In Act One of A Doll’s House, I found it very interesting that every time a character entered or exited the scene, the door was shut behind them. In the opening narration, it seemed as though the main room of the house was the only thing being described. The repetition of the word “door” a total of four times in the first paragraph implies that there is much more to the house than meets the eye. In this context, I think doors are a symbol of secrecy and concealing of the truth. On page 7, Mrs. Linde is shown into the house for her unexpected visit and the maid closes the door after her. Mrs. Linde is an outsider and when she is closed into the house, Nora has the opportunity to alter the truth through her lying nature by fabricating an elaborate story of her and Helmer’s newfound prosperity that the audience knows is not the reality. Nora does this in order to conceal the truth of her and Helmer’s situation, which seems a bit unnecessary to me considering they're not really in too bad of a position. This characterizes Nora as a woman who cares a lot about what others think and is almost obsessed with status and image. Once Krogstad returns, on page 23, Nora “leads the children into the room, left, and shuts the door after them; tense and uneasy.” This indicates that Nora wants to shelter her kids from her confrontations, making sure that they always have a positive view of their mother. I feel like Nora had somewhat of an idea what Krogstad was about to say to her, so she hid her kids away from the elaborate secret that she has been keeping from them and her husband. At the end of Act One on page 33, Helmer has just finished expressing his negative view of fraudulent people. In order to save herself, Nora quickly changes the subject, causing Helmer to go off into his study, shutting the door behind him. Based on his strong opinions just expressed, it seems like he may have an idea of what Nora has done, so naturally she is freaking out. The closed door shows the division between the couple as they are both aware of the secrecy but are too scared to confront each other about it for fear of causing problems. Nora desperately wants her marriage, and life as a whole for that matter, to be perfect, so she is willing to continue concealing her big secret for the sake of her image.
I definitely agree with your idea on how the doors represent secrecy and division within the family. In my opinion, contrary to popular association that a door symbolizes opportunity and good fortune, the door has a negative connotation, leading to secrecy. Secrecy has already made a large impact on the plot of the play with Nora’s secret withdrawal of money, and is sure to continue impacting the story. This idea not only helps to display one of the major themes of this play, but it also helps to characterize Nora as a deceitful individual.
One of the most prevalent motifs that I saw in Act 1 of A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen was domestication. This will most likely set the theme for the rest of the book about how much power men had over women during the Victorian time period. Throughout Act 1, there are many notions of how much control Helmer has over Nora, using nicknames such as “my pretty little pet, my skylark,” and “my little squirrel.” This is also exemplified simply by the actions that the couple does with each other. None of the things they do together are done with love, but rather revolve around money. From the start to the end of Act 1, all the conversations Nora and Helmer had involved money in some sort of way. From Helmer having a new job, to Nora simply walking in the house with macaroons she wasn’t supposed to spend money on. The only mention of love between the two was when Nora wanted to set plans to get freaky after Christmas, only because Helmer had just forgiven her for spending money she wasn’t supposed to spend. Nora’s life revolves around pleasing her spouse in order to receive money from him, and Helmer’s life revolves around making money for Nora so that she can please him. This creates a never ending consumeristic and controlled cycle for their so called “love”. This just shows how much of a controlling lifestyle that was lived during the Victorian Era, and that readers will likely see this persist throughout the play.
Great analysis! I definitely agree with your point of domestication. Like most of recorded history until more recently, the Victorian era featured much objectification of women, and this play fits this assertion. As you wrote, Nora is described by Helmer as a pet in many instances. This theme of treating a person as an animal and "domesticating" them is, of course, very similar to Petruchio's attempts to "tame" Kate in The Taming of the Shrew written in the Elizabethan era. The extremely controlled environment that you spoke of later is also shared in both texts. The two eras, Elizabethan and Victorian, were roughly 300 years apart, and yet the similarities with regards to gender inequality are striking.
In Act of of A Doll’s House, I noticed the strong distinction in gender roles, and how they play a large part of this society. In the beginning, the house setting seems very familiar and typical. Helmer overpowers his wife, Nora, and Nora seems to follow Helmer’s orders and aims to please him. Helmer continuing refers to Nora as his pet, and uses names like ‘little squirrel’, ‘little singing bird’ and ‘little spendthrift’. These pet names portray Nora to be some type of property in Helmer’s mind and undermine her intelligence and importance. When talking about money, Helmer also makes a claim that Nora is, “Just like a woman” and “Just like your father. Always on the look-out for money, wherever you can lay your hands on it” (I.5). Back in that society, women were viewed as unable to comprehend and deal with something as complex as money, so therefore were never allowed to have access to it. It was seen as improper for a woman to make her own money and in this scene Helmer portrays the typical response a man would give to his wife when they asked about finance. However, I found it very interesting how the main character, Nora, breaks the traditional norms. Later in the act it is revealed that she borrowed money from Krogstad in order to get the medicine to save Helmer’s life. Nora has taken action much like a man would in this situation and found the money necessary to take care of her husband. She tells Helmer the money came from her father and refrains from telling him the truth because she understand the dynamic of the house and recognizes that his ego would be hurt if he were to find out his wife was the one to save him. This shows Nora’s intelligence of the living situation she has and proves her character in this play to be very dimensional.
I completely agree with your analysis. I think Nora will soon stray away from being a follower and a "good wife". Though, I do think that these risky actions are a huge part of why she holds these secrets and puts up a facade. It's because of the strict society in the Victorian era, giving her no freedom or identity.
Do you think there will be any characters in A Doll's House that will break the gender stereotypes like Nora, or do you think that makes her unique? I agree with your thorough analysis and would also like to add the fact that Torvald controls Nora to an extent where she can't even eat as she pleases. This occurred with her craving for macaroons and when she expressed the fact that she had to hide them from her husband/lied when confronted when eating them. Therefore, like you said, that supports how Nora is a pet to her husband.
In the Victorian society of A Doll’s House, numerous individuals found it necessary to appear wealthy and invest in refineries to gain status. Despite their financial struggles, Nora and her husband practice this throughout ACT I. The concept of secrecy is prevalent since the opening of this book. Particularly in the narration, the placement of extravagant furniture on the wall opposing the window, and the simplicity of the objects on the other side correlates with how from an outsider's point of view, the family may seemingly be wealthy, yet once the doors open, the true reality will be revealed. I found it interesting how the same idea was evident when Nora played with her kids. Being the most dominant in decisions in the game, the mother decides to be the first one to hide in hide and go seek. Yet, Krogstad walks in on her, it ruined her game. Similarly, going behind her husband's and father’s back to get a loan, then having Krogstad reveal her fraud and blackmail her correlated to the game she decided to play with her children. The way Nora constructs it symbolizes how she expects to be the one with all the cards, making the rules for how she hides and deceives others, but in the end, her secrets and hiding will constantly be revealed, eventually leading to the loss of her control.
In Act 2 of “A Doll’s House”, something I find really interesting is the exchange between Nora and Dr. Rank. Considering how often she speaks of the deep and passionate love that Torvald has for her, does anyone else find it interesting that she hasn’t yet expressed her own equivalent affection for him? When she talks to Dr. Rank, Nora uses flirtatious diction with sexual connotation, which ultimately characterizes her as a bit of a scandalous woman. That being said, I feel like she masks this scandal with innocent flirtation in order to play to her role as a prim (and dim) housewife who has everything together. On page 46 when she says, “I feel full of mischief today,” it is clear that she is intentionally attempting to entice him for her own amusement. Showing off and describing her silk stockings also added to her scandalous characterization. Her line, “Shame on you”, and her subsequent toss of the stockings at Dr. Rank suggests her puerile nature, as if all of the sexual tension she just brought into the room is no big deal because it’s all in good fun. Finally, on page 48, after she’s buttered him up and gotten him all hot and bothered, she asks him for a favor but strings it out to keep him intrigued. Then he goes out on a limb and tells her he loves her, to which she immediately try to play off as something she didn’t see coming, something that greatly upset her. Personally, I think she already knew he felt that way so she used her sex and flirting to draw it out of him. Quite an effective strategy because at this point he is completely won over, she has him wrapped around her thumb, slave to her every wish and whim, using scandal and sex to get her way.
