(I cereal can't believe I'm the first one to post... Come on it’s almost 8:30... And I just got home from school...) 2/3/16 Today in class we read till page 11 in Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House.” Today in class our group’s discussion focused on the difference in men’s and women’s roles in the era. We discovered that Ibsen uses Nora’s language and animal illusions of Helmer to portray a theme of gender diparity. When Nora comes home from Christmas shopping she begs Helmer, “Oh, please, Torvald dear! Please! I beg you” (Ibsen 4). Nora is begging Helmer to give her money, showing that in this time, women had no control of their family’s financial situation. Helmer is able to parcel out money to Nora when he feels it’s right. He also demeans Nora by calling her a “spendthrift” which also puts her in her place as a woman not able to manage finances. After this Helmer says, “What do we call my pretty little pet when it runs away with all the money?” (Ibsen 4). Helmer refering to Nora as a “pet” shows how Helmer feels he owns Nora, like one owns an animal. Also, animals are seen as lower than humans, which alludes to how women were seen as lower than men in the Era. The language he uses calling her “his pretty little pet” gives the whole scene an overall creepy feeling. This is something my group talked about a lot: that this series of interactions gave us the heebie-jeebies.
In act one of “A Doll’s House” the dialogue between Torvald and Nora portrays the gender roles and social normalities of that time period. Through their dialogue, the audience can see their exaggerated love and happiness is a way to compensate for all that seems/is wrong in the relationship and family. When Torvald is in the study, Nora does not ask what he was doing. This is because the closed doors symbolize the secrecy of each character. Their actions cannot be seen by the other characters and sometimes the audience. They can do as they need and please to do in solitary where it is acceptable. Once out in the open, all issues are hidden by acting like everything is good. Another thing to note is Torvald constantly refers to Nora as his pet. He calls her different animals, but all are small and weak. This is symbolic of women being the fraile and the lesser gender. It is also symbolic of domestication. Pets are typically owned for pleasure and companionship. Torvald referring to Nora as “his pet” means she is only there for his pleasure. He also implies this when mocking her for suggesting that borrowing money was not a bad action. This mockery suggests he believes he is more intelligent than Nora. The audience also discovers the family has not always been part of the wealthy upper class. Nora worked hard to hide the financial issue and make everyone and everything appear happy and well. The symbols of secrecy in the stage directions and act one foreshadows its importance throughout the play. Nora secretly indulges herself by buying macarons. When Torvald is suspicious of her indulgence and interrogates her, she denies it and quickly changes the subject. This secrecy shows self indulgence was uncommon and luxurious. However, in this family it is seen as reckless behavior. This is because they are very frugal despite their wealth.
In our reading done in class, our group came to the conclusion that the introduction serves the purpose of portraying an early theme of gender roles and the lack of female power in the novel. They are a married couple, and yet Nora could be compared to a pet in the way that Torvald acts towards her. He references her to animals, dehumanizing her right away. This leads to the assumption that she in too unintelligent or uneducated to make her own decisions. She must ask his permission for things that would be a right of women in this age. He also pokes fun at her being a “spendthrift”, which could be playful fun if it weren’t repeated often throughout the first 10 pages. The repetition creates a sense of uncomfort in the reader as the joke seems to be reality and shows underlying issues in the relationship. Due to the values of the time period, they try to joke about serious issues in order to be as classy as everyone else, but these issues are not addressed properly. Nora continues to spend money because Torvald is too chivalrous to put his foot down and put an end to it. In the end, the beginning served to show the disparity in gender roles in the time period and also the underlying issues in the relationship of Torvald and Nora caused by the time period.
While reading The Dollhouse by Henrik Ibsen, I found the interactions between Mrs. Linde and Nora to be interesting in how it reflects their characters. From the way that they were talking, it was easy to tell that Nora seems to be a naturally self-centered character, yet I did find it particularly vexing how Mrs. Linde seemed to go along with her one-sided gossip that could easily be described as bragging. Nora pretends to be interested in Mrs. Linde’s affairs, however, she still manages to turn the conversation back to her and how lucky she is in comparison with Mrs. Linde as their two marriages seem to contrast each other. Mrs. Linde’s marriage was a marriage based solely on financial reasons so that she would not be a burden on her family by marrying her wealthy husband who then died, leaving Mrs. Linde as a poor widow. This contrasts with Nora’s marriage with Torvald as it started out rough with Torvald’s health deteriorating and the doctors being worried about his condition while Torvald is separated from Nora. Nora’s family, unlike Mrs. Linde’s family, is rather wealthy and received twelve hundred dollars from Nora’s family to pay for a trip to help with Torvald’s health. Presently in the story Nora and Torvald have a happy marriage with three children with Torvald recently being promoted to a managerial job at the bank with a generous salary which is different from the ending to Mrs. Linde’s marriage.
Your thoughts are the same as mine, Chris. I did find it interesting that Mrs. Linde was patiently listening to Nora practically bragging about her life, as Mrs. Linde’s seems to have a far more difficult one with just a glance of an eye. I understood it though once Mrs. Linde informed Nora why she has really come to her after all those years, and that was to see if Helmer could get her a job at the bank, using his newly gained powers as a manager. It shows readers a little about Mrs. Linde’s character, and how she wanted to use Nora as a gateway to finding a new job, rather than going because she truly wants to see her friend after so many years. Maybe she acts like this now because she has to to survive without a husband bringing in the income as a normal woman would have back then, or maybe she was always like this and Nora just failed to realize the illegitimacy of their relationship.
As our group came to the end of act I, many ideas circled through my mind and I don't know where to start. For one, first impressions are not everything because Nora is clearly not as egotistical as once thought. The first impression of Nora was that she only cared about herself, and while she still cares about herself very much, we learn that she has the ability to care for others too. She saved Torvald’s life and cares too much about his pride to let him know; a selfless act. She was unable to get money from her father as he was sick too, so she got a loan and forged her father’s signature, all to save the life of Torvald. In the end of act I, Krogsdad interrogates her on the matter and comes to the conclusion that the signature was forged and therefore Nora clearly committed a crime. Krogsdad from the start is a very selfish man as he can see the situation Nora was in, yet uses her bad situation to enhance his and keep his job at the bank. It remains to be seen if Nora will be able to help, but it is clear that first impressions in this book are not everything and maybe Krogsdad will not be who we once thought he was. If it happened with Nora, it could happen with anyone right??
