64 pages • 2 hours read
M. T. EdvardssonA Nearly Normal Family
Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 2018A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Subjective Morality and the Ambiguity of Justice
The Sandell family’s journey illustrates the reevaluation of moral beliefs amid personal crisis. The novel suggests that in such circumstances, conventional ethical frameworks—e.g., religion or the law—often fail to deliver real justice. This in part reflects the systemic biases of such frameworks, such as the misogyny underpinning the legal system’s treatment of sexual assault survivors. However, it also stems from the fact that such frameworks are by definition rigid and universalizing, whereas the novel implies that circumstances like Stella’s require a more individual and nuanced approach.
The narrative revolves in large part around Adam and Ulrika, a pastor and a lawyer, as they grapple with their ethics to protect their daughter Stella. Their moral convictions fluctuate under stress, suggesting that personal experiences and emotional challenges shape morality. Adam, initially a strict moralist, reinterprets his ethics for his family’s sake, rationalizing his actions with a biblical reference: “In his first letter to Timothy, Paul writes that someone who doesn’t take care of his own family has abandoned his faith in Jesus” (48). His willingness to set aside his belief in honesty to protect his family—and his use of the Bible, the wellspring of his moral system, in doing so—illustrates the theme of ethical fluidity. Ulrika, confronting the murder weapon, similarly realizes the importance of protecting her family, even at the cost of sacrificing her professional ethics by destroying evidence: “At last I knew what was important, what really meant something” (381).
Stella, affected by trauma, lacks her parents’ faith in institutional morality from the start of the novel. Her view of “an eye for an eye” shows disillusionment with ethical absolutes and a willingness to take justice into her own hands: “Anyone who claims that she would never consider revenge, who firmly believes bloody, violent retaliation can never be justified, has never been subjected to sexual assault” (191). This reflects not only her skepticism of rigid moral systems but also her awareness of the legal framework’s inefficacy, particularly for survivors of rape and abuse. Linda Lokind’s role further explores this latter point. Initially discredited by the justice system, she becomes a scapegoat in Stella’s defense, which makes Adam uneasy: “Dug up? I didn’t like the sound of that. I associated it with gossip and slander, bad journalism in celebrity magazines” (83). His later confrontation with Agnes Thelin stresses the justice system’s failure to protect victims: “Linda Lokind was abused and denigrated by Christopher Olsen for several years. When she finally dared to report it, you didn’t listen to her and closed the investigation. She had every reason to take the law into her own hands” (102). Similarly, Ulrika and Adam’s hesitance to report Robin reveals the justice system’s harsh reality, which, Adam realizes, may merely retraumatize victims: “I’d never thought I would advise anyone, much less my own child, not to file a police report […] but now that I was starting to understand what would be demanded from Stella, what she would be forced to endure, I found that I had to reconsider” (92).
These questions about ethics culminate in the novel’s core contention: that murder might sometimes be just, or at least excusable. A conversation between Stella and Shirine about Crime and Punishment probes this issue: “Are all murders equally heinous, or can there sometimes be extenuating circumstances?” (247). This dialogue implies that Stella’s killing of Christopher may have been justified and that her acquittal is the morally appropriate outcome.
Dreams, Disillusionment, and the Ripple Effect of Choices
A Nearly Normal Family delves into the theme of dreams and disillusionment by contrasting the aspirations of its main characters: Adam, Ulrika, and Stella. Each character has distinct hopes not only for their own lives but also for the lives of those around them, creating conflict when those hopes clash with one another. Moreover, the unpredictability of each action’s consequences means that even characters who take steps to secure their dreams may find them going awry.
Adam, a pastor, embodies the disillusionment of unmet dreams. He longs for an ideal family life, but he fears that his choices, intended to keep peace in the moment, have instead led to Stella’s legal troubles. He consequently regrets not taking her issues more seriously: “I only wish Ulrika and I had taken Stella’s problems more seriously” (19). He also wishes for another child—a fixation that neglects Stella’s real needs, highlighting the irony of dreams causing disillusionment by overshadowing actual relationships. Stella’s comment to Shirine, “Don’t do that to your little girl, to little Lovisa” (232), reveals the impact of her father’s disillusionment on her life.
Ulrika, by contrast, is less willing to give up on dreams, seeing them as essential to life. Her reflection on Stella’s words in court illustrates her belief in the enduring importance of aspirations: “She’s using the present tense: dream. Not dreamed. She’s still dreaming” (306). Nevertheless, she mourns Stella’s crushed childhood dreams, portraying dreams as vital yet vulnerable: “Stella is eighteen years old and all her dreams have been crushed” (297). Ulrika’s perspective celebrates dreams as a source of hope and resilience but also highlights their fragility.
Stella’s character represents the youthful chase of dreams amid harsh realities. Her aspiration to be a psychologist is quickly discouraged: “You know how impossible it is to get accepted to that program?” (163). This highlights societal pressures curtailing young ambitions. However, with the support of her therapist Shirine, Stella demonstrates the resilience needed to maintain dreams despite obstacles.
