Act I At the beginning of Act I in A Doll’s House by Henrick Ibsen, the reader is immediately introduced to the value of money to the characters in the play. When Nora asks how much the Christmas tree is, the porter replies with the amount of 50 öre. Nora gives the porter a crown instead and allows him to keep the change. It feels like Nora kind of just tosses money around acts like it is not a big deal and feels that money is not a huge issue to her as she just carelessly gives it away. An öre, or a Swedish Kronor, is the form of currency in Sweden. Fifty öres are only worth about $5.48 in U.S. dollars and a crown is obviously worth way more than that. On the opposite hand, her husband Torvald Helmer has a more serious outlook on his view of money. The couple fights at the beginning about how much to spend on Christmas gifts this year while Nora wants to “be just a little extravagant” while Helmer says her feelings about money are “frivolous ideas” and even calls her a spendthrift on multiple occasions. Later in the act, the family’s previous money insecurity issues are revealed. In the past, the family struggled with having a sufficient amount of money to pay for things, but now Helmer has a new job and more money is flowing into their household. This new abundance of money, especially compared to what they used to have, may be a reason why Nora struggles with compulsive buying. She is excited to finally have money to spend on wants and desires, rather than just on needs. The disagreement about Helmer’s and Nora’s different perspectives on the importance of money foreshadows future issues that later show up in the play surrounding money. Nora’s careless and willy- nilly outlook on how she spends her money may just be her downfall in the end.
I agree with your idea that money has a very different value to the characters in the play. I believe that these two opposing views are the main reason for all of the secrecy Nora has with her debts and money. I also noticed that Nora is very restricted in the way she can get and spend her money-- any money she gets must come through Torvald and the money must be spent how he chooses- money is one way Ibsen shows gender inequality in ADH
Despite the different value to the characters, overall money is a large factor in this play. I agree that Nora seems more compulsive when buying things and I think that may be due to the society valuing wealth and extravagance, and Nora, being a woman, aims to achieve high status in the community. I also agree with Dante that due to the money coming from Torvald, this supports the theme of gender inequality. However, Nora is clever with her use of money when saving portions that Torvald gives her to pay off her debt.
ACT ONE Helmer: “And I wouldn’t want my pretty little song-bird to be the least bit different from what she is now.” (Pg. 5)
This line is one of many that relate to the idea of the dehumanization of women. Here Helmer compares his wife to a song-bird. Something that creates the illusion of ownership, as animals are usually considered inferior organisms put on earth to serve the humans. Animals to humans are either food or they are pets. Continuing on, the conversation turns more complex, with Helmer saying he doesn’t want her to change. He wants to control her as seen later on this page with the line, “Didn’t go nibbling a macaroon or two?” (Pg. 5) Which shows the reader a slice of the beauty standards that dictate a woman’s life, and how he wishes to control her actions. However in the passage above, it is even more extreme, because he seems to not only want to control what goes into her body but her development as a person. So overall it seems she is a puppet, as many women were at this time, in Helmer’s life. The scariest part is she does nothing to combat the control. She seems to be too timid to turn against him as seen in the line, “I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to” (Pg. 5). The language he uses seems to be shaping her opinion of her role in their marriage and creating a truth she finds evident in her life. The truth she believes to be benevolent is that she is his property and he may do what he wishes with her. So as seen here, this rhetoric on a daily basis shapes her knowledge about the role she plays.
I strongly agree with your analysis. Helmer's comparisons didn't even stop at "my little song-bird", as he also continues on to refer her as his "squirrel" or "spendthrift". Also, no interactions between the two involved any real love, it just revolved around money, and how they could please each other with it. So far just in Act 1, this play is exemplifying the amount of control that men had over women during the Victorian Era. I believe that this motif of domestication will likely persist throughout the entirety of the play.
In "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen, the reader is presented with very prevalent gender roles. Near the beginning of the play Helmer has a conversation with his spouse, Nora, wherein these gender roles, specifically those of females in the time period, are exemplified. Ibsen writes " Helmer. Nora! [He goes up to her and takes her playfully by the ear.] Still my little featherbrain! Supposing I borrowed a thousand crowns to-day, and you made ducks and drakes of them during Christmas week, and then on New Year's Eve a tile blew off the roof and knocked my brains out- NORA. [Laying her hand on his mouth.] Hush! How can you talk so horridly? HELMER. But supposing it were to happen- what then? NORA. If anything so dreadful happened, it would be all the same to me whether I was in debt or not. HELMER. But what about the creditors? NORA. They! Who cares for them? They're only strangers. HELMER. Nora, Nora! What a woman you are! But seriously, Nora, you know my principles on these points. No debts! No borrowing! Home life ceases to be free and beautiful as soon as it is founded on borrowing and debt. We two have held out bravely till now, and we are not going to give in at the last. NORA. [Going to the fireplace.] Very well- as you please, Torvald. "(Pg. 2) In this conversation Helmer dictates what Nora can and can not do with the money that Helmer makes. Helmer is able to tell Nora her limits because he is the one who brings in the family's entire income. This behavior and dictator like limit setting by the husband or eldest male in the household was likely very common in the Victorian Era, as women, while gaining limited rights, still did not have very many opportunities for work. This lack of work was what kept the male as the "breadwinner" for the family. Also Helmer's justification of why the family should save as much money as possible also perpetuates and reinforces the fact that the family's man was almost always the primary source of income. Helmer speaking of, or rather questioning, what the family, and in particular Nora, would do if Helmer were to get into some sort of accident and die. If Helmer were to die the family would no longer have a primary income source, so Helmer sees it as imperative to prepare for this event. Nora starts to argue against this justification, but proceeds to step down. Her backing down is a primary example of how the final say of the man goes and there is no arguing against it. Both of these instances and this conversation as a whole serve as evidence to the prominent gender roles in the Victorian era.
I agree with your analysis of the prominent gender roles which Ibsen reveals about the Victorian era. The ways in which Helmer's patriarchal role within the household was supported proved to be excellent evidence. However, I do believe that Nora has an underlying power in the decisions which Helmer makes. She is witty enough to ironically act dumber, and beg for money from him. Her beauty and manipulative lies (even the little ones about the macaroons) prove effective in getting what she wants. On the outside it may appear that Helmer is in total control, but the reality is that Nora has some as well.