What do you predict Krogsdad is truly capable of then? I too had a similar first impression of Nora while reading the beginning of act I. However my views have also shifted as we see the independent side of her. While speaking to Mrs. Linde she states, "It was almost like being a man" (Ibsen 16). This demonstrates the power and selflessness she truly has. Since Nora has drastically changed since the beginning of the play I believe Torvalts views will too be altered. What are your thoughts on this?
Through all of act one, the use of doors represents the different secrets or conversations taking place. Torvald holds his important conversations in his study where he is behind closed doors. Whenever he comes out Nora does not ask him what they discussed or anything really. This is because the closed doors represent a private matter that the characters do not share with others. This can also be seen when Nora says, “...There’s just one little thing I’d love to do now… Something I’d love to say in front of Torvald… No, I daren’t. It’s not very nice... I would simply love to say: ‘Damn’” (Ibsen 20). When she is only speaking with Kristine and Dr. Rank, she does so freely. When Torvald comes into the room she acts and speaks properly. Nora hints at a big secret- that could get her in a lot of trouble- when talking to Mrs. Linde. She does not outright spill the secret to the audience (or Kristine), but is forced to do so when Krogstad enters the scene. The stage directions inform the audience when and how Krogstad enters the scene. “...Meanwhile a knock at the door, which nobody heard. The door half opens, and Krogstad can be seen” (Ibsen 23). The opening of the door is symbolic of Nora being forced to tell the audience about her secret. Her trip down south was not sponsored by her father. More importantly, she illegally borrowed money from Krogstad to go to the south. Manipulation of this secrets portrays how Krogstad is characterized and why the people in his society look down on him. He seems to be kind of antagonistic. He uses Nora’s secret as blackmail. If Nora cannot secure his job, he will tell her secret to Torvald and possibly take her to court. The characters speak very lowly of Krogstad and his conduct, which is evident through this encounter. He claims this misconduct was because he had no other way to survive. This also shows that he is similar to Nora except more selfish and extreme) because both characters bend the rules to get what is needed, even if this misconduct can lead to punishment. Another important detail to notice is Nora tries to appear intelligent, but through her actions and how other characters speak to/of her show that she is not all that intelligent. When she converses with Torvald and Kristine both imply she is not smart and businesslike. Both also believe she is more pampered than the rest because she has not faced any real hardship unlike Kristine who worked to provide a living for her and her family. This shows that married women appear to be subjected to gender roles more than widows and men. Nora is stereotyped because she does not have to work and appears to be happy and without trials. Kristine cannot fit the stereotype because she is forced to work and provide and her trials are open and seen by the public.
I like your analysis on the open and closed doors. :) Do you think that whether the doors are opened or closed in certain situations can foreshadow events to happen later in the novel in Act 2 or 3?
I completely agree with your analysis. When first reading the opening scene, I noticed the repetition of "door." This led me to believe that doors would become a symbol throughout the play. After reading Act 1, I have realized that this household is full of secrets, and I also believe the doors symbolize this. Like you mentioned, Torvald's study is his personal place, and we, the audience, as well as Nora have no idea what goes on in there. This is due to the fact that his study is located behind a closed door. A closed door is a symbol for secrets, because you cannot see through a closed door. I think the door also symbolizes secrets because of the culture of the Victorian era. During this time period, people acted very differently in public versus at home. Once they left their home, and through the door, they were completely proper, and there was no arguing. The door in this case is a symbol of people leaving their secrets behind in their house. Their home lives were secretive.
While reading Act one of The Dollhouse by Henrik Ibsen, I found it interesting how the roles of Nora and Krogstad are compared and the similarities that come about from their increasingly similar stories. Krogstad counterfeited money and then tried to cover it up to avoid his punishment, while Nora committed fraud and lied to her husband, Helmer, about it and as the story progress, the lies just keep piling up. Yet it is also somewhat tragic how both these characters had their own circumstances as it is hinted that Krogstad committed his crime for his wife as he says “my own offence was no more and no worse than that,” in response to Nora’s complaints about his cold-blooded insistence on formalities when borrowing money to save her husband, for whom she committed fraud in order to save. Then Nora, to protect her secret, must tell lie after lie until they start to pile up. Nora’s circumstances are again contrasted with Mrs. Linde’s circumstances as she starts looking for a job and Nora helps her to find one and as her life is improving, Nora’s life is starting to fall apart at the seams as Krogstad starts to confront her about the job at the bank that might soon go to Mrs. Linde and he will do anything to stop it. I also found the varying perspectives on the pursuit of life interesting as Dr. Rank looks at Krogstad fighting to improve his life and seems to be disgusted, while Krogstad views it as trying to piece his life back together for the sake of his sons.
I completley agree with your interpretation. I too found similarities between the two. However, Krogstad wants to improve his reputation and better his self image whereas Nora strives to gain freedom from all that's holding her back (Torvald) and changes hers.
In the second act, Nora tells Kristine about how Torvald doesn’t like her to sew in the house, the recurring theme about gender roles resurfaces. Torvald doesn’t like her sewing because it represents work, and Torvald prefers woman who act as a showpiece. He continues to compare her to animals and use pet names such as “squirrel,” or “skylark,” and the reader can see that Nora also refers to herself as these animals. Although this can be seen as submissive and sad on Nora’s part, it actually is an act of manipulation. She almost seems like she wants Torvald to believe she is a perfect wife so that he doesn’t suspect anything else is going on. Nora’s interaction with Dr. Rank is another interesting part of the act. By flirting with him and showing him her stockings, it is as if she is just trying to persuade him to take her side. However, once Dr. Rank confesses his love for her, Nora’s motives change. She never asks her favor and instead shuts down and acts evasively. This shows that Nora’s character is more complex than the audience previously thought; she is manipulative but still feels remorse about taking advantage of people.
I noticed this, too; when Helmer isn't around, Nora is frantic over her whole act of forgery, but when she is with him, she puts on this fake attitude of gleefulness. When she is talking to Mrs. Linde about Krogstad and retrieving the letter before Torvald sees it, she rambles on excitedly, “How do I know…? Wait a minute. Here’s his card. But the letter, the letter…!” (II.56) However, when Helmer is outside the door, she quickly lies about the dress in a care-free way: “Yes, yes, I’m trying on. It looks so nice on me, Torvald.” Her constant lies to her husband add to the fact that they already don’t have a very healthy marriage.
