One does not have to read far into the first scene to see the equality between men and women. Nora needs Helmer to simply survive and there is no way for her to make a strong living without him. Besides the fact that Nora is able to obtain her own job, her earnings are nothing near what would be necessary to live on her own supporting the fact that she needs her husband to properly survive. This automatically puts her husband above her socially and economically creating a great amount of inequality between men and women. On the third page of the first scene, Helmer gives Nora forty dollars, which seems pretty appropriate from hearing about it, but Nora reacts in a way that gives off a tone and mood that it was like a strange business deal. Nora states, “Ten, twenty, thirty, forty. Oh, thank you, thank you, Torvald! This will see me quite a long way”(3). With the use of repeating stating “thank you, thank you,” Nora sounds desperate and I received a tone that Nora is desperate for Helmer. She looks up to him in a way that since he is a man, he is far more superior than her. Later on, Nora and Mrs. Linde were talking about each of their hardships through their life. As Nora offers to help her, she asks if she would like money but she doesn’t ask if she would like money from her family rather from Helmer himself. Although Nora does offer her personal help to receive whatever Mrs. Linde may need from Helmer, but the money is all coming from him. The fact that the money is coming from him just makes me think of the great inequality between men and women during this time period. Since Nora is not able to help and raise the money herself, it shows the great difference and how much the women had to look up to men for help.
When reading the first scene of A Doll’s House, one thing in particular that really shone out to me was the obsession with money. Money is almost mentioned in every other page or so. Due to the recent change in economic status and culture with the Victorian lifestyle, having money is seen as having a new toy or exciting possession that is more fun than today where we see money as a necessity to survive. Nora appears to be only interested in her husband's attention when concerning money, and how much she can have, and her husband Torvald does not seem the slightest concerned with his wife’s obsession. When Lindie comes into scene, her and Nora discuss her widowing, and the audience learns that Lindie never married her husband in love but to support her family, Nora quickly jumps to a conclusion that Lindi married her husband for his wealth only NORA: "Tell me, is it really true that you did not love your husband? Why did you marry him?" MRS. LINDE: "My mother was alive then, and was bedridden and helpless, and I had to provide for my two younger brothers; so I did not think I was justified in refusing his offer.". I believe the obsession with money has to mainly do with the time period of the urban migration and a society’s focus on material items and wealth. Money brings along with it power, respect, and most importantly greed. I predict that this scene might be foreshadowing a conflict within the plot dealing with Nora’s greed for money being put to a test regarding her love for her husband.
Hey Elliot!! I really liked what you were saying about the obsession with money. I also thought it was interesting, the contrast between her and Mrs. Linde, how Mrs. Linde knew she did not marry for love, but for standing. I also think that Ibsen is using this to show how most women were not aware of this aspect in their marriage. How Nora questioned M. Linde’s love when looking at her own relationship with Torvald, there are no significant signs of love either. She merely used him for money as did Mrs. Linde for her standing and financial aid when he was alive. I thought it was interesting when you brought up that money brought power and respect. I saw the respect part, as in the respectability as they are now in the upper middle class and have money to spend. I did not at first think power, but as I read over it, I noticed how much Torvald was controlling her with just the fact that he had money and she did not. Through this Ibsen really shows the difference between power of both of these two characters, even though Nora is living in the luxury of money, how she doesn’t have complete power to control it like Torvald does.
According to the lecture in class on Victorian Culture, women were seen as lesser and weaker than man. In "A Doll's House" so far, Nora is reliant on Torvald as the higher authority. Also, Henrik Ibsen includes several examples of the motif of money and expense. Nora's mind is heavily influenced on money and well being. Without his presence, she can potentially fail to financially and physically survive. Nora has a mania in light of the concept of finance and money, as she brings up money in almost all of her lines. In her second line she says "There's a crown. Keep the change" (1). This is an example of her compulsive reaction to money, which foreshadows future events and conflicts in which relate to Nora and Torvald. This is because even though Torvald sees her compulsive spending, he does little to nothing to stop it. Nora even raves about his new job as a "...Bank Manager..." (9), and the new income to be brought in. Also, Mrs. Linde talks and explains to Nora about her complications with her past husband, and her new found widowed lifestyle. Mrs. Linde lives in the static state of chaos and was left with no money, no children and no place to call home. Lastly and importantly, Mrs. Linde only married her past husband for the money and the financial support. This foreshadows future conflicts with money between Nora and Torvald.
From the very beginning of A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen develops the clear inferiority of women compared to men through Helmer’s use of animals diction. Rather than referring to her as Nora, he constantly calls her his “bird” or “pet.” When Nora complains about having to save money, Helmer replies with, “My little singing bird mustn’t go drooping her wings, eh?” (I.3) Comparing his wife to an animal dehumanizes her and therefore displays how her husband seems to be superior to her. Helmer goes on to call her a squirrel; both squirrels and birds are small animals that are thought to be helpless, implying that Nora is a fragile woman and cannot take care of herself, let alone manage finances. Furthermore, Helmer frequently uses the word “my” as if his wife was his possession, which reflects the Victorian belief that men have ownership over their wives. If the author hadn’t made the gender roles obvious enough already, he emphasizes them further when Helmer says to Nora, “My pretty little pet is very sweet, but it runs away with an awful lot of money” (I.4). He directly calls her his pet, indicating once again how a husband owns his wife like a pet, and cares for her as if she is just as dependent as one. Helmer also has the tendency to talk about Nora in third person, even though he is talking directly to her, as if she does not deserve full acknowledgement. These animal allusions are used consistently throughout the first scenes and therefore convey that gender roles are a prominent theme in this play.
After reading the stage directions, a main symbol that was brainstormed was the significance of all the closed doors within the house. Many thought it either represented relieving stress by opening the doors or the motif of secrecy. I personally believe that the closed doors was irony and symbolizes the motif of secrecy throughout the play. Within the first scene of the play the audience finds out that it was really Nora who had payed for the expenses of her husband’s illness rather her father. This was a huge deal since during this time period, the fact that Helmer’s wife had paid for what had happen, rather his father in law, is humiliating to Helmer and his family. Krogstad was the one that had helped Nora pay for the family's expenses so he is the only one that knows and within the second scene he is now threatening to tell Helmer of this occurrence. This secret could tear apart Nora’s relationship and family making it such a big deal and so important that Krogstad says nothing. Krogstad and Nora only talk of this event behind closed doors since Helmer can not hear or know. This causing the closed doors symbolise the motif of secrecy in the play. The secret must hide behind the closed door where Helmer can not hear the two speak of the event just like the secret must remain between Krogstad and Nora. I also believe there is some irony within this as well. The first part that is presented to the reader is the stage set up which first explains the motif of the closed doors hinting to the audience that the closed doors will symbolize a theme later on within the play.
Also, on page 23, Krogstad says; "The front door was standing open. Somebody must have forgotten to shut it..." (23), could this be an example of secrecy that was shown to the public?