Nice analysis! I also found this to be a very intriguing passage. Dr. Rank clearly fell pray to Nora's musings, and it can concluded from this that Nora is a very cunning character. There is other evidence for her intellect throughout the play as well, such as her saving Torvald's life and then her stalling him from opening the mailbox. I do not completely agree with your portrayal of Nora as puerile. I believe she more puts that on as an act in order to more effectively manipulate others. Her childlike flirtation is a smokescreen to help her get favors done, which adds additional support for her as a complex, cunning character.
Throughout the first act of A Doll’s House, it was evident how compulsively lied to evade any consequences of her actions. With Krogstad threatening to reveal the truth of her forgery of her father’s signature and the borrowing of money to save Torvald, Nora is feeling the ceaseless burden of her mistakes. Throughout the second act Nora continuously talks to herself, worrying out loud about what may happen with Krogstad. Nora says, “He didn’t mean it seriously. Things like that can’t happen. It’s impossible” (II.35). Nora’s conscious is running wild and she keeps questions the reality of her situation. The victorian society values perfection and while Nora often defines societal norms with gender stereotypes, she is still victim to the overwhelming judgement of failure. Nora wishes to escape her current life to the point that she is willing to commit suicide. Nora says, “Five. Seven hours to midnight. Then twenty-four hours till the next midnight. The the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live” (II.61). Avoiding confrontation and her mistakes is worth more to Nora than facing what she has done, accepting the consequences, and living her life with her husband and children. A society that values perfection and wealth so much as corrupt a once happy woman. The drastic measures Nora is taking juxtaposes the beginning of the novel where Nora seemed to live a seemingly perfect life.
I think that Henrik Ibsen really opens the character of Nora and simply the nature of humanity in Act 2 of A Doll’s House. All people want what’s good for themselves, it’s natural, and definitely not always bad. In fact, it’s usually good, as it’s what keeps species alive. But in A Doll’s House, Nora takes this self favor way too far in Act 2. Nora does only what is good for herself, no matter what the consequences are for her future. She continues to lie and cheat her way into whatever situation she gets herself into. Some examples simply being hiding macaroons from her husband when asked, to faking, forging, and lying about her father’s signature. I believe this truly exemplifies the Victorian society. A large amount of that society was about self appearance and self worth, which can easily be shown through Nora, even if she does use lying/cheating to get her way. I believe readers will see this trend of lying and deceit continue throughout the play, and that Nora will eventually suffer from the actions she took. In sense creating a moral for A Doll’s House: that fraud is never the right path for life.
At the opening of Act Two, the narrator describes the christmas tree, once beautifully decorated and illuminating with light, as “stripped, bedraggled, and with its candles burnt out” (35). Metaphorically, these traits act as a parallel into describing Nora and Krogstad’s character. In this scene of the play, Nora is again confronted by Krogstad about the money she owes him. Krogstad explains how even if she decided to commit suicide, it wouldn't matter because Torvald’s reputation will still be left in ruins. He treats her like a child, dangling an inevitable punishment of her fraud above her, making her feel helpless and exposed. What I found intriguing was that despite this, Krogstad displays a subtle empathy towards the suicidal housewive. They bicker, “NORA. How did you know I was thinking of that? KROGSTAD. Most of us are thinking of that, to begin with. I did, too; but I didn’t have the courage…” (53). I believe when he says this, he is refers to the time where he forged a signature as well, which diminished his integrity. It seems as if the second a flaw is exposed in a societal member of A Doll’s House, they become stripped and burnt out like the tree. Unlike most who value perfection in the play, I believe that both characters will discover a beauty in their hardships. Although exposure brings doubt and self pity, perhaps later on in the play, they will be able to discover their true nature. Often times when humans hit rock bottom, they develop into a stronger and even bolder individual in the end. Like the tree, these two characters didn’t need a mask to be beautiful in the first place.
“NORA. [by the table, left]. 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. RANK. Especially when they attack a poor spine that never had any fun out of them” (II. 46).
In this time period, the difference of diet based on social class was substantial. The poor lived simply, consuming low quality foods such as bread, vegetables, and tea. On the other hand, meals for the rich were opportunities for displaying wealth. As Nora and Rank converse over his father, she uses edible diction to suggest his riches. Victorian women were attracted to men of wealth, thus justifying how being able to afford extravagant foods lead to attraction from the ladies. Thus, the two characters use humor through truffles, asparagus, etc. to indirectly say he was sexually active because of it. Although due to the lack of education, Victorian people called Syphilis, Tuberculosis, the fatal epidemic was still infamous, hence why Nora states, “a pity all these delicious things should attack the spine.” What I found fascinating was that despite their knowledge on how sexual activity can lead to disease, individuals of this era continued to practice sex to benefit their status. It demonstrates the desperation these people had to be accepted into society. This passage is significant because in Act III, champagne is mentioned by Helmer and Rank after the party. Helmer seemed to brag about it, showing that the use of this symbol allowed him to gain dignity.
I agreed with your analysis on the use of "rich foods" to emphasize the importance of wealth in this era. Something Murai pointed out in this passage was the utilization of aphrodisiac, or using these certain foods, truffles, oysters, etc., to stimulate sexual desire. This can refer to Rank's and Nora's flirtation and how indirectly sexual inclined towards one another.
In Act Three of “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, Helmer’s view of gender roles in a traditional society are sharply contrasted with Nora’s ahead-of-the-time feminist ideals. On page 80, Nora expresses the fact that she has been toyed with her whole life by the two most important men in her life. This exemplifies the title “A Doll’s House” because Nora is the doll in houses that she has no power in. Because of this constant toying, Nora may not know how to treat others any different, causing her to treat her children as objects instead of human beings, just as Helmer and her father treated her. On page 82, Helmer’s negative diction toward Nora and his discussion of her “sacred duty” show his, and society as a whole’s, opinion about the role of women. In contrast, Nora proposes the idea that her own personal duty, when she says, “my duty to myself”, is equally as important to the duty society forces her to have. This idea of a woman putting her own goals before what a man wants for her parallels modern feminism and shows that she may not be as innocent and dull as she has previously been characterized to be. Nora’s bravery shines through at this point, as she is not only defying her husband, but society as a whole. At the same time, I feel like her decision to divorce Helmer is a little bit selfish considering she's leaving her children because she feels she's not a suitable mother instead of learning how to be one while staying with them.
I agree that Nora wasn't ever completely compliant with the gender roles of the era, however, I think she was still very much shaped by the society. At several points during the play she refers to herself as a small animal. She also talks about how troubles are meant for men to deal with and uses her body to get the things she wants. Objectification and belittlement of women was perpetuated, in part, by women like Nora that believed it. I do like that you looked deeper into her character and I agree she shares some traits with modern feminism but I think her ideas rarely turn into actions which make her beliefs irrelevant to society.
I had the same analysis on Nora being shaped by the men in her life and how much control they had on her. After realizing that her marriage is completely fake and that their love for each other is non-existent, she finally realized that she did not reach her full potential because of her father and husband. One thing I noticed is that Torvald never really understood her side of the story in terms of women actually having rights to make decisions on their own. He continued to announce his power over her and comparing her to his "little singing bird". He was too caught up in what society expected in men and women and never saw how it had affected his wife negatively.
NORA: You seen something miraculous is going to happen. MRS. LINDE: Something miraculous? NORA: Yes, a miracle. But a something so terrible as well, Kristine一 oh, it must never happen, not for anything
In this quote, Nora vaguely speaks of her plan to kill herself to Mrs. Linde. Nora describes it miraculous, but also something so terrible as well. Right before this conversation, Nora was speaking with Krogstad and as he threatens to reveal her truth, he tells her that she does not have the courage needed to escape her own life. While Krogstad continues with telling her all of the possible outcomes of what will happen after Torvald reads the letter, Nora begins to cogitate the idea of committing suicide. This decision is a vital piece in understanding the nature of the Victorian society. Nora, who is characterized as young and beautiful, is rendered helpless and looking for any drastic measure of escape to avoid the loss of love and trust from her husband. Nora knows that without Torvald, and with the ruined reputation she will have once her criminal actions are revealed, she will have no valued place in her society. Keeping up appearances and being perceived highly is a major part of people’s lives in this time. The contradictory phrase of being miraculous and terrible shows how this suicide could be viewed as something greater than social corruption. Isben wrote Nora to strongly consider suicide to evade her problems with Torvald to convey the threatening nature of male dominance, and the value of social perfection.
