In the first section of “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, he characterizes Nora by the use of epithets and the way she is described. Helmer calls her “my little sky-lark”, a “spendthrift”, “my little singing bird”, and “my pretty little pet”. These epithets characterize her as submissive and as her husband’s “pet”, which makes her seem like his property. He calls Nora his little “spendthrift” on multiple occasions, which insinuates that she spends money irresponsibly. She seems to go along with this characterization and acts like a ditzy wife who just doesn't know better. This characterizes her as a typical Victorian era wife, and this characterization continues in the first section until she talks to Mrs. Linde. When Helmer says “my little singing bird mustn't go drooping her wings, eh?” (Ibsen 3) he explains how a woman’s main job is to look nice and act kind towards her husband. Helmer also says “My pretty little pet is very sweet, but it runs away with an awful lot of money. It’s incredible how expensive it is for a man to keep such a pet” (Ibsen 4). This describes the typical submissive husband-wife relationship and how the wife is practically the husband’s “pet”. This characterization of Helmer as the all-powerful husband and Nora as the loving wife continues until Nora reveals to Mrs. Linde that she got the money to take them to Italy herself. This completely contradicts her previous characterization and changes her into a lying and resourceful character who is multidimensional and can put up a front so well that her husband does not notice that anything is wrong. This is very different from the socially accepted action of a woman, and for this reason Nora does not tell Helmer about it. Her secret helps to preserve the existing power structure and give him the continued illusion of having all of the power.
I agree with your analysis of Nora and Helmer's relationship– that Helmer is under the illusion that he has all the power. However, I wouldn't give Nora as much credit for being lying and resourceful. Although she had good intentions in her actions, her rebelliousness from her place in society appears to do more harm than good. Dr. Rank mentioned, "All my patients are the same. Even those with a moral affliction are no different" (Ibsen, 18). This "moral affliction" was tagged to Krogstad, though later in the act Nora is shown to have the same issue. Helmer also talks of moral problems, "It's generally traceable to the mothers, but of course fathers can have the same influence. ... And yet there's Krogstad been poisoning his own children for years with lies and deceit. That's the reason I call him morally depraved" (33). Though he's speaking about Krogstad, Nora realizes that this exact situation has seeped into her household as well. Through her lies, she has poisoned her home and children, where she could have kept her place in society and followed the rules.
Through the characterization of Nora, and use of metaphors, Ibsen emphasizes the discrimination of women during The Victorian Era in which this book was written. During the Victorian Era, women were considered much weaker and less responsible compared to men. Men were expected to provide for the needs of his family while women were expected to stay at home and take care of household affairs. The play begins with Nora persuading Helmer to give her money to spend for Christmas shopping saying “[toying with his coat buttons, and without looking at him] If you did want to give me something, you could… you could always… You could always give me money, Torvald” (4). The combination of the action stated by Ibsen and the pauses in Nora’s sentences, creates a seductive tone characterizing Nora to be wicked and irresponsible. In this case she is irresponsible when it comes to managing the family’s finances. This characterization of Nora follows the belief that women are incapable of managing themselves; a belief that thrived in the Victorian Era. Throughout the couples’ dialogue, Helmer refers to Nora with nicknames and seldom refer to Nora by her name. When Nora asked Helmer for some money Torvald says “What do we call my pretty little pet when it runs away with all the money” and Nora replies “I know, I know, we call it a spendthrift” (4). Torvald compares Nora to a “pretty little pet” showing how little he thinks of her. What is more daunting is Nora appears to agree that she is worthless by referring to herself as “it”. The behaviors of these two characters clearly demonstrate the discrimination that exists within the Victorian Era, the setting of the play. The two character’s appear to care for one another through the use of nicknames and playful actions, but this also revealed the darker side of their condition.
My post was very similar to your's in that I focused mostly on the inequality between men and women in the Victorian era. I looked mostly at the way in which Helmer addressed Nora, rather than the metaphors that he used to describe her. I appreciate your insight and while it was a different approach than mine, I feel that it is equally valid and had many insights that I neglected to discuss. Also I did not discuss the setting of the scene very much at all, which you wrote about and made some very interesting insights. Good Job and interesting insights.
In the beginning of act 1, Henrik Ibsen presents the first conflict of money, while also revealing some characteristics of Nora and Torvald. The beginning of the play shows Nora overpaying for the porter’s services and later on she exclaims to Torvald about all the gifts she bought for the family. This shows the reader that Nora likes to spend money and allows the idea of buying presents to overshadow the couple’s financial problems. However, Torvald has a more practical view of money, by jokingly calling Nora a “spendthrift” and telling her that she is very foolish when it comes to finances. Torvald thinks that Nora’s lack of financial understanding is due to her gender, saying, “Nora, my Nora, that is just like a women”(Ibsen 4), this shows his prejudice views of gender roles. Torvald believes that a wife’s role is to keep up the image of the house, not only by cleaning but also through proper behavior and appearance. Another characteristic of Torvald’s personality is the way he refers to Nora by animal names. The only time he calls her by name is when Torvald is scolding her, however when he is trying to be affectionate he calls her by names like “my little skylark” and “my squirrel”. By using these nicknames, Torvald can assert his power over Nora as well as dehumanize her. The usage of animal imagery shows that Torvald is suggesting that Nora is too incompetent to deal with male jobs, like finances. Through these interactions between Nora and Torvald, the reader is given the opportunity to make assumptions on the future of their relationship.
I find that I agree with a lot of what you wrote about in this analysis! I agree with how you interpreted the way of how Torvald is, and I very much enjoy how you included how Torvald expresses himself towards Nora when experiencing different emotions. However, there are some elements of literature I would highly suggest you use. I think you should really think about incorporating context some more in this analysis. While you briefly imply there is Victorian culture present, I think it would be very helpful to make the direct connection. With it you could describe the different gender roles, and why Nora/Torvald act the way they do. Other then that, I enjoyed reading your post very much!
My analysis was on the same subject as yours. Nora is begging her husband for money; the fact that she has to beg for money reveals how men were much more powerful than women were during this era. women did not have jobs, or had jobs that did not pay well, so they relied on their husbands to make money and provide for them. -Hajir Hosseini, P.5
“NORA. But, Torvald, surely this year we can spread ourselves just a little. This is the first Christmas we haven’t had to go carefully. HELMER. Ah, but that doesn’t mean we can afford to be extravagant, you know. NORA. Oh yes, Torvald, surely we can afford to be just a little bit extravagant now, can’t we? Just a teeny-weeny bit. You are getting quite a good salary now, and you are going to earn lots and lots of money. HELMER. Yes, after the New Year. But it’s going to be three whole months before the first pay cheque comes in. NORA. Pooh! We can always borrow in the meantime” (Act I page 2).
In the first Act of the play “A Doll’s House”, Ibsen characterizes Nora as impulsive, a liar, and a bit arrogant. The quote above is an excerpt from when Torvald Helmer, Nora’s husband, first enters into the play and they almost immediately launch into a discussion about money. Here, Nora can be seen as impulsive as she is says that now that Helmer is getting a good salary, they don’t have to worry much more about past financial problems. Helmer is quick to remind her that it will be quite some time before the first pay check comes in and that they shouldn’t incur more debt upon themselves as there is still the potential for misfortune to happen. Nora then dismisses these notions and “horrid things” rather quickly. Rather than focusing on the present situation, her sights are set on the fact that the family will be receiving lots of money later on and starts to squander the money a bit, which is the opposite of Helmer, who appears to be better at managing money not only due to the fact that he scolds Nora for spending so much but also because this new job is one found at the bank. It is also implied that Nora has never really been skilled at managing money, as Helmer nicknames her “spendthrift”, which means: “a person who spends money in an extravagant, irresponsible way” (Google). Dramatic irony is used a bit later in the same conversation to reveal Nora to be a liar, as Helmer interrogates her if she entered the confectioner’s shop and bought macaroons. This is dramatic irony because at the start of the Act, the stage directions clearly indicate that Nora took out a package of macaroons and ate a couple before she hid the package back in her pocket, which means the audience is perfectly aware of the fact that Nora does have macaroons and is what reveals that she has no problem with lying to Helmer for her own purposes. This also foreshadows and leads up to the huge reveal of the giant secret she has been keeping for herself: the fact that she was the one who obtained the money for the trip to Italy. Her arrogance is mostly seen during her interaction with Mrs. Linde, as right after hearing the tragic tale of the circumstances Mrs. Linde has had to live through, Nora states, “No, you start. I won’t be selfish today. I must think only about your affairs today. But there’s just one thing I really must tell you. Have you heard about the great stroke of luck we’ve had in the last few days?” (Act 1, page 8). Despite saying that she wishes to focus on and assist her misfortunate friend, Nora rapidly turns the conversation towards how amazing her life has been, boasting about how her circumstances which are close to being the very opposite of what Mrs. Linde has experienced. Nora continues on speaking in quite lengthy paragraphs about the great fortune that has occurred for her with Mrs. Linde speaking a few times in quite short, clipped sentences every now and again all the way until the bottom of page ten, which is when Nora finally turns the conversation topic back to her friend. However, the topic soon turns back to Nora as she boasts about how it was actually her who saved her husband’s life and purposely withholds exactly how she obtained the money, even going so far as to state, “I might even have got it from some admirer. Anyone as reasonably attractive as I am” (Act 1, page 14). That is how Ibsen characterizes Nora within the first act of the play.
I really enjoyed reading your in-depth analysis, and I wanted to point out that I agree with what you are saying because my blog post was actually quite similar to yours. I had the same examples with Nora boasting to Mrs. Linde about how her life has been in the positive direction whereas Mrs. Linde has went downhill. Also I felt that Nora is self-centered character as seen when she only begins to be sympathetic towards Mrs. Linde 3 years after her husband died, and doesn't even care to write a letter to her. I also found it quite interesting about how you talked about the difference in the line length between Nora and Mrs. Linde because when I read this I had no idea that the line length of the characters can tell us the state of mind they are in. Nice analysis!