By the end of Act I, Nora’s moral dilemma has fully developed and Ibsen has foreshadowed to further problems. Although Nora and Krogstad are in conflict with each other, the wrongs they have committed are similar. Helmer unconsciously raises this issue when he says to Nora, “He dodged what was due to him [punishment for forgery] by a cunning trick. And that’s what has been the cause of his corruption” (I.13). Although he is unaware of his wife’s actions, Nora performed forgery as well, faking her father’s signature to borrow money to pay her husband’s doctor bills. In order to prevent public shame and punishment from the court, she intends to keep this secret from Helmer and her children. Therefore, she becomes concerned when Helmer uses the metaphor, “A fog lies like that in a household, and it spreads disease and infection to every part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking with evil germs” (I.33). Helmer explains that keeping secrets from one’s own family and kids, like Nora and Krogstad are doing, destroys the family, and comparing this situation to a poisonous fog intrigues the reader and gives the passage a tone of fear and corruption. Fog prevents people seeing things clearly, just like secrecy, and, like poison, secrets can cause a lot of damage. However, one might think that Nora’s secret is justified, because she had to commit her crime in order to save her husband’s life. Nonetheless, it will most likely cause turmoil, and Helmer’s fog metaphor foreshadows to how conflict might unfold later in the play. Secrets, as one can see, no matter how dangerous, dominated social interactions of the Victorian era and perhaps led to devastating consequences.
I noticed that Nora has this slight obsession with marriage. She points out the flaws in Krogstad's marriage, saying that it "...wasn't a very happy one..."(17), and also converses with Mrs. Linde about her failed marriage, as if she is looking and noting mistakes to not follow. Also, the obsession with money carries on when Nora and Krogstad chat about the silent fight for the bank position between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde. However, Krogstad wants the position in the bank for the job position rather than purely monetary position, even though he has awareness of money and spending. Whilst Mrs. Linde wants the position for monetary position, as she has had past experiences marrying her ex-husband for the sake of money.
Could this show a potential drastic event between the characters? Specifically Mrs. Linde and Krogstad? I think there is drama underway in regards to those two characters, as well as Nora intertwined.
Throughout Act 1 in A Doll’s House Nora’s greed and possession may be related to the inequalities of the society and the victorian era. I believe that Nora fantasies and loves spending money because not because of greed in the society, but because she views it as a man’s role, or as a position not suited for women. By being a woman spending money she is testing social norms and reaching herself to an equal manner of men. This could be argued by her worship to her husband Torvald, but maybe she is unaware of why she chooses to spend money, but just knows she likes to. In Act one Nora explains to Lindie why she likes making money because it makes her feel like a man, or like a powerful figure in these times. In the Victorian era, women are given more rights and privileges previously excluded to them in previous eras, and in a time of extreme consumerism and money’s availability to women, people such as Nora are drawn towards a lifestyle completely consumed by wealth, and consumer items. Nora sees indulging in a lifestyle like this as the ultimate testament to equality, and/or being in a powerful role such as a man would be in this time. While there are female characters such as Lindie who do not obsess over the greedy and materialistic lifestyle that Nora finds herself in, Lindie looks down on Nora calling her silly, foolish, and passes her actions as a simple character flaw describing her to of always known her to be “spendy type”, but I believe her actions might have deeper roots.
This post perfectly describes everything I was thinking too! I believed that during the Victorian Era, industrialization started to become more and more progressive in this time and became a huge part in consumer's lives, like you said in your post. Nora see's all this consumerism and gains a great interest in the out side world, constantly asking and pleading for money from her husband to achieve these materialistic desires. I didn't think too far into the deep side of Nora, but so far based on the play and Ibsen's writing style, he likes to include a various amount of hidden motifs and themes that reveal social indifference's, just like you pointed out so I gained a lot from your post.
Wow, what a post! Your points of Nora's desiring for better things being connected to her feeling unequal are fantastic and completely resonated with what I already had in mind. It is pretty easy to sympathize with Nora as well, as she is put in a position where the only good things she ever gets are given to her and can not be gotten herself. Do I feel like Nora is 100% in the right by spending money behind Helmer's back? No. However, she's the accurate representation of any normal human being, because nobody is perfect. :)
“Nora (jumping up and going to him). Oh, dear, nice Doctor Rank, I never meant that at all. But surely you can understand that being with Torvald is a little like being with papa--(Enter MAID from the hall.) Maid. If you please, ma'am. (Whispers and hands her a card.)” (II.216) This excerpt from Act II of A Doll’s House, Nora who we know is very obsessive and loyal to her husband Torvald, admits she sees her controlling husband similar to her father. This quote reveals to the audience that Nora has been under a some sort of masculine control her entire life. Nora most likely grew up with being controlled and treated as a second class citizen, obeying and serving her father, or now her husband. This quote reveals a lot about Nora’s character showing how she most likely enjoys being controlled, so much so that she even married someone similar to her father who we can only guess who be someone she respected and loved dearly like Nora does Torvald. This could also explain Nora’s fascination with having power in other ways opposed to more obvious ones that Torvald or her father would posses in their relationships. Nora most likely enjoys finding power through alternative outlets such as money, material items, and possibly manipulation. Nora loves the finer things in life like her such as macaroons, which would be considered a tasty delicacy for the upper class at the time. Nora’s relationship with her “papa” the audience is told is most likely one of obedience and loyalty on her part, which makes sense with her being the child, but she most likely wanted to the same relationship later in her life because that is what she is used to, like her papa she can rely solely on Torvald for money, and gifts like a child. In fact I would definitely say Nora acts very childlike throughout the play, especially to her husband.
Great analysis! I agree especially with your quote and how Nora is extremely loyal to her husband Torvald, despite all of the problems she has caused. I also agree with your point about how Nora enjoys having power, as she is probably stereotypically suppressed by the societal norms during the Victorian Era to act more ladylike and to stay at home. To describe Nora as "childish" is very interesting, and I did not think that when I read the play. Overall, great analysis!
"NORA. Get it back, Torvald! There's still time! Oh, Torvald, get it back! Please for my sake, for your sake, for the sake of the children! Listen, Torvald, please! You don't realize what it can do to us." (Act 2)
This quote in Act 2 is extreme,y important, because it shows Nora's weakness and fate. She is stuck in a bind, considering she loaned twelve-thousand dollars from Krogstad. Originally sharing that the money was from Nora's father, the truth behind where the money to pay for Torvalds's sickness came from can potentially given away with a change in Krogstad's occupational position. Basically, the quote shows that Nora is irresponsible with loaning money and money in general. She does not want any glimpse of her dilemma and problem given to Torvald, as this can end up in an incredibly terrible situation. Torvald is truly unobservant of Nora's spending habits, and to have this situation leaked could destroy Nora, the children, and Torvalds's living situations. All in all, I think this quote supports the idea that Nora will eventually realize her terrible mistakes, and will lead into great karma in the end.