I agree with your point that you made about how it was super important that people kept up their appearances in this time period and believe that is why Nora is so caught up and frightened to tell Helmer the truth. She needs other approval to feel like everything is alright, whether it be from the maid or someone more important like her husband.
Mrs Linde. I could do nothing else. As I had to break with you, it was my duty also to put an end to all that you felt for me. Krogstad [wringing his hands]. So that was it. And all this--only for the sake of money! Mrs Linde. You must not forget that I had a helpless mother and two little brothers. We couldn't wait for you, Nils; your prospects seemed hopeless then. Krogstad. That may be so, but you had no right to throw me over for anyone else's sake. Mrs Linde. Indeed I don't know. Many a time did I ask myself if I had the right to do it. Krogstad [more gently]. When I lost you, it was as if all the solid ground went from under my feet. Look at me now--I am a shipwrecked man clinging to a bit of wreckage. This quote was chosen from the beginning of Act 3 of A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen (the wording is a little different from the actual book). This part is when Mrs. Linde and Doctor Rank have a secret, private conversation, revealing their pasts. This also uncovers yet another conflict that the characters have to deal with. It turns out that it was not just Nora who made a deal to help her family, but also Mrs. Linde. This section reveals to readers that Mrs. Linde broke up with Dr. Rank so that the money from the new spouse could be enough to support her and her family. The context of this is very important for conveying the theme of the play; that people will do whatever it takes to care for themselves. As anyone would expect, characters go through deep emotional effects from this information, in which Ibsen conveys not only through stage directions (clenching of hands), but also through Krogstad’s use of a metaphor, comparing himself to a “shipwrecked man clinging to a bit of wreckage”. Krogstad then goes on to talk about he should not sink alone, and that he has a better chance with Linde as a partner. Ibsen uses literary devices in this quote to reveal the new arising conflicts in the play and show the selfishness that is being portrayed by the characters in A Doll’s House.
In Act 3 of A Doll’s House, the final scene tied together many large themes of the play that subtly existed in the earlier acts. The title of the play proved to be a vital component of this play, and foreshadowed the ending of Nora and Torvald’s marriage. Isben created a storyline that was set in a ‘dollhouse’ and the main character Nora, being the doll. It becomes evident to the audience that this was the intent when Nora confesses her feelings to Torvald in the last scene. Nora says, “What I mean is: I passed out of Daddy’s hands into yours. You arranged everything to your tastes, and I acquired the same tastes. Or I pretend to.. I don’t really know... I think it was a bit of both, sometimes one thing and sometimes the other. When I look back, it seems to me I have been living here like a beggar, from hand to mouth. I lived by doing tricks for you, Torvald. But that’s that way you wanted it. You and Daddy did me a great wrong. It’s your fault that I’ve never made anything of my life” (Act 3, 80). This is the major turning point for Nora. She is finally confronting Torvald for all the wrong he has done to her, and recognized his possessive nature as a similar trait she found in her father. Nora has lived her life as if she were a doll in somebody else’s hands. She feels like a beggar living ‘hand to mouth’ because she was only ever given just enough money for herself, and wasn’t trusted with any important information or finance responsibility. Isben shines a bad light on Torvald as Nora continues to expose his behavior. Acting as a common man of this time, he treats his wife like property, and manipulates her to like the things that he likes, and acts the way that he wants her to act. However, the themes of male dominance was furthered to Nora’s father as she realizes she lived the same way under her his roof as well. Like Nora stated, it took eight years of marriage for her to break out of her husband’s and society’s bonds to realize that she, a woman, is worth more than just a toy for her husband to play with. Ibsen wrote this play to emphasize the faults of Victorian gender roles in marriage. He also conveyed how important it was for women to come to this same realization in order for there to be time to reinvent their lives. Nora addresses this as, “You have done me a great wrong”, meaning Torvald has corrupted her mind to believe that she is only worthy of acting as a wife and a mother, and not make anything of herself. Isben’s play is in high favor of self-recognition no matter the society gender roles, and supports acts in favor of furthering one’s advancement in life.
***I blogged about Act 3 last time, so this is my quote from Act 2*** “Krogstad: ...if you happen to be thinking of running away… Nora: Which I am! Krogstad: ...or anything worse… Nora: How did you know? Krogstad: ...forget it! Nora: How did you know I was thinking of that? Krogstad: Most of us think of that, to begin with. I did, too; but I didn't have the courage… Nora: [tonelessly]: I haven't either.” (II. pg 53)
This quote from Act Two of “A Doll’s House” exemplifies the value of perfection and flawlessness that was so common to the Victorian-era, relating to the motif of secrecy throughout the play. First of all, this whole exchange between Krogstad and Nora occurs in secret because Helmer isn't to know the truth about his means of salvation from illness. So basically, this conversation is a secret about a secret by which another secret is prompted--Krogstad’s plan to blackmail Nora. It is evident that, because of this mash-up of secrets, both characters in this quote care quite a bit about what others think of them. Krogstad's doesn't want to lose his hard earned stature at the bank, while Nora is concerned not only for her husband’s judgments, but also for those of her friends, the people she knows, the community. Because of this, secrets are used to mask their distress in the eyes of others. To further this point, this quote visually represents the deception of perfection during the time. Within the next few pages it can be inferred that Nora is planning to commit suicide. In this quote, the two characters reference suicide as “that”, and the word is in italics, giving it a negative and almost pitiful connotation. I feel like Ibsen did this because he wanted the actors to put heavy emphasis on the word in order to effectively convey the weight of the implied action. Obviously neither Krogstad nor Nora wanted to outright admit that they both had the same notion. I think this is partially because suicide is just a really hard thing to come to terms with, but also because it is frowned upon by religion and was practically unheard of in that society, which is probably why Nora and Krogstad refrained from using the actual word. Also, every time Krogstad speaks, his sentence ends and/or begins with an ellipsis (a dot dot dot), as if to visually portray his conservativeness when talking about such an outlandish subject in the eyes of society. In contrast, I'm wondering if he truly did consider taking his own life, or if he simply uses that story to manipulate Nora into getting what he wants.
I like your analysis on this quote from Act II and think that this quote is important to the play as it stuck out to me as well. I agree that Nora and Krogstad are indirectly referencing to suicide in this scene, but I also think that this conversation foreshadows the decision Nora makes at the end of the play to leave her family. Even though she does not commit suicide, it is similar in the fact that she does not want to have anymore contact with her family again after she leaves. She makes this clear when Helmer asks if he can send her letters and she responds with, “No, never. I won’t let you” (III). Do you think that Nora’s decision to leave characterizes her as weak as it could be perceived that she is running away from her problems? Or do you think it is the best thing for her to do for herself and for her family?
By far the most interesting resolution in Act III of A Doll’s House was Nora's choice to finally leave Torvald once and for all. Sadly, this decision also included leaving the children without even a simple goodbye. At the end of Act III, Nora repeatedly refers to Torvald as a stranger, and that she refuses to take or receive help from him at any point in the future. This already seems quite profound simply just to make the choice to completely exclude her husband and children from her life, to the point of seeing them as strangers. I found this quite interesting because on page 36, Nora quotes: “-I've often wondered - how on earth could you bear to hand your children over to strangers. This completely goes what she says in Act III on page 85: “I don't want to see the children. I know they are in better hands than mine.” She said earlier that she couldn't bare to hand her children over to stranger, but then states that the so called “stranger” could take better care of the children than her. It is a possibility that in Act III Nora is referencing to the housemaid, Anne, who usually takes care of the children. Still, Torvald would still have to be involved with the lives of the children, so it is interesting how contradicting Nora’s statements are, and how she possibly changed throughout the acts.
I agree with your interpretation of the passage. I think that it’s hard to judge her as an outsider, because on the one hand she has adult as any parent does to take care of her children and be there for them. However, she has been his play toy for too long. He has acted as her parent rather than her significant other throughout the book, scolding her for the choices she makes. I think it’s a complicated issue for her and the overall theme could link to the idea of the good of all or the good of the self. Overall great analyzation buddy!