I agree that gender roles will be a recurring issue throughout the book. I'd add that the diction in conversations between Torvald and Nora seem to be closer to "master to pet" than "husband to wife". The way they converse clearly shows the rank in the household that Torvald has over Nora, thus adding to the many other examples of uneven gender roles in the story.
Secrecy was a key component used in the making of A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen. It was a large part of the accepted society and was practiced by every family in some way, shape, or form. As I was reading, I noticed large sections of dialogue, filled with casual conversation and half-hearted sentences. This was especially emphasized in the conversation between Nora and Mrs. Linde. Nora represented the stereotypical woman during the Victorian era, who puts on a mask to hide her true self and situation in order to please others and appear “normal”. She fills this space by highlighting the more socially accepted points in her life, like when she said, “What do you think? My husband has just been made Bank Manager!” (9). However, Nora fails to mention how it has changed him, increasing his power and ego, making him even more verbally abusive than normal. Though it is part of the Victorian culture, Helmer is constantly degrading Nora. He talks as if he owns her and possesses all power, when really Nora has been finding her own ways to take care of herself and her children. She chooses to keep this secret from Helmer. As the conversation between Nora and Mrs. Linde continues, it turns into a conversation filled with recent achievements and awards. They are looking for praise and acceptance, carefully choosing what they say to each other. Both Mrs. Linde and Nora put on a façade to hide their realistic and faulty lives.
I agree with your analysis, secrecy played a big role during the Victorian era. I think this common secrecy might have stemmed from the rigid rules at the time. Men and women were expected to fit a certain role, and if they did not conform to how society wanted them to be, they would be considered outcasts. I believe Nora's compulsive lying habits stem from women having to play a certain role. She had to play the role of the dumb and oblivious. While men played the role of the responsible and educated. This means that in order for a women to be accepted by society, they would have to put on a façade to hide what might have really been happening in their lives.
Through Act I of A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen challenges the gender roles during the Victorian era by indirectly characterizing Nora. At the beginning of the play, the reader is introduced to Nora who seems like a very cheerful wife and mother. She clearly cares about her children as she has wants to spend a lot of money on their Christmas gifts and she cares about pleasing her husband. Nora is not as innocent as she acts. After returning from a little shopping Torvald asks if she has been, “nibbling a macaroon or two” and Nora becomes defensive and denies it. Right before this conversation she had quickly eaten one and hid them away. Although this act may seem small and unimportant, it foreshadows future lies that are revealed that are much bigger that Nora is hiding from her husband. It also seems at first that Nora is careless with money as she is always asking Torald for money. Later it is revealed that Nora is not spending that money on herself or on wants and desires, but on a secret loan from Krogstad in order to pay for her husband’s sickness. She knows she must not let Torvald find out or he would be outraged. During this time period, the husband was the main authority figure and was the main financial provider for the family. The wife was seen as inferiors to their spouses. In Nora’s case, the fact that she was secretly working to save her husband’s life shows how clever she is and how she truly cares about her family. It also shows the great lengths that Nora is willing to go to in order to keep her husband living. She forged her father’s name and went behind Torvald’s back with a secret loan. Nora’s character challenges the common Victorian woman and foreshadows future choices Nora will make against the social norms during this time period.
Your analysis on the challenge of gender roles throughout act 1 is very intriguing. I have never thought before that Nora could be perceived as actually a clever figure. This point also brings up other questions, such as “Does Nora really deserve this criticism and hardship that she is currently receiving from other characters?” After all, she did have a good intention while forging Torvald’s signature. However, the law does not give in to someone who had a good motive but committed a real crime. I believe as though the state of the situation is worsed by other people’s problems, such as Krogstad’s desire to keep his job, and Dr. Rank’s propinquity to death.
I agree with your analysis and how Nora is meant to be an intelligent character. I especially began to notice this when Nora quickly found an excuse to distract Helmer from opening the mail and discovering the truth. She quickly decided to claim that she forgot how to dance the tarantella and followed through by dancing badly and knowing how to make it look like she truly forgot. Do you think that for the reason that Nora is clever and breaks the gender stereotypes that it is one of the reasons people dislike her character? And in the same way that people could really like her character?
I agree with your analysis and think that your point about how she was not the 'common Victorian woman' in that time period was very important because although small, she makes gestures that show how she will be more troublesome in the future. If she has the nerve to go against social norms to this extent and this soon into the play, I predict that later in the play she will cause even more trouble and drama due to her selfishness and need for approval from others. I also believe that she will cause harm to more people than just herself because in the first two acts, she seems to share her business with others when she deep down knows that it should be kept to herself.
In the second act of "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen lying is shown to be quite disastrous through the case of Helmer and Nora. Nora has painted herself into a corner with her lies in the sense that she has so many false narratives going for her with so many different people it is becoming hard for her to keep up with all of them whilst simultaneously keeping them from contradicting each other. This is seen near the start of Act II: " HELMER. [Searching among his papers.] To settle the thing. [ELLEN enters.] Here; take this letter; give it to a messenger. See that he takes it at once. The address is on it. Here's the money. ELLEN. Very well, sir. [Goes with the letter. HELMER. [Putting his papers together.] There, Madam Obstinacy. NORA. [Breathless.] Torvald- what was in the letter? HELMER. Krogstad's dismissal. NORA. Call it back again, Torvald! There's still time. Oh, Torvald, call it back again! For my sake, for your own, for the children's sake! Do you hear, Torvald? Do it! You don't know what that letter may bring upon us all. HELMER. Too late. NORA. Yes, too late. HELMER. My dear Nora, I forgive your anxiety, though it's anything but flattering to me. Why should you suppose that I would be afraid of a wretched scribbler's spite? But I forgive you all the same, for it's a proof of your great love for me. [Takes her in his arms.] That's as it should be, my own dear Nora. Let what will happen- when it comes to the pinch, I shall have strength and courage enough. You shall see: my shoulders are broad enough"(II, 43). At this point Nora has told Krogstad that he will be able to convince Helmer that Krogstad deserves to keep his job. If Nora can not do this Krogstad will tell Helmer about Nora's fraudulence and the loans that she had taken out after her father had died. Krogstad is essentially blackmailing Nora. Nora becomes very frightened when Helmer says that he is giving his notice (indicating that he will be fired from the bank). However, the story does not end here; matters become significantly more complicated once Nora has to try to convince Torvald that he should reconsider his firing of Krogstad (this makes matters more complicated because she must convince Torvald, without actually telling him why Krogstad deserves to keep his job. Torvald is unable to be convinced making matters worse for Nora as Korgstad will have to follow through with his blackmailing and reveal to Torvald that Nora has been lying the whole time. If Nora had not signed for her father in the first place and had told Torvald about the loans much sooner the entire situation could have been avoided.