I agree with your interpretation of scene 2. The theme of gender roles seems to reoccur throughout the whole play. There is an extremely large amount of animal diction throughout play to help establish gender norms. Rather than Nora feeling guilty and obeying her husband could it be her way of manipulation? This also makes me pose the question: Is Nora the true "doll" in this house? The one who seems so perfect and nice in a cute little world? Or could she represent the individual playing with the "doll house"? Do you think Is she the one manipulating other characters in this play to get what she wants?
When Nora dances the Tarantella with or for Torvald it is a method of distracting him. It prolongs the inevitable downfall of Nora by forcing him to read Krogstad’s letter after the dance is complete. The Tarantella is used to symbolize Nora’s predicament. This dance originated in southern Italy and was named after the Tarantula spider. The spider’s virulent bite was believed to cause the urge to dance uncontrollably. This was a sort of disease known as Tarantism. The supposed cure was dancing until/past physical exhaustion. Henrik Ibsen uses the meaning of this dance to symbolize The oppression and isolation of Nora and her marriage with Torvald. Torvald says, “Why don’t you run through the Tarantella and try out the tambourine? I’ll go in my study and shut both doors, then I won’t hear anything. You can make all the noise you want” (Ibsen 44). The Tarantella is a passionate, wild dance performed by couples or groups. Torvald telling her to dance it herself and that he won’t hear shows this isolation and how seems to control Nora. The Tarantella was performed to rid oneself of the poisonous from the tarantula bite. This is also symbolic of Nora dancing to drive out the poison from her deceit. The poison is Krogstad’s letter with the full truth that threatens Nora and Torvald’s supposed happiness. When he is instructing Nora he says, “But my dear Nora, you are dancing as though your life depended on it” to which Nora replies, “It does” (59).At this moment, only the dance is capable of providing a moment of protection from the truth and the future. The type of life she lives right now is dependent on this dance she will perform. This is because as soon as the dance ends, Torvald will open the letter and all the lies and deceit (the poison) will come flooding back.
This was a very intriguing analysis Jessica! At first when I read this part of the play I had very little knowledge of the Tarantella dance and how it had so much secret symbolism within its context. However, do you know how the dance might contribute into the Victorian Era? Because I thought about what you said and how it was performed to rid oneself of the virulent tarantula bite, but was this might also be because of the lack of knowledge within these species and what can they do? Personally, I think it is, but coming back to your analysis, it allowed to me further understand how and why the Tarantella dance was incorporated into the play so strategically.
The quote that stood out to me was the open ended quote from Nora as she says, “Something glorious is going to happen”. At first, this quote is confusing because with Krogsdad on the verge of exposing her secret to Torvald, why would she now be expecting something glorious? I believe this quote goes to show the false faith that Nora has in Torvald as she wants to believe he will take the blame and feel sympathy for her. With the characterization of Torvald so far, this does not seem likely. However, I also see there being a chance at this quote being foreshadowing to when Torvald finds out. This quote is settle and probably often overlooked, but it could foreshadow a positive reaction from Torvald when he finds out, a twist that the reader wouldn’t see coming. This would put the negativity all on Krogsdad as Torvald would show positive qualities through his empathy and Nora through her sympathy. In the end, this quote most likely represents the faith Nora has in Torvald, as unwarranted as it is, but could also be foreshadowing.
I find your analysis really interesting. I definitely agree that this quote is foreshadowing, but after finishing the play, I think it foreshadowed Nora leaving. This might seem backwards because leaving her family does not seem “glorious,” but it took a lot of courage for Nora to stand up for herself and leave her husband and children. This is quite glorious because she is going against social norms and doing something that she strongly believes is the right thing for herself. When this quote was first used, Nora might have been talking about Torvald understanding her, but in a turn of events the opposite outcome became the glorious one.
While reading Act 2 of The Dollhouse by Henrik Ibsen, it was very apparent the relationship that Helmer desired to have between is not at all reflective of reality. His ideals show through in the very controlling way that he treats Nora in how he restricts her macaroon privileges, controls her allowance, and generally enjoys being the powerful one in their relationship. When he was asked by Nora to help her to choose a costume for the party he easily agreed and when Nora was begging Helmer to help her with the tarantella dance, then he was easily distracted by how his lovely wife who so desperately needs his help. I believe that this entire party is symbolic of the way that views his relationship with his wife Nora, with him in charge, always having to help Nora which helps him validate his position as the “breadwinner” of the family, the one in charge. However, just like in real life, Nora can’t seem to live up to Helmer’s expectations in regards to the party as she constantly lies to Helmer and shows him a different face in an attempt to fit into his delusion of a “perfect” life with a “perfect” wife. No matter how hard she tries, she can’t meet Helmer’s standards.
Your analysis was great to read. I had similar thoughts in mind when I was reading act 2 as well, including your thoughts about Nora and Torvald’s relationship. All throughout their marriage, Nora was pretty much Torvald’s object that he owned, rather than his equal in their relationship. She had to like the things he liked, did the things he did, and above all obey his words. Although in the play Torvald did let Nora get her way a couple of times like not opening the mailbox until after the party, it was because she was able to persuade him rather than directly control him. If he really wanted to check the mailbox he would have, and would not have listened to Nora at all. He of course agrees to play “her little game”, as he sees no problem in doing so at the time.
In “A Doll’s House”, Henrik Ibsen Portrays Nora’s relationship with Torvald as that of a person playing with a doll. All of Torvald’s actions and pet names for Nora imply his belief that she is a child, a doll. He constantly refers to her as names like “little squirrel/skylark/songbird” which further portrays his belief that Nora is just a child. It shows he wants Nora to depend on him. Nora’s actions throughout the play also portray her as a doll and a child. In act one, before the secret was discovered, she acts like a happy and spoiled little kid. She acts this way because it it is the way she has been treated all her life by Torvald and her father. She cannot help acting this way because it is all she has ever known. In acts two and three Torvald chooses the Tarantella and a costume for the dance for Nora. He dresses her ( like how one would dress a doll). She acts as the doll by letting him manage almost all her decisions and actions. It is similar to a master-puppet relationship. Both “doll actions” are beneficial for Torvald because Nora appears to rely on him and she receives shelter, protection, and support. Torvald also appears to be a doll like Nora. Both are limited by their forced familial and societal roles. He controls Nora which makes her a doll. Nora and Dr. Rank provide protection from certain truths and secrecies. This portrays him as doll-like and childish like Nora. Torvald controls Nora for his amusement and objectifies her, making her his property. He uses her for conformity so their family can fit the social normalities. Nora uses Torvald as a source of money, shelter, and conformity. At the end, Nora realizes with their current life and situation, nobody can be truly happy when constantly faking it. She cannot grow up and gain experience if she stays with Torvald. She has to leave her doll house, her doll life, and all her dolls. Nora says to Torvald, “My duty is to myself” which shows she is no longer concerned with making everything appear perfect and becoming a martyr( Ibsen 82). The gender roles and societal beliefs regarding a woman’s duty was that it was solely to her husband and children (unless widowed or unmarried). Nora rejecting this duty to fulfill another duty not recognized/accepted and degraded by society. Ultimately, Henrik Ibsen portrays that “doll” relationships built on false happiness and perfection cannot last and bring actual happiness/satisfaction. He also portrays his view of gender roles and social normalities.