Despite the male dominance of Helmer over Nora seen throughout the play, what I found interesting in Act III was the reverse in gender roles seen by these two characters. Nora finally makes a woman for herself. She uses feminist values to support her reasons why she feels the need to leave. During their argument, Helmer clearly states, “first and foremost, you are a wife and a mother" (82). He claims his authority, stating that Dora lies in a position less than him. The irony in throughout Dora and Helmer's relationship is that he, as a husband, needs her equally as she needs him in a high class society. When Nora leaves, Helmer describes himself as empty. This is because he feels unworthy of her love and doesn't know what to do without a female figure in his life. He realizes that without her, no one can take care of the kids and he will be shunned by his peers. Another example of reversed gender roles can be seen through Mrs. Linde and Krogstad. Both without another half, Linde offers marriage for the benefit of both individuals. Krogstad was quick to accept this offer do to his awareness that a wife was necessary in order to move up the hierarchy of society. I believe Isaband endeavors to target males of the Victorian society in A Doll's House. His message is that males often take advantage of, and for granted females.
I agree with your analysis of how Ibsen implies how men often take advantage as well as take for granted the female figures in their lives. Especially in Nora and Helmers relationship, it is very clear that Helmer needs Nora. When Nora decides to sit down and tell Helmer that she's leaving, he realizes how much he needs her and the readers can see that by how he talks to her and attempts to convince her to stay.
In “A Doll’s House”, I found the characterization of Nora’s children very interesting. In the list of characters before the play begins, they are referred to as “The Helmer’s three children” while every other character has a specific name. The children are first introduced on page 22 of Act 1 where they are brought to Nora by Anne Marie. Nora shows them off to Mrs. Linde and then begin to speak to them. But the interesting thing about this scene is that the conversation between Nora and her kids is only Nora speaking with pieces of narration interjected. The children have no voice, it is simply Nora’s questions and her responses to what her kids are saying without them actually saying anything. I feel like this characterizes the children as dolls as well. Because Nora has been objectified her whole life by strong male figures, maybe she doesn't know how else to treat those inferior to her. On page 36, Nora says, “Tell me, Anne Marie- I've often wondered- how on earth could you beat to hand your child over to strangers?” This conversation with the nursemaid takes place prior to Nora finding out that Krogstad plans to blackmail her, so it foreshadows her consideration of committing suicide and decision to leave Helmer. At the same time, it characterizes the children as falsely significant to her because here at the beginning of act two she acts as though leaving her children to someone she doesn't know or trust is completely unheard of. But, at the end of the play, she expresses that Torvald is truly a stranger to her and chooses to leave her children with him in order to do what's best for her. So although she plays with her kids and laughs with them, they are merely insignificant dolls to her, having little impact on her decisions, just as she is to Torvald and was to her father.
During class, Murai introduced the topic of parent influence on their offspring. I wanted to take a deeper look into this by observing relationships with Nora, her parents, and her children. Something I found obscure was Torvald pointing out the effect Nora had on her children. The only interaction Nora had with her children was being playful. Acting as a child herself, she lied, was manipulative, and too immature to prepare her children for adulthood. I believe that the main reasons for her inability of good parenting was due to the lack of a mother figure during her own childhood. This is why in the Victorian age mother were essential for children, and having many kids were encouraged since they mostly stayed at home and were capable of raising so many. Despite emphasis on motherly influence on young children, it is important to recognize that this is the same for fathers as well. The most obvious correlation can be seen through Torvald and Nora’s father. Both males had a patriarchal relationship with her. In Act III she describes herself as a beggar to her father, doing whatever that pleased merely his own tastes. Due to the male dominance over women in this time period, it isn’t surprising that the relationship was the same when traits were passed down from Nora’s father to Torvald. Lastly, Torvald criticized Krogstad through the potential influence he may have. He states, “ A fog of lies like that in a household, and it spreads like a disease and infection to every part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking will evil germs” (33). Here, Ibsen uses a simile to stress the quickness of repercussions to childish behavior practiced by adults.
I was very interested in this topic initially when Mrs. Murai introduced it in class yesterday as well. I enjoyed reading your analysis and agreed with much of what you had to say. In particular I had almost identical thoughts as you on the topic of Nora being such a bad parent because her mother was not around when she grew up. One thing that you touched on briefly was about why Nora's parenting was so bad. I thought that it was so bad because of her not interacting with her children very often rather than because of her constant childish demeanor. I believe that because she is so selfish as to be constantly be doing nothing but fixating on her own problems (which for the most part would not exist if she were not such a horrendous liar!) she is unable to spend meaningful amounts of time with her children thus starting the cycle once more as her mother did to her. Nice analysis!
In “A Doll’s House,” Henrik Ibsen uses a form of realism in his play that he helped popularize to the world. Realism is the accurate representation of a person, place, or situation, based on how it actually happened. Ibsen looks at gender roles through this lense. When reading this play, many people recognize that Ibsen stands up for women and their rights by describing what would have been a realistic situation in this age. He shows how caged in Nora is by her marriage, and her secrets, and then in the end shows her freeing herself from the marriage, which was a very scandalous and unacceptable thing during the Victorian Era. The very last scene of this play ends dramatically with Nora literally walking out on hers and Torvald’s marriage. “NORA. That communion between us shall be a marriage. Good-bye. [She goes out by the hall door.] HELMER. [Sinks into a chair by the door with his face in his hands.] Nora! Nora! [He looks round and rises.] Empty. She is gone. [A hope springs up in him.] Ah! The miracle of miracles-?! [From below is heard the reverberation of a heavy door closing.] This last line of the play leaves the reader off on a question that Ibsen attempts to pose to the audience. Was this marriage just as restraining to Torvald as it was to Nora? Base on this line, we gather that at first he is worried and distressed by Nora’s sudden exit both physically, and mentally, from their marriage. Then after pondering it for a few seconds, he realizes that he too is free from their unhealthy marriage, where there were many secrets and lies, and tensions ran high. I think that this was an attempt for Henrik Ibsen to not only show the audience what kind of role women had, and their lack of rights during this time period, but to also show that the men felt equally restrained by the things that held women back during this time.s Nora’s decision to leave Torvald and her
You had an interesting insight on the meaning behind the miracle of miracles phrase that I have never thought of before. What i believe this phrase meant to Torvald was his last hopes that Nora would return someday. Another insight I had with that phrase was that he began to believe that this miracle was in his control. The miracle is that he would completely change and Nora would come back to him. Anyways, nice analysis.
After the discussion and questions we answered in class, I became aware of the importance of the light symbolism in the play. Overall, the lamp, or light in general, symbolize Nora’s state of awareness. The significance of light is introduced in the play when Nora is speaking with Dr. Rank after he announces that he is dying soon. Nora becomes flirty in hopes that he will offer her money. She says, “Of course, it’s dark here now, but tomorrow... No, no, no, you can only look at the feet. Oh well, you might as well see a bit higher up, too” (II.47). The darkness signifies Nora’s clouded judgement, and it is only when efforts at seducing Rank for money fail and instead he confesses his deep feelings for her. Nora then shocked out of her little game. Later in the conversation she says, “I must say, you are a nice one, Dr. Rank! Don’t you feel ashamed of yourself, now that the lamp’s been brought in? (II.49). Nora feels that the darkness shields her of consequences, and that now that the lamp is turned on, her reality is back to the perfection she is trying to mirror. Nora criticizing for acting inappropriately in the darkness and that he should be ashamed of himself is very hypocritical when she was doing just the same. Light is a common symbol for clarity, rebirth, and honesty. However, while Nora receives more clarity with the lamp, it seems that things are more honest in the dark. The light also symbolizes being open and seen to the public, and in this age, maintaining a strong reputation with no faults was high priority for families like Nora’s. When the light is on, Nora is compelled to behave and speak the way she should, and secrets are to be kept to herself.