I completely agree with your analysis. I would also like to add that this passage shows Nora's dependability on Torvald and lack of individuality. She is unable to imagine life without Torvald and will do anything to avoid that because she depends on him so much. This leads her to the pleading and begging that she is doing in order to save an already unhealthy relationship.
I enjoy your analysis! You talked about the dramatic irony that occurs in this story, where we the readers are aware of Nora's mistakes but Helmer has no idea. Nora knows the marriage will end terribly if Helmer were to find out about her forgery mistakes. She dreads the moment he reads the letter and discovers the truth, "Five. Seven hours to midnight. Then twenty-four hours till the next midnight. Then the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live" (61). This quote also displays Nora's fear of the consequences of her life-altering mistake.
Through the course of Act II, one can observe the two personalities Nora is displaying through her use of language. At some times, she is panicking over her crime of forgery, but when she is with Helmer, she pretends to casually concerned about other matters. In the beginning of the act, when the nursemaid tells Nora about the torn dress, Nora cries, “Oh, if only I could rip them into a thousand pieces!” (II.35) Her exaggeration and dramatic tone remind the reader how distressed she is over the whole business with Krogstad and Helmer. Her exclamation is somewhat metaphorical, since the maid thinks she is talking about ripping the dress, but the audience can clearly tell that that is not what she is actually worried about. Her comment could even allude to her desire to tear apart Krogstad’s letter to Helmer informing him of her deeds. On the contrary, when she sees Helmer, she tells him, “Yes, do help me, Torvald. Promise? I’m so nervous. All those people…You must devote yourself exclusively to me this evening. Pens away! Forget about the office! Promise me, Torvald dear!” (57) Unable to control her nerves, she tries to convince Helmer that she is merely worried over her dance performance, when in reality she is worried about Krogstad revealing her doings to her husband. She tries to hide her panic by acting like she is concerned about the dance, but the reader (and Helmer) can detect her desperation through her forceful tone in her begging pleads, such as “You must…” and “Promise me!” One can also sense her frantic behavior from her short sentence fragments, as if she can’t contain her stress, such as “al those people” and “pens away.” Indeed, Nora’s attempt to cover up her forgery and her paranoia reflects the secretive essence of the Victorian era.
I agree with your analysis, especially with the sentence fragments characterizing the rising anxiety that Nora is experiencing. Once Helmer does send the letter, in a panicked state, Nora is awaiting the wrath of Krogstad, and when the epitome of this anxiety is reached (when Krogstad is waiting at the foot of the door), Nora covers up this business of hers with yet another lie. Rank, having just revealed his true feelings towards Nora, and Nora denying the feelings, are in the room together when she receives notice of his arrival: Nora "I've ordered [a new costume]. Torvald mustn't hear about it..." Rank "Ah, so [the new costume is] the big secret, is it!" Nora "Yes, that's right..." (50) The web of lies that Nora is weaving will get exposed soon, for Krogstad is in a better disposition due to having leverage over her, and now that she lost hers, the possibility of his his job back, he will most likely use this against her. Secrecy seems to be a big theme in this book, mostly surrounding Nora and her actions. What effect do you think it will have on future events involving her and other major characters?
Throughout the course of the play, A Doll’s House, by Henrik Ibsen, one may notice that the play’s setting has primarily taken place within the main living room of the Helmer’s home. Few times the play mentions the kids partaking in activities in other rooms along with the maid, or Torvald laboring over his new job within his study; although never has any main part of the play taken place within those rooms. I believe the logic and reasoning behind this is simply because it symbolizes the one main conflict within the play and the one main topic as well. That main topic and conflict is the fact that Nora ows Krogstad over a thousand dollars in debt due to the fact that she loaned money from him in the time her husband was ill. From the beginning of the play, it starts off mentioning the fact that Torval was recently very sick which began to introduce the topic and conflict of the fact that is was Nora who paid those dues rather her father. As the play progresses and the audience officially knows the problem and the fear that Nora now must live in, there is no real other topic to the rest of the play. Every other mini conflict revolves around the fact that Nora has lied to her husband and could cost her, her whole family relationship and life is Mr. Helmer were to find out. For example, Mr. Helmer decides to give Krogstad’s job to Mrs. Linde, besides the conflict and tragedy that Krogstad is now losing his job, but the real conflict and worry is that Krogstad has now threatened Nora to tell Mr. Helmer of her wrong doing’s due to the fact that Nora was not able to protect his job. Similarly to the play mainly taking place in the living room, there is only one real main conflict/topic to the play only within the first two acts.
Towards the end of the third act of the play, Nora and Torvald have recently got in a possible relationship ending conflict. Although quickly solved, and no longer a threat to their relationship, Nora still degrades herself greatly due to how rude and disrespectful Torvald was to her. “Nora. … But our house has never been anything but a play-room. I have been your doll wife, just at home I was Daddy’s doll child. And the children in turn have been my dolls. I thought it was fun when you came and played with me, just as they thought it was fun when I went and played with them…”(Ibsen 80-81). The title of the play totally foreshadows the symbolism of a doll within the play. Nora is the doll of the house, she is the one that is constantly played around with and not treated with real respect like many of the women during the Victorian Era. Not only does the title foreshadow the symbolism of the doll within the Helmer’s home, but also women all over during this time. Women are far less superior to men in this era and sadly many households were held like the Helmer’s; the woman was the one that was to stay home and watch the kids. Women are constantly degraded and treated as dolls with the limited, to no rights they had along with how they were constantly thought of as one’s that were extremely stupid and had no real rash thoughts or capability of making decisions. Nora is always home and never making her own decisions in the “real world,” like Torvald. The house is the “Doll House,” and due to the fact that Nora is the doll of the house, it also foreshadows how she constantly stays home at the house, never going out on her own; similarly to many other women during the Victorian Era.
In the final act of A Doll’s House, Ibsen raises a question about the way marriages could be. Several times, Nora mentions the “miracle” she is hoping for, but never specifies what that miracle is. When Nora is explaining to Torvald why she is leaving him, she says, “It was tonight, when the miracle didn’t happen. It was then I realized you weren’t the man I thought you were” (III.84). She is not explaining herself directly and being vague, as she has been doing throughout the book, but this time for a different reason. Instead of being secretive as to hide her crime, Nora doesn’t explain herself because she realizes Torvald will never understand why she has to leave, or what the miracle was that never happened, no matter how she explains it. The audience gets a hint as to what that miracle was when Nora says, “When all danger was past, you acted as though nothing had happened. I was your little sky-lark again, your little doll, exactly as before” (III.84). Although Nora hadn’t wanted Torvald to find out about her forgery in fear of his wrath, she also had a tiny inkling of hope that if he did find out, he would be proud that she did such a brave, independent act to save his life. But instead, he disregarded it as if Nora’s action was thoughtless and done just out of the panic of a fragile woman. Nora realizes this and acknowledges her husband’s shallow view of her by mimicking his animal language, noting that he called her not an assertive, compassionate soul but a “little sky-lark” and a “doll.” Indeed, Nora was nothing but a proud possession of Torvald, just as a doll is to its owner, alluding to the meaning of the very title of the play. After Nora leaves Torvald for good, the play ends with a spark of hope, as Helmer says, “The miracle of miracles…?” (III.86). Ibsen’s unanswered question leaves it up to the audience to decide whether meaningless, patriarchal marriages will continue, or if there is room for individuals to change, and create mutual, loving relationships.