I agree that lying will be detrimental for Nora. It irritates me that Nora tends to manipulate others to get what she wants, at the expense of others. She seems to have a pattern of creating new lies to cover up old ones, such as her encounter with Dr. Rank. It is inferred that she is going to ask Dr. Rank to help her with her problem with Krogstad, most likely by getting him to lie to get Krogstad his job back. She flirts with Dr. Rank and uses his affection for her to get him to lie for her. In all, I think that Nora’s deceitful nature and actions will catch up with her, possibly causing her to lose what she actually cares about.
“Krogstad: Your father was seriously ill, I believe. Nora: He was very near the end. Krogstad: And died shortly afterwards? Nora: Yes.” (Pg. 27)
This exchange can tell the reader a few things. First and foremost the mention of an illness goes no further than the word illness. The specifics of the incident are not clarified, and this gives more volume to the idea hidden in Victorian culture that has to do with not making conflict or getting too worked up. this attitude is displayed here when the author chooses not to use the actual name of the illness. It implies that the family doesn’t want to remember the finer details of such a horrible situation. Which is understandable, but it also perpetuates the idea that they wish to censor the harsh realities of life, to uphold the prestige they have. The second part of this passage, is that it gives the reader insight on the characterization of Krogstad, who is revealing his two faced mentality. He proceeds to blackmail Nora, using her father’s death as a key element of that blackmail. Which is an indecent thing to do to a daughter who just lost her father and he does this in order to not get laid off by her husband. So the reader can learn that Krogstad will do a number of things to get what he wants and has little sense of dignity.
Nice analysis! I definitely agree with your interpretation of the word "illness." They, of course, would never describe it as anything more in the Victorian era. Everything was just so proper and dignified, which I suppose was good and bad; it shined a more positive light on negative situations, but it did not portray the actual events that occurred giving it a lack of realism. I also agree with your interpretation of the next lines. Nora's father's death is an understandably sensitive topic for her. This displays Krogstad's intelligent and cruel qualities of manipulation. His personality type certainly fits a blackmailer. Maybe if he did not slack at his job, he would not find this necessary though!
In A Doll’s House, most of the relationships are unhealthy and hanging by a thread. This is because in Victorian culture, it was traditional to keep many things secluded, closed off, and to themselves. They did not fully connect with others because it gave away secrets that reveal people’s tarnished character. During these times, everyone had to be perfect, living normal, lavish lives. Without this personal connection with others, there is lack of trust and emotion between two people. I found that Nora is not trusted by many characters in the story because she keeps secrets and hides her true self from everyone. She created a different personality, custom to whom ever she is speaking to. An example of this would be when she first meets with Mrs. Linde, and exaggerates the highlights of her life to make herself seem better than she actually was. This created a fake relationship between the two, which couldn’t be trusted. Soon after, we see that Mrs. Linde was only looking for a job, rather than to catch up with Nora. We see a similar relationship between Nora and Helmer. Helmer does not trust Nora with money or making decisions and he constantly treats her as if she is below him. He knows that in the past she has caused trouble and made bad decisions, so he has yet to trust her after the incident. Little does he know, that Nora was keeping the huge secret from him about borrowing money and being in debt. This creates a huge bump in their relationship and shows their disconnection. Lastly, Nora and Krogstad have the least healthy relationship out of all that have been introduced in the first two acts. Nora has borrowed a large sum of money from Krogstad and he is essentially blackmailing her. In this case, Krogstad is not to be trusted because he threatens her if she cannot get him the money and draws entertainment from frightening the woman. Again, this is a well-kept secret between her and Helmer, already creating a large ball of drama at the beginning of the play, in which the characters revolve around. In other words, This large sum of drama is simply caused from a lack of trust and connection, which would be a simple fix in the modern day, but this was a very common dilemma during the Victorian era. There may have been a situation exactly like the one Nora is in in every household back then, which relates to the title of the play, “A Doll’s House”. The idea that these characters are confined in this doll house, yet live lives with extravagant secrets and dramas, all which in the end mean nothing because they are just simple figurines trapped in a plastic house.
“NORA: If a little squirrel were to ask so ever nicely… ? HELMER: Well? NORA: Would you do something for it? HELMER: Naturally I would first have to know what it is. NORA: Please, if only you would let it have its way, and do what it wants, it’d scamper about and do all sorts of marvellous tricks. HELMER: What is it? NORA: And the pretty little sky-lark would sing all day long…” (II).
Through this conversation between Nora and Helmer in Act II, Ibsen builds on the characterization of the couple during the Victorian era by using the gender roles during this time period as a basis. Earlier in the play, Helmer refers to his wife on multiple occasions as a squirrel, sky-lark, and a song bird. The use of animal diction that Helmer uses to describe Nora is dehumanizing and reveals the way women were viewed during this era. I found it interesting that Nora goes along with it and continues to go along with her husband’s insults. I think Nora feels trapped in her marriage yet she goes along with his remarks to cover up her secret. In this conversation she calls herself a “little squirrel,” “it,” and “pretty little sky-lark.” This brings up the question whether or not Nora respects herself. I believe she is not brainwashed into the gender roles during this time, but rather she is clever enough to go along with it to get her way and get what she wants in her marriage. Nora is smart enough to know that Helmer’s name calling is not appropriate and is insulting. She knows that this was a common view during her time period and was considered normal. However, I think that Nora is challenging these gender roles as she has found a way to seem submissive on the outside, yet underneath she is more clever than she is given credit for. On the other hand, I think Helmer has succumbed to the social norms of marriage roles in his society and is too selfish to see what is really happening. Helmer takes on the role of being superior to his wife and treating her like an object, as seen by his use of dehumanizing diction. I think that this conversation foreshadows future events where Nora will tell her family how she really feels about the obligation she holds as a wife, a woman, and a mother in their society.