In Act 3 of Henrik Ibsen’s The Dollhouse, I found it interesting that he brought together Mrs. Linde and Krogstad into what could be called a romantic relationship. Personally, I find that it unconventional when compared a traditional love story as it seems to have been built upon necessity rather than one of romantic interest only. When examining it, I do find there to be romantic elements, however even the characters themselves know that this is something that they need as Mrs. Linde tells Krogstad “Two of us on one wreck surely stand a better chance than each on his own.” This tells me that both of them have their own selfish reasons to get into a relationship with each other since Mrs. Linde needs to take care of people like Krogstad and his children while Krogstad needs help as his life is falling apart. They even use a simile to compare to describe their lives and how they both need each other to better their own chances of survival. Still, I would prefer a genuine relationship such as this one as opposed to the false relationship between Nora and Helmer which is full of lies. It is rather ironic how despite how great their lives are; their marriage is still so transparent, especially when compared to the one between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde who accept each other at their worst.
I really think your analysis is different from what I have read about this story. The love relationship between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde is overshadowed by the main conflict of Nora's breaking of the Victorian Era's stereotypical rules. However, this relationship saves Nora and helps solidify the individualism motif in the play. I agree that Krogstad and Mrs. Linde relationship is more geniune compared to Nora & Torvald just do to the fact that they both seem to actually love and care about eachother. Overall, great post!
Henrik Ibsen displays the value of “image” during the Victorian Era in, “A Doll’s House” to characterize Torvald.When Mrs. Linde is about to depart from both Nora and Torvald's home, Torvald asks if the knitted garment left behind is Mrs. Linde’s. Torvald elaborates by stating she should embroider rather than knit. Torvald claims embroidering is, “So much prettier. Watch! You hold the embroidery like this in the left hand, and than you take the needle in the right hand, like this, and you describe a long graceful curve” (68). He than goes on to compare it to knitting, “whereas knitting on the other hand just can’t help being ugly. Look! Arms pressed into the sides, the knitting needles going up and down”(68-69).Torvald’s comments about knitting almost seem to be more broadly directed at Mrs.Linde’s life. Kristine, unlike most women, is a hardworking women with a job and is less infatuated with her appearance. Torvald’s comment indicates his belief that she should try be more like most women. Embroidery is very delicate and has no real functions other than looking pretty, similar to most women’s roles in the Victorian era.
An interesting thing I took from the play was the complex way that the sexism in the play was portrayed. Instead of Torvald directly calling Nora stupid or dumb, he rather just ignores all of her ideas or shrugs off anything she has to say like it holds no value. He doesn't realize what he's doing, be Nora sees that he doesn't value her as a human being at all, but rather as a trophy to look at. The complexity comes from the fact that male characters in this play are unaware of the major sexism they're portraying because it is the Victorian era and it is all they know. In this era, women have no power and their opinions aren't valued, so everyone is taught that women are not to be treated as equal. In this play, Nora is the only one, not only courageous enough to protest, but observant enough to even notice that what is going on is not okay. It was interesting to me that no one else thought twice of the sexism portrayed simply because it is how they were raised.
The most interesting thing I took from act three was Nora realizing she has lived her I tire life as a doll, at first being controlled by her father and now by Torvald. This reveals the meaning behind the title, although the reader probably inferred it already. As she realizes she has been a doll, she realizes that her ideas were shaped by Torvald and she never allowed herself to think for herself as she knew Torvald would not approve. She has an epiphany that she has a life to live and she is running out of time to live it. The mood that this idea sets is a very depressing one as the reader can see the agony that Nora goes through as she sees that her whole life has been thrown away. The sorrow she is feeling is spread to the reader and creates strong emotion leading into the end of the book, making it one to remember. In the end, I found the alternate ending to be better as it goes with the theme set that she is trapped within a life she doesn't want to live and adds to the sadness when the play ends.
FINALLY GOT IT TO WORK!!! (Not late had error posting)
“A Doll’s House” has many allusions to behaviors and beliefs of the Victorian time. The characters in the play have strong morals and strict behaviors. Those who do not fit this are outcasts. For example, Krogstad committed a crime and society was unable to accept him once that crime was publicized. This caused him to change and continue to blackmail, commit crimes, and do whatever it takes to survive. Nora is another example. In the beginning, she appears completely reliant on Torvald because he is the patriarch in their house. Their family has issues and corruptions, yet Nora covers everything so as to make her family appear perfect and happy. This is also seen in Victorian times. Problems were not allowed to be seen or dealt with in public. Gender roles also played a large role in the Victorian time as well as in the play. Nora appears to be the loving wife that is devoted to her husband and children, like all Victorian women were (unless unmarried or widowed). Torvald is her superior and makes the final decisions despite what Nora’s input on the situations. It is not until the end, once the secret is out, that Nora begins to defy these beliefs and standards. Torvald sees her differently once the secret is out. She uses this to have one of their first serious conversations seen in the play. In the end, she gives up her life and leaves Torvald so she can be happy and fulfill her personal duty. This duty was not fully accepted in society and women were not suppose to leave their husbands. The similarities and ultimate turning from Victorian beliefs portray Ibsen’s view on these standards.
(I cereal can't believe I'm the first one to post... Come on it’s almost 8:30... And I just got home from school...)
