In A Doll’s House, Isben portrays Nora as a character much like a child; she is greedy, impulsive, and very mischievous. She seeks attention from her husband and guests and flatters herself, but the most childish aspect of her may be her propensity to feel superior and knowledgeable when she does not even know the basic ideas. For example, in the scene when she and Krogstad argue about her fraudulent signature and loan, she is proud of her quick and “heroic” actions, but does not understand the weight of the consequences of fraud. What is interesting is that Nora seems to be very aware of her own faults and wrongs, but she believes that as long as she keeps them as secrets, there wouldn’t be any consequences. The most striking part of Act 1 is when Nora is playing with her children (page 22-23). At first glance, Nora’s dialogue seems to be that of any other caring mother, but upon closer examination, the stage directions tell another story. During the chaotic scene with the children chattering away, Nora takes the youngest child and dances with her. Then she takes off the children’s coats and hats and “throws them down anywhere.” Whereas a mother is usually the one picking up after children’s messes, Nora acts like a little child by messily discarding the clothes for someone else, presumable the maid, to pick up after her. Also, she is always suggesting to play wither her children. As they play hide and seek upon her suggestion, the stage directions depicts Nora “laughing and shrieking” with her children as she hides under the table. She is so into her game that she does not notice that Krogstad had entered the room and is waiting for her. Furthermore, she often refers to her children as dolls (e.g. “my sweet little baby-doll,” “my pretty little dollies,” etc.). When young children play “House” or a game with dolls, many pretend to have a perfect family and house. However, the game of “House” is merely just that: pretend. The idea that Nora not only acts like a child herself, but also views her children to be “dolls” shows her inadequacy to perform her role as a mother, and is rather instead a selfish, spoiled child who would do anything to keep her reputation, power, and her little perfect game of “pretend.”
I like your analysis on the part of the play where Nora plays with her children. I also found it sort of odd the way that Nora interacted with them. You mentioned that this scenario characterizes Nora as a spoiled child herself and someone who cares greatly about her reputation and power. I agree with this and found another part in Act I that characterizes Nora in a similar way. At the very beginning of the play where Nora is paying for the Christmas tree, she gives the porter a crown in payment. The tree only cost 50 öre and it sounds like a crown is worth way more than that. Nora carelessly gives away her riches which shows how she values money with less seriousness than she should, much like a child.
Your analysis is very insightful and interesting. The examples you have for displaying Nora as a childish character are valid, I completely agree. In addition to you and Morgan, I would like to add on to her chaaracterization through her impulsive nature. Nora was quick to informing Mrs. Linde on her finances. A mature mother should be humble, patient, and mindful of everything she says in order to be an adult and role model whereas Nora seems to brag about her new riches. In addition, forging her father's signature is a foolish act. She didn't think of the consequences that would come with the crime, making her similar to a child.
1 The quiet pride and ingenuity in social discernment, as well as the lustful susceptibility of Torvald Helmer is characterized in Act I through Helmer’s formulated speech. Helmer does not frankly come off as egotistical, yet his treatment and reaction towards others subtly suggests otherwise. Helmer exercises his self seen superiority over his wife, Nora, by calling her a plethora of doting names: “my little squirrel” (2), “skylark”, “my pretty little pet” (4). By calling his wife these derogatory, subordinating names (which appear to be affectionate), he is flexing his dominance over her. Though he feels superior, he still is slave to satisfying his wife- seen by Helmer giving in to Nora’s wooing for money. Helmer is still a very magnanimous and observant character, as seen when he offers Mrs. Linde desperately needed employment. Also when he remarks of Krogstad’s dignity, “think how a man with a thing like that on his conscience will always be having to lie and cheat and dissemble” (33), but still allowing for morality to rule his judgement of character, “...perhaps, like so many others, [Krogstad] just didn't think. I am not so heartless that I would necessarily want to condemn a man for a single mistake like that.” (32). Although Helmer has his weaknesses nestled in his silent pride, he also has his strengths, which have caused him to be secularly successful.
Your analysis of this Act was very similar to mine. I agree that he reveals his dominant intent through his dialogue as well as it appearing to be affectionate. You stated that he is a slave to satisfying his wife and I believe this to also be true, but it is also a means of increasing his pride. If a man can provide for his family and even satisfy their needs, his pride in his abilities would increase drastically. This may be why Helmer continues to give Nora money despite the financial consequences that they might have to face. It's as if he is willingly giving her money to feed his pride rather than being reluctant like how it first appears to the audience to try to maintain their family's financial standing.
Through the characters dialogue, I’ve come to notice a few things about the culture during the time period, and specifically how gender roles are. The first thing to notice in Act One is the use of pet names, from Helmer to Nora. Helmer calls her “little squirrel,” “little singing bird,” “little spendthrift,” and “my impulsive little woman,” with the repetition of little used to display his dominance his in the relationship. Though it appears harmless and cute in the way Helmer says demeaning things to Nora, it serves an underlying purpose in showing that he has power over her. This is an aspect of the Victorian era, where women did not have authority in the household and they served as homemakers. Several times through Act One Helmer proves this idea. Helmer says, “Nora, Nora! Just like a woman!” (Ibsen, 3). In this quote he suggests that women know nothing of business and money managing, seen as well through Nora’s ridiculous dialogue of her desire to spend money. Later in the act, Nora says, “What makes you think I have any influence of that kind over my husband?” (25). This quote also shows the idea that men have authority over women during this era, in that she does not have the ability to convince him to do anything for her (however, she has shown that she does). Finally, Mrs. Linde brings up an interesting idea in her conversation with Nora: “A wife can’t borrow money without her husband’s consent” (14). The idea here is that men should have all control over the household’s finances, so the woman should not spend money without her husband’s approval. However, Nora is an anomaly in this time period– we have seen multiple examples in Act One of her rebelliousness, such as lying to her husband and receiving a loan from an unreliable man. I look forward to Nora’s character development and how she progresses from her naivety.
I liked your analysis of how Ibsen’s diction reflects the gender roles of the time period. While reading the play, I also noticed the demeaning diction that Helmer used towards Nora. I found it ironic that despite the power dynamic that Helmer’s diction indicates, in reality he has little control over Nora’s actions. Although the interactions between Helmer and Nora portray her as nothing more than a mindless and carefree “little squirrel,” Nora was actually capable of taking independent action without telling Helmer. However, instead of portraying Nora’s semi-independence as a positive, Ibsen emphasizes Nora’s incompetence in dealing with business affairs. At this point in the play, it looks as though Ibsen is suggesting that men must keep an even more watchful eye over their wives, who are prone to doing troublesome things behind their backs.
By reading Act I we are introduced to the characteristics of Nora. From this act I observed that Nora is a self-centered, cold hearted women. One way that Ibsen shows this is when Mrs. Linde arrives to her home. During her conversation with Nora, Mrs. Linde breaks down about how she has lost her husband, mother, and her brothers that have left her, and tells that she moved here to get a job. Although Nora seems to be engaged in the conversation, she automatically changes the topic back to herself and talks about her luxurious life with Torvald. Nora’s self-centeredness personality is seen when Mrs. Linde tells her that her husband had passed away 3 years ago because she didn’t write a letter of sorrowness to Mrs. Linde and only felt any sympathy 3 years later when the tragic news was told. This gives us an indication that Nora fails to make any efforts towards thinking beyond herself, and they way she is trying to improve that at this moment shows disrespect towards Mrs. Linde. Nora also has a cold-hearted personality and an example of this can been seen in the exact same conversation with Mrs. Linde. When Mrs. Linde states that she has no money at all, Nora starts to “rub in her face” that Torvald and her will have “pots and pots” of money. This line actually stung me because I was so surprised to see her showcasing her money towards a person who has struggled all their life and couldn’t offered anything. In all honesty I have a strong hatred towards Nora as she is rude towards people who were poor, she didn’t feel any sympathy for her old friend, and also because she is wasteful with money and spends it on things that aren’t necessary.