Your analysis is excellent. I also found that Ibsen uses Nora and Torvald’s relationship to question marriage and familial roles. Torvald keeps/speaks to Nora like she is his possession or like she is a beautiful object sitting in his house. Nora plays as Torvald’s doll to distract him and remain under his protection. She constantly states how she could not do anything without Torvald’s help or without him controlling her completely. In the end Nora realizes that her entire life and what she has grown to know has been a deceitful lie because of Torvald and her father. The play ends when Nora breaks off their relationship. Her exit and Torvald’s last lines implies if both people in the relationship are honest and go though individual change it might be possible to fix what was broken because of false perfection and happiness.
In Act 3 of A Doll’s House, the audience is exposed to the conclusion to the conflict dealing with the letter in the play. This conflict ends with Torvald finding the letter with Nora’s failure to receive and destroy the letter before it got into Torvald’s hands. Torvald who immediately before reading the letter gives a speech to Nora of how much he loves her, all the ways he loves her, and basically gives a complete testament of his love. This lovely monologue is included in order to add tension to the scene as well as help the reader read Nora’s guilt foreshadowing Torvald’s opening of the letter. When Torvald opens the letter he changes completely acting furious with Nora telling her he won’t/can’t see her anymore breaking her heart as well as his own. While this rage only lasts for a brief moment because the couple receives information telling them that their record is clear, I still found the scene to be portrayed as very emotional. This is because the audience is supposed to feel the hurting in Torvalds words and actions because right before he feels required to end his relationship with Nora he gives a large speech confessing his love, and shows the audience how hard it will be for him to feel he has to end his relationship. The monologue acts a form of dramatic irony. The audience knows that Torvald will most likely receive the letter and become enraged, contradicting all he is saying, but Torvald is blind to this.
What I found interesting is the foreshadowing in the play. According to the Victorian era, women were not depicted as equal to men. The "Woman Question" arose, meaning that many contradicted the values of women, and how capable they were of completing tasks that men take part in. Also, according to the typical depiction of a Victorian family, the Father would be supportive of the family, economically, and the Mother would support the large family at home. However, women who were divorced ended up in tight spots, because up until 1870, women could not keep money in their possession. That is why Mrs. Linde could not support herself after her divorce, and she was not left with anything. (We later find out she was married to Krogstad, which predetermines why there is a feud between the two for the bank job position). Usually during the Victorian era, it was extremely difficult for a woman to support herself. The state that Mrs. Linde is in financially frightens Nora, as her past events could have a negative effect on Helmer and Nora's relationship, in which Nora survives off of. This problem with money and the problem between Mrs. Linde and Krogstad's previous marriage foreshadows Nora and Helmer's future in their relationship, because of Nora's hidden secrets. However this is a false judgement, as in Act III, even though he is fired up after finding out about the loans, he confesses his true love for Nora. But Nora admits to never loving him in the end. This shows irony, because she was pretty much in the relationship for survival and her own comfort. So, in conclusion, the dilemma between Mrs. Linde and Krogstad does foreshadow Nora and Helmer's relationship problems thoroughly, as the plot leads us to believe there will be a major breakage. In this case, a true ironic separation.
During the time reading and observing the acts in the play, I have noticed that Katherine does not necessarily follow the Victorian era's typical gender roles for women. During the Victorian era, women weren't very strong willed and independent. In fact, most women relied on their spouse to fend for them. They typically stayed at home and did "woman work". Although Katherine did this, she worked for her income, rather than Nora, who relied on Torvald for her wealth. Comparing both Katherine and Nora, Katherine was a lot better off by herself; without Krogstad, because she was willing to work her way to get back to where she was, regardless of having Krogstad around. Nora marries Torvald, for the money, but Katherine was already well off before she married Krogstad. After all, Katherine seemed to be unaffected by the concept of wealth, but Nora's obsession with money forced her into marrying for money, which was the typical ideal for women. So lastly, Katherine doesn't follow the typical gender roles for women in the Victorian era, because she is personally driven, and she leads well enough to have money for herself, rather than relying on her future husband.
In act 3 of A Doll’s House, Ibsen uses dramatic irony in order to add tension to the final scene of the play. When the letter is being sent to Krogstad firing him, the audience is aware of the consequence of this action, while Torvald is not. If Torvald sends the letter firing Krogstad, Krogstad will send the IOU revealing Nora’s foraging. The audience's knowledge of the consequences of Torvald’s actions increases tension to the scene, this allows for the audience to become more invested in the plot line of the story, and what happens to the relationships and characters. In act 3 when the height of the conflict is revealed the audience sees the consequence of Nora’s actions and the issues that come with lying and troublesome actions. However the audience would of not of had the dramatic realization and impact on reader if the dramatic irony in act two did not set up tension leading to the dramatic discovery of the IOU. Dramatic irony commonly serves as a tool to foreshadow the future events of the play in a way where the audience or reader is left in the blind about what exactly will unfold and how. Dramatic Irony builds tensions to scenes and helps the reader understand the consequences of specific characters especially in Ibsen’s A Doll’s House.
In comparing the actual ending with the alternate ending, I believe the original ending is more fitting to the story and more reflective of Ibsen’s beliefs and intentions. Since people were overwhelmed at the tragic separation of Nora and Torvald, Ibsen wrote the alternate ending with Nora deciding not to leave for the sake of her children. This does parallel with Torvald’s earlier statement about how children without mothers become “corrupted,” and how this worried Nora. This continues one of the themes of the play that suggests familial bonds can burden further generations. Furthermore, children are very important to almost every mother, regardless of whether one lived in the Victorian era. However, despite the children’s importance, they really were not the main focus of the play and Nora’s actions. Ibsen’s main message in the original ending was that one should understand oneself as an individual before dedicating themselves to another. The original ending also provides Nora with dynamic characterization, as she realizes that she doesn’t want to be a subservient housewife anymore and wants to discover her true self. If Ibsen has used the alternate ending instead, it would not have provided the hope that women can stand up to their husbands and be independent if they want to; it would have implied that they are trapped in their feminine roles. Despite being tossed around and treated like a “doll” by her father and husband, Nora has shown herself to be manipulative and independent by forging the signature, working to pay off the loan, and talking characters in and out of things throughout the play. Ibsen has shown her to be much more than a doll, to be a competent individual; her departure is a farther part of this portrayal.
