Pontoppidan's novels and short stories — informed with a desire for social progress but despairing, later in his life, of its realization — present an unusually comprehensive picture of his country and his epoch.

[2] In matter-of-fact short stories, he mercilessly describes the life of the peasants and country proletarians, with whom he lived in close contact.

An important part is his 1890 political collection of short stories Skyer ("Clouds"), a biting description of Denmark under the authoritarian semi-dictatorship of the Conservatives both condemning the oppressors and scorning the Danes’ lack of disaffection.

Pontoppidan's 1889 review "Messias" and 1890 piece "Den gamle Adam" were anonymously published and triggered a controversy after being denounced as blasphemous.

His first wife was Mette Marie Hansen, a woman from a farming family in northern Zealand, with whom he had three children, one of whom died at a young age.

Centred on a hero he paints a picture of Denmark in the era of the Constitutional Struggle between Conservative and Liberals, rising industrialisation, cultural conflicts and awakening revolutionary movements.

Isbjørnen (1887, "The Polar Bear") describes the confrontation between an outspoken vicar from Greenland and his narrow-minded Danish provincial clergymen.

A central theme in most of these tales is the difficulties of handling the new tolerance, open-mindedness and democratisation which are introduced by both the transition of society and by literature.

[citation needed] His language looks plain, simple and easy but is often loaded with symbols and secret hints, hidden irony and “objective” descriptions.

Pontoppidan was a man of many paradoxes: a clear liberal in his time, but a stern patriot, an anti-clerical puritan, a disillusioned fighting nature, collaborating with socialists but always from an independent and individualist position.

But it is also partly due to his style which has often been regarded as ambiguous and impenetrable; his mixture of partiality and objectivity has often confused both readers and critics and in fact liberals, radicals, conservatives, right wingers and socialists have all tried to reflect their own ideals in his works.