I like your idea that Nora is clever enough to be aware of her position as an inferior to Torvald’s authoritarian figure, but I also think that Nora is at least somewhat accepting of it partly because it was a cultural norm for husbands to be a superior figure, but mostly because of Nora’s childlike personality. She has always seemed to be very dependent on a male figure; through her flashbacks and memories, Nora was obviously a daddy’s girl father as a young child, and that parental figure merely shifted from her father to her husband after her marriage. Throughout the play, Torvald and Nora’s relationship seems more like a father and daughter relationship rather than that of a husband and wife, and personally, I think Nora is more comfortable in her position because she is always able to manipulate Torvald in a way to get what she wants and be spoiled. She also likes to bluff and seem important by using Torvald’s social status and his job, but she really is not interested in his job- just the fact that she can use for her power.
Today nicknames are not often seen as things of particular importance, mostly they are seen as a way to shorten a person's name, nothing more, however Ibsen makes use of nicknames to show how they can help allude to certain attributes of characters in his play "A Doll's House". Nicknames, in fact, are fairly important early on as they help to foreshadowing what is to come throughout the rest of the play. Near the very start of the play the reader is introduced to the main focus of the play: Torvald and Nora Helmer. They have their first exchange of conversation: "Torvald: Is that my little sky-lark chirruping out there? Nora: Yes, it is Helmer: Is that my little squirrel frisking about? Nora: Yes"(I, 1). Readers can see that through Torvald's usage of nicknames for his wife shows that he is fairly affectionate toward her in what seems to be a fairly (modern) stereotypical way. Torvald calling her his "Skylark" and "squirrel" shows that he sees the positive attributes found in those respective animals in her (whatever those may be). Late Ibsen goes on to write "Helmer: Has my little spendthrift been out squandering money again?". This is Torvald highlighting the negative aspects of Nora's character. Those being that Nora has a tendency to handle and use money quite poorly. This is presumably what leads to Torvald giving her the nickname "Spendthrift". Early in the play this does not seem to play a very large role, but as the play progresses the reader can see that Torvald calling Nora a "Spendthrift" reveals as previously mentioned that she is bad with money, which ultimately complicates the situation following with Rank and Krogstad. Ibsen's use of nicknames early in the play allows for character traits to be revealed while also foreshadowing what may be to come as a result of these character traits.
I agree with the idea that those nicknames foreshadow and highlight Nora's qualities and personality traits. It is interesting that Torvald calls Nora by these names, because he is characterizing his wife as a wild animal– perhaps one he has no control over. Although Torvald convinces himself that he can control his wife, as he treats her like a pet, we've seen that Nora really cannot be controlled at all. Nora is, in fact, just like a wild animal. She frequently ignores wishes, and will do whatever she pleases, often giving into temptation. In this way, Torvald's nicknames for Nora are very accurate, though perhaps giving the opposite effect of what Torvald hoped he was doing (he thought he was domesticating her, though she was never under his control at all).
“Krogstad: You know I’ve been given my notice. Nora: I couldn’t prevent it, Mr. Krogstad, I did my utmost for you, but it was no use. Krogstad: Has your husband so little affection for you? He knows what I can do to you, yet he dares… Nora: You don’t imagine he knows about it! Krogstad: No, I didn’t imagine he did. It didn’t seem a bit like my good friend Torvald Helmer to show that much courage…” (Pg. 52)
So at this moment in the play, Krogstad has returned to continue his manipulation of Nora. He is consistent, and will not seem to let up on her. Later on he would even reference the idea of her being put down. All this business is turning quite dirty and it seems it all is blowing up in Nora’s face. Nora has to deal with all the problems coming up, which is ironic. It is funny because usually the women is the one who “needs” protection, and in the case of this play it’s actually Nora who is protecting her husband. So it’s great use of irony because it twists gender roles in a subtle way. Kragstad even describes Torvald as a coward. This characterization helps with the gender role swap. The reader even realizes something new about Nora, and that is that she is actually trying to make an effort to put things back together, and is being a very strong person. Most readers feel she is pampered and submissive, while it seen here that she is actually challenging her role in society by even dealing with this mess and trying to break out of her box. She tries repeatedly throughout the play and it helps aid the idea that she is stronger than most think. She genuinely cares about her husband too. This marriage they have is one of love, because she really cares about Torvald’s life. She is willing to go through all this trouble to protect him.
Yes I agree with very much of what you wrote about and the different themes that were packed in this quote. You briefly mentioned the irony of Nora protecting her husband, and I really like that interpretation, because it would then lead to thematic idea that women are just as strong as men if not looked down upon. This is also present in other quotes of the book, as Nora could take any action a man could and do it just as well if not better/wiser, but since she is a woman it would be illegal or socially awkward if she did do those kinds of things. However, Ibsen made it look like that in this part of the play Nora is not doing it, because she knows she could, she is doing it all out of love, which you mentioned. Because Ibsen made it appear this way, it would then leave a greater dominant effect to the audience once they have finished reading the play and realize how Nora feels in the end. Great Analysis!
Nora is beginning to morph into a wonderful abnormality from the stereotypical Victorian woman. There is evidence of this in act two, because when compared to act one, Nora takes more of the obedient characteristic. As we are learning more about her as the play goes on, we see that she has been keeping all of these secrets from her friends and especially Helmer. One would think they Nora would tell her husband everything because that was what they were supposed to do back then, but no. Nora chose to lie to Helmer about a series of things, one of these things being the large sum of money that she borrowed from Krogstad. At the end of act two, Helmer still has no clue about the drama between Krogstad and Nora and why it was caused because Nora believes she is doing what’s best and goes against social norms. At one point, Krogstad begins to blackmail Nora and he leaves a letter that would expose this giant secret if Helmer were to read it. Nora then does everything in her power to keep him from checking the mail. If this relationship were a normal Victorian era relationship, Nora would have never attempted to keep this secret in the first place and she would have told Helmer immediately. She also personally asks Mrs. Linde to help her contain this crazy mess. Act two makes the reader really question why she goes through all of this effort to keep this secret, and it is because all she has in mind is what is best for Helmer. So in a way, she is trying to improve their relationship and she shows how much she cares for him.