One of the reasons dreams are so fragile, the novel suggests, is because the consequences of one’s actions are largely unknowable. Stella, for example, muses that Amina’s presence might have altered the course of events with Robin, which in turn might have averted her involvement with Christopher and her arrest for his murder: “A single beat of a butterfly’s wings can have enormous consequences and affect everything that happens” (173). Because a seemingly inconsequential event can upend one’s life, maintaining one’s aspirations is all the more difficult and all the more critical.
The Weight of Expectation
Through its depiction of Ulrika, Stella, Amina, and their families, A Nearly Normal Family explores societal pressures and the conflict between personal desires and societal norms. These norms particularly impact the novel’s female characters, often placing contradictory demands on them.
Ulrika’s struggle with her dual roles as a career woman and a mother is central to this theme. She reflects of societal pressures, “In the end I had no choice but to become that good girl everyone was expecting” (77). This highlights the expectation for women to conform to certain behaviors, often at the cost of their individuality. Ulrika’s affair with Blomberg is a response to these pressures, a temporary escape from the overwhelming expectations that ultimately only heightens the impossibility of her situation by making her more of a “failure” as a wife and mother. Yet as intense as the pressures driving women toward marriage and motherhood are, Ulrika would merely be “failing” in a different way if she gave up her career to attend to her family full-time; Sweden is a country that prides itself on its relative gender equality, so it is common and even expected for women to work outside the home.
Unlike her mother, Stella rebels against the “good girl” image by being defiant and assertive. Ulrika notices and to some extent approves of this: “[L]eadership qualities can be a very good thing—that she’s direct, a driving force” (43). However, Stella’s “unfeminine” behavior comes at a cost. Because Stella is, in Adam’s words, always “taking up space and being loud, always finding some ridiculous rule to break” (173), people are quick to assume the worst of her. Meanwhile, Amina, who outwardly fits the “good girl” archetype, faces societal leniency even when she lies or extorts money.
The novel also considers cultural norms that affect the family as a unit—for example, the strict separation between personal and public life. This separation informs Adam’s fixation on privacy—his determination to “[k]eep it in the family” (225). These norms make the trial an even more excruciating ordeal for the Sandells than it would ordinarily be, as the exposure alone gives the lie to Adam’s insistence that they are “a perfectly ordinary family” (57). In reality, the novel implies that the Sandells’ struggles are not atypical, even if Stella’s situation is unusual in degree. However, the pressure to maintain a façade of perfection heightens the sense of isolation and failure families feel when they realize they fall short.
Perception Shaping Reality
The novel illustrates how individual perceptions can profoundly influence one’s understanding of events and actions, often leading to misconceptions and miscommunications. This theme emerges through the differing viewpoints of the family members, particularly Adam and Ulrika, whose perceptions shape their reactions to various situations, impacting their reality and relationships.
Adam’s perception of Ulrika’s pregnancy with Stella is a prime example. He believes he communicates impartiality on the question of whether to have a child: “I inserted doubt in my conversations with Ulrika, to seem open to all options” (31). However, this starkly contrasts with Ulrika’s perspective, which shows her feeling pressured into the decision: “I allowed myself to be persuaded” (304). This disparity in their recollections highlights how individual perceptions can create different versions of the same reality, which in turn influences how one acts.
The novel also delves into Stella and Adam’s perceptions regarding the incident with Robin. Adam attributes the decision not to report Robin’s actions to Ulrika: “In many ways it was Ulrika’s decision not to file a police report on Robin” (90). Conversely, Ulrika perceives it as Adam’s decision, influenced by his belief that Stella initiated the encounter: “Everyone will find out. People will judge her. She’ll have to live with this forever” (358). These conflicting viewpoints underscore that perception greatly influences decision-making and understanding of events.
In terms of parenting Stella, Adam’s and Ulrika’s perceptions are again at odds. Adam believes in actively guiding Stella, even if it means invading her privacy, justifying it as part of his parental duty: “It’s my job” (358). In contrast, Ulrika advocates for giving Stella space and independence: “Ulrika once said that love is letting go, letting the person you love fly away” (13). This contrast in parenting styles, stemming from their individual assessments of what their daughter needs, further emphasizes how perceptions shape their realities and actions.
The incident with Roger Arvidsen is another significant example of perception influencing reality. When Roger informs Adam about a girl extorting him, Adam automatically accuses Stella without seeking further clarification. However, upon learning it was Amina, Adam’s perception shifts, leading to a softer approach and a promise to keep it secret. This incident highlights how perceptions can lead to biased judgments and actions, impacting relationships and outcomes.
All of these episodes reveal the consequences of perception to be highly consequential; Adam and Ulrika’s understanding of reality shapes Stella’s life quite literally from the moment of her conception. Yet the novel also resists the idea that the family’s problems are simply the result of misperception. Rather, the very structure of the novel—its use of three distinct points of view—casts doubt on the idea that one person’s subjective reality is more accurate than another’s even as it highlights the conflict that arises when those realities fail to align.