Along with discovering Nora’s character through her actions in Act I, Helmer is also characterized through his dialogue. Helmer is characterized to be a controlling husband, as his desire is to know every movement of his wife. However, while he has the perception that Nora is under his control, Nora does not in fact follow his wishes at all. The first time we see Helmer’s controlling personality is through his use of pet names, such as “squirrel” and “songbird.” Helmer uses these epithets to assert his dominance in their relationship, comparing his wife to animals or pets of which he can control. Farther into the play, Helmer talks of his relationship with Krogstad, also violating his “dictator” position: “He thinks he has every right to treat me as an equal, with his ‘Torvald this’ and ‘Torvald that’ every time he opens his mouth. I find it extremely irritating, I can tell you” (Ibsen, 43). Here, Helmer views Krogstad’s ways of interacting as far too casual. Helmer had just been named the new bank manager, and his position does not excuse friendly conversation with employees of varying status. Helmer believes he should be the one in charge, and Krogstad should have no right to call him “Torvald” and speak to him as an equal. Along with this, there are other appearances of Helmer’s resilient belief that he should always have control. For example, Helmer says to Nora: “Nice of you- because you let your husband have his way? All right, you little rogue, I know you didn’t mean it that way” (40). In this quote, Helmer makes it seem as if the husband should always have his ‘way,’ or the wife should listen to his every word. Through his tone, he presents the idea that women having their way is outright ridiculous. Nora, of course, does not follow his wishes, but she presents the illusion that Helmer is in control- and that could be the secret to their marriage.
Your view of Helmer's characterization is very insightful and I did not notice how prominent this is throughout the beginning of the play. Although you believe that he is very controlling, Helmer seems to also be unaware of Nora's power in getting her own way no matter the cost. However, Helmer's pet nicknames for Nora seem to belittle her, rather than send her messages of endearment. I completely agree with your idea of this relationship working due to the fact that Helmer has a false sense of power and Nora puts on a show of obedience and charm. The control issues which they face come across as ridiculous as neither one wants to know what is actually happening.
Although there are a plethora of symbols throughout the play, the macaroon is a significant symbol that represents multiple things including temptation, childishness, and the importance of appearance. First of all, the macaroon serves as a temptation for Nora because Helmer had forbidden her from eating it. However, like all small children, Nora always wants what she can’t have and is obsessed with the forbidden cookie. Nora knows that she shouldn’t have the cookies, so she always lies and to have her own way. For example, when Rank points out that macaroons were forbidden in the house, Nora immediately replies with “Yes, but these are some Kristine gave me” (I. 19). To lie so quickly and easily shows Nora cannot resist the temptation of the cookie and had figured out a way to satisfy her wants while staying out of trouble. Isben purposely uses the small treat/cookie as Nora’s addiction because cookies and small treats are often associated with little children. By using the macaroon and Nora’s obsession with it, Isben is able to portray Nora as a childish figure in contrast to her husband’s paternal character. Throughout the play, Helmer acts more like a father to Nora than a (modern) husband. Not only are his rules like that of a father, but he treats Nora like a small child and daughter with pet names including “my little squirrel” and “song-bird.” The macaroon also symbolizes Helmer’s importance of appearance and reputation. Helmer’s obsession with the macaroons is partly because of his need of power and dominance. However, another reason is that he wants to keep Nora thin and beautiful to keep his family’s reputation and appearance. In fact, Nora says “You couldn't possibly know that Torvald had forbidden them. The fact is, he's afraid of me spoiling my teeth” (I. 19-20). Helmer had forbidden the macaroons to keep her teeth clean and happy. Readers can see his obsession with Nora’s staying away from sugar when he repeatedly checks, “Hasn't the little sweet-tooth been playing pranks to-day? … Didn't she just look in at the confectioner's? … Not to sip a little jelly? … Hasn't she even nibbled a macaroon or two” (I. 5). Although Helmer can set rules with just about anything, Isben specifically uses the sickly sweet cookie to show the value of appearance and reputation in Helmer’s mind.
I agree with your idea about the macaroons symbolizing the parent-child relationship between Nora and Helmer. When I read the first act, I was surprised by the way Nora accepted the belittling tone of voice that her husband used with her. She allowed him to call her a “little squirrel” and a “little spendthrift,” and often even used those terms herself. While Nora may have accepted her childish role when in the presence of her husband, in reality she was much more independent, as demonstrated by her eating the forbidden macaroons and taking the family’s monetary situation into her own hands. Nora’s childish attitude may only be intended to humor her husband and preserve family peace.
Act II Dr. Rank believes he is on the verge of death, causing his behavior to be impulsive, down willily (I think I just made that up), and desperate: As though he were acting on the tail end of a long winded breath. Perhaps, once, he was a man of firm faith and incredulous integrity, but now because of his very imminent ending, he has forgone his morals and virtuousness. Based on his confession of affection and intimate interaction with Nora (aka his best friend’s wife), his willingness, or more appropriate: his unwillingness, to stand for honor behind closed doors is shown to be weak and feeble. Though Nora does press herself upon him through words and body, as seen when she shows Rank her silk stockings, “No, no, no, you can only look at the feet. (reference to Victorian era style and how controlled and covered women were supposed to be) Oh well, you might as well see a bit higher up, too.” (47). Rank’s failure to completely and immediately refute her intimate actions shows his complaisance to let it to happen, to allow it to pass, to enjoy it, but never have to share of this experience with anyone. And why should he, he’s about to die anyways, right? The stage directions also reveal much under the text about Dr. Rank: While speaking to Nora, “(Rank) [after a short pause]. Sitting here so intimately like this with you, I can’t imagine . . . I simply cannot conceive what would have become of me if I had never come to this house. (Nora) [smiles]. Yes, I rather think you do enjoy coming here. (Rank) [in a low voice, looking fixedly ahead]. And the thought of having to leave it all . . .” (47). This is a Rank that is deeply concerned, thoughtfully thinking, preparing his words and meaning every bit of them, whereas Nora, however naively intelligent, is much more inconsiderable with her words.
In Act II I seemed to notice that Nora’s incorporation of animal names as acting as a pet to Torvald were transparent throughout the act. Some examples include calling herself “his little bird,” “his squirrel,” and “his skylark.” I believe that Nora uses these animal titles so that she would be able to manipulate Torvald into doing what she wanted which was to keep Krogstad’s job. Her plan is to entice Torvald by following his orders and living up to his standards, and in return Torvald would grant her wishes. The use of Nora’s manipulation is also seen during the conversation with Dr. Rank. While Dr. Rank and Nora were chatting, Nora began to flirt with him and showed off her Christmas stockings. I think that Nora is flirting with Dr. Rank on purpose because I believe that she is coming up with a plan which involves Dr. Pank persuading Torvald to keep Krogstad at the bank. Her plan seems to be in full effect until however Dr. Rank confesses to Nora that he loves her. Astonished by Dr. Rank’s love for her, Nora seems to reject her plan as she feels that she is using him to keep Krogstad’s job and would feel embarrassed that she would have taken advantage of him even though he has hefty heart towards her.
“RANK: Absolutely certainty. So why shou;dn’t I alloq myself a jolly evening after that? NORA: Quite right, Dr. Rank. HELMER: I quite agree. As long as you don’t suffer for it in the morning.” (II. 71)
In this scene right after the Nora and Torvald leaves the party, Dr. Rank and Torvald frequently mention how good the wine and champagne was. Torvald is clearly intoxicated as he does not speak coherently and Nora mentions that he had drunk a lot of alcohol. Dr. Rank and Torvald both firmly state that they deserved to have a good jolly time and drink. The way alcohol is often repeated suggests that it is a symbol for indulgence, specifically men’s indulgence just as the macaroon symbolizes Nora’s indulgence. The most interesting quote said by Torvald is: “As long as you don’t suffer for it in the morning” (II. 71). The suffering he mentions is referring the headaches and pain of hangovers after drinking at night. I thought that this was representing the idea that secret indulgences, which are morally and publicly criticized, are acceptable as long as one doesn’t get caught. This idea is closely tied to the Victorian/Puritan culture of the play’s setting because the excessively stringent rules and expectations the society demands are virtually impossible to heed. People are bound to break rules and do “scandalous” things because the reality is a perfect society does not exist. The more perfect a society tries to be, the more it sets itself up for its downfall. Because reputation and appearance is so crucial to people and it is impossible that people follow every single rule, many people including Torvald believes that as long they don’t get caught, there will be no suffering, or in other words, consequences. Thus, the only way to cover up such deeds is by secrets, lies, and deception.
I like your analysis of the alcohol symbolizing the secret desires that are repressed normally in the Victorian culture. I had a slightly different interpretations of the macaroons because I feel they also help show the power difference between Nora and Helmer. While Helmer is able to drink among his friends, Nora is expected to be the perfect wife and not even indulge in one macaroon at home. I think that Ibsen wanted the reader to see that Nora, because of her repression, became adept at hiding things, just like she still snuck macaroons behind Torvald's back
Yes I agree with the analyzation. I feel that Nora is put under massive amounts of pressure. She is played off as weak because she has the urge to indulge herself, when the craving for these indulgences should be seen as perfectly normal human desires. She has unrealistic standards set on her and those same expectations don’t go for the men. It shows the hypocrisy of the societal norms at the time. I also find it funny they used a macaroon for the woman and alcohol for the man. Macaroons are small artisan cookies sweet and delicate, while alcohol is generally a more manly symbol. Overall great analyzation!