In the final act of A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen builds on the characterization of Helmer by using the cultural norms of the Victorian era as a platform. During this time period, men were the main authority figures in a household who held all the control. Families also cared a lot about their reputation, appearance, and how others perceived them. This aspect is shown true through the relationship between Nora and Helmer throughout the entire play. On multiple occasions, Helmer treats Nora as more of an object, rather than the other half of a loving, genuine relationship. He controls her like a doll to make others believe that they have their life together and everything is okay. The importance of one’s reputation is most prominent in the scene where Helmer is exposed to Nora’s secret. Helmer says, “Now you have ruined my entire happiness, jeopardized my whole future. It’s terrible to think of" ... “I’m done for, a miserable failure, and it’s all the fault of a feather-brained woman!” (III). He goes on to yell at Nora and say, “... people might even suspect me of being an accomplice in these criminal acts of yours. They might even think I was the one behind it all, that it was I who pushed you into it!”... “Now do you understand what you have to done to me?” (III). It is very obvious that the first thing that comes to Helmer’s mind in this crisis is the fact that their community is going to think they are crazy criminals who committed an absurd crime. Helmer’s repeated use of singular pronouns like “my,” “I”, and “me” show that Helmer is worried more about his own image rather than Nora’s or the family’s as a whole. Helmer wants to “preserve appearances” (III) as much as possible because he does not want his peers to see his family as corrupt.
I totally agree with your analysis of how Victorian era stigmas and cultural traditions are evident in this last act with Torvald. I also believe that at the end of this act, there is a rapid change in said stigmas and traditions. As soon as Torvald finds out about the second letter that allows him to forgive Nora for her sins, Nora uses this as her chance to separate herself from Torvald, and this is when the cultural traditions switch. Normally, the male has the authority, but in this situation, Torvald is begging for Nora not to leave him, leaving Nora with all of the power.
I have come to the same conclusion as yours regarding the objectification of women throughout the Victorian era as well as being portrayed through Torvald. The patriarchal hierarchy within each household was extreme. The allusion to Nora's life while living with Torvald to being that of a doll's life living in a dollhouse is well suiting. Although some may reference a “doll’s life” to being perfect or secure, Nora shows the powerless life she lives. Nora is unable to make her own choices while she is married to Torvald. However, in this certain time period it was not as uncommon.
“Helmer: No, Let’s forget the whole ghastly thing. We can rejoice and say: It’s all over! It’s all over! Why this grim look on your face? Oh, poor little Nora, of course I understand. You can’t bring yourself to believe I’ve forgiven you. But I have, Nora, I swear. I forgive you everything. I know you did what you did because you loved me.” (Pg. 77)
To put the quote in context, Helmer only a matter of seconds ago, rejected Nora for how she got him in trouble with the loan she had taken out. He then opens up a letter Nora has and with the snap of a finger his attitude flips. He is now delighted to hear that the whole ordeal is over and assures Nora that he takes back what he said. It’s ironic that he says, “Let’s forget the whole ghastly thing” (Pg. 77). The reason why is that he acts as if the whole orderly has been equally as burdening. When the whole time, Nora has had to bear the burden. He also dominates the conversation with large segments of speech cut out for him, while Nora is left to one to four word sentences. Whereas throughput a majority of the play, Nora actually is the main focus. Then he takes back what he had said previously about this being, “Oh, that I should have to say this to the women I loved so dearly, the women I still…. Well, that must be all over and done with” (76). Which obviously states that he wishes to part ways. However he changes his mind in this quote and thinks that it will all be okay, because he has a sense of entitlement. He thinks that she is his to throw away and pick back up like a rag doll. It’s a part of the Victorian culture, and it has heavily influenced the interactions between Helmer and Nora, most evidently in this passage. Through the play it’s easy to see how Nora can be blamed for the misfortunate of Helmer, but her actions were well intentioned and if she hadn’t been as sheltered maybe she would have been able to handle the situation better. He consistently dominates her life, telling her what to do and scolding her for wanting to indulge herself occasionally.
I agree with what you have to say about Victorian culture in that men view women as property, much as most of history has. However, I feel you could have phrased your last sentence better. By saying that "[he was] scolding her for wanting to indulge herself occasionally" you are suggesting that Nora is not intending to gain anything but temporary comfort, unless of course I am reading too deeply into this. For the sake of discussion though, I would have phrased it as something similar to "scolding her for wanting to be her own person and experience some sort of individuality." I feel this would be much more in line with Ibsen's intended message of pursuing independence and happiness
Nearing the end of the play "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen, Helmer's attempts to cope with Nora Helmer's newfound sense of independence are demonstrated through Helmer's drastic mood change and his change in diction. Ibsen writes "Helmer: I see. I see. There is a tremendous gulf dividing us. But, Nora, is there no way we might bridge it? Nora :As I am now, I am no wife for you Helmer: I still have it in me to change. Nora: Perhaps ... if you have your doll taken away Helmer: And be separated from you! No, no Nora, the very thought is inconceivable. Nora: All the more reason why it must be done." (page 85) In this instance Nora has come forward to her husband about her previous fraud and the current situation with Krogstad. Helmer is at first fairly mad at Nora, but later learns that the situation is resolved, however this is before he learns that Nora has committed a crime. After this Nora realizes that she can no longer stay with Helmer if she even wants to retain a sense of self. She tells him that she will be leaving in the morning and Helmer sees this as very unfavorable. Helmer starts to actually treat her like a human being by not referring to her by a pet name or anything of the sort. In addition Helmer also starts to offer compromise in exchange for her stay. This is seen in this instance later in the conversation "Couldn't we go on living her like brother and sister?". These changes in Helmer's diction indicate that he fears Nora becoming her "own person" so to speak, which indicates that Helmer is possibly fearful of women in general and would rather prefer for them to remain obedient to men. This would not have been anomalous from the opinion of most men during this time.