One does not have to read far into the first scene to see the equality between men and women. Nora needs Helmer to simply survive and there is no way for her to make a strong living without him. Besides the fact that Nora is able to obtain her own job, her earnings are nothing near what would be necessary to live on her own supporting the fact that she needs her husband to properly survive. This automatically puts her husband above her socially and economically creating a great amount of inequality between men and women. On the third page of the first scene, Helmer gives Nora forty dollars, which seems pretty appropriate from hearing about it, but Nora reacts in a way that gives off a tone and mood that it was like a strange business deal. Nora states, “Ten, twenty, thirty, forty. Oh, thank you, thank you, Torvald! This will see me quite a long way”(3). With the use of repeating stating “thank you, thank you,” Nora sounds desperate and I received a tone that Nora is desperate for Helmer. She looks up to him in a way that since he is a man, he is far more superior than her.
ReplyDeleteLater on, Nora and Mrs. Linde were talking about each of their hardships through their life. As Nora offers to help her, she asks if she would like money but she doesn’t ask if she would like money from her family rather from Helmer himself. Although Nora does offer her personal help to receive whatever Mrs. Linde may need from Helmer, but the money is all coming from him. The fact that the money is coming from him just makes me think of the great inequality between men and women during this time period. Since Nora is not able to help and raise the money herself, it shows the great difference and how much the women had to look up to men for help.
When reading the first scene of A Doll’s House, one thing in particular that really shone out to me was the obsession with money. Money is almost mentioned in every other page or so. Due to the recent change in economic status and culture with the Victorian lifestyle, having money is seen as having a new toy or exciting possession that is more fun than today where we see money as a necessity to survive. Nora appears to be only interested in her husband's attention when concerning money, and how much she can have, and her husband Torvald does not seem the slightest concerned with his wife’s obsession. When Lindie comes into scene, her and Nora discuss her widowing, and the audience learns that Lindie never married her husband in love but to support her family, Nora quickly jumps to a conclusion that Lindi married her husband for his wealth only NORA: "Tell me, is it really true that you did not love your husband? Why did you marry him?"
ReplyDeleteMRS. LINDE: "My mother was alive then, and was bedridden and helpless, and I had to provide for my two younger brothers; so I did not think I was justified in refusing his offer.". I believe the obsession with money has to mainly do with the time period of the urban migration and a society’s focus on material items and wealth. Money brings along with it power, respect, and most importantly greed. I predict that this scene might be foreshadowing a conflict within the plot dealing with Nora’s greed for money being put to a test regarding her love for her husband.
Hey Elliot!! I really liked what you were saying about the obsession with money. I also thought it was interesting, the contrast between her and Mrs. Linde, how Mrs. Linde knew she did not marry for love, but for standing. I also think that Ibsen is using this to show how most women were not aware of this aspect in their marriage. How Nora questioned M. Linde’s love when looking at her own relationship with Torvald, there are no significant signs of love either. She merely used him for money as did Mrs. Linde for her standing and financial aid when he was alive. I thought it was interesting when you brought up that money brought power and respect. I saw the respect part, as in the respectability as they are now in the upper middle class and have money to spend. I did not at first think power, but as I read over it, I noticed how much Torvald was controlling her with just the fact that he had money and she did not. Through this Ibsen really shows the difference between power of both of these two characters, even though Nora is living in the luxury of money, how she doesn’t have complete power to control it like Torvald does.
DeleteAccording to the lecture in class on Victorian Culture, women were seen as lesser and weaker than man. In "A Doll's House" so far, Nora is reliant on Torvald as the higher authority. Also, Henrik Ibsen includes several examples of the motif of money and expense. Nora's mind is heavily influenced on money and well being. Without his presence, she can potentially fail to financially and physically survive. Nora has a mania in light of the concept of finance and money, as she brings up money in almost all of her lines. In her second line she says "There's a crown. Keep the change" (1). This is an example of her compulsive reaction to money, which foreshadows future events and conflicts in which relate to Nora and Torvald. This is because even though Torvald sees her compulsive spending, he does little to nothing to stop it. Nora even raves about his new job as a "...Bank Manager..." (9), and the new income to be brought in.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Mrs. Linde talks and explains to Nora about her complications with her past husband, and her new found widowed lifestyle. Mrs. Linde lives in the static state of chaos and was left with no money, no children and no place to call home. Lastly and importantly, Mrs. Linde only married her past husband for the money and the financial support. This foreshadows future conflicts with money between Nora and Torvald.
From the very beginning of A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen develops the clear inferiority of women compared to men through Helmer’s use of animals diction. Rather than referring to her as Nora, he constantly calls her his “bird” or “pet.” When Nora complains about having to save money, Helmer replies with, “My little singing bird mustn’t go drooping her wings, eh?” (I.3) Comparing his wife to an animal dehumanizes her and therefore displays how her husband seems to be superior to her. Helmer goes on to call her a squirrel; both squirrels and birds are small animals that are thought to be helpless, implying that Nora is a fragile woman and cannot take care of herself, let alone manage finances. Furthermore, Helmer frequently uses the word “my” as if his wife was his possession, which reflects the Victorian belief that men have ownership over their wives. If the author hadn’t made the gender roles obvious enough already, he emphasizes them further when Helmer says to Nora, “My pretty little pet is very sweet, but it runs away with an awful lot of money” (I.4). He directly calls her his pet, indicating once again how a husband owns his wife like a pet, and cares for her as if she is just as dependent as one. Helmer also has the tendency to talk about Nora in third person, even though he is talking directly to her, as if she does not deserve full acknowledgement. These animal allusions are used consistently throughout the first scenes and therefore convey that gender roles are a prominent theme in this play.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the stage directions, a main symbol that was brainstormed was the significance of all the closed doors within the house. Many thought it either represented relieving stress by opening the doors or the motif of secrecy. I personally believe that the closed doors was irony and symbolizes the motif of secrecy throughout the play. Within the first scene of the play the audience finds out that it was really Nora who had payed for the expenses of her husband’s illness rather her father. This was a huge deal since during this time period, the fact that Helmer’s wife had paid for what had happen, rather his father in law, is humiliating to Helmer and his family. Krogstad was the one that had helped Nora pay for the family's expenses so he is the only one that knows and within the second scene he is now threatening to tell Helmer of this occurrence. This secret could tear apart Nora’s relationship and family making it such a big deal and so important that Krogstad says nothing. Krogstad and Nora only talk of this event behind closed doors since Helmer can not hear or know. This causing the closed doors symbolise the motif of secrecy in the play. The secret must hide behind the closed door where Helmer can not hear the two speak of the event just like the secret must remain between Krogstad and Nora. I also believe there is some irony within this as well. The first part that is presented to the reader is the stage set up which first explains the motif of the closed doors hinting to the audience that the closed doors will symbolize a theme later on within the play.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the closed doors serve as a symbol for a disconnected family to the outside? I agree with the secrecy point.
DeleteAlso, on page 23, Krogstad says; "The front door was standing open. Somebody must have forgotten to shut it..." (23), could this be an example of secrecy that was shown to the public?