“RANK. Yes, really the whole thing’s nothing but a huge joke. My poor innocent spine must do penance for my father’s gay subaltern life.
NORA. Wasn’t he rather partial to asparagus and pâté de foie gras?
RANK. Yes, he was. And truffles.
NORA. Truffles, yes. And oysters, too, I believe?
RANK. Yes, oysters, oysters, of course.
NORA. And all the port and champagne that goes with them. It does seem a pity all these delicious things should attack the spine” (Ibsen, 46).
In this dialogue exchange, Dr. Rank and Nora discuss a motif that appears throughout the play: the idea that indulging oneself and giving in to temptation brings consequences. Above, the two talk about a disease that’s attacking Dr. Rank’s spine, straying from using vulgarity in the time period. The “disease of the spine” is syphilis, which is the consequence in Dr. Rank’s situation. Nora says, “It does seem a pity all these delicious things should attack the spine” (46). When she says this, she doesn’t truly mean that eating truffles, oysters, and drinking champagne hurts his spine (or gives him syphilis, for that matter). What Nora’s saying is that all of their actions, in giving in to temptation, bring about consequences. Nora sees this in the past Act, as well, with the significance of the macaroons. It is not that Helmer simply hates macaroons for no reason— the macaroons symbolize temptation, and Nora frequently gives in to this. She has proven multiple times that she cannot control herself, whether spending money, eating macaroons, or getting into business she cannot handle (such as getting in debt, when she thinks she is helping). Once she gives in to this temptation, it brings about consequences. For the macaroons, they are sugary, and can possibly make you unsightly or overweight if you indulge in them (also not good for Helmer’s reputation). As for Nora getting into debt with Krogstad (with good intentions), her consequence is that she is being blackmailed. Further into the play as well, we see both Helmer and Dr. Rank drink lots of champagne– I’ve yet to see the consequences, but their temptation in over indulging will most certainly bring about problems.
I really liked you analysis and how you referenced the different temptations Ibsen creates. This is also one of the lesser known symbols in the play, so it is good to see how other people elaborate on the topic. Food is referenced a multitude of times throughout the entirety of the play, and they all represent the same idea of temptation and desire. It's interesting because the Victorian people were all so concerned about outward appearance and status, yet are seemingly all able to lose themselves and indulge on their deepest desires and temptations. It is interesting to see if any more of these references appear later in the play.
In Act II we learn that Nora begins to feel guilty for her actions and feels that in order to protect her husband from taking the blame she must commit suicide. The theme of death is present in the scene when Torvald forces Nora to perform the tarantella. I jumped to the conclusion that there is a parallel that is drawn between Nora and Dr. Rank because I believe that Nora makes her decision to commit suicide by following in the footsteps of Dr. Rank, because he is dying from syphilis. When she is performing the tarantella I seemed to interpret as a death dance and it found it a coincidence that Rank is playing the piano as both are nearing death. 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. This comparison relates to the overall theme of this scene because the guilt is getting to her, so to save her embarrassment, she is trying really hard to find a way to leave so that no one can find her ever. An interesting fact I learned is that this tarantella dance was taught on Nora’s and Torvald’s honeymoon, and with her dancing it in this scenario is telling us that this will be her final performance as a mortal as she states that “she has only thirty-one hours to live.” I was able to interpret this in two different ways and one way is she is performing this dance to apologize to Torvald and wants to commit suicide so that she won’t get in trouble. Another reason she might be performing this dance is that she is committing death metaphorically as she is leaving her old life and experiencing a completely new lifestyle due to her leaving Torvald.
While the points you provided are understandable I believe that you have a false idea of the symbol or meaning of the tarantella dance. I don't believe that Nora wants to commit suicide literally but rather is just an exaggeration to the consequences if Torvald finds out about her debt to Torvald. Also i think when she says she has thirty one hours to live just shows how worried she is once Torvald finds out rather than showing her desire to end her own life.
At the conclusion of the play, Nora’s character takes a complete 180˚ turn from how she was developed in the first Act. Initially, Nora is shown to be a classic wife of the Victorian era, a stay at home/take care of the children type. However, each scene reveals a new layer to her character, alongside the several secrets she had been holding in as well. Looking at Nora in Act I, she appears to have no substance at all– simply a woman eager to spend her husband’s money: “You could always give me money, Torvald. Only what you think you could spare. And then I could buy myself something with it later on” (Ibsen 4). The way she interacts with her husband in this Act appears unrealistic– almost ridiculous in that a married couple could have such a silly relationship. They consistently call each other pet names, and joke about each other’s flaws. Only later do we learn that their relationship is, in fact, unrealistic, and that Nora was just putting on a show to please those around her. As Nora’s secrets unravel, her composure to maintain her character crumbles as well. Nora can no longer present herself as a flawless doll in Torvald’s dollhouse, so she thinks it time to reveal her true self and her true feelings. Contrasting with Nora’s silly, naïve character, her true personality has much more depth. She’s presented as an individual, someone with knowledge about the world rather than an accessory to her husband, the bank manager. In Nora’s talk with Torvald, she reveals who she really is: “I believe that first and foremost I am an individual, just as much as you are—or at least I’m going to try to be. I know most people agree with you, Torvald, and that’s also what it says in the books. But I’m not content any more with what most people say, or with what it says in the book. I have to thinkn things out for myself, and get things clear” (82). After seeing this, no one in the audience would have expected Nora to have such intelligence and individuality. Myself, I saw Nora as ignorant and irresponsible, getting herself into trouble without knowledge of the consequences. Now that Nora has shared her side of the story, I show more respect to her bravery in having the courage to stand up for herself in their relationship. Amazingly enough, Nora managed all of this change in only three days– proving that anything is possible with the right mindset.
Throughout the play, Isben uses dark and light to cover and reveal secrets. Whenever secrets are discussed behind closed door, secrets and scandalous behavior always occur in the dark such as when Nora flirts with Dr. Rank with her stockings (II. 42). In the light, however, many secrets are revealed. Isben often uses the lamp in order to create light in the darkness. Previously, Nora and Dr. Rank promised to keep Rank’s imminent death from syphilis a secret from Torvald, but after Torvald receives a mail from Rank, he asks Helene to turn on the light out in the hall. Then he proceeds to exclaim “There’s a black cross above his name. Look. What an uncanny idea. It’s as if he were announcing his own death” (III. 74). When Nora answers, “He is” (III. 74), Torvald discovers the secret of Rank’s death. This is only one of many instances that Isben uses light and dark in to represent the revealing and covering of secrets. This is completely fitting to the book’s setting and Victorian culture because in the light where everything can be seen, they must follow rules and be honest as they try to capture perfection. However, a perfect society simply cannot exist. The people are bound to break their own rules at some time, and they do so in the dark when nobody can see, judge them, or taint their reputations; this is why all the sins, scandalous behavior, and secrets take place in the dark.
I had seen the various secrets being brought forward and being hid throughout the play, however I had never seen how light and dark are used to cover them up or to reveal them. I found your analysis very insightful and especially like how you tied this theme back to the social normalities of the Victorian era. I also like how you showed that the "darkness" can be seen as symbol for people breaking their own rules. I, however, encountered some difficulty when trying to apply this same theme of dark and light to the characters of this play. Characters like, Helmer and Nora for example, are very hard to characterize as either good or bad, while their actions are not. Nice job!
Throughout A Doll’s House, we see Nora’s impulsiveness, and her self belief and confidence to make decisions that affect her and others. In Act III, we see Nora’s impulsiveness in a different light, in a more exposing, consuming, perhaps gratifying light. In Act III, Nora and Helmer get into an argument that eventually descends into Nora throwing a fit and leaving Helmer and her children because she needs to “find herself”. Nora’s actions in scenes prior to this also display her impulsiveness and near ignorance to strict obedience to “set”, accepted (societal) ways. The way she sneaks macaroons in, offers them to other, when they are most likely expensive sugary treats that only drain Helmer’s pockets. In her conversations with Mrs. Linde she speaks freely, thinking and elaborating aloud; often going too in depth and spitting out words she cannot take back. “(Helmer) You are talking like a child. You understand nothing about the society you live in. (Nora) No, I don’t. But I shall go into that too. I must try to discover who is right, society or me.” (83) In her culminating argument with Helmer, she gets so caught up and induced in her world of belief, of her unbelief; and enlightenment to her lack of experience and knowledge. But through her admittance of ignorance, she is more intelligent than the fool who believes blindly, Helmer. The play abruptly ends after Nora leaves, again suggesting the shortness of decision and impulsive behaviour found throughout the play.