In Act Two of “A Doll’s House”, dramatic irony is created through the increasingly intricate web of lies that Nora has sewn. In this act it is revealed that Nora forged her father’s signature to take out the loan to save her husband. Additionally, she is the one that reveals this information which characterizes her as a dumb woman who knows no better. Without knowing that Nora has forged a signature, Helmer begins to talk about how terrible liars are and he says “A fog of lies like that in a household, and it spreads disease and infection to every part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking with evil germs.” (Ibsen 33) He is talking about Krogstad, and believes that “Krogstad been poisoning his own children for years with lies and deceit.” (Ibsen 33) This creates dramatic irony because Nora has committed the same crime as Krogstad, so as Helmer describes the bad things done by Krogstad, Nora sees parallels to herself and her own actions. She eases her guilt by rationalizing her crimes, saying that her motives were good and that bad things never happen to good people. She says, “Things like that can’t happen. It’s impossible. Why, I have three small children.” (Ibsen 35) Nora seems to think that since she is a mother and had good motives in forging the signature, that nothing bad can happen to her. She seems to believe that she is above karma and above the law. Every time something bad appears to be happening, she approaches the subject with disbelief and denial, and calms herself by believing that nothing bad could possible happen to her. This foreshadows possible conflict later in this play.
I found your analysis of the creation of dramatic irony in A Doll’s House very interesting. In particular, the part about Nora believing she is free of consequence from her forgery. In my opinion, the parallel that Helmer inadvertently brings up between the crime of Krogstad and Nora highlights some characteristics in Nora. She has no details on Krogstad’s crime, for example, when or why, yet she figures she is the one that is free from punishment simply because she is a mother of three that tried to ease the conscious of her dying father. I think this shows some slight arrogance in Nora; that she believes she is too good for the law.
In Act II of “A Doll’s House”, by using a combination of stage directions and changes in Nora’s diction, not only is Ibsen able to continue characterizing Nora, but he is able to display some of the cultural aspects of the Victorian Era, which is when this story takes place. Back in the Victorian Era, appearance was viewed to be everything. As Mrs. Murai so nicely put it, “It doesn’t matter how much of a mess you are on the inside, all that mattered was that you looked presentable on the outside”. This principle holds true and can be seen with Nora, as at the start of Act II it reads, “NORA. [putting down her coat again] Somebody’s coming! [Crosses to the door, lisens.] No, it’s nobody. Nobody will come today, of course, Christmas Day--nor tomorrow, either. But perhaps…. [She opens the door and looks out] No, nothing in the letter box; quite empty. [Comes forward] Oh nonsense! He didn’t mean it seriously. Things like that can’t happen. It’s impossible. Why, I have three small children” (Act II, page 35). In this quote, it can be seen that Nora often switches back and forth between frantically worrying about what Krogstad threatened her about and reassuring herself that nothing will happen and that she is above the consequences of her actions. This continues with the trend of her arrogant personality that was introduced in Act I, but it also introduces that she is also very doubtful and the anxiety is consuming her as her movements in the beginning stage directions are described as “restless”. She is also quite on-edge, as it is seen that she thinks that someone is at the door when there really is none but continually checks anyways. Again, she is seen in this utterly frantic state after the Nursemaid leaves as it reads, “NORA. [begins unpacking the box, but soon throws it down]. Oh, if only I dare go out. If only I could be sure nobody would come. And that nothing would happen in the meantime here at home. Rubbish--nobody’s going to come. I mustn’t think about it. Brush this muff. Pretty gloves, pretty gloves! I’ll put it right out of my mind. One, two, three, four, five, six…. [Screams.] Ah, they are coming… [She starts towards the door, but stops irresolute. Mrs. Linde comes from the hall, where she has taken off her things.] Oh, it’s you, Kristine. There’s nobody else out there, is there? I’m so glad you’ve come” (Act II, page 36-37). Once again, the sentences seem to be of a shorter length and constantly weighing between Nora worrying over what Krogstad said and reassuring herself that nothing will happen. She even tries to distract herself with some trinkets, but again succumbs to the fear and lets out a scream before worriedly heading towards the door. However, she stops in her frantic motions once she spots that Mrs. Linde is present. Instead, she continues to resume behavior somewhat similar to how she did in Act I, still speaking slightly longer than Mrs. Linde does. Yet, this time their conversation is different as their responses to one another are slightly more equal in length instead of Nora blathering on for a large amount of space with only small interjections from Mrs. Linde. Although, it may not be exactly prominent yet, but it seems that when Nora is excited to share a topic she will talk at great lengths about it (refer back to when she described how wonderful her life had played out to Mrs. Linde in Act I), but then her answers are rather clipped when someone is interrogating her about a secretive subject, such as when Mrs. Linde asks her who she borrowed the money from. It can also be noted that Nora’s previous meltdown appears to have calmed a bit, as she is no longer restlessly checking the door nor screaming, but it still exists, as seen later when she is alone and once again fretting, but pulls herself together when Dr. Rank appears. This demonstrates not only Nora’s worrisome character, but also reflects the culture of the times back then on how appearance is everything.
As my group reads along the play one of the most prominent and ongoing use of convention is ellipses. All throughout the play, the ellipses is used to indicate an interruption within one character. For example, when Helmer and Nora were having a conversation, Nora says “That’s why I implore you… [Helmer]: The more you plead for him, the more impossible you make it for me to keep him on” (42). What I find interesting is when an ellipses is used, when indicating an interruption from Nora, is the theme of her dialogue after the ellipses is usually when she is persuading the other character to do something. This theme can be seen when Krogstad confronts Nora about her crime saying “But did it never strike you that this was fraudulent…?” and Nora replies “That wouldn’t have meant anything to me” (29). at the end of Krogstad’s dialogue, an ellipses is placed. The dialogue that Nora replies with is an excuse to why she had committed forgery. She is trying to make Krogstad understand that her crime is not because of malicious intent. Another example is when Nora was trying to convince Helmer of giving her money. Helmer says “But Nora…” and Nora replies “Oh please, Torvald dear” (4). The ellipses could symbolize her persistence, but can also lead to her downfall because more often than not, like in this dialogue, the other character is affected negatively in some way. Here she attacks the pride of Helmer by making him follow her order. This ongoing theme using the ellipses also characterizes Nora. Reflecting how she continually tries to make things go her way shows how stubborn she is despite her being at fault at times (her forgery). Her constantly making excuses shows how she thinks of herself; a perfect little doll. While I do not like how she tries to portray herself as a perfect doll, it may actually just be due to the culture of the Victorian Era.
I really enjoyed your analysis. While I also dislike Nora acting like a perfect doll in Victorian society, I do also think she does it to survive. Under the pressures of Victorian society Nora must act this way in order to survive and avoid being an outcast. It's been shown that Nora is very hard working and persistent she has to hide part of he personality just to fit in and not offened like a grade schooler on the playground pretending their slow so not to hurt anyone feelings.
At the end of Act I, Nora is being blackmailed by Krogstad to get his job secured and have Nora’s husband (Torvald) not fire him. This causes Nora to panic, and feel a sense of guilt from the decision she made to be involved with Krogstad. To save her father, she forges his signature on a bank transaction which is illegal. Coincidentally, Krogstad was in trouble with the bank for forgery. This use of dramatic irony shows the implications of this illegal action, as he is hated at the bank for his immoral act. Then, Torvald ironically says, “A fog of lies like that in a household, and it spreads disease and infection to every part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking with evil germs” (Ibsen 33). Nora’s children are in the opposite room, as she was paranoid earlier about their upbringing. At the end of the Act 1, she says, “Corrupt my children...Poison my home? It’s not true! It could never, never be true!” (Ibsen 34) Nora goes into denial as the problem of forgery has no escalated beyond legal issues, but to family problems as well. This whole scene expresses the motif of lie and deceit, as the author wanted to convey how bad the implications of lying are. Also, during this time, marriage between the husband and wife was very tedious, as the man had more power than the woman. This idea could cause an excuse for the untrustworthiness in these relationships during the Victorian Era, and how this inequality of the genders cause strife between both people.
In Act 2 of “A Doll’s House”, Ibsen further characterizes Mrs. Linde through her interactions with Krogstad. Previously it was revealed that Mrs. Linde had married rich, but her husband had died, her mother had died, and her younger brother had grown up. This left her with no one to care for or to rely on. In the Victorian way of looking at this, she had an altogether unproductive life; she had no children. In this act however, it is revealed that Mrs. Linde craves someone to work for and companionship. Mrs. Linde says, “There’s no pleasure in working only for yourself. Nils, give me somebody and something to work for” (III.64). This demonstrates how she needs someone to work for. This also is in line with the Victorian culture, because it was uncommon for women to live on their own or work for themselves. Women were believed to need a man to look out for them or a family to provide for. Mrs. Linde has neither, so she says to Krogstad, “I need someone to mother, and your children need a mother. We two need each other” (III.65) This could possible still be just an act to persuade Krogstad to retrieve the letter until Mrs. Linde tells him not to ask for the letter back. She says that “Helmer must know everything” (III.66). This portrays her as a very upstanding and moral character who has done her best not to be entangled in the web of lies. I think this creates a theme of the need for companionship in life, a theme that is continued throughout this play. This theme is demonstrated in Nora’s need for Helmer and the children to continue loving her, and is demonstrated by Rank’s love for Nora.
I really liked your analysis about how one character can emphasize the characteristics of another. Through the passage you mentioned I would consider Mrs. Linde a loyal and trustworthy friend due to the fact that she cares about Nora enough to help her and the fact that she wants to be a wife and mother to children that aren't hers, which can be controversial. Considering these personality traits about Mrs. Linde, would you consider her a more likable character than Nora? Especially since some people can take Nora's intelligence and non-submissive attitude the wrong way?