I like how you mentioned the change in Helmer’s diction in the passage. Something I also noticed was that Nora suggests, “Perhaps…if you have your doll taken away.” In this quote, Nora has a very parental tone that contrasts with her usual childish diction. Throughout the play, Nora accepts her role as Helmer’s plaything and even plays along with his diminutive diction and pet names. However, once Nora realizes that Helmer does not truly love her, she is less willing to humor him. Instead of trying to make him happy, Nora now realizes that she must teach Helmer to be a better person by not allowing him to treat her as a toy.
Henrik Ibsen writes a story about a young woman, Nora, and her relationships with others, specifically her deteriorating relationship with her husband. Act three has drastically changed in comparison to act one and by today’s standards, it has changed for the better. Ibsen mysteriously titles the poem, “A Doll’s House”, and the reader dives into the daily life of Nora in act one with no reasoning for the name. As the story progresses, the more you see Nora characterized just like a doll. A child owns a doll, plays with it, dresses it up, and it is forever their possession. This is the same type of relationship as between Nora and Helmer. Helmer acts as he owns her and she is a pet or a “doll”. He does this by calling Nora names throughout the play, such as “squirrel” or “skylark”. However, Helmer fails to realize the power that Nora has and how she has secretly been using it behind his back. In act one, Nora is an obedient housewife and her purpose is to care for Helmer and please him. Ibsen shows this with diction as he uses very soft and compliant diction. During act two, conflict begins to arise as the reader finds out more about Nora’s past. Ibsen reveals that Nora has been going behind Helmer’s back and borrowing money in order to take care of Helmer and the children. As the stress increases, she begins to stray from that obedient doll she began as. Finally, in act three, Nora breaks away from that stereotypical shell of a woman and becomes independent, leaving Helmer. As he begs her to stay, she refuses, showing how dynamic of a character she has become. She completely flipped and now controls her own life instead of leaving it in the hands of Helmer. I believe this is the reason why Ibsen titled this poem, “A Doll’s House”. I also noticed that toward the end of act three when Helmer was trying to talk Nora into staying, he claimed that the house was hers instead of his. With Nora being the “doll”, him saying this proves the theory. The title is meant to show the change she goes through from the beginning of the poem to the end, where she starts as the doll but ends up owning the whole house and taking control of her own life. So instead of the child directing the doll around the doll house, she becomes independent and is no longer the child’s possession.
I totally agree with your analysis of Nora being the doll in the title of the play. I think your idea that the house belongs to her at the end of the play is really interesting because I hadn't previously considered it. In my opinion, I think the house is representative of the ideals of perfection that she, and society, have. For example, the Christmas tree that she so frantically decorates in order to mask her negative emotions is also to make her home more beautiful in order to mask the negative atmosphere that is present there. Basically to cover up the imperfection in her home life with pretty things.
Through his play A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen uses the characterization of Kristine Linde to foreshadow the future of Nora after she decides to leave her family. Mrs. Linde originally married her first husband just for his money to support her mother and to care for her younger brothers. The play takes place years after this when both of Mrs. Linde’s mother and husband have passed away and her brothers are old enough to take care of themselves. She arrives at Nora’s doorstep in search of employment to now find money to continue to support herself. Through her interactions with Nora and the other characters, Ibsen characterizes Mrs. Linde as honest and independent. Mrs. Linde has taken the responsibility upon herself to find employment and to not rely on someone who she does not love to support her. She also believes that honesty is the best policy, unlike Nora, whose marriage is surrounded by deceit and secrecy. Mrs. Linde knows that although Nora’s secret may ruin her relationship with Torvald, it is better for the both of them to know the truth. Mrs. Linde says, “All this secrecy and deception, it just can’t go on”... “Nora.. you must tell your husband everything” (III). Mrs. Linde knows from experience that a marriage that is based off of secrets and not true love will not be successful. This proves true in the end when Nora leaves her unhealthy marriage, and it is revealed that Krogstad and Mrs. Linde used to be together but were separated due to Mrs. Linde’s financial needs. However in the end they get back together because they find true love between each other. Mrs. Linde and Nora are literary foils of each other as Mrs. Linde has a strong sense of self-worth and independence, while Nora lacks her own personal identity. Nora’s final decision at the end of the play to live on her own and for herself represents the type of life that Mrs. Linde once lived where she made her own decisions and was an independent. Nora is starting a new journey in her life to find her self-worth and Mrs. Linde is finding fulfillment through her rekindled love with Krogstad.
I totally agree with the idea that Mrs. Linde is Nora’s foil, but I don’t think that Mrs. Linde is as perfect as you described. Mrs. Linde left Krogstad for a man with more money, which demonstrates how she let society get to her. The society they lived in valued money and status, and Mrs. Linde was tempted and left someone she truly loved for a man with better prospects. I think this develops Mrs. Linde into a dynamic character who has since realized that she prefers honesty and connections with people over what society views as important. She wants to work, something that women don’t ordinarily do, and she has had not had the stereotypical “successful” life of a husband and children, but she finds happiness caring for people nonetheless. I think she also contradicts Nora in the fact that she actually enjoys caring for people, while Nora feels forced into the role of a "doll's wife".
I agreee with your analysis of how Mrs. Linde is Nora's foil. But I also agree with Katja's idea of how Mrs. Linde wasn't as perfect as how you described her to be. She did leave Krogstad for a more wealthy man. I think that the only reason why Mrs. Linde came crawling back to Krogstad, wasn't just because of how much she realized she loved him, but also she felt really lonely. Her mother died, her brothers had died, and her husband had left her; she felt lonely. I also agree with how Ibsen characterized Mrs. Linde and Nora. Mrs. Linde is more of a honest person and prefers to have connections with people while Nora prefers to be more secretive and worries about what society views her as and what's important
In the final scene of "A Doll's House" Ibsen conveys the theme that all people are entitled to their own unique sense of self through his characterization of the character Nora. At the very beginning of the play Nora is shown to be a submissive and perhaps dimwitted housewife that has a bit of a problem managing money properly. Very quickly this notion is proven false; Nora is a compulsive liar who portrays multiple versions of herself through the various lies that she has told to the people around her. The theory of her being a poor money manager is proven to be quite an understatement as the truth about her committing crimes involving money in the past in addition to also being quite the "spendthrift" according to her husband. After everything is said and done and Nora has come forward with the truth (or truths as she reveals multiple important pieces of information to him in a fairly short period of time) she decides that 1) she can not continue to live with her husband who has a complete lack of respect for her human rights and 2) she does not want to go into an enormous amount of debt with her husband. She, mostly because of factor 1, leaves her stereotypical as the housewife that was so common in the Victorian Era. While the decision to abandon her children and start a new life may not have been the correct one, she did realize that she needed to leave her husband if she wanted to establish any sort of personal identity apart from being Helmer's wife. Nora's case is what Ibsen used to show a specific example of how people can leave their current situations in order to start a new portion of their lives as a new person.