Helmer [by the lamp]. I hardly dare. Perhaps this is the end, for both of us. Well I must know. [He opens the note hurriedly, reads a few lines, looks at another enclosed sheet, and gives a cry of joy.] Nora! [Nora looks at him inquiringly.] Nora! I must read it again. Yes, yes, it’s true! I am saved! Nora, I am saved! Nora. And me? Helmer. You too, of course, we are both saved, you as well as me. (Ibsen 77)
In Act III this passage definitely shows us what type of person Torvald is, which is extremely selfish. In this act Nora decides to tell Torvald the truth about how she committed a crime in order to save his life, and instead of feeling grateful and concerned about what would happen to his wife, he worries over how his reputation would be ruined if everyone knows about it. Also instead of feeling pride he insults her and threatens her , and even begins to think of solutions to make sure the public has no clue on the foolish crime she has committed. His selfishness is not only present in the interaction with Nora, but also when he reads the letters from Krogstad. After reading the letters Torvald is in joy and says “ Nora! I must read it again. Yes, yes, it’s true! I am saved! Nora, I am saved!” (Ibsen 77) Iben uses the word “I” to tell us that Torvald was concerned only about himself, but after reading the letter he can breathe a sigh of relief. However when a really worried Nora asks “And me?” Helmer responds with “You too, of course, we are both saved, you as well as me.” (Ibsen 77) These exchange of words illustrate Torvald’s selfish attitude as after celebrating his joy, he then worries about his wife and says that she is fine. I think Nora made the decision to run away and leave Torvald instead of committing suicide was based solely on the fact that Torvald only cared about himself, and feels that she doesn’t need anyone in her life and that she is an independent woman.
I agree that Helmer’s reaction demonstrates that he cares more about himself than he does about Nora. I also thought it was interesting because throughout the play Helmer portrays himself as a man with uncompromising and upstanding morals. In Act One, he speaks of people like Krogstad who have committed crimes in the past. He says, “I quite literally feel physically sick in the presence of such people” (33). However, when Helmer realizes that Nora is one of those people but that it will not impact him, he is relieved and says, “I am saved!” (77). Helmer represents the Victorian tendency to publicly denounce corruption and immorality but quietly accept it within his own personal life.
Throughout A Doll’s House, Torvald repeatedly refers to Nora using pet names, especially with bird names such as “my little skylark,” “songbird,” and “dove.” Isben specifically uses bird diction because birds are the embodiment of freedom as well as beauty and purity. Torvald is obsessed with having power, dominance, and perfection, and he believes that these traits can only be achieved by control. His obsession with control ranges from forbidding Nora from eating macaroons to intentionally refusing Nora’s pleads to keep Krogstad at the bank to disparaging her existence as a sinful mother with rage. Nora’s representation of a bird is fitting because Torvald’s dominance over Nora reflects that of owning a caged bird. A caged bird is stripped of its freedom, flight, and happiness, but some birds learn to adapt to its surroundings. For example, many birds often learn tricks to earn treats and learn to behave for rewards. Nora is quite similar as she always hides her secrets and disobedience while manipulating and entertaining Torvald for affection and rewards such as her beloved wealth. At the end of the play, Nora’s rebellion and fight for individuality was interesting because previously, I had expected her to continue entertaining Torvald and living as his inferior. However, just as caged animals that have been trained, stress can often make animals turn against their masters. When the stress of maintaining her fragile family and her epiphany that her married life was essentially fake, Nora could no longer tolerate the game pretend and perfection.
I agree with the way in which Torvald portrays Nora and makes her seem less than human. Previously, I had never noticed that the names which he called Nora were centered around bird diction. Although the symbolism of birds may represent a free, pure and beautiful creature, Nora ironically does not set an example of all these traits. Her internal conflicts to find her true being were suppressed by the Victorian society and the desire to fulfil Torvald’s image of a perfect wife. It almost seemed inevitable that the allusion to freedom and birds would bring Nora to the decision she eventually made at the end of the book. Her action of leaving Torvald was only the beginning of her spreading her wings and blossoming into a free and individual being.
One theme that was prominent in the play was the idea that people’s traits are passed down through generations. This is seen in Nora’s character, as Torvald often talks about Nora’s flaws being the fault of her father and not her own, and that she has no control over that. Torvald says, “What a funny little one you are! Just like your father. Always on the look-out for money, wherever you can lay your hands on it; but as soon as you’ve got it, it just seems to slip through your fingers… It’s in the blood. Oh yes, it is, Nora. That sort of thing is hereditary” (Ibsen 5). Here, Torvald suggests that Nora can’t control her tendency to desire money, and blames the fault on her father. However, this sort of thing can’t be passed down through blood at all. Perhaps by the way she was raised? Torvald brings up another interesting idea, that the mothers and fathers of the family often corrupt their children with the way they behave: “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” (32). Specifically, Torvald suggests that through lies and deceit the children can be brought up to be bad children, even delinquents. This theme of children inheriting their parents’ traits is very realistic, in fact. Children are especially susceptible to their surroundings, and are easily influenced by behavior around them. I agree with Torvald, in that delinquents are formed from a mother and father’s tendency to keep secrets. Finally, Dr. Rank demonstrates this theme as well. In Dr. Rank’s case, hereditary traits are seen as a burden: “Yes, really the whole thing’s nothing but a huge joke. My poor innocent spine must do penance for my father’s gay subaltern life” (46). Here, Dr. Rank says how his father’s extravagant life forced him to have a poor one, in his inheritance of syphilis. Not all things passed down through generations are bad, though. Parents teach you morals and offer wisdom, and if you are fortunate enough to have a parent who cares, you should be all the more grateful.
Very interesting idea! I agree very much with what you wrote about, and the evidence you used to support it with. However, aside from looking at this theme in a observant matter of traits that have already been passed down, I suggest looking at it in a speculative manner as well. This means, I am asking what do you think would happen to Nora's children? You also bring up an ironic quote from Torvald in which he talks about Krogstad's children becoming corrupt, because of how "corrupt" Krogstad was forging signatures, but the question of Nora's children becoming corrupt arises. Nora commited the same exact crime, and according to Torvald, a parent's evil would pass down to his/her children, so that is what makes his statement so ironic, especially because he does not know the crime Nora committed at this point of the play. Although, aside from this small speculative idea of how Nora's children would grow up according to your theme, I enjoyed reading your analysis very much.
I think that the overall theme of this play is the sacrifice that women make in order to protect their husbands. There are many examples that contribute to the overall theme. One example would have to be Mrs. Linde, and the reason why she would be an example is that she loved Krogstad more than anything and wanted to marry him, but instead she had to sacrifice herself and marry another man who was richer, so that she could care for her dying mother as well as her sick brothers. However the main character Nora herself has to sacrifice herself in order to protect Torvald. Nora needed to hide her loan from Torvald because it was illegal for a women to receive a loan without the consent of their husband, and also because if she got caught then Torvald’s reputation is ruined as a women aided in saving his life. This act counters what society views of women as the male’s are supposed to be the more dominant and handle the most business, but the opposite is occurring. Nora herself says “even though men refuse to sacrifice their integrity, thousands of women have.” (Ibsen 84) Another quote that relates to the point that Nora is making that men are too afraid to sacrifice their integrity is when Torvald reads the note from Krogstad, and Torvald shouts “Yes, yes, it’s true! I am saved! Nora, I am saved!” (Ibsen 77) This quote relates to the point Nora is making because as soon as Torvald finds out his reputation isn’t ruined, he’s all back to smiles. Nora, seeing how so many women have sacrificed their dignity takes a stand against how society views them and leaves her family to find her true self and be independent. A lot of people criticize Nora for leaving her children, but I felt that she did this act as a self-sacrifice because how she would corrupt them with her mischevious behavior. One statement that proves that she would have corrupted them is that Torvald treats Nora like a “doll”, and Nora states that she refers to her children as “her little dolls.” This statement explains that if Nora were to continue taking care of them, then they would end up like their father, thus making her decision to leave and letting the nanny take care of the family.