I like how you noticed that Mrs. Linde’s life was very unproductive from the Victorian point of view. I had a slightly different interpretation of Mrs. Linde’s need for companionship and how it related to Nora. Your analysis definitely corresponds to the alternate ending written for the German theater, in which Nora decides to stay to be a good mother to her children. However, in the original ending, Nora abandons her need for companionship in order to become independent and learn how to think for herself. Mrs. Linde, who has worked for her whole life and knows how to be an independent person, decides that she will be happy living with Krogstad. It is almost as if these two women are at different paths in their self-discovery. Ibsen suggests that in order to truly love another person and be happy in a relationship, it is necessary to first understand oneself as an individual.
“HELMER. But my dear darling Nora, you are dancing as though your life depended on it. NORA. It does” (Act II. page 59).
Once again, Ibsen utilizes dramatic irony within the play “A Doll’s House”. Helmer, like many other times throughout the play, is still clueless about the lies, deceit, and the whole troublesome situation Nora has gotten herself entangled in. When he comments on Nora’s dancing and mentioning that the fervor which she put into it is like her life depends on it, the audience is aware while he isn’t that, in a sense, Nora’s life does depend on this dance. Or, to be more precise, her life of hidden secrets depends upon keeping Helmer preoccupied while Mrs. Linde rushes over to Krogstad’s home. The audience is quite aware of the fact that Krogstad has left a letter in the mailbox containing the evidence of the secret loan to Nora and the forging of her father’s signature that she did, but clueless Torvald Helmer remains unaware as the doors to the secrets are still closed. Dramatic irony tends to be employed whenever Nora is lying to her husband, like at the start of the play with the macaroons. Instead of leaving the audience hanging in suspense on what all the mysteries are, Ibsen chose to use dramatic irony by revealing certain secrets to the audience, yet leaving other characters unaware. This allows the audience to detect the lies which Nora tells more easily, as well as being able to see how well Helmer is able to detect these lies. One can spot that he appears to notice whenever Nora is acting a bit frantically or guiltily and may even call her out on it, but usually submits to her persuasion after a little bit. For example, in Act I, he says, “But come to think of it, you look rather… rather… how shall I put it? …. rather guilty today....” (Act I page 5). However, after much convincing from Nora, he then dismisses the accusation of her eating macaroons as his little joke. Those are a couple examples of how Ibsen employs dramatic irony in the play.
I agree that Ibsen's use of dramatic irony makes it easier for the audience/reader to understand the web of lies that Nora has caught herself in. But, I think it also helps to characterize Helmer more than one would think. In my opinion, Helmer's ignorance to the drama of his wife makes him seem weak and foolish which foreshadows his weakness at the end of the play as well as his reliance on Nora when she chooses to leave him.
At the very beginning of Act II, the Narrator is setting the scene and says, “The same room. In the corner beside the piano stands the Christmas tree, stripped, bedraggled and with its candles burnt out. Nora’s outdoor things lie on the sofa. Nora, alone there, walks about restlessly; at last she stops by the sofa and picks up her coat” (Ibsen 35). I found this quote very interesting and important to the play because I noticed that there are many similarities between the Christmas tree and Nora. The Christmas tree seems to be symbol of Nora and her mental state. At this point in the play Nora is very nervous that Krogstad might expose her little secret and the Christmas tree’s position seems to parallel Nora’s psychological state. The Christmas tree is “stripped,” “bedraggled,” and has “burnt out” candles reflecting how Nora is exhausted and feeling uneasy about her fault. Not only is the Christmas tree not in a good condition, but it is also in the corner of the room, which symbolizes how Nora feels trapped and cornered by her secret. Another way the Christmas tree symbolizes Nora is that similar to how a Christmas tree is usually a very festive, joyful item that is known to make people smile, Nora is a vital part of her home’s cheerfulness and good looks. A Christmas tree is a very important and symbolic part of Christmas just like how a wife/mother is an important part of a family (especially during the Victorian Era).
I really enjoy your analysis, I actually didn't notice that myself. To add on to this a Christmas tree is adorned in various ornaments and lights or dolled up to make it look prettier. This is done to keep up appearance because a Christmas tree can be a subtle way of demonstrating one's wealth like having expensive clothes.
Like in numerous works of literature clothing in the book provide an immense amount of significance to better understanding the meaning of the work. For example, in Taming of the Shrew clothing symbolized social standing as well as the characterization of characters. In the Doll’s House Ibsen uses clothing to display the Victorian culture to show no blemishes or hiding it away from anyone, even your own family. After Nora finished performing her dance she Ibsen writes a description of Nora’s clothing that “She is dressed in the Italian costume, with a big black shawl over it”(66). At this moment of the play, there is a presence of an extreme form of dramatic irony which creates high tension environment for Nora. By putting this description within such a hostile situation, essentially breaking this momentum, there must be an enormous significance with the description. The Italian costume represents her beauty and blamelessness to how she “saved” Torvald’s life by going to this trip. The “big” and “black” shawl “over” her represents her secrets because the color of black connotes to mystery and the unknown. This combination of clothing represents her actions in a subtle way by using them as symbols for her actions. Further using these symbols, Ibsen directs Helmer to “removing Nora’s shawl” then says “Well take a good look at her… Isn’t she lovely, Mrs.Linde?”(67). The action in this sentence represents Helmer’s almost naive portrayal of Nora. He believes that Nora is lovely and absolutely perfect supported by him taking off her black shawl. Torvald does not see Nora as a woman with the Italian dress and the big black shawl, he sees her as the lovely woman with the Italian dress. Utilizing these symbols also create more dramatic irony and a possible foreshadow that Helmer will “pick up on” Nora’s secrets which will result in dire consequences for Nora. But an action like Nora’s, to hide her blemishes, and Torvald being oblivious to the real situation was all so common in the Victorian Era. Where everyone was supposed to be perfect dolls in their little house.
I liked how focused this post is. You really did a great job analyzing the significance of Torvald's comment and how he sees her. I also would like to add that the shawl signifies mystery so when Torvald removes her shawl, it is foreshadowing that Nora will not willingly reveal her secret, Torvald will have to uncover it himself.
In Act Three of “A Doll’s House,” Ibsen reveals the theme and motive of writing this play. Helmer finally discovers Nora’s secret, and her perfect image is destroyed. Nora will cause Helmer shame, and he is immediately disgusted with her and does not want any of this blame to be placed on him. This demonstrates how appearances were more important than loving your wife. Nora says to Helmer “I have been your doll wife” (III.80), representing how he has had full control of her and she is his possession and accessory to make him look good. This is seen as the only real purpose of a wife, and since Nora can not even do that, she is worthless. When Nora reveals that she had wished that Helmer would create a “miracle” and take all the blame for her actions, Helmer says, “But nobody sacrifices his honor for the one he loves.” to which Nora responds, “hundred of thousands of women have” (III.84). This clearly demonstrates that Ibsen meant this play as a feminist play that would inspire women to stop simply submitting to their husbands and instead be their own person. Ibsen was commenting on and insulting the society he lived in. When asked to write an alternative, more conservative ending, Ibsen responded by saying that it would be an act of “barbaric violence” to alter the ending. He did eventually write an alternative ending under immense pressure from german theaters. Though the alternative ending gives Nora a more human quality, because she had an internal conflict when leaving her children, it destroys the feminist theme that Ibsen created. Ibsen made clear in a letter to the “Nationaltidende” in 1880 that “those who make use of the altered scene do do entirely against my wish.” I think this reveals how he meant this entirely as a feminist play, and the fact that people found it offensive reveals that the message was successful.
I agree with your idea that appearance is more important to Torvald than loving his own wife. In fact, one of the most striking quotes I came across in Act III was when Nora tells Torvald “You two people [Torvald and Daddy] never loved me. You only thought how nice it was to be in love with me” (III. 80). I thought that this quote accurately described the Victorian culture as a whole; people are so attached and obsessed with achieving absolute perfection that they are deluding themselves into thinking that they actually have become perfect. In truth, Torvald doesn’t really love his wife and merely wanted the perfect family and reputation, but in order to achieve those, he could only pretend and think that he did love his wife. In his mind, he had the perfection that he wanted and thought of “how nice it was,” but that simply is not the reality.
In the beginning of the play, i had immediately suspected that the relationship between Torvald and Nora had problems though they appeared to be attempting to hide all of their blemishes. To help me come to this conclusion, Ibsen uses the symbol of the lamp as the light that reveals the darkness. The lamp connotes light, but also making known objects in the darkness. In this case of the play, the lamp symbolizes the reveal of a secret because when the lamp is present, there is always a secret that is revealed. When Helmer reads the note sent by Krogstad about Nora’s debts Ibsen writes “by the lamp” as a stage direction right before he finds out about Nora’s secret (77). The lamp symbolized the secret debts that Nora has borrowed from Krogstad coming to light to Torvald. While the lamp symbolized literal secrets being revealed like Nora’s, the lamp also reveals secrets hidden in the context. Secrets that the audience and maybe even the characters themselves would not have known. During the scene where Torvald finds out that Krogstad has forgiven Nora’s forgery, Helmer says “Nora! I must read again. Yes, yes, it’s true! I am saved! Nora, I am saved!” (77). Because there is a lamp present, there must be a secret that is revealed. The secret is Torvald’s selfishness as indicated by the numerous “I”’s in the sentence even though the one who committed the forgery and is directly impacted by the forgery was Nora. This secret being revealed to the audience and to Nora about the true nature of Torvald maybe the reason why Nora says “You only thought now nice it was to be in love with me”, indicating her realization (80). The lamp has brought to light these secrets or hidden characteristics to help the audience understand the characterization of Torvald.