In Act One of A Doll’s House, I found it very interesting that every time a character entered or exited the scene, the door was shut behind them. In the opening narration, it seemed as though the main room of the house was the only thing being described. The repetition of the word “door” a total of four times in the first paragraph implies that there is much more to the house than meets the eye. In this context, I think doors are a symbol of secrecy and concealing of the truth. On page 7, Mrs. Linde is shown into the house for her unexpected visit and the maid closes the door after her. Mrs. Linde is an outsider and when she is closed into the house, Nora has the opportunity to alter the truth through her lying nature by fabricating an elaborate story of her and Helmer’s newfound prosperity that the audience knows is not the reality. Nora does this in order to conceal the truth of her and Helmer’s situation, which seems a bit unnecessary to me considering they're not really in too bad of a position. This characterizes Nora as a woman who cares a lot about what others think and is almost obsessed with status and image. Once Krogstad returns, on page 23, Nora “leads the children into the room, left, and shuts the door after them; tense and uneasy.” This indicates that Nora wants to shelter her kids from her confrontations, making sure that they always have a positive view of their mother. I feel like Nora had somewhat of an idea what Krogstad was about to say to her, so she hid her kids away from the elaborate secret that she has been keeping from them and her husband. At the end of Act One on page 33, Helmer has just finished expressing his negative view of fraudulent people. In order to save herself, Nora quickly changes the subject, causing Helmer to go off into his study, shutting the door behind him. Based on his strong opinions just expressed, it seems like he may have an idea of what Nora has done, so naturally she is freaking out. The closed door shows the division between the couple as they are both aware of the secrecy but are too scared to confront each other about it for fear of causing problems. Nora desperately wants her marriage, and life as a whole for that matter, to be perfect, so she is willing to continue concealing her big secret for the sake of her image.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your idea on how the doors represent secrecy and division within the family. In my opinion, contrary to popular association that a door symbolizes opportunity and good fortune, the door has a negative connotation, leading to secrecy. Secrecy has already made a large impact on the plot of the play with Nora’s secret withdrawal of money, and is sure to continue impacting the story. This idea not only helps to display one of the major themes of this play, but it also helps to characterize Nora as a deceitful individual.
DeleteOne of the most prevalent motifs that I saw in Act 1 of A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen was domestication. This will most likely set the theme for the rest of the book about how much power men had over women during the Victorian time period. Throughout Act 1, there are many notions of how much control Helmer has over Nora, using nicknames such as “my pretty little pet, my skylark,” and “my little squirrel.” This is also exemplified simply by the actions that the couple does with each other. None of the things they do together are done with love, but rather revolve around money. From the start to the end of Act 1, all the conversations Nora and Helmer had involved money in some sort of way. From Helmer having a new job, to Nora simply walking in the house with macaroons she wasn’t supposed to spend money on. The only mention of love between the two was when Nora wanted to set plans to get freaky after Christmas, only because Helmer had just forgiven her for spending money she wasn’t supposed to spend. Nora’s life revolves around pleasing her spouse in order to receive money from him, and Helmer’s life revolves around making money for Nora so that she can please him. This creates a never ending consumeristic and controlled cycle for their so called “love”. This just shows how much of a controlling lifestyle that was lived during the Victorian Era, and that readers will likely see this persist throughout the play.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis! I definitely agree with your point of domestication. Like most of recorded history until more recently, the Victorian era featured much objectification of women, and this play fits this assertion. As you wrote, Nora is described by Helmer as a pet in many instances. This theme of treating a person as an animal and "domesticating" them is, of course, very similar to Petruchio's attempts to "tame" Kate in The Taming of the Shrew written in the Elizabethan era. The extremely controlled environment that you spoke of later is also shared in both texts. The two eras, Elizabethan and Victorian, were roughly 300 years apart, and yet the similarities with regards to gender inequality are striking.
DeleteIn Act of of A Doll’s House, I noticed the strong distinction in gender roles, and how they play a large part of this society. In the beginning, the house setting seems very familiar and typical. Helmer overpowers his wife, Nora, and Nora seems to follow Helmer’s orders and aims to please him. Helmer continuing refers to Nora as his pet, and uses names like ‘little squirrel’, ‘little singing bird’ and ‘little spendthrift’. These pet names portray Nora to be some type of property in Helmer’s mind and undermine her intelligence and importance. When talking about money, Helmer also makes a claim that Nora is, “Just like a woman” and “Just like your father. Always on the look-out for money, wherever you can lay your hands on it” (I.5). Back in that society, women were viewed as unable to comprehend and deal with something as complex as money, so therefore were never allowed to have access to it. It was seen as improper for a woman to make her own money and in this scene Helmer portrays the typical response a man would give to his wife when they asked about finance. However, I found it very interesting how the main character, Nora, breaks the traditional norms. Later in the act it is revealed that she borrowed money from Krogstad in order to get the medicine to save Helmer’s life. Nora has taken action much like a man would in this situation and found the money necessary to take care of her husband. She tells Helmer the money came from her father and refrains from telling him the truth because she understand the dynamic of the house and recognizes that his ego would be hurt if he were to find out his wife was the one to save him. This shows Nora’s intelligence of the living situation she has and proves her character in this play to be very dimensional.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your analysis. I think Nora will soon stray away from being a follower and a "good wife". Though, I do think that these risky actions are a huge part of why she holds these secrets and puts up a facade. It's because of the strict society in the Victorian era, giving her no freedom or identity.
DeleteDo you think there will be any characters in A Doll's House that will break the gender stereotypes like Nora, or do you think that makes her unique? I agree with your thorough analysis and would also like to add the fact that Torvald controls Nora to an extent where she can't even eat as she pleases. This occurred with her craving for macaroons and when she expressed the fact that she had to hide them from her husband/lied when confronted when eating them. Therefore, like you said, that supports how Nora is a pet to her husband.
DeleteIn the Victorian society of A Doll’s House, numerous individuals found it necessary to appear wealthy and invest in refineries to gain status. Despite their financial struggles, Nora and her husband practice this throughout ACT I. The concept of secrecy is prevalent since the opening of this book. Particularly in the narration, the placement of extravagant furniture on the wall opposing the window, and the simplicity of the objects on the other side correlates with how from an outsider's point of view, the family may seemingly be wealthy, yet once the doors open, the true reality will be revealed. I found it interesting how the same idea was evident when Nora played with her kids. Being the most dominant in decisions in the game, the mother decides to be the first one to hide in hide and go seek. Yet, Krogstad walks in on her, it ruined her game. Similarly, going behind her husband's and father’s back to get a loan, then having Krogstad reveal her fraud and blackmail her correlated to the game she decided to play with her children. The way Nora constructs it symbolizes how she expects to be the one with all the cards, making the rules for how she hides and deceives others, but in the end, her secrets and hiding will constantly be revealed, eventually leading to the loss of her control.
ReplyDeleteIn Act 2 of “A Doll’s House”, something I find really interesting is the exchange between Nora and Dr. Rank. Considering how often she speaks of the deep and passionate love that Torvald has for her, does anyone else find it interesting that she hasn’t yet expressed her own equivalent affection for him? When she talks to Dr. Rank, Nora uses flirtatious diction with sexual connotation, which ultimately characterizes her as a bit of a scandalous woman. That being said, I feel like she masks this scandal with innocent flirtation in order to play to her role as a prim (and dim) housewife who has everything together. On page 46 when she says, “I feel full of mischief today,” it is clear that she is intentionally attempting to entice him for her own amusement. Showing off and describing her silk stockings also added to her scandalous characterization. Her line, “Shame on you”, and her subsequent toss of the stockings at Dr. Rank suggests her puerile nature, as if all of the sexual tension she just brought into the room is no big deal because it’s all in good fun. Finally, on page 48, after she’s buttered him up and gotten him all hot and bothered, she asks him for a favor but strings it out to keep him intrigued. Then he goes out on a limb and tells her he loves her, to which she immediately try to play off as something she didn’t see coming, something that greatly upset her. Personally, I think she already knew he felt that way so she used her sex and flirting to draw it out of him. Quite an effective strategy because at this point he is completely won over, she has him wrapped around her thumb, slave to her every wish and whim, using scandal and sex to get her way.