In A Doll’s House, Isben portrays Nora as a character much like a child; she is greedy, impulsive, and very mischievous. She seeks attention from her husband and guests and flatters herself, but the most childish aspect of her may be her propensity to feel superior and knowledgeable when she does not even know the basic ideas. For example, in the scene when she and Krogstad argue about her fraudulent signature and loan, she is proud of her quick and “heroic” actions, but does not understand the weight of the consequences of fraud. What is interesting is that Nora seems to be very aware of her own faults and wrongs, but she believes that as long as she keeps them as secrets, there wouldn’t be any consequences. The most striking part of Act 1 is when Nora is playing with her children (page 22-23). At first glance, Nora’s dialogue seems to be that of any other caring mother, but upon closer examination, the stage directions tell another story. During the chaotic scene with the children chattering away, Nora takes the youngest child and dances with her. Then she takes off the children’s coats and hats and “throws them down anywhere.” Whereas a mother is usually the one picking up after children’s messes, Nora acts like a little child by messily discarding the clothes for someone else, presumable the maid, to pick up after her. Also, she is always suggesting to play wither her children. As they play hide and seek upon her suggestion, the stage directions depicts Nora “laughing and shrieking” with her children as she hides under the table. She is so into her game that she does not notice that Krogstad had entered the room and is waiting for her. Furthermore, she often refers to her children as dolls (e.g. “my sweet little baby-doll,” “my pretty little dollies,” etc.). When young children play “House” or a game with dolls, many pretend to have a perfect family and house. However, the game of “House” is merely just that: pretend. The idea that Nora not only acts like a child herself, but also views her children to be “dolls” shows her inadequacy to perform her role as a mother, and is rather instead a selfish, spoiled child who would do anything to keep her reputation, power, and her little perfect game of “pretend.”
ReplyDeleteI like your analysis on the part of the play where Nora plays with her children. I also found it sort of odd the way that Nora interacted with them. You mentioned that this scenario characterizes Nora as a spoiled child herself and someone who cares greatly about her reputation and power. I agree with this and found another part in Act I that characterizes Nora in a similar way. At the very beginning of the play where Nora is paying for the Christmas tree, she gives the porter a crown in payment. The tree only cost 50 öre and it sounds like a crown is worth way more than that. Nora carelessly gives away her riches which shows how she values money with less seriousness than she should, much like a child.
DeleteYour analysis is very insightful and interesting. The examples you have for displaying Nora as a childish character are valid, I completely agree. In addition to you and Morgan, I would like to add on to her chaaracterization through her impulsive nature. Nora was quick to informing Mrs. Linde on her finances. A mature mother should be humble, patient, and mindful of everything she says in order to be an adult and role model whereas Nora seems to brag about her new riches. In addition, forging her father's signature is a foolish act. She didn't think of the consequences that would come with the crime, making her similar to a child.
Delete1
ReplyDeleteThe quiet pride and ingenuity in social discernment, as well as the lustful susceptibility of Torvald Helmer is characterized in Act I through Helmer’s formulated speech. Helmer does not frankly come off as egotistical, yet his treatment and reaction towards others subtly suggests otherwise. Helmer exercises his self seen superiority over his wife, Nora, by calling her a plethora of doting names: “my little squirrel” (2), “skylark”, “my pretty little pet” (4). By calling his wife these derogatory, subordinating names (which appear to be affectionate), he is flexing his dominance over her. Though he feels superior, he still is slave to satisfying his wife- seen by Helmer giving in to Nora’s wooing for money. Helmer is still a very magnanimous and observant character, as seen when he offers Mrs. Linde desperately needed employment. Also when he remarks of Krogstad’s dignity, “think how a man with a thing like that on his conscience will always be having to lie and cheat and dissemble” (33), but still allowing for morality to rule his judgement of character, “...perhaps, like so many others, [Krogstad] just didn't think. I am not so heartless that I would necessarily want to condemn a man for a single mistake like that.” (32). Although Helmer has his weaknesses nestled in his silent pride, he also has his strengths, which have caused him to be secularly successful.
Your analysis of this Act was very similar to mine. I agree that he reveals his dominant intent through his dialogue as well as it appearing to be affectionate. You stated that he is a slave to satisfying his wife and I believe this to also be true, but it is also a means of increasing his pride. If a man can provide for his family and even satisfy their needs, his pride in his abilities would increase drastically. This may be why Helmer continues to give Nora money despite the financial consequences that they might have to face. It's as if he is willingly giving her money to feed his pride rather than being reluctant like how it first appears to the audience to try to maintain their family's financial standing.
DeleteThrough the characters dialogue, I’ve come to notice a few things about the culture during the time period, and specifically how gender roles are. The first thing to notice in Act One is the use of pet names, from Helmer to Nora. Helmer calls her “little squirrel,” “little singing bird,” “little spendthrift,” and “my impulsive little woman,” with the repetition of little used to display his dominance his in the relationship. Though it appears harmless and cute in the way Helmer says demeaning things to Nora, it serves an underlying purpose in showing that he has power over her. This is an aspect of the Victorian era, where women did not have authority in the household and they served as homemakers. Several times through Act One Helmer proves this idea. Helmer says, “Nora, Nora! Just like a woman!” (Ibsen, 3). In this quote he suggests that women know nothing of business and money managing, seen as well through Nora’s ridiculous dialogue of her desire to spend money. Later in the act, Nora says, “What makes you think I have any influence of that kind over my husband?” (25). This quote also shows the idea that men have authority over women during this era, in that she does not have the ability to convince him to do anything for her (however, she has shown that she does). Finally, Mrs. Linde brings up an interesting idea in her conversation with Nora: “A wife can’t borrow money without her husband’s consent” (14). The idea here is that men should have all control over the household’s finances, so the woman should not spend money without her husband’s approval. However, Nora is an anomaly in this time period– we have seen multiple examples in Act One of her rebelliousness, such as lying to her husband and receiving a loan from an unreliable man. I look forward to Nora’s character development and how she progresses from her naivety.
ReplyDeleteI liked your analysis of how Ibsen’s diction reflects the gender roles of the time period. While reading the play, I also noticed the demeaning diction that Helmer used towards Nora. I found it ironic that despite the power dynamic that Helmer’s diction indicates, in reality he has little control over Nora’s actions. Although the interactions between Helmer and Nora portray her as nothing more than a mindless and carefree “little squirrel,” Nora was actually capable of taking independent action without telling Helmer. However, instead of portraying Nora’s semi-independence as a positive, Ibsen emphasizes Nora’s incompetence in dealing with business affairs. At this point in the play, it looks as though Ibsen is suggesting that men must keep an even more watchful eye over their wives, who are prone to doing troublesome things behind their backs.
DeleteBy reading Act I we are introduced to the characteristics of Nora. From this act I observed that Nora is a self-centered, cold hearted women. One way that Ibsen shows this is when Mrs. Linde arrives to her home. During her conversation with Nora, Mrs. Linde breaks down about how she has lost her husband, mother, and her brothers that have left her, and tells that she moved here to get a job. Although Nora seems to be engaged in the conversation, she automatically changes the topic back to herself and talks about her luxurious life with Torvald. Nora’s self-centeredness personality is seen when Mrs. Linde tells her that her husband had passed away 3 years ago because she didn’t write a letter of sorrowness to Mrs. Linde and only felt any sympathy 3 years later when the tragic news was told. This gives us an indication that Nora fails to make any efforts towards thinking beyond herself, and they way she is trying to improve that at this moment shows disrespect towards Mrs. Linde. Nora also has a cold-hearted personality and an example of this can been seen in the exact same conversation with Mrs. Linde. When Mrs. Linde states that she has no money at all, Nora starts to “rub in her face” that Torvald and her will have “pots and pots” of money. This line actually stung me because I was so surprised to see her showcasing her money towards a person who has struggled all their life and couldn’t offered anything. In all honesty I have a strong hatred towards Nora as she is rude towards people who were poor, she didn’t feel any sympathy for her old friend, and also because she is wasteful with money and spends it on things that aren’t necessary.