One symbol I noticed in “A Doll’s House” is Nora’s dance of the tarantella. Nora has the plan to do the tarantella at a ball, a dance usually done in a group that she is doing alone. This in itself is symbolic because it shows Nora distancing herself from her friends and family, and feeling isolated due to the secret she is holding. It also is potentially foreshadowing Nora being alone. When Nora is practicing the tarantella in front of Torvald, she continually goes faster and faster, and Torvald is unable to control her. He says, “‘Not so fast! Not so fast’” to which Nora replies, “‘I can’t help it’”; Torvald says, “‘Not so wild, Nora!’” so Nora says “‘This is how it has to be’” (58). Torvald continually tells Nora to slow down, and tries to control her dancing. Nora disregards her husband, and continually dances faster and faster, and wilder and wilder. This is a symbol for Nora’s life and their relationship. Torvald is always trying to control Nora’s actions, even barring her from eating macaroons, something viewed as fairly benign. He also has extreme reactions to any trying on her part to escape from his control. When Nora tells a small lie, Torvald blows up at her, and warns that she must never lie. Despite his anger, Nora breaks out of her husband’s hold a lot and has lied to him frequently, about items both important and unimportant. Their relationship is built on secrets, and attempts to control each other. The tarantella dance shows Torvald’s futile endeavors to restrict Nora’s actions, and how she evades them.
I really liked your analysis of the significance of the tarantella. I however thought the symbol of the tarantella was actually a "death dance" and I made this assumption as Rank is playing the piano and both are nearing "death". I also noticed just like you that as she is performing the dance Nora seems to dance wildly and doesn’t follow the orders of her master, and I made an interesting comparison with her dancing wildly, as she is acting like she has been bitten by the tarantula and her body is injected with poison. I made this comparison to show that she doesn't want Torvald to find out about her crime. I also thought the significance of the dance is show her death metaphorically. This means that she would be dying away from Torvald and leaving him to find a new life that she would enjoy. I really liked your analysis and found it interesting that we both had many similar ideas.
By the end of Act III, after having her secret exposed, Nora comes to realize that this whole time she has simply been a ‘doll’ who has been having to play the part of both a perfect daughter and a perfect wife, but she herself never able to be an independent individual. During this revelation, she decides to pack up her things and leave during which, at one point, she states, “Goodbye, Torvald. I don’t want to see the children. I know they are in better hands than mine. As I am now, I can never be anything to them” (Act III page 85). In this quote, Nora is acknowledging that with the way she currently is, an ignorant doll who is almost childlike in behavior, she is unable to properly care for her children and be the mother that they need. However, as revealed by the (highly disapproved) alternative ending provided by Ibsen, Nora is still human and cares deeply for her children. Here, she is stating that she doesn’t want to see the children because she knows that if she does, then she will not be able to remain firm in her decision to leave because she truly does care for them, even though she knows that she cannot be the proper mother they need by staying. In a way, Mrs. Linde is the foil of Nora, as Mrs. Linde went through so much hardship and learned to become independent while Nora was living a much more blissful but dependent life. In Act III, Mrs. Linde ends up becoming a type of helpmeet for Krogstad, someone who can be the breadwinner and provide for the family. Instead of leaving her family, Mrs. Linde ends up joining and becoming a part of a family with children and a husband that she can care for, which was what Mrs. Linde wanted. By examining the lives of these two women, it reveals a theme that to enjoy a healthy and happy relationship with others, each person must also have come to an understanding with themself as an individual. Essentially, a healthy relationship is like a Venn Diagram, with each part able to be separate and still remain whole.
This is a blog about how I was wrong. Ibsen once said “I am not even sure what women’s rights really are. To me it has always been a question of human rights.” The thing that amazes me most about this idea is that Ibsen accidentally wrote a play that is called the “feminist-manifesto” and really helped the beginning of the women’s rights movement. My last blog was a description of why I believed that Ibsen meant this play as a feminist work, but apparently Ibsen just accidentally wrote a very radically feminist play. To be sure, this play was no accident, but the original message was meant to be humanist, that is, supporting all people to be their own person. Anything feminist can also be called humanist, but the fact that this play which focuses so clearly on the roles that women in the Victorian society are forced to take on is meant to be humanist really weakens its resonance and impact. It could be argued that both Nora and Torvald are kept in roles by the Victorian society and that due to these roles Torvald is forced to be a powerful, dominant husband and Nora is forced to be a submissive, house-making wife. However, this play mostly focuses on Nora and how she is just decoration for Torvald’s arm. My favorite symbol in this play is the symbol of the Christmas tree and how it represents Nora’s deteriorating mental state and the unravelling of her web of lies. Additionally, this tree seems to symbolize Nora getting all dressed up and fancy. Nora tells the maid not to let the children see the tree before it is decorated, which mirrors how Nora does not want Torvald to see her before she is in her costume. This demonstrates how he is just showing her off and wants her to be beautiful and bring attention to him, which enforces gender roles and seems to support the idea of this play as a feminist work. I know since Ibsen wrote the play he can’t be wrong about the play’s intent, but I believe that he is wrong due to how it is interpreted and how it comes across.
Your self reflection is very inspiring! I love how you were able to recognize the false interpretation on the play. I completely agree, how the Christmas tree helped mask Nora's imperfections. The humanist values can be seen through Nora's ability to grow as an individual throughout the play. When she leaves Torvald, she says she needs to be on her own in order to mature. It just happened to be a woman that did this, making the play seemingly feminist. Great interpretation!
In Act 3 of Henrik Ibsen's “A Doll’s House”, the true motivations and feelings of the characters are exposed. Even in the first half of this act, we see as the characters’ actions differ radically from what we would have expected them to do based on how they acted throughout the rest of the play. First, the audience learns that Mrs. Linde once had a romantic relationship with Krogstad. Now she wishes to reconcile and once again be with him. However, she asks Krogstad as a favor to her to forgive Nora’s debt. Krogstad asks what is one the audience’s mind, saying that she only wants to be with Krogstad to help her friend. However, Kristine replies that she no longer wants to do anything for anyone else seeing as she has been serving others all her life. This move seems rather unsympathetic considerably that it was Nora who gave her a place to stay and considered Helmer to award her a position at the bank. However, Mrs. Linde ask that Krogstad leaves the letter so that the secret does come out between Nora and her husband. This reinforces Kristine’s belief, one that she has mentioned many times before to Nora, that their should be no secrets in Nora’s relationship. We also see Nora and Helmer return home from the dance, with Nora doing everything in her power to prevent Torvald from seeing Krogstad’s letter. She desperately tries to distract Torvald, although she soon finds that his alcohol consumption has made him start to make “advances” on his wife. Being in a less than happy move she refuses. A knock on the door interrupts, as Dr. Rank comes to visit. He arrives in a suspiciously happy mood, a stark contrast from his previous personality. However the reader soon realized that the his mood is linked to his acceptance with his forthcoming passing. It feels as though his visit is his final attempt to help out Nora one last time.
It is really interesting that the main conflict of the play comes from characters keeping secrets and the resolutions comes from these secrets being revealed. I think Ibsen is trying to convey that keeping secrets and general shady behavior is can only lead to great problems and only through revealing them can the problems be resolved. Do you have any secrets you think you should reveal?
Just like with the novel Siddhartha that we read earlier on in the year, “A Doll’s House” was also a work that had to be translated from another language into English. Translations tend to reflect the view of how the translator(s) interpreted it as they seek to convey the proper original meanings of the words when switching them from one language to another. Such a difference in translation can be seen in just how the title of this work is presented, whether it be called “A Doll’s House” or “The Doll’s House”. While the difference between the two is small, the one word change actually holds a large difference. When using the word “The”, it implies both ownership and causes the audience to view it as singular. On the other hand, using the word “A” both lacks that ownership and it also implies that it is one of many. When the play is titled “A Doll’s House”, it implies that this “doll’s house” which is experienced throughout the entire play is just one of many. This reflects the Victorian Era with its strict regulations and formalities on what was considered ‘proper’, as it was often like everyone was a doll playing house and trying to appear as if they have it all together even if they are an absolute mess on the inside. If titled “The Doll’s House”, it almost seems to limit this dollhouse idea to solely the home of the Helmers, as it is ‘the’ main one. Translators could be tempted to use “The Doll’s House” as the title as the story focuses mostly on the doll-like tendencies in the Helmer home, never really going into too much depth on the homes of others (in fact, the play never once leaves the setting of the Helmer home), but I personally agree with the translation choice of “A Doll’s House” as it gives the impression that what transpires in the Helmer’s home was just one of many instances within the Victorian Era of people/families acting like dolls to fit with society's standards.
A Doll’s House as evident by its various ironic twists and unexpected outcomes is a dramatic play. By allowing individuals to oppose traditional behavior in the Victorian Era, Ibsen is able to heighten the drama in A Doll’s House. An excellent example to show this is when Nora lied to Torvald about buying macarons even going as far as to saying “No, I assure you, Torvald” with an extreme passion (5). By providing allowing Nora to do such an unorthodox action, which was lying to her husband, Ibsen adds dramatic irony which also heightens the drama within the play. The extreme passion that Nora provides with the lie also conjures a dominant effect of excitement on the audience further increasing the drama. Another example of a character that penetrates the traditional boundaries is Krogstad. Not only did Krogstad try to blackmail someone, that person was a woman; a behavior extremely foreign to the Victorian Era. At the first insight of Krogstad, he appeared fixed on ruining the reputation of Torvald and getting Nora in trouble. He even supported his actions by using a noble cause like being able to take care of his children. But in the end, Mrs.Linde ended up getting back together with Krogstad and he completley halts in attempting to blackmail the Helmers. Ibsen in this case used situational irony. The situational irony adds shock to the audience which in turns adds to the drama to the story. By abruptly allowing these characters to go against traditions or abruptly allowing them to turn towards it once again, Ibsen allows for differents types of irony to heighten the drama of the play. Dramas are all about shock, excitement and emotional responses, and Ibsen’s use of the characterization of characters and their rebellious actions allows him to create this irony that creates such a thrilling drama.