ReplyDelete2/3/16
Today in class we read till page 11 in Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House.” Today in class our group’s discussion focused on the difference in men’s and women’s roles in the era. We discovered that Ibsen uses Nora’s language and animal illusions of Helmer to portray a theme of gender diparity. When Nora comes home from Christmas shopping she begs Helmer, “Oh, please, Torvald dear! Please! I beg you” (Ibsen 4). Nora is begging Helmer to give her money, showing that in this time, women had no control of their family’s financial situation. Helmer is able to parcel out money to Nora when he feels it’s right. He also demeans Nora by calling her a “spendthrift” which also puts her in her place as a woman not able to manage finances. After this Helmer says, “What do we call my pretty little pet when it runs away with all the money?” (Ibsen 4). Helmer refering to Nora as a “pet” shows how Helmer feels he owns Nora, like one owns an animal. Also, animals are seen as lower than humans, which alludes to how women were seen as lower than men in the Era. The language he uses calling her “his pretty little pet” gives the whole scene an overall creepy feeling. This is something my group talked about a lot: that this series of interactions gave us the heebie-jeebies.
In act one of “A Doll’s House” the dialogue between Torvald and Nora portrays the gender roles and social normalities of that time period. Through their dialogue, the audience can see their exaggerated love and happiness is a way to compensate for all that seems/is wrong in the relationship and family. When Torvald is in the study, Nora does not ask what he was doing. This is because the closed doors symbolize the secrecy of each character. Their actions cannot be seen by the other characters and sometimes the audience. They can do as they need and please to do in solitary where it is acceptable. Once out in the open, all issues are hidden by acting like everything is good. Another thing to note is Torvald constantly refers to Nora as his pet. He calls her different animals, but all are small and weak. This is symbolic of women being the fraile and the lesser gender. It is also symbolic of domestication. Pets are typically owned for pleasure and companionship. Torvald referring to Nora as “his pet” means she is only there for his pleasure. He also implies this when mocking her for suggesting that borrowing money was not a bad action. This mockery suggests he believes he is more intelligent than Nora. The audience also discovers the family has not always been part of the wealthy upper class. Nora worked hard to hide the financial issue and make everyone and everything appear happy and well. The symbols of secrecy in the stage directions and act one foreshadows its importance throughout the play. Nora secretly indulges herself by buying macarons. When Torvald is suspicious of her indulgence and interrogates her, she denies it and quickly changes the subject. This secrecy shows self indulgence was uncommon and luxurious. However, in this family it is seen as reckless behavior. This is because they are very frugal despite their wealth.
ReplyDeleteIn our reading done in class, our group came to the conclusion that the introduction serves the purpose of portraying an early theme of gender roles and the lack of female power in the novel. They are a married couple, and yet Nora could be compared to a pet in the way that Torvald acts towards her. He references her to animals, dehumanizing her right away. This leads to the assumption that she in too unintelligent or uneducated to make her own decisions. She must ask his permission for things that would be a right of women in this age. He also pokes fun at her being a “spendthrift”, which could be playful fun if it weren’t repeated often throughout the first 10 pages. The repetition creates a sense of uncomfort in the reader as the joke seems to be reality and shows underlying issues in the relationship. Due to the values of the time period, they try to joke about serious issues in order to be as classy as everyone else, but these issues are not addressed properly. Nora continues to spend money because Torvald is too chivalrous to put his foot down and put an end to it. In the end, the beginning served to show the disparity in gender roles in the time period and also the underlying issues in the relationship of Torvald and Nora caused by the time period.
ReplyDeleteBrady Boling
While reading The Dollhouse by Henrik Ibsen, I found the interactions between Mrs. Linde and Nora to be interesting in how it reflects their characters. From the way that they were talking, it was easy to tell that Nora seems to be a naturally self-centered character, yet I did find it particularly vexing how Mrs. Linde seemed to go along with her one-sided gossip that could easily be described as bragging. Nora pretends to be interested in Mrs. Linde’s affairs, however, she still manages to turn the conversation back to her and how lucky she is in comparison with Mrs. Linde as their two marriages seem to contrast each other. Mrs. Linde’s marriage was a marriage based solely on financial reasons so that she would not be a burden on her family by marrying her wealthy husband who then died, leaving Mrs. Linde as a poor widow. This contrasts with Nora’s marriage with Torvald as it started out rough with Torvald’s health deteriorating and the doctors being worried about his condition while Torvald is separated from Nora. Nora’s family, unlike Mrs. Linde’s family, is rather wealthy and received twelve hundred dollars from Nora’s family to pay for a trip to help with Torvald’s health. Presently in the story Nora and Torvald have a happy marriage with three children with Torvald recently being promoted to a managerial job at the bank with a generous salary which is different from the ending to Mrs. Linde’s marriage.
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts are the same as mine, Chris. I did find it interesting that Mrs. Linde was patiently listening to Nora practically bragging about her life, as Mrs. Linde’s seems to have a far more difficult one with just a glance of an eye. I understood it though once Mrs. Linde informed Nora why she has really come to her after all those years, and that was to see if Helmer could get her a job at the bank, using his newly gained powers as a manager. It shows readers a little about Mrs. Linde’s character, and how she wanted to use Nora as a gateway to finding a new job, rather than going because she truly wants to see her friend after so many years. Maybe she acts like this now because she has to to survive without a husband bringing in the income as a normal woman would have back then, or maybe she was always like this and Nora just failed to realize the illegitimacy of their relationship.
DeleteAs our group came to the end of act I, many ideas circled through my mind and I don't know where to start. For one, first impressions are not everything because Nora is clearly not as egotistical as once thought. The first impression of Nora was that she only cared about herself, and while she still cares about herself very much, we learn that she has the ability to care for others too. She saved Torvald’s life and cares too much about his pride to let him know; a selfless act. She was unable to get money from her father as he was sick too, so she got a loan and forged her father’s signature, all to save the life of Torvald. In the end of act I, Krogsdad interrogates her on the matter and comes to the conclusion that the signature was forged and therefore Nora clearly committed a crime. Krogsdad from the start is a very selfish man as he can see the situation Nora was in, yet uses her bad situation to enhance his and keep his job at the bank. It remains to be seen if Nora will be able to help, but it is clear that first impressions in this book are not everything and maybe Krogsdad will not be who we once thought he was. If it happened with Nora, it could happen with anyone right??