ReplyDeleteNice analysis! I also found this to be a very intriguing passage. Dr. Rank clearly fell pray to Nora's musings, and it can concluded from this that Nora is a very cunning character. There is other evidence for her intellect throughout the play as well, such as her saving Torvald's life and then her stalling him from opening the mailbox. I do not completely agree with your portrayal of Nora as puerile. I believe she more puts that on as an act in order to more effectively manipulate others. Her childlike flirtation is a smokescreen to help her get favors done, which adds additional support for her as a complex, cunning character.
DeleteThroughout the first act of A Doll’s House, it was evident how compulsively lied to evade any consequences of her actions. With Krogstad threatening to reveal the truth of her forgery of her father’s signature and the borrowing of money to save Torvald, Nora is feeling the ceaseless burden of her mistakes. Throughout the second act Nora continuously talks to herself, worrying out loud about what may happen with Krogstad. Nora says, “He didn’t mean it seriously. Things like that can’t happen. It’s impossible” (II.35). Nora’s conscious is running wild and she keeps questions the reality of her situation. The victorian society values perfection and while Nora often defines societal norms with gender stereotypes, she is still victim to the overwhelming judgement of failure. Nora wishes to escape her current life to the point that she is willing to commit suicide. Nora says, “Five. Seven hours to midnight. Then twenty-four hours till the next midnight. The the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live” (II.61). Avoiding confrontation and her mistakes is worth more to Nora than facing what she has done, accepting the consequences, and living her life with her husband and children. A society that values perfection and wealth so much as corrupt a once happy woman. The drastic measures Nora is taking juxtaposes the beginning of the novel where Nora seemed to live a seemingly perfect life.
ReplyDeleteI think that Henrik Ibsen really opens the character of Nora and simply the nature of humanity in Act 2 of A Doll’s House. All people want what’s good for themselves, it’s natural, and definitely not always bad. In fact, it’s usually good, as it’s what keeps species alive. But in A Doll’s House, Nora takes this self favor way too far in Act 2. Nora does only what is good for herself, no matter what the consequences are for her future. She continues to lie and cheat her way into whatever situation she gets herself into. Some examples simply being hiding macaroons from her husband when asked, to faking, forging, and lying about her father’s signature. I believe this truly exemplifies the Victorian society. A large amount of that society was about self appearance and self worth, which can easily be shown through Nora, even if she does use lying/cheating to get her way. I believe readers will see this trend of lying and deceit continue throughout the play, and that Nora will eventually suffer from the actions she took. In sense creating a moral for A Doll’s House: that fraud is never the right path for life.
ReplyDeleteAt the opening of Act Two, the narrator describes the christmas tree, once beautifully decorated and illuminating with light, as “stripped, bedraggled, and with its candles burnt out” (35). Metaphorically, these traits act as a parallel into describing Nora and Krogstad’s character. In this scene of the play, Nora is again confronted by Krogstad about the money she owes him. Krogstad explains how even if she decided to commit suicide, it wouldn't matter because Torvald’s reputation will still be left in ruins. He treats her like a child, dangling an inevitable punishment of her fraud above her, making her feel helpless and exposed. What I found intriguing was that despite this, Krogstad displays a subtle empathy towards the suicidal housewive. They bicker, “NORA. How did you know I was thinking of that? KROGSTAD. Most of us are thinking of that, to begin with. I did, too; but I didn’t have the courage…” (53). I believe when he says this, he is refers to the time where he forged a signature as well, which diminished his integrity. It seems as if the second a flaw is exposed in a societal member of A Doll’s House, they become stripped and burnt out like the tree. Unlike most who value perfection in the play, I believe that both characters will discover a beauty in their hardships. Although exposure brings doubt and self pity, perhaps later on in the play, they will be able to discover their true nature. Often times when humans hit rock bottom, they develop into a stronger and even bolder individual in the end. Like the tree, these two characters didn’t need a mask to be beautiful in the first place.
ReplyDelete“NORA. [by the table, left]. Wasn’t he rather partial to asparagus and Pâté de foie gras?
ReplyDeleteRANK. 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.
RANK. Especially when they attack a poor spine that never had any fun out of them” (II. 46).
In this time period, the difference of diet based on social class was substantial. The poor lived simply, consuming low quality foods such as bread, vegetables, and tea. On the other hand, meals for the rich were opportunities for displaying wealth. As Nora and Rank converse over his father, she uses edible diction to suggest his riches. Victorian women were attracted to men of wealth, thus justifying how being able to afford extravagant foods lead to attraction from the ladies. Thus, the two characters use humor through truffles, asparagus, etc. to indirectly say he was sexually active because of it. Although due to the lack of education, Victorian people called Syphilis, Tuberculosis, the fatal epidemic was still infamous, hence why Nora states, “a pity all these delicious things should attack the spine.” What I found fascinating was that despite their knowledge on how sexual activity can lead to disease, individuals of this era continued to practice sex to benefit their status. It demonstrates the desperation these people had to be accepted into society. This passage is significant because in Act III, champagne is mentioned by Helmer and Rank after the party. Helmer seemed to brag about it, showing that the use of this symbol allowed him to gain dignity.
:D
DeleteI agreed with your analysis on the use of "rich foods" to emphasize the importance of wealth in this era. Something Murai pointed out in this passage was the utilization of aphrodisiac, or using these certain foods, truffles, oysters, etc., to stimulate sexual desire. This can refer to Rank's and Nora's flirtation and how indirectly sexual inclined towards one another.
DeleteIn Act Three of “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, Helmer’s view of gender roles in a traditional society are sharply contrasted with Nora’s ahead-of-the-time feminist ideals. On page 80, Nora expresses the fact that she has been toyed with her whole life by the two most important men in her life. This exemplifies the title “A Doll’s House” because Nora is the doll in houses that she has no power in. Because of this constant toying, Nora may not know how to treat others any different, causing her to treat her children as objects instead of human beings, just as Helmer and her father treated her. On page 82, Helmer’s negative diction toward Nora and his discussion of her “sacred duty” show his, and society as a whole’s, opinion about the role of women. In contrast, Nora proposes the idea that her own personal duty, when she says, “my duty to myself”, is equally as important to the duty society forces her to have. This idea of a woman putting her own goals before what a man wants for her parallels modern feminism and shows that she may not be as innocent and dull as she has previously been characterized to be. Nora’s bravery shines through at this point, as she is not only defying her husband, but society as a whole. At the same time, I feel like her decision to divorce Helmer is a little bit selfish considering she's leaving her children because she feels she's not a suitable mother instead of learning how to be one while staying with them.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Nora wasn't ever completely compliant with the gender roles of the era, however, I think she was still very much shaped by the society. At several points during the play she refers to herself as a small animal. She also talks about how troubles are meant for men to deal with and uses her body to get the things she wants. Objectification and belittlement of women was perpetuated, in part, by women like Nora that believed it. I do like that you looked deeper into her character and I agree she shares some traits with modern feminism but I think her ideas rarely turn into actions which make her beliefs irrelevant to society.
DeleteI had the same analysis on Nora being shaped by the men in her life and how much control they had on her. After realizing that her marriage is completely fake and that their love for each other is non-existent, she finally realized that she did not reach her full potential because of her father and husband. One thing I noticed is that Torvald never really understood her side of the story in terms of women actually having rights to make decisions on their own. He continued to announce his power over her and comparing her to his "little singing bird". He was too caught up in what society expected in men and women and never saw how it had affected his wife negatively.
DeleteNORA: You seen something miraculous is going to happen.
ReplyDeleteMRS. LINDE: Something miraculous?
NORA: Yes, a miracle. But a something so terrible as well, Kristine一 oh, it must never happen, not for anything
In this quote, Nora vaguely speaks of her plan to kill herself to Mrs. Linde. Nora describes it miraculous, but also something so terrible as well. Right before this conversation, Nora was speaking with Krogstad and as he threatens to reveal her truth, he tells her that she does not have the courage needed to escape her own life. While Krogstad continues with telling her all of the possible outcomes of what will happen after Torvald reads the letter, Nora begins to cogitate the idea of committing suicide. This decision is a vital piece in understanding the nature of the Victorian society. Nora, who is characterized as young and beautiful, is rendered helpless and looking for any drastic measure of escape to avoid the loss of love and trust from her husband. Nora knows that without Torvald, and with the ruined reputation she will have once her criminal actions are revealed, she will have no valued place in her society. Keeping up appearances and being perceived highly is a major part of people’s lives in this time. The contradictory phrase of being miraculous and terrible shows how this suicide could be viewed as something greater than social corruption. Isben wrote Nora to strongly consider suicide to evade her problems with Torvald to convey the threatening nature of male dominance, and the value of social perfection.