In the first section of “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, he characterizes Nora by the use of epithets and the way she is described. Helmer calls her “my little sky-lark”, a “spendthrift”, “my little singing bird”, and “my pretty little pet”. These epithets characterize her as submissive and as her husband’s “pet”, which makes her seem like his property. He calls Nora his little “spendthrift” on multiple occasions, which insinuates that she spends money irresponsibly. She seems to go along with this characterization and acts like a ditzy wife who just doesn't know better. This characterizes her as a typical Victorian era wife, and this characterization continues in the first section until she talks to Mrs. Linde.
ReplyDeleteWhen Helmer says “my little singing bird mustn't go drooping her wings, eh?” (Ibsen 3) he explains how a woman’s main job is to look nice and act kind towards her husband. Helmer also says “My pretty little pet is very sweet, but it runs away with an awful lot of money. It’s incredible how expensive it is for a man to keep such a pet” (Ibsen 4). This describes the typical submissive husband-wife relationship and how the wife is practically the husband’s “pet”.
This characterization of Helmer as the all-powerful husband and Nora as the loving wife continues until Nora reveals to Mrs. Linde that she got the money to take them to Italy herself. This completely contradicts her previous characterization and changes her into a lying and resourceful character who is multidimensional and can put up a front so well that her husband does not notice that anything is wrong. This is very different from the socially accepted action of a woman, and for this reason Nora does not tell Helmer about it. Her secret helps to preserve the existing power structure and give him the continued illusion of having all of the power.
I agree with your analysis of Nora and Helmer's relationship– that Helmer is under the illusion that he has all the power. However, I wouldn't give Nora as much credit for being lying and resourceful. Although she had good intentions in her actions, her rebelliousness from her place in society appears to do more harm than good. Dr. Rank mentioned, "All my patients are the same. Even those with a moral affliction are no different" (Ibsen, 18). This "moral affliction" was tagged to Krogstad, though later in the act Nora is shown to have the same issue. Helmer also talks of moral problems, "It's generally traceable to the mothers, but of course fathers can have the same influence. ... And yet there's Krogstad been poisoning his own children for years with lies and deceit. That's the reason I call him morally depraved" (33). Though he's speaking about Krogstad, Nora realizes that this exact situation has seeped into her household as well. Through her lies, she has poisoned her home and children, where she could have kept her place in society and followed the rules.
DeleteThrough the characterization of Nora, and use of metaphors, Ibsen emphasizes the discrimination of women during The Victorian Era in which this book was written. During the Victorian Era, women were considered much weaker and less responsible compared to men. Men were expected to provide for the needs of his family while women were expected to stay at home and take care of household affairs. The play begins with Nora persuading Helmer to give her money to spend for Christmas shopping saying “[toying with his coat buttons, and without looking at him] If you did want to give me something, you could… you could always… You could always give me money, Torvald” (4). The combination of the action stated by Ibsen and the pauses in Nora’s sentences, creates a seductive tone characterizing Nora to be wicked and irresponsible. In this case she is irresponsible when it comes to managing the family’s finances. This characterization of Nora follows the belief that women are incapable of managing themselves; a belief that thrived in the Victorian Era. Throughout the couples’ dialogue, Helmer refers to Nora with nicknames and seldom refer to Nora by her name. When Nora asked Helmer for some money Torvald says “What do we call my pretty little pet when it runs away with all the money” and Nora replies “I know, I know, we call it a spendthrift” (4). Torvald compares Nora to a “pretty little pet” showing how little he thinks of her. What is more daunting is Nora appears to agree that she is worthless by referring to herself as “it”. The behaviors of these two characters clearly demonstrate the discrimination that exists within the Victorian Era, the setting of the play. The two character’s appear to care for one another through the use of nicknames and playful actions, but this also revealed the darker side of their condition.
ReplyDeleteMy post was very similar to your's in that I focused mostly on the inequality between men and women in the Victorian era. I looked mostly at the way in which Helmer addressed Nora, rather than the metaphors that he used to describe her. I appreciate your insight and while it was a different approach than mine, I feel that it is equally valid and had many insights that I neglected to discuss. Also I did not discuss the setting of the scene very much at all, which you wrote about and made some very interesting insights. Good Job and interesting insights.
DeleteIn the beginning of act 1, Henrik Ibsen presents the first conflict of money, while also revealing some characteristics of Nora and Torvald. The beginning of the play shows Nora overpaying for the porter’s services and later on she exclaims to Torvald about all the gifts she bought for the family. This shows the reader that Nora likes to spend money and allows the idea of buying presents to overshadow the couple’s financial problems. However, Torvald has a more practical view of money, by jokingly calling Nora a “spendthrift” and telling her that she is very foolish when it comes to finances. Torvald thinks that Nora’s lack of financial understanding is due to her gender, saying, “Nora, my Nora, that is just like a women”(Ibsen 4), this shows his prejudice views of gender roles. Torvald believes that a wife’s role is to keep up the image of the house, not only by cleaning but also through proper behavior and appearance. Another characteristic of Torvald’s personality is the way he refers to Nora by animal names. The only time he calls her by name is when Torvald is scolding her, however when he is trying to be affectionate he calls her by names like “my little skylark” and “my squirrel”. By using these nicknames, Torvald can assert his power over Nora as well as dehumanize her. The usage of animal imagery shows that Torvald is suggesting that Nora is too incompetent to deal with male jobs, like finances. Through these interactions between Nora and Torvald, the reader is given the opportunity to make assumptions on the future of their relationship.
ReplyDeleteI find that I agree with a lot of what you wrote about in this analysis! I agree with how you interpreted the way of how Torvald is, and I very much enjoy how you included how Torvald expresses himself towards Nora when experiencing different emotions. However, there are some elements of literature I would highly suggest you use. I think you should really think about incorporating context some more in this analysis. While you briefly imply there is Victorian culture present, I think it would be very helpful to make the direct connection. With it you could describe the different gender roles, and why Nora/Torvald act the way they do. Other then that, I enjoyed reading your post very much!
DeleteMy analysis was on the same subject as yours. Nora is begging her husband for money; the fact that she has to beg for money reveals how men were much more powerful than women were during this era. women did not have jobs, or had jobs that did not pay well, so they relied on their husbands to make money and provide for them.
Delete-Hajir Hosseini, P.5
“NORA. But, Torvald, surely this year we can spread ourselves just a little. This is the first Christmas we haven’t had to go carefully.
ReplyDeleteHELMER. Ah, but that doesn’t mean we can afford to be extravagant, you know.
NORA. Oh yes, Torvald, surely we can afford to be just a little bit extravagant now, can’t we? Just a teeny-weeny bit. You are getting quite a good salary now, and you are going to earn lots and lots of money.
HELMER. Yes, after the New Year. But it’s going to be three whole months before the first pay cheque comes in.
NORA. Pooh! We can always borrow in the meantime” (Act I page 2).
In the first Act of the play “A Doll’s House”, Ibsen characterizes Nora as impulsive, a liar, and a bit arrogant. The quote above is an excerpt from when Torvald Helmer, Nora’s husband, first enters into the play and they almost immediately launch into a discussion about money. Here, Nora can be seen as impulsive as she is says that now that Helmer is getting a good salary, they don’t have to worry much more about past financial problems. Helmer is quick to remind her that it will be quite some time before the first pay check comes in and that they shouldn’t incur more debt upon themselves as there is still the potential for misfortune to happen. Nora then dismisses these notions and “horrid things” rather quickly. Rather than focusing on the present situation, her sights are set on the fact that the family will be receiving lots of money later on and starts to squander the money a bit, which is the opposite of Helmer, who appears to be better at managing money not only due to the fact that he scolds Nora for spending so much but also because this new job is one found at the bank. It is also implied that Nora has never really been skilled at managing money, as Helmer nicknames her “spendthrift”, which means: “a person who spends money in an extravagant, irresponsible way” (Google). Dramatic irony is used a bit later in the same conversation to reveal Nora to be a liar, as Helmer interrogates her if she entered the confectioner’s shop and bought macaroons. This is dramatic irony because at the start of the Act, the stage directions clearly indicate that Nora took out a package of macaroons and ate a couple before she hid the package back in her pocket, which means the audience is perfectly aware of the fact that Nora does have macaroons and is what reveals that she has no problem with lying to Helmer for her own purposes. This also foreshadows and leads up to the huge reveal of the giant secret she has been keeping for herself: the fact that she was the one who obtained the money for the trip to Italy. Her arrogance is mostly seen during her interaction with Mrs. Linde, as right after hearing the tragic tale of the circumstances Mrs. Linde has had to live through, Nora states, “No, you start. I won’t be selfish today. I must think only about your affairs today. But there’s just one thing I really must tell you. Have you heard about the great stroke of luck we’ve had in the last few days?” (Act 1, page 8). Despite saying that she wishes to focus on and assist her misfortunate friend, Nora rapidly turns the conversation towards how amazing her life has been, boasting about how her circumstances which are close to being the very opposite of what Mrs. Linde has experienced. Nora continues on speaking in quite lengthy paragraphs about the great fortune that has occurred for her with Mrs. Linde speaking a few times in quite short, clipped sentences every now and again all the way until the bottom of page ten, which is when Nora finally turns the conversation topic back to her friend. However, the topic soon turns back to Nora as she boasts about how it was actually her who saved her husband’s life and purposely withholds exactly how she obtained the money, even going so far as to state, “I might even have got it from some admirer. Anyone as reasonably attractive as I am” (Act 1, page 14). That is how Ibsen characterizes Nora within the first act of the play.
I really enjoyed reading your in-depth analysis, and I wanted to point out that I agree with what you are saying because my blog post was actually quite similar to yours. I had the same examples with Nora boasting to Mrs. Linde about how her life has been in the positive direction whereas Mrs. Linde has went downhill. Also I felt that Nora is self-centered character as seen when she only begins to be sympathetic towards Mrs. Linde 3 years after her husband died, and doesn't even care to write a letter to her. I also found it quite interesting about how you talked about the difference in the line length between Nora and Mrs. Linde because when I read this I had no idea that the line length of the characters can tell us the state of mind they are in. Nice analysis!