ReplyDeleteWhat do you predict Krogsdad is truly capable of then? I too had a similar first impression of Nora while reading the beginning of act I. However my views have also shifted as we see the independent side of her. While speaking to Mrs. Linde she states, "It was almost like being a man" (Ibsen 16). This demonstrates the power and selflessness she truly has. Since Nora has drastically changed since the beginning of the play I believe Torvalts views will too be altered. What are your thoughts on this?
DeleteThrough all of act one, the use of doors represents the different secrets or conversations taking place. Torvald holds his important conversations in his study where he is behind closed doors. Whenever he comes out Nora does not ask him what they discussed or anything really. This is because the closed doors represent a private matter that the characters do not share with others. This can also be seen when Nora says, “...There’s just one little thing I’d love to do now… Something I’d love to say in front of Torvald… No, I daren’t. It’s not very nice... I would simply love to say: ‘Damn’” (Ibsen 20). When she is only speaking with Kristine and Dr. Rank, she does so freely. When Torvald comes into the room she acts and speaks properly. Nora hints at a big secret- that could get her in a lot of trouble- when talking to Mrs. Linde. She does not outright spill the secret to the audience (or Kristine), but is forced to do so when Krogstad enters the scene. The stage directions inform the audience when and how Krogstad enters the scene. “...Meanwhile a knock at the door, which nobody heard. The door half opens, and Krogstad can be seen” (Ibsen 23). The opening of the door is symbolic of Nora being forced to tell the audience about her secret. Her trip down south was not sponsored by her father. More importantly, she illegally borrowed money from Krogstad to go to the south. Manipulation of this secrets portrays how Krogstad is characterized and why the people in his society look down on him. He seems to be kind of antagonistic. He uses Nora’s secret as blackmail. If Nora cannot secure his job, he will tell her secret to Torvald and possibly take her to court. The characters speak very lowly of Krogstad and his conduct, which is evident through this encounter. He claims this misconduct was because he had no other way to survive. This also shows that he is similar to Nora except more selfish and extreme) because both characters bend the rules to get what is needed, even if this misconduct can lead to punishment. Another important detail to notice is Nora tries to appear intelligent, but through her actions and how other characters speak to/of her show that she is not all that intelligent. When she converses with Torvald and Kristine both imply she is not smart and businesslike. Both also believe she is more pampered than the rest because she has not faced any real hardship unlike Kristine who worked to provide a living for her and her family. This shows that married women appear to be subjected to gender roles more than widows and men. Nora is stereotyped because she does not have to work and appears to be happy and without trials. Kristine cannot fit the stereotype because she is forced to work and provide and her trials are open and seen by the public.
ReplyDeleteI like your analysis on the open and closed doors. :) Do you think that whether the doors are opened or closed in certain situations can foreshadow events to happen later in the novel in Act 2 or 3?
DeleteI completely agree with your analysis. When first reading the opening scene, I noticed the repetition of "door." This led me to believe that doors would become a symbol throughout the play. After reading Act 1, I have realized that this household is full of secrets, and I also believe the doors symbolize this. Like you mentioned, Torvald's study is his personal place, and we, the audience, as well as Nora have no idea what goes on in there. This is due to the fact that his study is located behind a closed door. A closed door is a symbol for secrets, because you cannot see through a closed door. I think the door also symbolizes secrets because of the culture of the Victorian era. During this time period, people acted very differently in public versus at home. Once they left their home, and through the door, they were completely proper, and there was no arguing. The door in this case is a symbol of people leaving their secrets behind in their house. Their home lives were secretive.
DeleteWhile reading Act one of The Dollhouse by Henrik Ibsen, I found it interesting how the roles of Nora and Krogstad are compared and the similarities that come about from their increasingly similar stories. Krogstad counterfeited money and then tried to cover it up to avoid his punishment, while Nora committed fraud and lied to her husband, Helmer, about it and as the story progress, the lies just keep piling up. Yet it is also somewhat tragic how both these characters had their own circumstances as it is hinted that Krogstad committed his crime for his wife as he says “my own offence was no more and no worse than that,” in response to Nora’s complaints about his cold-blooded insistence on formalities when borrowing money to save her husband, for whom she committed fraud in order to save. Then Nora, to protect her secret, must tell lie after lie until they start to pile up. Nora’s circumstances are again contrasted with Mrs. Linde’s circumstances as she starts looking for a job and Nora helps her to find one and as her life is improving, Nora’s life is starting to fall apart at the seams as Krogstad starts to confront her about the job at the bank that might soon go to Mrs. Linde and he will do anything to stop it. I also found the varying perspectives on the pursuit of life interesting as Dr. Rank looks at Krogstad fighting to improve his life and seems to be disgusted, while Krogstad views it as trying to piece his life back together for the sake of his sons.
ReplyDeleteI completley agree with your interpretation. I too found similarities between the two. However, Krogstad wants to improve his reputation and better his self image whereas Nora strives to gain freedom from all that's holding her back (Torvald) and changes hers.
DeleteIn the second act, Nora tells Kristine about how Torvald doesn’t like her to sew in the house, the recurring theme about gender roles resurfaces. Torvald doesn’t like her sewing because it represents work, and Torvald prefers woman who act as a showpiece. He continues to compare her to animals and use pet names such as “squirrel,” or “skylark,” and the reader can see that Nora also refers to herself as these animals. Although this can be seen as submissive and sad on Nora’s part, it actually is an act of manipulation. She almost seems like she wants Torvald to believe she is a perfect wife so that he doesn’t suspect anything else is going on.
ReplyDeleteNora’s interaction with Dr. Rank is another interesting part of the act. By flirting with him and showing him her stockings, it is as if she is just trying to persuade him to take her side. However, once Dr. Rank confesses his love for her, Nora’s motives change. She never asks her favor and instead shuts down and acts evasively. This shows that Nora’s character is more complex than the audience previously thought; she is manipulative but still feels remorse about taking advantage of people.
I noticed this, too; when Helmer isn't around, Nora is frantic over her whole act of forgery, but when she is with him, she puts on this fake attitude of gleefulness. When she is talking to Mrs. Linde about Krogstad and retrieving the letter before Torvald sees it, she rambles on excitedly, “How do I know…? Wait a minute. Here’s his card. But the letter, the letter…!” (II.56) However, when Helmer is outside the door, she quickly lies about the dress in a care-free way: “Yes, yes, I’m trying on. It looks so nice on me, Torvald.” Her constant lies to her husband add to the fact that they already don’t have a very healthy marriage.