DeleteBy the end of Act I, Nora’s moral dilemma has fully developed and Ibsen has foreshadowed to further problems. Although Nora and Krogstad are in conflict with each other, the wrongs they have committed are similar. Helmer unconsciously raises this issue when he says to Nora, “He dodged what was due to him [punishment for forgery] by a cunning trick. And that’s what has been the cause of his corruption” (I.13). Although he is unaware of his wife’s actions, Nora performed forgery as well, faking her father’s signature to borrow money to pay her husband’s doctor bills. In order to prevent public shame and punishment from the court, she intends to keep this secret from Helmer and her children. Therefore, she becomes concerned when Helmer uses the metaphor, “A fog lies like that in a household, and it spreads disease and infection to every part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking with evil germs” (I.33). Helmer explains that keeping secrets from one’s own family and kids, like Nora and Krogstad are doing, destroys the family, and comparing this situation to a poisonous fog intrigues the reader and gives the passage a tone of fear and corruption. Fog prevents people seeing things clearly, just like secrecy, and, like poison, secrets can cause a lot of damage. However, one might think that Nora’s secret is justified, because she had to commit her crime in order to save her husband’s life. Nonetheless, it will most likely cause turmoil, and Helmer’s fog metaphor foreshadows to how conflict might unfold later in the play. Secrets, as one can see, no matter how dangerous, dominated social interactions of the Victorian era and perhaps led to devastating consequences.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that Nora has this slight obsession with marriage. She points out the flaws in Krogstad's marriage, saying that it "...wasn't a very happy one..."(17), and also converses with Mrs. Linde about her failed marriage, as if she is looking and noting mistakes to not follow. Also, the obsession with money carries on when Nora and Krogstad chat about the silent fight for the bank position between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde. However, Krogstad wants the position in the bank for the job position rather than purely monetary position, even though he has awareness of money and spending. Whilst Mrs. Linde wants the position for monetary position, as she has had past experiences marrying her ex-husband for the sake of money.
ReplyDeleteCould this show a potential drastic event between the characters? Specifically Mrs. Linde and Krogstad? I think there is drama underway in regards to those two characters, as well as Nora intertwined.
Throughout Act 1 in A Doll’s House Nora’s greed and possession may be related to the inequalities of the society and the victorian era. I believe that Nora fantasies and loves spending money because not because of greed in the society, but because she views it as a man’s role, or as a position not suited for women. By being a woman spending money she is testing social norms and reaching herself to an equal manner of men. This could be argued by her worship to her husband Torvald, but maybe she is unaware of why she chooses to spend money, but just knows she likes to. In Act one Nora explains to Lindie why she likes making money because it makes her feel like a man, or like a powerful figure in these times. In the Victorian era, women are given more rights and privileges previously excluded to them in previous eras, and in a time of extreme consumerism and money’s availability to women, people such as Nora are drawn towards a lifestyle completely consumed by wealth, and consumer items. Nora sees indulging in a lifestyle like this as the ultimate testament to equality, and/or being in a powerful role such as a man would be in this time. While there are female characters such as Lindie who do not obsess over the greedy and materialistic lifestyle that Nora finds herself in, Lindie looks down on Nora calling her silly, foolish, and passes her actions as a simple character flaw describing her to of always known her to be “spendy type”, but I believe her actions might have deeper roots.
ReplyDeleteThis post perfectly describes everything I was thinking too! I believed that during the Victorian Era, industrialization started to become more and more progressive in this time and became a huge part in consumer's lives, like you said in your post. Nora see's all this consumerism and gains a great interest in the out side world, constantly asking and pleading for money from her husband to achieve these materialistic desires. I didn't think too far into the deep side of Nora, but so far based on the play and Ibsen's writing style, he likes to include a various amount of hidden motifs and themes that reveal social indifference's, just like you pointed out so I gained a lot from your post.
DeleteWow, what a post! Your points of Nora's desiring for better things being connected to her feeling unequal are fantastic and completely resonated with what I already had in mind. It is pretty easy to sympathize with Nora as well, as she is put in a position where the only good things she ever gets are given to her and can not be gotten herself. Do I feel like Nora is 100% in the right by spending money behind Helmer's back? No. However, she's the accurate representation of any normal human being, because nobody is perfect. :)
Delete“Nora (jumping up and going to him). Oh, dear, nice Doctor Rank, I never meant that at all. But surely you can understand that being with Torvald is a little like being with papa--(Enter MAID from the hall.)
ReplyDeleteMaid. If you please, ma'am. (Whispers and hands her a card.)” (II.216)
This excerpt from Act II of A Doll’s House, Nora who we know is very obsessive and loyal to her husband Torvald, admits she sees her controlling husband similar to her father. This quote reveals to the audience that Nora has been under a some sort of masculine control her entire life. Nora most likely grew up with being controlled and treated as a second class citizen, obeying and serving her father, or now her husband. This quote reveals a lot about Nora’s character showing how she most likely enjoys being controlled, so much so that she even married someone similar to her father who we can only guess who be someone she respected and loved dearly like Nora does Torvald. This could also explain Nora’s fascination with having power in other ways opposed to more obvious ones that Torvald or her father would posses in their relationships. Nora most likely enjoys finding power through alternative outlets such as money, material items, and possibly manipulation. Nora loves the finer things in life like her such as macaroons, which would be considered a tasty delicacy for the upper class at the time. Nora’s relationship with her “papa” the audience is told is most likely one of obedience and loyalty on her part, which makes sense with her being the child, but she most likely wanted to the same relationship later in her life because that is what she is used to, like her papa she can rely solely on Torvald for money, and gifts like a child. In fact I would definitely say Nora acts very childlike throughout the play, especially to her husband.
Great analysis! I agree especially with your quote and how Nora is extremely loyal to her husband Torvald, despite all of the problems she has caused. I also agree with your point about how Nora enjoys having power, as she is probably stereotypically suppressed by the societal norms during the Victorian Era to act more ladylike and to stay at home. To describe Nora as "childish" is very interesting, and I did not think that when I read the play. Overall, great analysis!
Delete"NORA. Get it back, Torvald! There's still time! Oh, Torvald, get it back! Please for my sake, for your sake, for the sake of the children! Listen, Torvald, please! You don't realize what it can do to us." (Act 2)
ReplyDeleteThis quote in Act 2 is extreme,y important, because it shows Nora's weakness and fate. She is stuck in a bind, considering she loaned twelve-thousand dollars from Krogstad. Originally sharing that the money was from Nora's father, the truth behind where the money to pay for Torvalds's sickness came from can potentially given away with a change in Krogstad's occupational position. Basically, the quote shows that Nora is irresponsible with loaning money and money in general. She does not want any glimpse of her dilemma and problem given to Torvald, as this can end up in an incredibly terrible situation. Torvald is truly unobservant of Nora's spending habits, and to have this situation leaked could destroy Nora, the children, and Torvalds's living situations. All in all, I think this quote supports the idea that Nora will eventually realize her terrible mistakes, and will lead into great karma in the end.