ReplyDeleteAlong with discovering Nora’s character through her actions in Act I, Helmer is also characterized through his dialogue. Helmer is characterized to be a controlling husband, as his desire is to know every movement of his wife. However, while he has the perception that Nora is under his control, Nora does not in fact follow his wishes at all. The first time we see Helmer’s controlling personality is through his use of pet names, such as “squirrel” and “songbird.” Helmer uses these epithets to assert his dominance in their relationship, comparing his wife to animals or pets of which he can control. Farther into the play, Helmer talks of his relationship with Krogstad, also violating his “dictator” position: “He thinks he has every right to treat me as an equal, with his ‘Torvald this’ and ‘Torvald that’ every time he opens his mouth. I find it extremely irritating, I can tell you” (Ibsen, 43). Here, Helmer views Krogstad’s ways of interacting as far too casual. Helmer had just been named the new bank manager, and his position does not excuse friendly conversation with employees of varying status. Helmer believes he should be the one in charge, and Krogstad should have no right to call him “Torvald” and speak to him as an equal. Along with this, there are other appearances of Helmer’s resilient belief that he should always have control. For example, Helmer says to Nora: “Nice of you- because you let your husband have his way? All right, you little rogue, I know you didn’t mean it that way” (40). In this quote, Helmer makes it seem as if the husband should always have his ‘way,’ or the wife should listen to his every word. Through his tone, he presents the idea that women having their way is outright ridiculous. Nora, of course, does not follow his wishes, but she presents the illusion that Helmer is in control- and that could be the secret to their marriage.
ReplyDeleteYour view of Helmer's characterization is very insightful and I did not notice how prominent this is throughout the beginning of the play. Although you believe that he is very controlling, Helmer seems to also be unaware of Nora's power in getting her own way no matter the cost. However, Helmer's pet nicknames for Nora seem to belittle her, rather than send her messages of endearment. I completely agree with your idea of this relationship working due to the fact that Helmer has a false sense of power and Nora puts on a show of obedience and charm. The control issues which they face come across as ridiculous as neither one wants to know what is actually happening.
DeleteAlthough there are a plethora of symbols throughout the play, the macaroon is a significant symbol that represents multiple things including temptation, childishness, and the importance of appearance. First of all, the macaroon serves as a temptation for Nora because Helmer had forbidden her from eating it. However, like all small children, Nora always wants what she can’t have and is obsessed with the forbidden cookie. Nora knows that she shouldn’t have the cookies, so she always lies and to have her own way. For example, when Rank points out that macaroons were forbidden in the house, Nora immediately replies with “Yes, but these are some Kristine gave me” (I. 19). To lie so quickly and easily shows Nora cannot resist the temptation of the cookie and had figured out a way to satisfy her wants while staying out of trouble. Isben purposely uses the small treat/cookie as Nora’s addiction because cookies and small treats are often associated with little children. By using the macaroon and Nora’s obsession with it, Isben is able to portray Nora as a childish figure in contrast to her husband’s paternal character. Throughout the play, Helmer acts more like a father to Nora than a (modern) husband. Not only are his rules like that of a father, but he treats Nora like a small child and daughter with pet names including “my little squirrel” and “song-bird.” The macaroon also symbolizes Helmer’s importance of appearance and reputation. Helmer’s obsession with the macaroons is partly because of his need of power and dominance. However, another reason is that he wants to keep Nora thin and beautiful to keep his family’s reputation and appearance. In fact, Nora says “You couldn't possibly know that Torvald had forbidden them. The fact is, he's afraid of me spoiling my teeth” (I. 19-20). Helmer had forbidden the macaroons to keep her teeth clean and happy. Readers can see his obsession with Nora’s staying away from sugar when he repeatedly checks, “Hasn't the little sweet-tooth been playing pranks to-day? … Didn't she just look in at the confectioner's? … Not to sip a little jelly? … Hasn't she even nibbled a macaroon or two” (I. 5). Although Helmer can set rules with just about anything, Isben specifically uses the sickly sweet cookie to show the value of appearance and reputation in Helmer’s mind.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea about the macaroons symbolizing the parent-child relationship between Nora and Helmer. When I read the first act, I was surprised by the way Nora accepted the belittling tone of voice that her husband used with her. She allowed him to call her a “little squirrel” and a “little spendthrift,” and often even used those terms herself. While Nora may have accepted her childish role when in the presence of her husband, in reality she was much more independent, as demonstrated by her eating the forbidden macaroons and taking the family’s monetary situation into her own hands. Nora’s childish attitude may only be intended to humor her husband and preserve family peace.
DeleteAct II
ReplyDeleteDr. Rank believes he is on the verge of death, causing his behavior to be impulsive, down willily (I think I just made that up), and desperate: As though he were acting on the tail end of a long winded breath. Perhaps, once, he was a man of firm faith and incredulous integrity, but now because of his very imminent ending, he has forgone his morals and virtuousness. Based on his confession of affection and intimate interaction with Nora (aka his best friend’s wife), his willingness, or more appropriate: his unwillingness, to stand for honor behind closed doors is shown to be weak and feeble. Though Nora does press herself upon him through words and body, as seen when she shows Rank her silk stockings, “No, no, no, you can only look at the feet. (reference to Victorian era style and how controlled and covered women were supposed to be) Oh well, you might as well see a bit higher up, too.” (47). Rank’s failure to completely and immediately refute her intimate actions shows his complaisance to let it to happen, to allow it to pass, to enjoy it, but never have to share of this experience with anyone. And why should he, he’s about to die anyways, right?
The stage directions also reveal much under the text about Dr. Rank: While speaking to Nora, “(Rank) [after a short pause]. Sitting here so intimately like this with you, I can’t imagine . . . I simply cannot conceive what would have become of me if I had never come to this house.
(Nora) [smiles]. Yes, I rather think you do enjoy coming here.
(Rank) [in a low voice, looking fixedly ahead]. And the thought of having to leave it all . . .” (47). This is a Rank that is deeply concerned, thoughtfully thinking, preparing his words and meaning every bit of them, whereas Nora, however naively intelligent, is much more inconsiderable with her words.
In Act II I seemed to notice that Nora’s incorporation of animal names as acting as a pet to Torvald were transparent throughout the act. Some examples include calling herself “his little bird,” “his squirrel,” and “his skylark.” I believe that Nora uses these animal titles so that she would be able to manipulate Torvald into doing what she wanted which was to keep Krogstad’s job. Her plan is to entice Torvald by following his orders and living up to his standards, and in return Torvald would grant her wishes. The use of Nora’s manipulation is also seen during the conversation with Dr. Rank. While Dr. Rank and Nora were chatting, Nora began to flirt with him and showed off her Christmas stockings. I think that Nora is flirting with Dr. Rank on purpose because I believe that she is coming up with a plan which involves Dr. Pank persuading Torvald to keep Krogstad at the bank. Her plan seems to be in full effect until however Dr. Rank confesses to Nora that he loves her. Astonished by Dr. Rank’s love for her, Nora seems to reject her plan as she feels that she is using him to keep Krogstad’s job and would feel embarrassed that she would have taken advantage of him even though he has hefty heart towards her.
ReplyDelete“RANK: Absolutely certainty. So why shou;dn’t I alloq myself a jolly evening after that?
ReplyDeleteNORA: Quite right, Dr. Rank.
HELMER: I quite agree. As long as you don’t suffer for it in the morning.” (II. 71)
In this scene right after the Nora and Torvald leaves the party, Dr. Rank and Torvald frequently mention how good the wine and champagne was. Torvald is clearly intoxicated as he does not speak coherently and Nora mentions that he had drunk a lot of alcohol. Dr. Rank and Torvald both firmly state that they deserved to have a good jolly time and drink. The way alcohol is often repeated suggests that it is a symbol for indulgence, specifically men’s indulgence just as the macaroon symbolizes Nora’s indulgence. The most interesting quote said by Torvald is: “As long as you don’t suffer for it in the morning” (II. 71). The suffering he mentions is referring the headaches and pain of hangovers after drinking at night. I thought that this was representing the idea that secret indulgences, which are morally and publicly criticized, are acceptable as long as one doesn’t get caught. This idea is closely tied to the Victorian/Puritan culture of the play’s setting because the excessively stringent rules and expectations the society demands are virtually impossible to heed. People are bound to break rules and do “scandalous” things because the reality is a perfect society does not exist. The more perfect a society tries to be, the more it sets itself up for its downfall. Because reputation and appearance is so crucial to people and it is impossible that people follow every single rule, many people including Torvald believes that as long they don’t get caught, there will be no suffering, or in other words, consequences. Thus, the only way to cover up such deeds is by secrets, lies, and deception.
I like your analysis of the alcohol symbolizing the secret desires that are repressed normally in the Victorian culture. I had a slightly different interpretations of the macaroons because I feel they also help show the power difference between Nora and Helmer. While Helmer is able to drink among his friends, Nora is expected to be the perfect wife and not even indulge in one macaroon at home. I think that Ibsen wanted the reader to see that Nora, because of her repression, became adept at hiding things, just like she still snuck macaroons behind Torvald's back
DeleteYes I agree with the analyzation. I feel that Nora is put under massive amounts of pressure. She is played off as weak because she has the urge to indulge herself, when the craving for these indulgences should be seen as perfectly normal human desires. She has unrealistic standards set on her and those same expectations don’t go for the men. It shows the hypocrisy of the societal norms at the time. I also find it funny they used a macaroon for the woman and alcohol for the man. Macaroons are small artisan cookies sweet and delicate, while alcohol is generally a more manly symbol. Overall great analyzation!