ReplyDeleteIn Act Two of “A Doll’s House”, dramatic irony is created through the increasingly intricate web of lies that Nora has sewn. In this act it is revealed that Nora forged her father’s signature to take out the loan to save her husband. Additionally, she is the one that reveals this information which characterizes her as a dumb woman who knows no better.
ReplyDeleteWithout knowing that Nora has forged a signature, Helmer begins to talk about how terrible liars are and he says “A fog of lies like that in a household, and it spreads disease and infection to every part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking with evil germs.” (Ibsen 33) He is talking about Krogstad, and believes that “Krogstad been poisoning his own children for years with lies and deceit.” (Ibsen 33) This creates dramatic irony because Nora has committed the same crime as Krogstad, so as Helmer describes the bad things done by Krogstad, Nora sees parallels to herself and her own actions. She eases her guilt by rationalizing her crimes, saying that her motives were good and that bad things never happen to good people. She says, “Things like that can’t happen. It’s impossible. Why, I have three small children.” (Ibsen 35) Nora seems to think that since she is a mother and had good motives in forging the signature, that nothing bad can happen to her. She seems to believe that she is above karma and above the law. Every time something bad appears to be happening, she approaches the subject with disbelief and denial, and calms herself by believing that nothing bad could possible happen to her. This foreshadows possible conflict later in this play.
I found your analysis of the creation of dramatic irony in A Doll’s House very interesting. In particular, the part about Nora believing she is free of consequence from her forgery. In my opinion, the parallel that Helmer inadvertently brings up between the crime of Krogstad and Nora highlights some characteristics in Nora. She has no details on Krogstad’s crime, for example, when or why, yet she figures she is the one that is free from punishment simply because she is a mother of three that tried to ease the conscious of her dying father. I think this shows some slight arrogance in Nora; that she believes she is too good for the law.
DeleteIn Act II of “A Doll’s House”, by using a combination of stage directions and changes in Nora’s diction, not only is Ibsen able to continue characterizing Nora, but he is able to display some of the cultural aspects of the Victorian Era, which is when this story takes place. Back in the Victorian Era, appearance was viewed to be everything. As Mrs. Murai so nicely put it, “It doesn’t matter how much of a mess you are on the inside, all that mattered was that you looked presentable on the outside”. This principle holds true and can be seen with Nora, as at the start of Act II it reads, “NORA. [putting down her coat again] Somebody’s coming! [Crosses to the door, lisens.] No, it’s nobody. Nobody will come today, of course, Christmas Day--nor tomorrow, either. But perhaps…. [She opens the door and looks out] No, nothing in the letter box; quite empty. [Comes forward] Oh nonsense! He didn’t mean it seriously. Things like that can’t happen. It’s impossible. Why, I have three small children” (Act II, page 35). In this quote, it can be seen that Nora often switches back and forth between frantically worrying about what Krogstad threatened her about and reassuring herself that nothing will happen and that she is above the consequences of her actions. This continues with the trend of her arrogant personality that was introduced in Act I, but it also introduces that she is also very doubtful and the anxiety is consuming her as her movements in the beginning stage directions are described as “restless”. She is also quite on-edge, as it is seen that she thinks that someone is at the door when there really is none but continually checks anyways. Again, she is seen in this utterly frantic state after the Nursemaid leaves as it reads, “NORA. [begins unpacking the box, but soon throws it down]. Oh, if only I dare go out. If only I could be sure nobody would come. And that nothing would happen in the meantime here at home. Rubbish--nobody’s going to come. I mustn’t think about it. Brush this muff. Pretty gloves, pretty gloves! I’ll put it right out of my mind. One, two, three, four, five, six…. [Screams.] Ah, they are coming… [She starts towards the door, but stops irresolute. Mrs. Linde comes from the hall, where she has taken off her things.] Oh, it’s you, Kristine. There’s nobody else out there, is there? I’m so glad you’ve come” (Act II, page 36-37). Once again, the sentences seem to be of a shorter length and constantly weighing between Nora worrying over what Krogstad said and reassuring herself that nothing will happen. She even tries to distract herself with some trinkets, but again succumbs to the fear and lets out a scream before worriedly heading towards the door. However, she stops in her frantic motions once she spots that Mrs. Linde is present. Instead, she continues to resume behavior somewhat similar to how she did in Act I, still speaking slightly longer than Mrs. Linde does. Yet, this time their conversation is different as their responses to one another are slightly more equal in length instead of Nora blathering on for a large amount of space with only small interjections from Mrs. Linde. Although, it may not be exactly prominent yet, but it seems that when Nora is excited to share a topic she will talk at great lengths about it (refer back to when she described how wonderful her life had played out to Mrs. Linde in Act I), but then her answers are rather clipped when someone is interrogating her about a secretive subject, such as when Mrs. Linde asks her who she borrowed the money from. It can also be noted that Nora’s previous meltdown appears to have calmed a bit, as she is no longer restlessly checking the door nor screaming, but it still exists, as seen later when she is alone and once again fretting, but pulls herself together when Dr. Rank appears. This demonstrates not only Nora’s worrisome character, but also reflects the culture of the times back then on how appearance is everything.
ReplyDeleteAs my group reads along the play one of the most prominent and ongoing use of convention is ellipses. All throughout the play, the ellipses is used to indicate an interruption within one character. For example, when Helmer and Nora were having a conversation, Nora says “That’s why I implore you… [Helmer]: The more you plead for him, the more impossible you make it for me to keep him on” (42). What I find interesting is when an ellipses is used, when indicating an interruption from Nora, is the theme of her dialogue after the ellipses is usually when she is persuading the other character to do something. This theme can be seen when Krogstad confronts Nora about her crime saying “But did it never strike you that this was fraudulent…?” and Nora replies “That wouldn’t have meant anything to me” (29). at the end of Krogstad’s dialogue, an ellipses is placed. The dialogue that Nora replies with is an excuse to why she had committed forgery. She is trying to make Krogstad understand that her crime is not because of malicious intent. Another example is when Nora was trying to convince Helmer of giving her money. Helmer says “But Nora…” and Nora replies “Oh please, Torvald dear” (4). The ellipses could symbolize her persistence, but can also lead to her downfall because more often than not, like in this dialogue, the other character is affected negatively in some way. Here she attacks the pride of Helmer by making him follow her order. This ongoing theme using the ellipses also characterizes Nora. Reflecting how she continually tries to make things go her way shows how stubborn she is despite her being at fault at times (her forgery). Her constantly making excuses shows how she thinks of herself; a perfect little doll. While I do not like how she tries to portray herself as a perfect doll, it may actually just be due to the culture of the Victorian Era.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your analysis. While I also dislike Nora acting like a perfect doll in Victorian society, I do also think she does it to survive. Under the pressures of Victorian society Nora must act this way in order to survive and avoid being an outcast. It's been shown that Nora is very hard working and persistent she has to hide part of he personality just to fit in and not offened like a grade schooler on the playground pretending their slow so not to hurt anyone feelings.
DeleteAt the end of Act I, Nora is being blackmailed by Krogstad to get his job secured and have Nora’s husband (Torvald) not fire him. This causes Nora to panic, and feel a sense of guilt from the decision she made to be involved with Krogstad. To save her father, she forges his signature on a bank transaction which is illegal. Coincidentally, Krogstad was in trouble with the bank for forgery. This use of dramatic irony shows the implications of this illegal action, as he is hated at the bank for his immoral act. Then, Torvald ironically says, “A fog of lies like that in a household, and it spreads disease and infection to every part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking with evil germs” (Ibsen 33). Nora’s children are in the opposite room, as she was paranoid earlier about their upbringing. At the end of the Act 1, she says, “Corrupt my children...Poison my home? It’s not true! It could never, never be true!” (Ibsen 34) Nora goes into denial as the problem of forgery has no escalated beyond legal issues, but to family problems as well. This whole scene expresses the motif of lie and deceit, as the author wanted to convey how bad the implications of lying are. Also, during this time, marriage between the husband and wife was very tedious, as the man had more power than the woman. This idea could cause an excuse for the untrustworthiness in these relationships during the Victorian Era, and how this inequality of the genders cause strife between both people.
ReplyDeleteIn Act 2 of “A Doll’s House”, Ibsen further characterizes Mrs. Linde through her interactions with Krogstad. Previously it was revealed that Mrs. Linde had married rich, but her husband had died, her mother had died, and her younger brother had grown up. This left her with no one to care for or to rely on. In the Victorian way of looking at this, she had an altogether unproductive life; she had no children. In this act however, it is revealed that Mrs. Linde craves someone to work for and companionship.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Linde says, “There’s no pleasure in working only for yourself. Nils, give me somebody and something to work for” (III.64). This demonstrates how she needs someone to work for. This also is in line with the Victorian culture, because it was uncommon for women to live on their own or work for themselves. Women were believed to need a man to look out for them or a family to provide for. Mrs. Linde has neither, so she says to Krogstad, “I need someone to mother, and your children need a mother. We two need each other” (III.65) This could possible still be just an act to persuade Krogstad to retrieve the letter until Mrs. Linde tells him not to ask for the letter back. She says that “Helmer must know everything” (III.66). This portrays her as a very upstanding and moral character who has done her best not to be entangled in the web of lies.
I think this creates a theme of the need for companionship in life, a theme that is continued throughout this play. This theme is demonstrated in Nora’s need for Helmer and the children to continue loving her, and is demonstrated by Rank’s love for Nora.
I really liked your analysis about how one character can emphasize the characteristics of another. Through the passage you mentioned I would consider Mrs. Linde a loyal and trustworthy friend due to the fact that she cares about Nora enough to help her and the fact that she wants to be a wife and mother to children that aren't hers, which can be controversial. Considering these personality traits about Mrs. Linde, would you consider her a more likable character than Nora? Especially since some people can take Nora's intelligence and non-submissive attitude the wrong way?