I completely agree with your analysis. I would also like to add that this passage shows Nora's dependability on Torvald and lack of individuality. She is unable to imagine life without Torvald and will do anything to avoid that because she depends on him so much. This leads her to the pleading and begging that she is doing in order to save an already unhealthy relationship.
DeleteI enjoy your analysis! You talked about the dramatic irony that occurs in this story, where we the readers are aware of Nora's mistakes but Helmer has no idea. Nora knows the marriage will end terribly if Helmer were to find out about her forgery mistakes. She dreads the moment he reads the letter and discovers the truth, "Five. Seven hours to midnight. Then twenty-four hours till the next midnight. Then the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live" (61). This quote also displays Nora's fear of the consequences of her life-altering mistake.
ReplyDeleteThrough the course of Act II, one can observe the two personalities Nora is displaying through her use of language. At some times, she is panicking over her crime of forgery, but when she is with Helmer, she pretends to casually concerned about other matters. In the beginning of the act, when the nursemaid tells Nora about the torn dress, Nora cries, “Oh, if only I could rip them into a thousand pieces!” (II.35) Her exaggeration and dramatic tone remind the reader how distressed she is over the whole business with Krogstad and Helmer. Her exclamation is somewhat metaphorical, since the maid thinks she is talking about ripping the dress, but the audience can clearly tell that that is not what she is actually worried about. Her comment could even allude to her desire to tear apart Krogstad’s letter to Helmer informing him of her deeds. On the contrary, when she sees Helmer, she tells him, “Yes, do help me, Torvald. Promise? I’m so nervous. All those people…You must devote yourself exclusively to me this evening. Pens away! Forget about the office! Promise me, Torvald dear!” (57) Unable to control her nerves, she tries to convince Helmer that she is merely worried over her dance performance, when in reality she is worried about Krogstad revealing her doings to her husband. She tries to hide her panic by acting like she is concerned about the dance, but the reader (and Helmer) can detect her desperation through her forceful tone in her begging pleads, such as “You must…” and “Promise me!” One can also sense her frantic behavior from her short sentence fragments, as if she can’t contain her stress, such as “al those people” and “pens away.” Indeed, Nora’s attempt to cover up her forgery and her paranoia reflects the secretive essence of the Victorian era.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis, especially with the sentence fragments characterizing the rising anxiety that Nora is experiencing. Once Helmer does send the letter, in a panicked state, Nora is awaiting the wrath of Krogstad, and when the epitome of this anxiety is reached (when Krogstad is waiting at the foot of the door), Nora covers up this business of hers with yet another lie. Rank, having just revealed his true feelings towards Nora, and Nora denying the feelings, are in the room together when she receives notice of his arrival:
DeleteNora "I've ordered [a new costume]. Torvald mustn't hear about it..."
Rank "Ah, so [the new costume is] the big secret, is it!"
Nora "Yes, that's right..." (50)
The web of lies that Nora is weaving will get exposed soon, for Krogstad is in a better disposition due to having leverage over her, and now that she lost hers, the possibility of his his job back, he will most likely use this against her. Secrecy seems to be a big theme in this book, mostly surrounding Nora and her actions. What effect do you think it will have on future events involving her and other major characters?
Throughout the course of the play, A Doll’s House, by Henrik Ibsen, one may notice that the play’s setting has primarily taken place within the main living room of the Helmer’s home. Few times the play mentions the kids partaking in activities in other rooms along with the maid, or Torvald laboring over his new job within his study; although never has any main part of the play taken place within those rooms. I believe the logic and reasoning behind this is simply because it symbolizes the one main conflict within the play and the one main topic as well. That main topic and conflict is the fact that Nora ows Krogstad over a thousand dollars in debt due to the fact that she loaned money from him in the time her husband was ill. From the beginning of the play, it starts off mentioning the fact that Torval was recently very sick which began to introduce the topic and conflict of the fact that is was Nora who paid those dues rather her father. As the play progresses and the audience officially knows the problem and the fear that Nora now must live in, there is no real other topic to the rest of the play. Every other mini conflict revolves around the fact that Nora has lied to her husband and could cost her, her whole family relationship and life is Mr. Helmer were to find out. For example, Mr. Helmer decides to give Krogstad’s job to Mrs. Linde, besides the conflict and tragedy that Krogstad is now losing his job, but the real conflict and worry is that Krogstad has now threatened Nora to tell Mr. Helmer of her wrong doing’s due to the fact that Nora was not able to protect his job. Similarly to the play mainly taking place in the living room, there is only one real main conflict/topic to the play only within the first two acts.
ReplyDeleteTowards the end of the third act of the play, Nora and Torvald have recently got in a possible relationship ending conflict. Although quickly solved, and no longer a threat to their relationship, Nora still degrades herself greatly due to how rude and disrespectful Torvald was to her.
ReplyDelete“Nora. … But our house has never been anything but a play-room. I have been your doll wife, just at home I was Daddy’s doll child. And the children in turn have been my dolls. I thought it was fun when you came and played with me, just as they thought it was fun when I went and played with them…”(Ibsen 80-81). The title of the play totally foreshadows the symbolism of a doll within the play. Nora is the doll of the house, she is the one that is constantly played around with and not treated with real respect like many of the women during the Victorian Era. Not only does the title foreshadow the symbolism of the doll within the Helmer’s home, but also women all over during this time. Women are far less superior to men in this era and sadly many households were held like the Helmer’s; the woman was the one that was to stay home and watch the kids. Women are constantly degraded and treated as dolls with the limited, to no rights they had along with how they were constantly thought of as one’s that were extremely stupid and had no real rash thoughts or capability of making decisions. Nora is always home and never making her own decisions in the “real world,” like Torvald. The house is the “Doll House,” and due to the fact that Nora is the doll of the house, it also foreshadows how she constantly stays home at the house, never going out on her own; similarly to many other women during the Victorian Era.