Delete“RANK. Yes, really the whole thing’s nothing but a huge joke. My poor innocent spine must do penance for my father’s gay subaltern life.
ReplyDeleteNORA. Wasn’t he rather partial to asparagus and pâté de foie gras?
RANK. Yes, he was. And truffles.
NORA. Truffles, yes. And oysters, too, I believe?
RANK. Yes, oysters, oysters, of course.
NORA. And all the port and champagne that goes with them. It does seem a pity all these delicious things should attack the spine” (Ibsen, 46).
In this dialogue exchange, Dr. Rank and Nora discuss a motif that appears throughout the play: the idea that indulging oneself and giving in to temptation brings consequences. Above, the two talk about a disease that’s attacking Dr. Rank’s spine, straying from using vulgarity in the time period. The “disease of the spine” is syphilis, which is the consequence in Dr. Rank’s situation. Nora says, “It does seem a pity all these delicious things should attack the spine” (46). When she says this, she doesn’t truly mean that eating truffles, oysters, and drinking champagne hurts his spine (or gives him syphilis, for that matter). What Nora’s saying is that all of their actions, in giving in to temptation, bring about consequences. Nora sees this in the past Act, as well, with the significance of the macaroons. It is not that Helmer simply hates macaroons for no reason— the macaroons symbolize temptation, and Nora frequently gives in to this. She has proven multiple times that she cannot control herself, whether spending money, eating macaroons, or getting into business she cannot handle (such as getting in debt, when she thinks she is helping). Once she gives in to this temptation, it brings about consequences. For the macaroons, they are sugary, and can possibly make you unsightly or overweight if you indulge in them (also not good for Helmer’s reputation). As for Nora getting into debt with Krogstad (with good intentions), her consequence is that she is being blackmailed. Further into the play as well, we see both Helmer and Dr. Rank drink lots of champagne– I’ve yet to see the consequences, but their temptation in over indulging will most certainly bring about problems.
I really liked you analysis and how you referenced the different temptations Ibsen creates. This is also one of the lesser known symbols in the play, so it is good to see how other people elaborate on the topic. Food is referenced a multitude of times throughout the entirety of the play, and they all represent the same idea of temptation and desire. It's interesting because the Victorian people were all so concerned about outward appearance and status, yet are seemingly all able to lose themselves and indulge on their deepest desires and temptations. It is interesting to see if any more of these references appear later in the play.
DeleteIn Act II we learn that Nora begins to feel guilty for her actions and feels that in order to protect her husband from taking the blame she must commit suicide. The theme of death is present in the scene when Torvald forces Nora to perform the tarantella. I jumped to the conclusion that there is a parallel that is drawn between Nora and Dr. Rank because I believe that Nora makes her decision to commit suicide by following in the footsteps of Dr. Rank, because he is dying from syphilis. When she is performing the tarantella I seemed to interpret as a death dance and it found it a coincidence that Rank is playing the piano as both are nearing death. 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. This comparison relates to the overall theme of this scene because the guilt is getting to her, so to save her embarrassment, she is trying really hard to find a way to leave so that no one can find her ever. An interesting fact I learned is that this tarantella dance was taught on Nora’s and Torvald’s honeymoon, and with her dancing it in this scenario is telling us that this will be her final performance as a mortal as she states that “she has only thirty-one hours to live.” I was able to interpret this in two different ways and one way is she is performing this dance to apologize to Torvald and wants to commit suicide so that she won’t get in trouble. Another reason she might be performing this dance is that she is committing death metaphorically as she is leaving her old life and experiencing a completely new lifestyle due to her leaving Torvald.
ReplyDeleteWhile the points you provided are understandable I believe that you have a false idea of the symbol or meaning of the tarantella dance. I don't believe that Nora wants to commit suicide literally but rather is just an exaggeration to the consequences if Torvald finds out about her debt to Torvald. Also i think when she says she has thirty one hours to live just shows how worried she is once Torvald finds out rather than showing her desire to end her own life.
DeleteAt the conclusion of the play, Nora’s character takes a complete 180˚ turn from how she was developed in the first Act. Initially, Nora is shown to be a classic wife of the Victorian era, a stay at home/take care of the children type. However, each scene reveals a new layer to her character, alongside the several secrets she had been holding in as well. Looking at Nora in Act I, she appears to have no substance at all– simply a woman eager to spend her husband’s money: “You could always give me money, Torvald. Only what you think you could spare. And then I could buy myself something with it later on” (Ibsen 4). The way she interacts with her husband in this Act appears unrealistic– almost ridiculous in that a married couple could have such a silly relationship. They consistently call each other pet names, and joke about each other’s flaws. Only later do we learn that their relationship is, in fact, unrealistic, and that Nora was just putting on a show to please those around her. As Nora’s secrets unravel, her composure to maintain her character crumbles as well. Nora can no longer present herself as a flawless doll in Torvald’s dollhouse, so she thinks it time to reveal her true self and her true feelings. Contrasting with Nora’s silly, naïve character, her true personality has much more depth. She’s presented as an individual, someone with knowledge about the world rather than an accessory to her husband, the bank manager. In Nora’s talk with Torvald, she reveals who she really is: “I believe that first and foremost I am an individual, just as much as you are—or at least I’m going to try to be. I know most people agree with you, Torvald, and that’s also what it says in the books. But I’m not content any more with what most people say, or with what it says in the book. I have to thinkn things out for myself, and get things clear” (82). After seeing this, no one in the audience would have expected Nora to have such intelligence and individuality. Myself, I saw Nora as ignorant and irresponsible, getting herself into trouble without knowledge of the consequences. Now that Nora has shared her side of the story, I show more respect to her bravery in having the courage to stand up for herself in their relationship. Amazingly enough, Nora managed all of this change in only three days– proving that anything is possible with the right mindset.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the play, Isben uses dark and light to cover and reveal secrets. Whenever secrets are discussed behind closed door, secrets and scandalous behavior always occur in the dark such as when Nora flirts with Dr. Rank with her stockings (II. 42). In the light, however, many secrets are revealed. Isben often uses the lamp in order to create light in the darkness. Previously, Nora and Dr. Rank promised to keep Rank’s imminent death from syphilis a secret from Torvald, but after Torvald receives a mail from Rank, he asks Helene to turn on the light out in the hall. Then he proceeds to exclaim “There’s a black cross above his name. Look. What an uncanny idea. It’s as if he were announcing his own death” (III. 74). When Nora answers, “He is” (III. 74), Torvald discovers the secret of Rank’s death. This is only one of many instances that Isben uses light and dark in to represent the revealing and covering of secrets. This is completely fitting to the book’s setting and Victorian culture because in the light where everything can be seen, they must follow rules and be honest as they try to capture perfection. However, a perfect society simply cannot exist. The people are bound to break their own rules at some time, and they do so in the dark when nobody can see, judge them, or taint their reputations; this is why all the sins, scandalous behavior, and secrets take place in the dark.
ReplyDeleteI had seen the various secrets being brought forward and being hid throughout the play, however I had never seen how light and dark are used to cover them up or to reveal them. I found your analysis very insightful and especially like how you tied this theme back to the social normalities of the Victorian era. I also like how you showed that the "darkness" can be seen as symbol for people breaking their own rules. I, however, encountered some difficulty when trying to apply this same theme of dark and light to the characters of this play. Characters like, Helmer and Nora for example, are very hard to characterize as either good or bad, while their actions are not. Nice job!
DeleteThroughout A Doll’s House, we see Nora’s impulsiveness, and her self belief and confidence to make decisions that affect her and others. In Act III, we see Nora’s impulsiveness in a different light, in a more exposing, consuming, perhaps gratifying light. In Act III, Nora and Helmer get into an argument that eventually descends into Nora throwing a fit and leaving Helmer and her children because she needs to “find herself”. Nora’s actions in scenes prior to this also display her impulsiveness and near ignorance to strict obedience to “set”, accepted (societal) ways. The way she sneaks macaroons in, offers them to other, when they are most likely expensive sugary treats that only drain Helmer’s pockets. In her conversations with Mrs. Linde she speaks freely, thinking and elaborating aloud; often going too in depth and spitting out words she cannot take back.
ReplyDelete“(Helmer) You are talking like a child. You understand nothing about the society you live in.