DeleteI like how you noticed that Mrs. Linde’s life was very unproductive from the Victorian point of view. I had a slightly different interpretation of Mrs. Linde’s need for companionship and how it related to Nora. Your analysis definitely corresponds to the alternate ending written for the German theater, in which Nora decides to stay to be a good mother to her children. However, in the original ending, Nora abandons her need for companionship in order to become independent and learn how to think for herself. Mrs. Linde, who has worked for her whole life and knows how to be an independent person, decides that she will be happy living with Krogstad. It is almost as if these two women are at different paths in their self-discovery. Ibsen suggests that in order to truly love another person and be happy in a relationship, it is necessary to first understand oneself as an individual.
Delete“HELMER. But my dear darling Nora, you are dancing as though your life depended on it.
ReplyDeleteNORA. It does” (Act II. page 59).
Once again, Ibsen utilizes dramatic irony within the play “A Doll’s House”. Helmer, like many other times throughout the play, is still clueless about the lies, deceit, and the whole troublesome situation Nora has gotten herself entangled in. When he comments on Nora’s dancing and mentioning that the fervor which she put into it is like her life depends on it, the audience is aware while he isn’t that, in a sense, Nora’s life does depend on this dance. Or, to be more precise, her life of hidden secrets depends upon keeping Helmer preoccupied while Mrs. Linde rushes over to Krogstad’s home. The audience is quite aware of the fact that Krogstad has left a letter in the mailbox containing the evidence of the secret loan to Nora and the forging of her father’s signature that she did, but clueless Torvald Helmer remains unaware as the doors to the secrets are still closed. Dramatic irony tends to be employed whenever Nora is lying to her husband, like at the start of the play with the macaroons. Instead of leaving the audience hanging in suspense on what all the mysteries are, Ibsen chose to use dramatic irony by revealing certain secrets to the audience, yet leaving other characters unaware. This allows the audience to detect the lies which Nora tells more easily, as well as being able to see how well Helmer is able to detect these lies. One can spot that he appears to notice whenever Nora is acting a bit frantically or guiltily and may even call her out on it, but usually submits to her persuasion after a little bit. For example, in Act I, he says, “But come to think of it, you look rather… rather… how shall I put it? …. rather guilty today....” (Act I page 5). However, after much convincing from Nora, he then dismisses the accusation of her eating macaroons as his little joke. Those are a couple examples of how Ibsen employs dramatic irony in the play.
I agree that Ibsen's use of dramatic irony makes it easier for the audience/reader to understand the web of lies that Nora has caught herself in. But, I think it also helps to characterize Helmer more than one would think. In my opinion, Helmer's ignorance to the drama of his wife makes him seem weak and foolish which foreshadows his weakness at the end of the play as well as his reliance on Nora when she chooses to leave him.
DeleteAt the very beginning of Act II, the Narrator is setting the scene and says, “The same room. In the corner beside the piano stands the Christmas tree, stripped, bedraggled and with its candles burnt out. Nora’s outdoor things lie on the sofa. Nora, alone there, walks about restlessly; at last she stops by the sofa and picks up her coat” (Ibsen 35). I found this quote very interesting and important to the play because I noticed that there are many similarities between the Christmas tree and Nora. The Christmas tree seems to be symbol of Nora and her mental state. At this point in the play Nora is very nervous that Krogstad might expose her little secret and the Christmas tree’s position seems to parallel Nora’s psychological state. The Christmas tree is “stripped,” “bedraggled,” and has “burnt out” candles reflecting how Nora is exhausted and feeling uneasy about her fault. Not only is the Christmas tree not in a good condition, but it is also in the corner of the room, which symbolizes how Nora feels trapped and cornered by her secret. Another way the Christmas tree symbolizes Nora is that similar to how a Christmas tree is usually a very festive, joyful item that is known to make people smile, Nora is a vital part of her home’s cheerfulness and good looks. A Christmas tree is a very important and symbolic part of Christmas just like how a wife/mother is an important part of a family (especially during the Victorian Era).
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy your analysis, I actually didn't notice that myself. To add on to this a Christmas tree is adorned in various ornaments and lights or dolled up to make it look prettier. This is done to keep up appearance because a Christmas tree can be a subtle way of demonstrating one's wealth like having expensive clothes.
DeleteLike in numerous works of literature clothing in the book provide an immense amount of significance to better understanding the meaning of the work. For example, in Taming of the Shrew clothing symbolized social standing as well as the characterization of characters. In the Doll’s House Ibsen uses clothing to display the Victorian culture to show no blemishes or hiding it away from anyone, even your own family. After Nora finished performing her dance she Ibsen writes a description of Nora’s clothing that “She is dressed in the Italian costume, with a big black shawl over it”(66). At this moment of the play, there is a presence of an extreme form of dramatic irony which creates high tension environment for Nora. By putting this description within such a hostile situation, essentially breaking this momentum, there must be an enormous significance with the description. The Italian costume represents her beauty and blamelessness to how she “saved” Torvald’s life by going to this trip. The “big” and “black” shawl “over” her represents her secrets because the color of black connotes to mystery and the unknown. This combination of clothing represents her actions in a subtle way by using them as symbols for her actions. Further using these symbols, Ibsen directs Helmer to “removing Nora’s shawl” then says “Well take a good look at her… Isn’t she lovely, Mrs.Linde?”(67). The action in this sentence represents Helmer’s almost naive portrayal of Nora. He believes that Nora is lovely and absolutely perfect supported by him taking off her black shawl. Torvald does not see Nora as a woman with the Italian dress and the big black shawl, he sees her as the lovely woman with the Italian dress. Utilizing these symbols also create more dramatic irony and a possible foreshadow that Helmer will “pick up on” Nora’s secrets which will result in dire consequences for Nora. But an action like Nora’s, to hide her blemishes, and Torvald being oblivious to the real situation was all so common in the Victorian Era. Where everyone was supposed to be perfect dolls in their little house.
ReplyDeleteI liked how focused this post is. You really did a great job analyzing the significance of Torvald's comment and how he sees her. I also would like to add that the shawl signifies mystery so when Torvald removes her shawl, it is foreshadowing that Nora will not willingly reveal her secret, Torvald will have to uncover it himself.
DeleteIn Act Three of “A Doll’s House,” Ibsen reveals the theme and motive of writing this play. Helmer finally discovers Nora’s secret, and her perfect image is destroyed. Nora will cause Helmer shame, and he is immediately disgusted with her and does not want any of this blame to be placed on him. This demonstrates how appearances were more important than loving your wife. Nora says to Helmer “I have been your doll wife” (III.80), representing how he has had full control of her and she is his possession and accessory to make him look good. This is seen as the only real purpose of a wife, and since Nora can not even do that, she is worthless.
ReplyDeleteWhen Nora reveals that she had wished that Helmer would create a “miracle” and take all the blame for her actions, Helmer says, “But nobody sacrifices his honor for the one he loves.” to which Nora responds, “hundred of thousands of women have” (III.84). This clearly demonstrates that Ibsen meant this play as a feminist play that would inspire women to stop simply submitting to their husbands and instead be their own person. Ibsen was commenting on and insulting the society he lived in.
When asked to write an alternative, more conservative ending, Ibsen responded by saying that it would be an act of “barbaric violence” to alter the ending. He did eventually write an alternative ending under immense pressure from german theaters. Though the alternative ending gives Nora a more human quality, because she had an internal conflict when leaving her children, it destroys the feminist theme that Ibsen created. Ibsen made clear in a letter to the “Nationaltidende” in 1880 that “those who make use of the altered scene do do entirely against my wish.” I think this reveals how he meant this entirely as a feminist play, and the fact that people found it offensive reveals that the message was successful.
I agree with your idea that appearance is more important to Torvald than loving his own wife. In fact, one of the most striking quotes I came across in Act III was when Nora tells Torvald “You two people [Torvald and Daddy] never loved me. You only thought how nice it was to be in love with me” (III. 80). I thought that this quote accurately described the Victorian culture as a whole; people are so attached and obsessed with achieving absolute perfection that they are deluding themselves into thinking that they actually have become perfect. In truth, Torvald doesn’t really love his wife and merely wanted the perfect family and reputation, but in order to achieve those, he could only pretend and think that he did love his wife. In his mind, he had the perfection that he wanted and thought of “how nice it was,” but that simply is not the reality.
DeleteIn the beginning of the play, i had immediately suspected that the relationship between Torvald and Nora had problems though they appeared to be attempting to hide all of their blemishes. To help me come to this conclusion, Ibsen uses the symbol of the lamp as the light that reveals the darkness. The lamp connotes light, but also making known objects in the darkness. In this case of the play, the lamp symbolizes the reveal of a secret because when the lamp is present, there is always a secret that is revealed. When Helmer reads the note sent by Krogstad about Nora’s debts Ibsen writes “by the lamp” as a stage direction right before he finds out about Nora’s secret (77). The lamp symbolized the secret debts that Nora has borrowed from Krogstad coming to light to Torvald. While the lamp symbolized literal secrets being revealed like Nora’s, the lamp also reveals secrets hidden in the context. Secrets that the audience and maybe even the characters themselves would not have known. During the scene where Torvald finds out that Krogstad has forgiven Nora’s forgery, Helmer says “Nora! I must read again. Yes, yes, it’s true! I am saved! Nora, I am saved!” (77). Because there is a lamp present, there must be a secret that is revealed. The secret is Torvald’s selfishness as indicated by the numerous “I”’s in the sentence even though the one who committed the forgery and is directly impacted by the forgery was Nora. This secret being revealed to the audience and to Nora about the true nature of Torvald maybe the reason why Nora says “You only thought now nice it was to be in love with me”, indicating her realization (80). The lamp has brought to light these secrets or hidden characteristics to help the audience understand the characterization of Torvald.