Nice analysis! It, of course, is well documented that Nora is a compulsive liar. This is her number one character flaw, and it gets her in immense amounts of trouble as the play progresses. However, this same character flaw allows her to do many things, including saving her husband without him even knowing it (a smart play in that time, as he may not have agreed upon hearing the truth). As you said, as these same lies come out, she has a realization that she must leave her unsatisfactory lifestyle and live and learn for herself. While lying is an, in general, objectionable quality, it seems that Nora gets away with it by using her lies to her advantage.
This is the moment in the story where Nora has finally had enough of Helmer’s domination over her. This is the result of a build up over time of her curiosity about being independent. She has had to push down her true feelings for a long time in this dead marriage and here she has finally come to that realization. The fact that she has been boxed in all her life, explains why she makes such a sudden burst for the door. She wants to leave him forever and she does. Which is great to see happen, because it stays true to the characterization she has throughout the book. She finally stands up to him in this passage, which is awesome to see happen. Especially after he scolds her so often in this book and controls her so much. The conversation had been dominated by him in the previous pages and suddenly the script flips. He begs for forgiveness and she will not have it, and rejects him once and for all. He is reduced to small cuts of language, while she dominates. The theme is then carried full circle and the alternate ending totally demolishes the overall theme. The Feminist and Humanist messages within the book are forgotten in the few lines at the end of the play. It’s understandable that this happens, though and it isn’t the author’s fault, because germany at the time was controlled by authoritarian regime. This regime was a response to the French revolution’s nationalist vehement. This vehement perfumed in places of higher learning, and eventually students helped organize a rebellion in March 1848. This rebellion failed and in turn the German government restricted the rights of its citizens. This is why the author had such a difficult time publishing what he wanted to publish. The whole premise of the story was disobeying authority at the end.
Hello Everybody, My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:(urgentloan22@gmail.com) Thank you.
BORROWERS APPLICATION DETAILS
1. Name Of Applicant in Full:…….. 2. Telephone Numbers:………. 3. Address and Location:……. 4. Amount in request……….. 5. Repayment Period:……….. 6. Purpose Of Loan…………. 7. country………………… 8. phone………………….. 9. occupation……………… 10.age/sex………………… 11.Monthly Income………….. 12.Email……………..
ReplyDeleteAct I
At the beginning of Act I in A Doll’s House by Henrick Ibsen, the reader is immediately introduced to the value of money to the characters in the play. When Nora asks how much the Christmas tree is, the porter replies with the amount of 50 öre. Nora gives the porter a crown instead and allows him to keep the change. It feels like Nora kind of just tosses money around acts like it is not a big deal and feels that money is not a huge issue to her as she just carelessly gives it away. An öre, or a Swedish Kronor, is the form of currency in Sweden. Fifty öres are only worth about $5.48 in U.S. dollars and a crown is obviously worth way more than that. On the opposite hand, her husband Torvald Helmer has a more serious outlook on his view of money. The couple fights at the beginning about how much to spend on Christmas gifts this year while Nora wants to “be just a little extravagant” while Helmer says her feelings about money are “frivolous ideas” and even calls her a spendthrift on multiple occasions. Later in the act, the family’s previous money insecurity issues are revealed. In the past, the family struggled with having a sufficient amount of money to pay for things, but now Helmer has a new job and more money is flowing into their household. This new abundance of money, especially compared to what they used to have, may be a reason why Nora struggles with compulsive buying. She is excited to finally have money to spend on wants and desires, rather than just on needs. The disagreement about Helmer’s and Nora’s different perspectives on the importance of money foreshadows future issues that later show up in the play surrounding money. Nora’s careless and willy- nilly outlook on how she spends her money may just be her downfall in the end.
I agree with your idea that money has a very different value to the characters in the play. I believe that these two opposing views are the main reason for all of the secrecy Nora has with her debts and money. I also noticed that Nora is very restricted in the way she can get and spend her money-- any money she gets must come through Torvald and the money must be spent how he chooses- money is one way Ibsen shows gender inequality in ADH
DeleteDespite the different value to the characters, overall money is a large factor in this play. I agree that Nora seems more compulsive when buying things and I think that may be due to the society valuing wealth and extravagance, and Nora, being a woman, aims to achieve high status in the community. I also agree with Dante that due to the money coming from Torvald, this supports the theme of gender inequality. However, Nora is clever with her use of money when saving portions that Torvald gives her to pay off her debt.
DeleteACT ONE
ReplyDeleteHelmer: “And I wouldn’t want my pretty little song-bird to be the least bit different from what she is now.” (Pg. 5)
This line is one of many that relate to the idea of the dehumanization of women. Here Helmer compares his wife to a song-bird. Something that creates the illusion of ownership, as animals are usually considered inferior organisms put on earth to serve the humans. Animals to humans are either food or they are pets. Continuing on, the conversation turns more complex, with Helmer saying he doesn’t want her to change. He wants to control her as seen later on this page with the line, “Didn’t go nibbling a macaroon or two?” (Pg. 5) Which shows the reader a slice of the beauty standards that dictate a woman’s life, and how he wishes to control her actions. However in the passage above, it is even more extreme, because he seems to not only want to control what goes into her body but her development as a person. So overall it seems she is a puppet, as many women were at this time, in Helmer’s life. The scariest part is she does nothing to combat the control. She seems to be too timid to turn against him as seen in the line, “I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to” (Pg. 5). The language he uses seems to be shaping her opinion of her role in their marriage and creating a truth she finds evident in her life. The truth she believes to be benevolent is that she is his property and he may do what he wishes with her. So as seen here, this rhetoric on a daily basis shapes her knowledge about the role she plays.