I agree with your point that you made about how it was super important that people kept up their appearances in this time period and believe that is why Nora is so caught up and frightened to tell Helmer the truth. She needs other approval to feel like everything is alright, whether it be from the maid or someone more important like her husband.
DeleteMrs Linde. I could do nothing else. As I had to break with you, it was my duty also to put an end to all that you felt for me.
ReplyDeleteKrogstad [wringing his hands]. So that was it. And all this--only for the sake of money!
Mrs Linde. You must not forget that I had a helpless mother and two little brothers. We couldn't wait for you, Nils; your prospects seemed hopeless then.
Krogstad. That may be so, but you had no right to throw me over for anyone else's sake.
Mrs Linde. Indeed I don't know. Many a time did I ask myself if I had the right to do it.
Krogstad [more gently]. When I lost you, it was as if all the solid ground went from under my feet. Look at me now--I am a shipwrecked man clinging to a bit of wreckage.
This quote was chosen from the beginning of Act 3 of A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen (the wording is a little different from the actual book). This part is when Mrs. Linde and Doctor Rank have a secret, private conversation, revealing their pasts. This also uncovers yet another conflict that the characters have to deal with. It turns out that it was not just Nora who made a deal to help her family, but also Mrs. Linde. This section reveals to readers that Mrs. Linde broke up with Dr. Rank so that the money from the new spouse could be enough to support her and her family. The context of this is very important for conveying the theme of the play; that people will do whatever it takes to care for themselves. As anyone would expect, characters go through deep emotional effects from this information, in which Ibsen conveys not only through stage directions (clenching of hands), but also through Krogstad’s use of a metaphor, comparing himself to a “shipwrecked man clinging to a bit of wreckage”. Krogstad then goes on to talk about he should not sink alone, and that he has a better chance with Linde as a partner. Ibsen uses literary devices in this quote to reveal the new arising conflicts in the play and show the selfishness that is being portrayed by the characters in A Doll’s House.
In Act 3 of A Doll’s House, the final scene tied together many large themes of the play that subtly existed in the earlier acts. The title of the play proved to be a vital component of this play, and foreshadowed the ending of Nora and Torvald’s marriage. Isben created a storyline that was set in a ‘dollhouse’ and the main character Nora, being the doll. It becomes evident to the audience that this was the intent when Nora confesses her feelings to Torvald in the last scene. Nora says,
ReplyDelete“What I mean is: I passed out of Daddy’s hands into yours. You arranged everything to your tastes, and I acquired the same tastes. Or I pretend to.. I don’t really know... I think it was a bit of both, sometimes one thing and sometimes the other. When I look back, it seems to me I have been living here like a beggar, from hand to mouth. I lived by doing tricks for you, Torvald. But that’s that way you wanted it. You and Daddy did me a great wrong. It’s your fault that I’ve never made anything of my life” (Act 3, 80).
This is the major turning point for Nora. She is finally confronting Torvald for all the wrong he has done to her, and recognized his possessive nature as a similar trait she found in her father. Nora has lived her life as if she were a doll in somebody else’s hands. She feels like a beggar living ‘hand to mouth’ because she was only ever given just enough money for herself, and wasn’t trusted with any important information or finance responsibility. Isben shines a bad light on Torvald as Nora continues to expose his behavior. Acting as a common man of this time, he treats his wife like property, and manipulates her to like the things that he likes, and acts the way that he wants her to act. However, the themes of male dominance was furthered to Nora’s father as she realizes she lived the same way under her his roof as well. Like Nora stated, it took eight years of marriage for her to break out of her husband’s and society’s bonds to realize that she, a woman, is worth more than just a toy for her husband to play with. Ibsen wrote this play to emphasize the faults of Victorian gender roles in marriage. He also conveyed how important it was for women to come to this same realization in order for there to be time to reinvent their lives. Nora addresses this as, “You have done me a great wrong”, meaning Torvald has corrupted her mind to believe that she is only worthy of acting as a wife and a mother, and not make anything of herself. Isben’s play is in high favor of self-recognition no matter the society gender roles, and supports acts in favor of furthering one’s advancement in life.
***I blogged about Act 3 last time, so this is my quote from Act 2***
ReplyDelete“Krogstad: ...if you happen to be thinking of running away…
Nora: Which I am!
Krogstad: ...or anything worse…
Nora: How did you know?
Krogstad: ...forget it!
Nora: How did you know I was thinking of that?
Krogstad: Most of us think of that, to begin with. I did, too; but I didn't have the courage…
Nora: [tonelessly]: I haven't either.” (II. pg 53)
This quote from Act Two of “A Doll’s House” exemplifies the value of perfection and flawlessness that was so common to the Victorian-era, relating to the motif of secrecy throughout the play. First of all, this whole exchange between Krogstad and Nora occurs in secret because Helmer isn't to know the truth about his means of salvation from illness. So basically, this conversation is a secret about a secret by which another secret is prompted--Krogstad’s plan to blackmail Nora. It is evident that, because of this mash-up of secrets, both characters in this quote care quite a bit about what others think of them. Krogstad's doesn't want to lose his hard earned stature at the bank, while Nora is concerned not only for her husband’s judgments, but also for those of her friends, the people she knows, the community. Because of this, secrets are used to mask their distress in the eyes of others. To further this point, this quote visually represents the deception of perfection during the time. Within the next few pages it can be inferred that Nora is planning to commit suicide. In this quote, the two characters reference suicide as “that”, and the word is in italics, giving it a negative and almost pitiful connotation. I feel like Ibsen did this because he wanted the actors to put heavy emphasis on the word in order to effectively convey the weight of the implied action. Obviously neither Krogstad nor Nora wanted to outright admit that they both had the same notion. I think this is partially because suicide is just a really hard thing to come to terms with, but also because it is frowned upon by religion and was practically unheard of in that society, which is probably why Nora and Krogstad refrained from using the actual word. Also, every time Krogstad speaks, his sentence ends and/or begins with an ellipsis (a dot dot dot), as if to visually portray his conservativeness when talking about such an outlandish subject in the eyes of society. In contrast, I'm wondering if he truly did consider taking his own life, or if he simply uses that story to manipulate Nora into getting what he wants.
I like your analysis on this quote from Act II and think that this quote is important to the play as it stuck out to me as well. I agree that Nora and Krogstad are indirectly referencing to suicide in this scene, but I also think that this conversation foreshadows the decision Nora makes at the end of the play to leave her family. Even though she does not commit suicide, it is similar in the fact that she does not want to have anymore contact with her family again after she leaves. She makes this clear when Helmer asks if he can send her letters and she responds with, “No, never. I won’t let you” (III). Do you think that Nora’s decision to leave characterizes her as weak as it could be perceived that she is running away from her problems? Or do you think it is the best thing for her to do for herself and for her family?
DeleteBy far the most interesting resolution in Act III of A Doll’s House was Nora's choice to finally leave Torvald once and for all. Sadly, this decision also included leaving the children without even a simple goodbye. At the end of Act III, Nora repeatedly refers to Torvald as a stranger, and that she refuses to take or receive help from him at any point in the future. This already seems quite profound simply just to make the choice to completely exclude her husband and children from her life, to the point of seeing them as strangers. I found this quite interesting because on page 36, Nora quotes: “-I've often wondered - how on earth could you bear to hand your children over to strangers. This completely goes what she says in Act III on page 85: “I don't want to see the children. I know they are in better hands than mine.” She said earlier that she couldn't bare to hand her children over to stranger, but then states that the so called “stranger” could take better care of the children than her. It is a possibility that in Act III Nora is referencing to the housemaid, Anne, who usually takes care of the children. Still, Torvald would still have to be involved with the lives of the children, so it is interesting how contradicting Nora’s statements are, and how she possibly changed throughout the acts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your interpretation of the passage. I think that it’s hard to judge her as an outsider, because on the one hand she has adult as any parent does to take care of her children and be there for them. However, she has been his play toy for too long. He has acted as her parent rather than her significant other throughout the book, scolding her for the choices she makes. I think it’s a complicated issue for her and the overall theme could link to the idea of the good of all or the good of the self. Overall great analyzation buddy!