In the final act of A Doll’s House, Ibsen raises a question about the way marriages could be. Several times, Nora mentions the “miracle” she is hoping for, but never specifies what that miracle is. When Nora is explaining to Torvald why she is leaving him, she says, “It was tonight, when the miracle didn’t happen. It was then I realized you weren’t the man I thought you were” (III.84). She is not explaining herself directly and being vague, as she has been doing throughout the book, but this time for a different reason. Instead of being secretive as to hide her crime, Nora doesn’t explain herself because she realizes Torvald will never understand why she has to leave, or what the miracle was that never happened, no matter how she explains it. The audience gets a hint as to what that miracle was when Nora says, “When all danger was past, you acted as though nothing had happened. I was your little sky-lark again, your little doll, exactly as before” (III.84). Although Nora hadn’t wanted Torvald to find out about her forgery in fear of his wrath, she also had a tiny inkling of hope that if he did find out, he would be proud that she did such a brave, independent act to save his life. But instead, he disregarded it as if Nora’s action was thoughtless and done just out of the panic of a fragile woman. Nora realizes this and acknowledges her husband’s shallow view of her by mimicking his animal language, noting that he called her not an assertive, compassionate soul but a “little sky-lark” and a “doll.” Indeed, Nora was nothing but a proud possession of Torvald, just as a doll is to its owner, alluding to the meaning of the very title of the play. After Nora leaves Torvald for good, the play ends with a spark of hope, as Helmer says, “The miracle of miracles…?” (III.86). Ibsen’s unanswered question leaves it up to the audience to decide whether meaningless, patriarchal marriages will continue, or if there is room for individuals to change, and create mutual, loving relationships.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis is excellent. I also found that Ibsen uses Nora and Torvald’s relationship to question marriage and familial roles. Torvald keeps/speaks to Nora like she is his possession or like she is a beautiful object sitting in his house. Nora plays as Torvald’s doll to distract him and remain under his protection. She constantly states how she could not do anything without Torvald’s help or without him controlling her completely. In the end Nora realizes that her entire life and what she has grown to know has been a deceitful lie because of Torvald and her father. The play ends when Nora breaks off their relationship. Her exit and Torvald’s last lines implies if both people in the relationship are honest and go though individual change it might be possible to fix what was broken because of false perfection and happiness.
DeleteIn Act 3 of A Doll’s House, the audience is exposed to the conclusion to the conflict dealing with the letter in the play. This conflict ends with Torvald finding the letter with Nora’s failure to receive and destroy the letter before it got into Torvald’s hands. Torvald who immediately before reading the letter gives a speech to Nora of how much he loves her, all the ways he loves her, and basically gives a complete testament of his love. This lovely monologue is included in order to add tension to the scene as well as help the reader read Nora’s guilt foreshadowing Torvald’s opening of the letter. When Torvald opens the letter he changes completely acting furious with Nora telling her he won’t/can’t see her anymore breaking her heart as well as his own. While this rage only lasts for a brief moment because the couple receives information telling them that their record is clear, I still found the scene to be portrayed as very emotional. This is because the audience is supposed to feel the hurting in Torvalds words and actions because right before he feels required to end his relationship with Nora he gives a large speech confessing his love, and shows the audience how hard it will be for him to feel he has to end his relationship. The monologue acts a form of dramatic irony. The audience knows that Torvald will most likely receive the letter and become enraged, contradicting all he is saying, but Torvald is blind to this.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting is the foreshadowing in the play. According to the Victorian era, women were not depicted as equal to men. The "Woman Question" arose, meaning that many contradicted the values of women, and how capable they were of completing tasks that men take part in. Also, according to the typical depiction of a Victorian family, the Father would be supportive of the family, economically, and the Mother would support the large family at home. However, women who were divorced ended up in tight spots, because up until 1870, women could not keep money in their possession. That is why Mrs. Linde could not support herself after her divorce, and she was not left with anything. (We later find out she was married to Krogstad, which predetermines why there is a feud between the two for the bank job position). Usually during the Victorian era, it was extremely difficult for a woman to support herself. The state that Mrs. Linde is in financially frightens Nora, as her past events could have a negative effect on Helmer and Nora's relationship, in which Nora survives off of. This problem with money and the problem between Mrs. Linde and Krogstad's previous marriage foreshadows Nora and Helmer's future in their relationship, because of Nora's hidden secrets. However this is a false judgement, as in Act III, even though he is fired up after finding out about the loans, he confesses his true love for Nora. But Nora admits to never loving him in the end. This shows irony, because she was pretty much in the relationship for survival and her own comfort. So, in conclusion, the dilemma between Mrs. Linde and Krogstad does foreshadow Nora and Helmer's relationship problems thoroughly, as the plot leads us to believe there will be a major breakage. In this case, a true ironic separation.
ReplyDeleteWhoops I Meant to say DR. Rank at the end, not Torvald...
DeleteDuring the time reading and observing the acts in the play, I have noticed that Katherine does not necessarily follow the Victorian era's typical gender roles for women. During the Victorian era, women weren't very strong willed and independent. In fact, most women relied on their spouse to fend for them. They typically stayed at home and did "woman work". Although Katherine did this, she worked for her income, rather than Nora, who relied on Torvald for her wealth. Comparing both Katherine and Nora, Katherine was a lot better off by herself; without Krogstad, because she was willing to work her way to get back to where she was, regardless of having Krogstad around. Nora marries Torvald, for the money, but Katherine was already well off before she married Krogstad. After all, Katherine seemed to be unaffected by the concept of wealth, but Nora's obsession with money forced her into marrying for money, which was the typical ideal for women. So lastly, Katherine doesn't follow the typical gender roles for women in the Victorian era, because she is personally driven, and she leads well enough to have money for herself, rather than relying on her future husband.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn act 3 of A Doll’s House, Ibsen uses dramatic irony in order to add tension to the final scene of the play. When the letter is being sent to Krogstad firing him, the audience is aware of the consequence of this action, while Torvald is not. If Torvald sends the letter firing Krogstad, Krogstad will send the IOU revealing Nora’s foraging. The audience's knowledge of the consequences of Torvald’s actions increases tension to the scene, this allows for the audience to become more invested in the plot line of the story, and what happens to the relationships and characters. In act 3 when the height of the conflict is revealed the audience sees the consequence of Nora’s actions and the issues that come with lying and troublesome actions. However the audience would of not of had the dramatic realization and impact on reader if the dramatic irony in act two did not set up tension leading to the dramatic discovery of the IOU. Dramatic irony commonly serves as a tool to foreshadow the future events of the play in a way where the audience or reader is left in the blind about what exactly will unfold and how. Dramatic Irony builds tensions to scenes and helps the reader understand the consequences of specific characters especially in Ibsen’s A Doll’s House.
In comparing the actual ending with the alternate ending, I believe the original ending is more fitting to the story and more reflective of Ibsen’s beliefs and intentions. Since people were overwhelmed at the tragic separation of Nora and Torvald, Ibsen wrote the alternate ending with Nora deciding not to leave for the sake of her children. This does parallel with Torvald’s earlier statement about how children without mothers become “corrupted,” and how this worried Nora. This continues one of the themes of the play that suggests familial bonds can burden further generations. Furthermore, children are very important to almost every mother, regardless of whether one lived in the Victorian era. However, despite the children’s importance, they really were not the main focus of the play and Nora’s actions. Ibsen’s main message in the original ending was that one should understand oneself as an individual before dedicating themselves to another. The original ending also provides Nora with dynamic characterization, as she realizes that she doesn’t want to be a subservient housewife anymore and wants to discover her true self. If Ibsen has used the alternate ending instead, it would not have provided the hope that women can stand up to their husbands and be independent if they want to; it would have implied that they are trapped in their feminine roles. Despite being tossed around and treated like a “doll” by her father and husband, Nora has shown herself to be manipulative and independent by forging the signature, working to pay off the loan, and talking characters in and out of things throughout the play. Ibsen has shown her to be much more than a doll, to be a competent individual; her departure is a farther part of this portrayal.
ReplyDelete