(Nora) No, I don’t. But I shall go into that too. I must try to discover who is right, society or me.” (83)
In her culminating argument with Helmer, she gets so caught up and induced in her world of belief, of her unbelief; and enlightenment to her lack of experience and knowledge. But through her admittance of ignorance, she is more intelligent than the fool who believes blindly, Helmer.
The play abruptly ends after Nora leaves, again suggesting the shortness of decision and impulsive behaviour found throughout the play.
Helmer [by the lamp]. I hardly dare. Perhaps this is the end, for both of us. Well I must know. [He opens the note hurriedly, reads a few lines, looks at another enclosed sheet, and gives a cry of joy.] Nora! [Nora looks at him inquiringly.] Nora! I must read it again. Yes, yes, it’s true! I am saved! Nora, I am saved!
ReplyDeleteNora. And me?
Helmer. You too, of course, we are both saved, you as well as me.
(Ibsen 77)
In Act III this passage definitely shows us what type of person Torvald is, which is extremely selfish. In this act Nora decides to tell Torvald the truth about how she committed a crime in order to save his life, and instead of feeling grateful and concerned about what would happen to his wife, he worries over how his reputation would be ruined if everyone knows about it. Also instead of feeling pride he insults her and threatens her , and even begins to think of solutions to make sure the public has no clue on the foolish crime she has committed. His selfishness is not only present in the interaction with Nora, but also when he reads the letters from Krogstad. After reading the letters Torvald is in joy and says “ Nora! I must read it again. Yes, yes, it’s true! I am saved! Nora, I am saved!” (Ibsen 77) Iben uses the word “I” to tell us that Torvald was concerned only about himself, but after reading the letter he can breathe a sigh of relief. However when a really worried Nora asks “And me?” Helmer responds with “You too, of course, we are both saved, you as well as me.” (Ibsen 77) These exchange of words illustrate Torvald’s selfish attitude as after celebrating his joy, he then worries about his wife and says that she is fine. I think Nora made the decision to run away and leave Torvald instead of committing suicide was based solely on the fact that Torvald only cared about himself, and feels that she doesn’t need anyone in her life and that she is an independent woman.
I agree that Helmer’s reaction demonstrates that he cares more about himself than he does about Nora. I also thought it was interesting because throughout the play Helmer portrays himself as a man with uncompromising and upstanding morals. In Act One, he speaks of people like Krogstad who have committed crimes in the past. He says, “I quite literally feel physically sick in the presence of such people” (33). However, when Helmer realizes that Nora is one of those people but that it will not impact him, he is relieved and says, “I am saved!” (77). Helmer represents the Victorian tendency to publicly denounce corruption and immorality but quietly accept it within his own personal life.
DeleteThroughout A Doll’s House, Torvald repeatedly refers to Nora using pet names, especially with bird names such as “my little skylark,” “songbird,” and “dove.” Isben specifically uses bird diction because birds are the embodiment of freedom as well as beauty and purity. Torvald is obsessed with having power, dominance, and perfection, and he believes that these traits can only be achieved by control. His obsession with control ranges from forbidding Nora from eating macaroons to intentionally refusing Nora’s pleads to keep Krogstad at the bank to disparaging her existence as a sinful mother with rage. Nora’s representation of a bird is fitting because Torvald’s dominance over Nora reflects that of owning a caged bird. A caged bird is stripped of its freedom, flight, and happiness, but some birds learn to adapt to its surroundings. For example, many birds often learn tricks to earn treats and learn to behave for rewards. Nora is quite similar as she always hides her secrets and disobedience while manipulating and entertaining Torvald for affection and rewards such as her beloved wealth. At the end of the play, Nora’s rebellion and fight for individuality was interesting because previously, I had expected her to continue entertaining Torvald and living as his inferior. However, just as caged animals that have been trained, stress can often make animals turn against their masters. When the stress of maintaining her fragile family and her epiphany that her married life was essentially fake, Nora could no longer tolerate the game pretend and perfection.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the way in which Torvald portrays Nora and makes her seem less than human. Previously, I had never noticed that the names which he called Nora were centered around bird diction. Although the symbolism of birds may represent a free, pure and beautiful creature, Nora ironically does not set an example of all these traits. Her internal conflicts to find her true being were suppressed by the Victorian society and the desire to fulfil Torvald’s image of a perfect wife. It almost seemed inevitable that the allusion to freedom and birds would bring Nora to the decision she eventually made at the end of the book. Her action of leaving Torvald was only the beginning of her spreading her wings and blossoming into a free and individual being.
DeleteOne theme that was prominent in the play was the idea that people’s traits are passed down through generations. This is seen in Nora’s character, as Torvald often talks about Nora’s flaws being the fault of her father and not her own, and that she has no control over that. Torvald says, “What a funny little one you are! Just like your father. Always on the look-out for money, wherever you can lay your hands on it; but as soon as you’ve got it, it just seems to slip through your fingers… It’s in the blood. Oh yes, it is, Nora. That sort of thing is hereditary” (Ibsen 5). Here, Torvald suggests that Nora can’t control her tendency to desire money, and blames the fault on her father. However, this sort of thing can’t be passed down through blood at all. Perhaps by the way she was raised? Torvald brings up another interesting idea, that the mothers and fathers of the family often corrupt their children with the way they behave: “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” (32). Specifically, Torvald suggests that through lies and deceit the children can be brought up to be bad children, even delinquents. This theme of children inheriting their parents’ traits is very realistic, in fact. Children are especially susceptible to their surroundings, and are easily influenced by behavior around them. I agree with Torvald, in that delinquents are formed from a mother and father’s tendency to keep secrets. Finally, Dr. Rank demonstrates this theme as well. In Dr. Rank’s case, hereditary traits are seen as a burden: “Yes, really the whole thing’s nothing but a huge joke. My poor innocent spine must do penance for my father’s gay subaltern life” (46). Here, Dr. Rank says how his father’s extravagant life forced him to have a poor one, in his inheritance of syphilis. Not all things passed down through generations are bad, though. Parents teach you morals and offer wisdom, and if you are fortunate enough to have a parent who cares, you should be all the more grateful.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting idea! I agree very much with what you wrote about, and the evidence you used to support it with. However, aside from looking at this theme in a observant matter of traits that have already been passed down, I suggest looking at it in a speculative manner as well. This means, I am asking what do you think would happen to Nora's children? You also bring up an ironic quote from Torvald in which he talks about Krogstad's children becoming corrupt, because of how "corrupt" Krogstad was forging signatures, but the question of Nora's children becoming corrupt arises. Nora commited the same exact crime, and according to Torvald, a parent's evil would pass down to his/her children, so that is what makes his statement so ironic, especially because he does not know the crime Nora committed at this point of the play. Although, aside from this small speculative idea of how Nora's children would grow up according to your theme, I enjoyed reading your analysis very much.
DeleteI think that the overall theme of this play is the sacrifice that women make in order to protect their husbands. There are many examples that contribute to the overall theme. One example would have to be Mrs. Linde, and the reason why she would be an example is that she loved Krogstad more than anything and wanted to marry him, but instead she had to sacrifice herself and marry another man who was richer, so that she could care for her dying mother as well as her sick brothers. However the main character Nora herself has to sacrifice herself in order to protect Torvald. Nora needed to hide her loan from Torvald because it was illegal for a women to receive a loan without the consent of their husband, and also because if she got caught then Torvald’s reputation is ruined as a women aided in saving his life. This act counters what society views of women as the male’s are supposed to be the more dominant and handle the most business, but the opposite is occurring. Nora herself says “even though men refuse to sacrifice their integrity, thousands of women have.” (Ibsen 84) Another quote that relates to the point that Nora is making that men are too afraid to sacrifice their integrity is when Torvald reads the note from Krogstad, and Torvald shouts “Yes, yes, it’s true! I am saved! Nora, I am saved!” (Ibsen 77) This quote relates to the point Nora is making because as soon as Torvald finds out his reputation isn’t ruined, he’s all back to smiles. Nora, seeing how so many women have sacrificed their dignity takes a stand against how society views them and leaves her family to find her true self and be independent. A lot of people criticize Nora for leaving her children, but I felt that she did this act as a self-sacrifice because how she would corrupt them with her mischevious behavior. One statement that proves that she would have corrupted them is that Torvald treats Nora like a “doll”, and Nora states that she refers to her children as “her little dolls.” This statement explains that if Nora were to continue taking care of them, then they would end up like their father, thus making her decision to leave and letting the nanny take care of the family.
ReplyDelete