DeleteDespite the male dominance of Helmer over Nora seen throughout the play, what I found interesting in Act III was the reverse in gender roles seen by these two characters. Nora finally makes a woman for herself. She uses feminist values to support her reasons why she feels the need to leave. During their argument, Helmer clearly states, “first and foremost, you are a wife and a mother" (82). He claims his authority, stating that Dora lies in a position less than him. The irony in throughout Dora and Helmer's relationship is that he, as a husband, needs her equally as she needs him in a high class society. When Nora leaves, Helmer describes himself as empty. This is because he feels unworthy of her love and doesn't know what to do without a female figure in his life. He realizes that without her, no one can take care of the kids and he will be shunned by his peers. Another example of reversed gender roles can be seen through Mrs. Linde and Krogstad. Both without another half, Linde offers marriage for the benefit of both individuals. Krogstad was quick to accept this offer do to his awareness that a wife was necessary in order to move up the hierarchy of society. I believe Isaband endeavors to target males of the Victorian society in A Doll's House. His message is that males often take advantage of, and for granted females.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis of how Ibsen implies how men often take advantage as well as take for granted the female figures in their lives. Especially in Nora and Helmers relationship, it is very clear that Helmer needs Nora. When Nora decides to sit down and tell Helmer that she's leaving, he realizes how much he needs her and the readers can see that by how he talks to her and attempts to convince her to stay.
DeleteIn “A Doll’s House”, I found the characterization of Nora’s children very interesting. In the list of characters before the play begins, they are referred to as “The Helmer’s three children” while every other character has a specific name. The children are first introduced on page 22 of Act 1 where they are brought to Nora by Anne Marie. Nora shows them off to Mrs. Linde and then begin to speak to them. But the interesting thing about this scene is that the conversation between Nora and her kids is only Nora speaking with pieces of narration interjected. The children have no voice, it is simply Nora’s questions and her responses to what her kids are saying without them actually saying anything. I feel like this characterizes the children as dolls as well. Because Nora has been objectified her whole life by strong male figures, maybe she doesn't know how else to treat those inferior to her. On page 36, Nora says, “Tell me, Anne Marie- I've often wondered- how on earth could you beat to hand your child over to strangers?” This conversation with the nursemaid takes place prior to Nora finding out that Krogstad plans to blackmail her, so it foreshadows her consideration of committing suicide and decision to leave Helmer. At the same time, it characterizes the children as falsely significant to her because here at the beginning of act two she acts as though leaving her children to someone she doesn't know or trust is completely unheard of. But, at the end of the play, she expresses that Torvald is truly a stranger to her and chooses to leave her children with him in order to do what's best for her. So although she plays with her kids and laughs with them, they are merely insignificant dolls to her, having little impact on her decisions, just as she is to Torvald and was to her father.
ReplyDeleteDuring class, Murai introduced the topic of parent influence on their offspring. I wanted to take a deeper look into this by observing relationships with Nora, her parents, and her children. Something I found obscure was Torvald pointing out the effect Nora had on her children. The only interaction Nora had with her children was being playful. Acting as a child herself, she lied, was manipulative, and too immature to prepare her children for adulthood. I believe that the main reasons for her inability of good parenting was due to the lack of a mother figure during her own childhood. This is why in the Victorian age mother were essential for children, and having many kids were encouraged since they mostly stayed at home and were capable of raising so many. Despite emphasis on motherly influence on young children, it is important to recognize that this is the same for fathers as well. The most obvious correlation can be seen through Torvald and Nora’s father. Both males had a patriarchal relationship with her. In Act III she describes herself as a beggar to her father, doing whatever that pleased merely his own tastes. Due to the male dominance over women in this time period, it isn’t surprising that the relationship was the same when traits were passed down from Nora’s father to Torvald. Lastly, Torvald criticized Krogstad through the potential influence he may have. He states, “ A fog of lies like that in a household, and it spreads like a disease and infection to every part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking will evil germs” (33). Here, Ibsen uses a simile to stress the quickness of repercussions to childish behavior practiced by adults.
ReplyDeleteI was very interested in this topic initially when Mrs. Murai introduced it in class yesterday as well. I enjoyed reading your analysis and agreed with much of what you had to say. In particular I had almost identical thoughts as you on the topic of Nora being such a bad parent because her mother was not around when she grew up. One thing that you touched on briefly was about why Nora's parenting was so bad. I thought that it was so bad because of her not interacting with her children very often rather than because of her constant childish demeanor. I believe that because she is so selfish as to be constantly be doing nothing but fixating on her own problems (which for the most part would not exist if she were not such a horrendous liar!) she is unable to spend meaningful amounts of time with her children thus starting the cycle once more as her mother did to her. Nice analysis!
DeleteIn “A Doll’s House,” Henrik Ibsen uses a form of realism in his play that he helped popularize to the world. Realism is the accurate representation of a person, place, or situation, based on how it actually happened. Ibsen looks at gender roles through this lense. When reading this play, many people recognize that Ibsen stands up for women and their rights by describing what would have been a realistic situation in this age. He shows how caged in Nora is by her marriage, and her secrets, and then in the end shows her freeing herself from the marriage, which was a very scandalous and unacceptable thing during the Victorian Era. The very last scene of this play ends dramatically with Nora literally walking out on hers and Torvald’s marriage.
ReplyDelete“NORA. That communion between us shall be a marriage. Good-bye. [She goes out by the hall door.]
HELMER. [Sinks into a chair by the door with his face in his hands.] Nora! Nora! [He looks round and rises.] Empty. She is gone. [A hope springs up in him.] Ah! The miracle of miracles-?! [From below is heard the reverberation of a heavy door closing.]
This last line of the play leaves the reader off on a question that Ibsen attempts to pose to the audience. Was this marriage just as restraining to Torvald as it was to Nora? Base on this line, we gather that at first he is worried and distressed by Nora’s sudden exit both physically, and mentally, from their marriage. Then after pondering it for a few seconds, he realizes that he too is free from their unhealthy marriage, where there were many secrets and lies, and tensions ran high. I think that this was an attempt for Henrik Ibsen to not only show the audience what kind of role women had, and their lack of rights during this time period, but to also show that the men felt equally restrained by the things that held women back during this time.s Nora’s decision to leave Torvald and her
You had an interesting insight on the meaning behind the miracle of miracles phrase that I have never thought of before. What i believe this phrase meant to Torvald was his last hopes that Nora would return someday. Another insight I had with that phrase was that he began to believe that this miracle was in his control. The miracle is that he would completely change and Nora would come back to him. Anyways, nice analysis.
DeleteAfter the discussion and questions we answered in class, I became aware of the importance of the light symbolism in the play. Overall, the lamp, or light in general, symbolize Nora’s state of awareness. The significance of light is introduced in the play when Nora is speaking with Dr. Rank after he announces that he is dying soon. Nora becomes flirty in hopes that he will offer her money. She says, “Of course, it’s dark here now, but tomorrow... No, no, no, you can only look at the feet. Oh well, you might as well see a bit higher up, too” (II.47). The darkness signifies Nora’s clouded judgement, and it is only when efforts at seducing Rank for money fail and instead he confesses his deep feelings for her. Nora then shocked out of her little game. Later in the conversation she says, “I must say, you are a nice one, Dr. Rank! Don’t you feel ashamed of yourself, now that the lamp’s been brought in? (II.49). Nora feels that the darkness shields her of consequences, and that now that the lamp is turned on, her reality is back to the perfection she is trying to mirror. Nora criticizing for acting inappropriately in the darkness and that he should be ashamed of himself is very hypocritical when she was doing just the same. Light is a common symbol for clarity, rebirth, and honesty. However, while Nora receives more clarity with the lamp, it seems that things are more honest in the dark. The light also symbolizes being open and seen to the public, and in this age, maintaining a strong reputation with no faults was high priority for families like Nora’s. When the light is on, Nora is compelled to behave and speak the way she should, and secrets are to be kept to herself.
ReplyDelete