ReplyDeleteOne symbol I noticed in “A Doll’s House” is Nora’s dance of the tarantella. Nora has the plan to do the tarantella at a ball, a dance usually done in a group that she is doing alone. This in itself is symbolic because it shows Nora distancing herself from her friends and family, and feeling isolated due to the secret she is holding. It also is potentially foreshadowing Nora being alone. When Nora is practicing the tarantella in front of Torvald, she continually goes faster and faster, and Torvald is unable to control her. He says, “‘Not so fast! Not so fast’” to which Nora replies, “‘I can’t help it’”; Torvald says, “‘Not so wild, Nora!’” so Nora says “‘This is how it has to be’” (58). Torvald continually tells Nora to slow down, and tries to control her dancing. Nora disregards her husband, and continually dances faster and faster, and wilder and wilder. This is a symbol for Nora’s life and their relationship. Torvald is always trying to control Nora’s actions, even barring her from eating macaroons, something viewed as fairly benign. He also has extreme reactions to any trying on her part to escape from his control. When Nora tells a small lie, Torvald blows up at her, and warns that she must never lie. Despite his anger, Nora breaks out of her husband’s hold a lot and has lied to him frequently, about items both important and unimportant. Their relationship is built on secrets, and attempts to control each other. The tarantella dance shows Torvald’s futile endeavors to restrict Nora’s actions, and how she evades them.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your analysis of the significance of the tarantella. I however thought the symbol of the tarantella was actually a "death dance" and I made this assumption as Rank is playing the piano and both are nearing "death". I also noticed just like you that as she is performing the dance Nora seems to dance wildly and doesn’t follow the orders of her master, and I made an interesting comparison with her dancing wildly, as she is acting like she has been bitten by the tarantula and her body is injected with poison. I made this comparison to show that she doesn't want Torvald to find out about her crime. I also thought the significance of the dance is show her death metaphorically. This means that she would be dying away from Torvald and leaving him to find a new life that she would enjoy. I really liked your analysis and found it interesting that we both had many similar ideas.
DeleteBy the end of Act III, after having her secret exposed, Nora comes to realize that this whole time she has simply been a ‘doll’ who has been having to play the part of both a perfect daughter and a perfect wife, but she herself never able to be an independent individual. During this revelation, she decides to pack up her things and leave during which, at one point, she states, “Goodbye, Torvald. I don’t want to see the children. I know they are in better hands than mine. As I am now, I can never be anything to them” (Act III page 85). In this quote, Nora is acknowledging that with the way she currently is, an ignorant doll who is almost childlike in behavior, she is unable to properly care for her children and be the mother that they need. However, as revealed by the (highly disapproved) alternative ending provided by Ibsen, Nora is still human and cares deeply for her children. Here, she is stating that she doesn’t want to see the children because she knows that if she does, then she will not be able to remain firm in her decision to leave because she truly does care for them, even though she knows that she cannot be the proper mother they need by staying. In a way, Mrs. Linde is the foil of Nora, as Mrs. Linde went through so much hardship and learned to become independent while Nora was living a much more blissful but dependent life. In Act III, Mrs. Linde ends up becoming a type of helpmeet for Krogstad, someone who can be the breadwinner and provide for the family. Instead of leaving her family, Mrs. Linde ends up joining and becoming a part of a family with children and a husband that she can care for, which was what Mrs. Linde wanted. By examining the lives of these two women, it reveals a theme that to enjoy a healthy and happy relationship with others, each person must also have come to an understanding with themself as an individual. Essentially, a healthy relationship is like a Venn Diagram, with each part able to be separate and still remain whole.
ReplyDeleteThis is a blog about how I was wrong. Ibsen once said “I am not even sure what women’s rights really are. To me it has always been a question of human rights.” The thing that amazes me most about this idea is that Ibsen accidentally wrote a play that is called the “feminist-manifesto” and really helped the beginning of the women’s rights movement. My last blog was a description of why I believed that Ibsen meant this play as a feminist work, but apparently Ibsen just accidentally wrote a very radically feminist play. To be sure, this play was no accident, but the original message was meant to be humanist, that is, supporting all people to be their own person.
ReplyDeleteAnything feminist can also be called humanist, but the fact that this play which focuses so clearly on the roles that women in the Victorian society are forced to take on is meant to be humanist really weakens its resonance and impact. It could be argued that both Nora and Torvald are kept in roles by the Victorian society and that due to these roles Torvald is forced to be a powerful, dominant husband and Nora is forced to be a submissive, house-making wife. However, this play mostly focuses on Nora and how she is just decoration for Torvald’s arm.
My favorite symbol in this play is the symbol of the Christmas tree and how it represents Nora’s deteriorating mental state and the unravelling of her web of lies. Additionally, this tree seems to symbolize Nora getting all dressed up and fancy. Nora tells the maid not to let the children see the tree before it is decorated, which mirrors how Nora does not want Torvald to see her before she is in her costume. This demonstrates how he is just showing her off and wants her to be beautiful and bring attention to him, which enforces gender roles and seems to support the idea of this play as a feminist work. I know since Ibsen wrote the play he can’t be wrong about the play’s intent, but I believe that he is wrong due to how it is interpreted and how it comes across.
Your self reflection is very inspiring! I love how you were able to recognize the false interpretation on the play. I completely agree, how the Christmas tree helped mask Nora's imperfections. The humanist values can be seen through Nora's ability to grow as an individual throughout the play. When she leaves Torvald, she says she needs to be on her own in order to mature. It just happened to be a woman that did this, making the play seemingly feminist. Great interpretation!
DeleteIn Act 3 of Henrik Ibsen's “A Doll’s House”, the true motivations and feelings of the characters are exposed. Even in the first half of this act, we see as the characters’ actions differ radically from what we would have expected them to do based on how they acted throughout the rest of the play. First, the audience learns that Mrs. Linde once had a romantic relationship with Krogstad. Now she wishes to reconcile and once again be with him. However, she asks Krogstad as a favor to her to forgive Nora’s debt. Krogstad asks what is one the audience’s mind, saying that she only wants to be with Krogstad to help her friend. However, Kristine replies that she no longer wants to do anything for anyone else seeing as she has been serving others all her life. This move seems rather unsympathetic considerably that it was Nora who gave her a place to stay and considered Helmer to award her a position at the bank. However, Mrs. Linde ask that Krogstad leaves the letter so that the secret does come out between Nora and her husband. This reinforces Kristine’s belief, one that she has mentioned many times before to Nora, that their should be no secrets in Nora’s relationship. We also see Nora and Helmer return home from the dance, with Nora doing everything in her power to prevent Torvald from seeing Krogstad’s letter. She desperately tries to distract Torvald, although she soon finds that his alcohol consumption has made him start to make “advances” on his wife. Being in a less than happy move she refuses. A knock on the door interrupts, as Dr. Rank comes to visit. He arrives in a suspiciously happy mood, a stark contrast from his previous personality. However the reader soon realized that the his mood is linked to his acceptance with his forthcoming passing. It feels as though his visit is his final attempt to help out Nora one last time.
ReplyDeleteIt is really interesting that the main conflict of the play comes from characters keeping secrets and the resolutions comes from these secrets being revealed. I think Ibsen is trying to convey that keeping secrets and general shady behavior is can only lead to great problems and only through revealing them can the problems be resolved. Do you have any secrets you think you should reveal?
DeleteJust like with the novel Siddhartha that we read earlier on in the year, “A Doll’s House” was also a work that had to be translated from another language into English. Translations tend to reflect the view of how the translator(s) interpreted it as they seek to convey the proper original meanings of the words when switching them from one language to another. Such a difference in translation can be seen in just how the title of this work is presented, whether it be called “A Doll’s House” or “The Doll’s House”. While the difference between the two is small, the one word change actually holds a large difference. When using the word “The”, it implies both ownership and causes the audience to view it as singular. On the other hand, using the word “A” both lacks that ownership and it also implies that it is one of many. When the play is titled “A Doll’s House”, it implies that this “doll’s house” which is experienced throughout the entire play is just one of many. This reflects the Victorian Era with its strict regulations and formalities on what was considered ‘proper’, as it was often like everyone was a doll playing house and trying to appear as if they have it all together even if they are an absolute mess on the inside. If titled “The Doll’s House”, it almost seems to limit this dollhouse idea to solely the home of the Helmers, as it is ‘the’ main one. Translators could be tempted to use “The Doll’s House” as the title as the story focuses mostly on the doll-like tendencies in the Helmer home, never really going into too much depth on the homes of others (in fact, the play never once leaves the setting of the Helmer home), but I personally agree with the translation choice of “A Doll’s House” as it gives the impression that what transpires in the Helmer’s home was just one of many instances within the Victorian Era of people/families acting like dolls to fit with society's standards.
ReplyDeleteA Doll’s House as evident by its various ironic twists and unexpected outcomes is a dramatic play. By allowing individuals to oppose traditional behavior in the Victorian Era, Ibsen is able to heighten the drama in A Doll’s House. An excellent example to show this is when Nora lied to Torvald about buying macarons even going as far as to saying “No, I assure you, Torvald” with an extreme passion (5). By providing allowing Nora to do such an unorthodox action, which was lying to her husband, Ibsen adds dramatic irony which also heightens the drama within the play. The extreme passion that Nora provides with the lie also conjures a dominant effect of excitement on the audience further increasing the drama. Another example of a character that penetrates the traditional boundaries is Krogstad. Not only did Krogstad try to blackmail someone, that person was a woman; a behavior extremely foreign to the Victorian Era. At the first insight of Krogstad, he appeared fixed on ruining the reputation of Torvald and getting Nora in trouble. He even supported his actions by using a noble cause like being able to take care of his children. But in the end, Mrs.Linde ended up getting back together with Krogstad and he completley halts in attempting to blackmail the Helmers. Ibsen in this case used situational irony. The situational irony adds shock to the audience which in turns adds to the drama to the story. By abruptly allowing these characters to go against traditions or abruptly allowing them to turn towards it once again, Ibsen allows for differents types of irony to heighten the drama of the play. Dramas are all about shock, excitement and emotional responses, and Ibsen’s use of the characterization of characters and their rebellious actions allows him to create this irony that creates such a thrilling drama.
ReplyDelete