DeleteI agree with your interpretation of scene 2. The theme of gender roles seems to reoccur throughout the whole play. There is an extremely large amount of animal diction throughout play to help establish gender norms. Rather than Nora feeling guilty and obeying her husband could it be her way of manipulation? This also makes me pose the question: Is Nora the true "doll" in this house? The one who seems so perfect and nice in a cute little world? Or could she represent the individual playing with the "doll house"? Do you think Is she the one manipulating other characters in this play to get what she wants?
ReplyDeleteWhen Nora dances the Tarantella with or for Torvald it is a method of distracting him. It prolongs the inevitable downfall of Nora by forcing him to read Krogstad’s letter after the dance is complete. The Tarantella is used to symbolize Nora’s predicament. This dance originated in southern Italy and was named after the Tarantula spider. The spider’s virulent bite was believed to cause the urge to dance uncontrollably. This was a sort of disease known as Tarantism. The supposed cure was dancing until/past physical exhaustion. Henrik Ibsen uses the meaning of this dance to symbolize The oppression and isolation of Nora and her marriage with Torvald. Torvald says, “Why don’t you run through the Tarantella and try out the tambourine? I’ll go in my study and shut both doors, then I won’t hear anything. You can make all the noise you want” (Ibsen 44). The Tarantella is a passionate, wild dance performed by couples or groups. Torvald telling her to dance it herself and that he won’t hear shows this isolation and how seems to control Nora. The Tarantella was performed to rid oneself of the poisonous from the tarantula bite. This is also symbolic of Nora dancing to drive out the poison from her deceit. The poison is Krogstad’s letter with the full truth that threatens Nora and Torvald’s supposed happiness. When he is instructing Nora he says, “But my dear Nora, you are dancing as though your life depended on it” to which Nora replies, “It does” (59).At this moment, only the dance is capable of providing a moment of protection from the truth and the future. The type of life she lives right now is dependent on this dance she will perform. This is because as soon as the dance ends, Torvald will open the letter and all the lies and deceit (the poison) will come flooding back.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very intriguing analysis Jessica! At first when I read this part of the play I had very little knowledge of the Tarantella dance and how it had so much secret symbolism within its context. However, do you know how the dance might contribute into the Victorian Era? Because I thought about what you said and how it was performed to rid oneself of the virulent tarantula bite, but was this might also be because of the lack of knowledge within these species and what can they do? Personally, I think it is, but coming back to your analysis, it allowed to me further understand how and why the Tarantella dance was incorporated into the play so strategically.
DeleteThe quote that stood out to me was the open ended quote from Nora as she says, “Something glorious is going to happen”. At first, this quote is confusing because with Krogsdad on the verge of exposing her secret to Torvald, why would she now be expecting something glorious? I believe this quote goes to show the false faith that Nora has in Torvald as she wants to believe he will take the blame and feel sympathy for her. With the characterization of Torvald so far, this does not seem likely. However, I also see there being a chance at this quote being foreshadowing to when Torvald finds out. This quote is settle and probably often overlooked, but it could foreshadow a positive reaction from Torvald when he finds out, a twist that the reader wouldn’t see coming. This would put the negativity all on Krogsdad as Torvald would show positive qualities through his empathy and Nora through her sympathy. In the end, this quote most likely represents the faith Nora has in Torvald, as unwarranted as it is, but could also be foreshadowing.
ReplyDeleteI find your analysis really interesting. I definitely agree that this quote is foreshadowing, but after finishing the play, I think it foreshadowed Nora leaving. This might seem backwards because leaving her family does not seem “glorious,” but it took a lot of courage for Nora to stand up for herself and leave her husband and children. This is quite glorious because she is going against social norms and doing something that she strongly believes is the right thing for herself. When this quote was first used, Nora might have been talking about Torvald understanding her, but in a turn of events the opposite outcome became the glorious one.
DeleteWhile reading Act 2 of The Dollhouse by Henrik Ibsen, it was very apparent the relationship that Helmer desired to have between is not at all reflective of reality. His ideals show through in the very controlling way that he treats Nora in how he restricts her macaroon privileges, controls her allowance, and generally enjoys being the powerful one in their relationship. When he was asked by Nora to help her to choose a costume for the party he easily agreed and when Nora was begging Helmer to help her with the tarantella dance, then he was easily distracted by how his lovely wife who so desperately needs his help. I believe that this entire party is symbolic of the way that views his relationship with his wife Nora, with him in charge, always having to help Nora which helps him validate his position as the “breadwinner” of the family, the one in charge. However, just like in real life, Nora can’t seem to live up to Helmer’s expectations in regards to the party as she constantly lies to Helmer and shows him a different face in an attempt to fit into his delusion of a “perfect” life with a “perfect” wife. No matter how hard she tries, she can’t meet Helmer’s standards.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis was great to read. I had similar thoughts in mind when I was reading act 2 as well, including your thoughts about Nora and Torvald’s relationship. All throughout their marriage, Nora was pretty much Torvald’s object that he owned, rather than his equal in their relationship. She had to like the things he liked, did the things he did, and above all obey his words. Although in the play Torvald did let Nora get her way a couple of times like not opening the mailbox until after the party, it was because she was able to persuade him rather than directly control him. If he really wanted to check the mailbox he would have, and would not have listened to Nora at all. He of course agrees to play “her little game”, as he sees no problem in doing so at the time.
