wonders how much they
understand. She is sure they understand more than they can
express (Gaarder, 2016, p. 115). Other ecological problems are
mentioned in the book, such as the felling of rainforests, illegal
hunting, but in connection with the protection of animal species,
the author uses a broader context: To save the tiger you have to
save a long list of plants and other animals. The tiger is a
symbol of something much larger, and if the tiger disappears it
is a very bad sign indeed... Everything in nature is
interconnected. Biodiversity is as much about the tapestry of
nature as the survival of individual species. Species which have
lost their natural habitats and only survive in zoos are just one
step away from extinction (Gaarder, 2016, p. 124-125).
Another character, Jonas, had ideas, which he formulated
through a paper in which there were some interesting ideas: Are
people really that bothered about nature? Haven’t we turned the
earth into a big theme park? Too many things are competing for
our attention. We share a planet, but not everyone can think in
terms of our planet (Gaarder, 2016, p. 127-128). Anna deals with
other philosophical issues: ´What is a human being? And who
am I? If I was only myself – the body sitting here and writing – I
would be a creature without hope. In the long run, that is. But I
have a deeper identity than my own body and my short sojourn
on Earth. I am a part of – and I take part in – something greater
and mightier than me (Gaarder, 2016, p. 152).
The dimension of the community´s strength is also emphasized:
The problems are so big that people feel powerless. What can I
do to save the Amazon rainforest? What responsibility do I have
for the African savannah or Atlantic fish stocks? People do not
think like this. It’s not how our brains work. We are arrogant,
selfish animals. In any attempt to save our planet we must use
this as the starting point (Gaarder, 2016, p. 123). Although the
story depicts possible catastrophes and is negativist in some
parts, it ends with a hope for a better future:
‘Are you an optimist? Or are you a pessimist?’
‘I don’t know. Perhaps a bit of both. What about you?’
‘I’ m an optimist, Jonas. And do you know why? I think it’s
immoral to be a pessimist.’
‘Immoral?’
‘Pessimism is just another word for laziness. Of course
I worry. But that´s different. A pessimist has given up. We
can´t give up hope. And in practice that might mean we´ve
got to fight. Do you want to be part of that, Jonas? Do you
want to start a fight?‘ (Gaarder, 2016, p. 168-169).
- 29 -