DeleteIn “A Doll’s House”, Henrik Ibsen Portrays Nora’s relationship with Torvald as that of a person playing with a doll. All of Torvald’s actions and pet names for Nora imply his belief that she is a child, a doll. He constantly refers to her as names like “little squirrel/skylark/songbird” which further portrays his belief that Nora is just a child. It shows he wants Nora to depend on him. Nora’s actions throughout the play also portray her as a doll and a child. In act one, before the secret was discovered, she acts like a happy and spoiled little kid. She acts this way because it it is the way she has been treated all her life by Torvald and her father. She cannot help acting this way because it is all she has ever known. In acts two and three Torvald chooses the Tarantella and a costume for the dance for Nora. He dresses her ( like how one would dress a doll). She acts as the doll by letting him manage almost all her decisions and actions. It is similar to a master-puppet relationship. Both “doll actions” are beneficial for Torvald because Nora appears to rely on him and she receives shelter, protection, and support. Torvald also appears to be a doll like Nora. Both are limited by their forced familial and societal roles. He controls Nora which makes her a doll. Nora and Dr. Rank provide protection from certain truths and secrecies. This portrays him as doll-like and childish like Nora. Torvald controls Nora for his amusement and objectifies her, making her his property. He uses her for conformity so their family can fit the social normalities. Nora uses Torvald as a source of money, shelter, and conformity. At the end, Nora realizes with their current life and situation, nobody can be truly happy when constantly faking it. She cannot grow up and gain experience if she stays with Torvald. She has to leave her doll house, her doll life, and all her dolls. Nora says to Torvald, “My duty is to myself” which shows she is no longer concerned with making everything appear perfect and becoming a martyr( Ibsen 82). The gender roles and societal beliefs regarding a woman’s duty was that it was solely to her husband and children (unless widowed or unmarried). Nora rejecting this duty to fulfill another duty not recognized/accepted and degraded by society. Ultimately, Henrik Ibsen portrays that “doll” relationships built on false happiness and perfection cannot last and bring actual happiness/satisfaction. He also portrays his view of gender roles and social normalities.
ReplyDeleteIn Act 3 of Henrik Ibsen’s The Dollhouse, I found it interesting that he brought together Mrs. Linde and Krogstad into what could be called a romantic relationship. Personally, I find that it unconventional when compared a traditional love story as it seems to have been built upon necessity rather than one of romantic interest only. When examining it, I do find there to be romantic elements, however even the characters themselves know that this is something that they need as Mrs. Linde tells Krogstad “Two of us on one wreck surely stand a better chance than each on his own.” This tells me that both of them have their own selfish reasons to get into a relationship with each other since Mrs. Linde needs to take care of people like Krogstad and his children while Krogstad needs help as his life is falling apart. They even use a simile to compare to describe their lives and how they both need each other to better their own chances of survival. Still, I would prefer a genuine relationship such as this one as opposed to the false relationship between Nora and Helmer which is full of lies. It is rather ironic how despite how great their lives are; their marriage is still so transparent, especially when compared to the one between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde who accept each other at their worst.
ReplyDeleteI really think your analysis is different from what I have read about this story. The love relationship between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde is overshadowed by the main conflict of Nora's breaking of the Victorian Era's stereotypical rules. However, this relationship saves Nora and helps solidify the individualism motif in the play. I agree that Krogstad and Mrs. Linde relationship is more geniune compared to Nora & Torvald just do to the fact that they both seem to actually love and care about eachother. Overall, great post!
DeleteHenrik Ibsen displays the value of “image” during the Victorian Era in, “A Doll’s House” to characterize Torvald.When Mrs. Linde is about to depart from both Nora and Torvald's home, Torvald asks if the knitted garment left behind is Mrs. Linde’s. Torvald elaborates by stating she should embroider rather than knit. Torvald claims embroidering is, “So much prettier. Watch! You hold the embroidery like this in the left hand, and than you take the needle in the right hand, like this, and you describe a long graceful curve” (68). He than goes on to compare it to knitting, “whereas knitting on the other hand just can’t help being ugly. Look! Arms pressed into the sides, the knitting needles going up and down”(68-69).Torvald’s comments about knitting almost seem to be more broadly directed at Mrs.Linde’s life. Kristine, unlike most women, is a hardworking women with a job and is less infatuated with her appearance. Torvald’s comment indicates his belief that she should try be more like most women. Embroidery is very delicate and has no real functions other than looking pretty, similar to most women’s roles in the Victorian era.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting thing I took from the play was the complex way that the sexism in the play was portrayed. Instead of Torvald directly calling Nora stupid or dumb, he rather just ignores all of her ideas or shrugs off anything she has to say like it holds no value. He doesn't realize what he's doing, be Nora sees that he doesn't value her as a human being at all, but rather as a trophy to look at. The complexity comes from the fact that male characters in this play are unaware of the major sexism they're portraying because it is the Victorian era and it is all they know. In this era, women have no power and their opinions aren't valued, so everyone is taught that women are not to be treated as equal. In this play, Nora is the only one, not only courageous enough to protest, but observant enough to even notice that what is going on is not okay. It was interesting to me that no one else thought twice of the sexism portrayed simply because it is how they were raised.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting thing I took from act three was Nora realizing she has lived her I tire life as a doll, at first being controlled by her father and now by Torvald. This reveals the meaning behind the title, although the reader probably inferred it already. As she realizes she has been a doll, she realizes that her ideas were shaped by Torvald and she never allowed herself to think for herself as she knew Torvald would not approve. She has an epiphany that she has a life to live and she is running out of time to live it. The mood that this idea sets is a very depressing one as the reader can see the agony that Nora goes through as she sees that her whole life has been thrown away. The sorrow she is feeling is spread to the reader and creates strong emotion leading into the end of the book, making it one to remember. In the end, I found the alternate ending to be better as it goes with the theme set that she is trapped within a life she doesn't want to live and adds to the sadness when the play ends.
ReplyDeleteFINALLY GOT IT TO WORK!!! (Not late had error posting)
Got it! :)
Delete“A Doll’s House” has many allusions to behaviors and beliefs of the Victorian time. The characters in the play have strong morals and strict behaviors. Those who do not fit this are outcasts. For example, Krogstad committed a crime and society was unable to accept him once that crime was publicized. This caused him to change and continue to blackmail, commit crimes, and do whatever it takes to survive. Nora is another example. In the beginning, she appears completely reliant on Torvald because he is the patriarch in their house. Their family has issues and corruptions, yet Nora covers everything so as to make her family appear perfect and happy. This is also seen in Victorian times. Problems were not allowed to be seen or dealt with in public. Gender roles also played a large role in the Victorian time as well as in the play. Nora appears to be the loving wife that is devoted to her husband and children, like all Victorian women were (unless unmarried or widowed). Torvald is her superior and makes the final decisions despite what Nora’s input on the situations. It is not until the end, once the secret is out, that Nora begins to defy these beliefs and standards. Torvald sees her differently once the secret is out. She uses this to have one of their first serious conversations seen in the play. In the end, she gives up her life and leaves Torvald so she can be happy and fulfill her personal duty. This duty was not fully accepted in society and women were not suppose to leave their husbands. The similarities and ultimate turning from Victorian beliefs portray Ibsen’s view on these standards.
ReplyDelete