I strongly agree with your analysis. Helmer's comparisons didn't even stop at "my little song-bird", as he also continues on to refer her as his "squirrel" or "spendthrift". Also, no interactions between the two involved any real love, it just revolved around money, and how they could please each other with it. So far just in Act 1, this play is exemplifying the amount of control that men had over women during the Victorian Era. I believe that this motif of domestication will likely persist throughout the entirety of the play.
DeleteIn "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen, the reader is presented with very prevalent gender roles. Near the beginning of the play Helmer has a conversation with his spouse, Nora, wherein these gender roles, specifically those of females in the time period, are exemplified. Ibsen writes
ReplyDelete"
Helmer. Nora! [He goes up to her and takes her playfully by the
ear.] Still my little featherbrain! Supposing I borrowed a
thousand crowns to-day, and you made ducks and drakes of them
during Christmas week, and then on New Year's Eve a tile blew off
the roof and knocked my brains out-
NORA. [Laying her hand on his mouth.] Hush! How can you talk so
horridly?
HELMER. But supposing it were to happen- what then?
NORA. If anything so dreadful happened, it would be all the same to
me whether I was in debt or not.
HELMER. But what about the creditors?
NORA. They! Who cares for them? They're only strangers.
HELMER. Nora, Nora! What a woman you are! But seriously, Nora, you
know my principles on these points. No debts! No borrowing! Home
life ceases to be free and beautiful as soon as it is founded on
borrowing and debt. We two have held out bravely till now, and we
are not going to give in at the last.
NORA. [Going to the fireplace.] Very well- as you please, Torvald.
"(Pg. 2) In this conversation Helmer dictates what Nora can and can not do with the money that Helmer makes. Helmer is able to tell Nora her limits because he is the one who brings in the family's entire income. This behavior and dictator like limit setting by the husband or eldest male in the household was likely very common in the Victorian Era, as women, while gaining limited rights, still did not have very many opportunities for work. This lack of work was what kept the male as the "breadwinner" for the family. Also Helmer's justification of why the family should save as much money as possible also perpetuates and reinforces the fact that the family's man was almost always the primary source of income. Helmer speaking of, or rather questioning, what the family, and in particular Nora, would do if Helmer were to get into some sort of accident and die. If Helmer were to die the family would no longer have a primary income source, so Helmer sees it as imperative to prepare for this event. Nora starts to argue against this justification, but proceeds to step down. Her backing down is a primary example of how the final say of the man goes and there is no arguing against it. Both of these instances and this conversation as a whole serve as evidence to the prominent gender roles in the Victorian era.
DeleteI agree with your analysis of the prominent gender roles which Ibsen reveals about the Victorian era. The ways in which Helmer's patriarchal role within the household was supported proved to be excellent evidence. However, I do believe that Nora has an underlying power in the decisions which Helmer makes. She is witty enough to ironically act dumber, and beg for money from him. Her beauty and manipulative lies (even the little ones about the macaroons) prove effective in getting what she wants. On the outside it may appear that Helmer is in total control, but the reality is that Nora has some as well.
I agree that gender roles will be a recurring issue throughout the book. I'd add that the diction in conversations between Torvald and Nora seem to be closer to "master to pet" than "husband to wife". The way they converse clearly shows the rank in the household that Torvald has over Nora, thus adding to the many other examples of uneven gender roles in the story.
DeleteSecrecy was a key component used in the making of A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen. It was a large part of the accepted society and was practiced by every family in some way, shape, or form. As I was reading, I noticed large sections of dialogue, filled with casual conversation and half-hearted sentences. This was especially emphasized in the conversation between Nora and Mrs. Linde. Nora represented the stereotypical woman during the Victorian era, who puts on a mask to hide her true self and situation in order to please others and appear “normal”. She fills this space by highlighting the more socially accepted points in her life, like when she said, “What do you think? My husband has just been made Bank Manager!” (9). However, Nora fails to mention how it has changed him, increasing his power and ego, making him even more verbally abusive than normal. Though it is part of the Victorian culture, Helmer is constantly degrading Nora. He talks as if he owns her and possesses all power, when really Nora has been finding her own ways to take care of herself and her children. She chooses to keep this secret from Helmer. As the conversation between Nora and Mrs. Linde continues, it turns into a conversation filled with recent achievements and awards. They are looking for praise and acceptance, carefully choosing what they say to each other. Both Mrs. Linde and Nora put on a façade to hide their realistic and faulty lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis, secrecy played a big role during the Victorian era. I think this common secrecy might have stemmed from the rigid rules at the time. Men and women were expected to fit a certain role, and if they did not conform to how society wanted them to be, they would be considered outcasts. I believe Nora's compulsive lying habits stem from women having to play a certain role. She had to play the role of the dumb and oblivious. While men played the role of the responsible and educated. This means that in order for a women to be accepted by society, they would have to put on a façade to hide what might have really been happening in their lives.
Delete
ReplyDeleteThrough Act I of A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen challenges the gender roles during the Victorian era by indirectly characterizing Nora. At the beginning of the play, the reader is introduced to Nora who seems like a very cheerful wife and mother. She clearly cares about her children as she has wants to spend a lot of money on their Christmas gifts and she cares about pleasing her husband. Nora is not as innocent as she acts. After returning from a little shopping Torvald asks if she has been, “nibbling a macaroon or two” and Nora becomes defensive and denies it. Right before this conversation she had quickly eaten one and hid them away. Although this act may seem small and unimportant, it foreshadows future lies that are revealed that are much bigger that Nora is hiding from her husband.
It also seems at first that Nora is careless with money as she is always asking Torald for money. Later it is revealed that Nora is not spending that money on herself or on wants and desires, but on a secret loan from Krogstad in order to pay for her husband’s sickness. She knows she must not let Torvald find out or he would be outraged. During this time period, the husband was the main authority figure and was the main financial provider for the family. The wife was seen as inferiors to their spouses. In Nora’s case, the fact that she was secretly working to save her husband’s life shows how clever she is and how she truly cares about her family. It also shows the great lengths that Nora is willing to go to in order to keep her husband living. She forged her father’s name and went behind Torvald’s back with a secret loan. Nora’s character challenges the common Victorian woman and foreshadows future choices Nora will make against the social norms during this time period.
Your analysis on the challenge of gender roles throughout act 1 is very intriguing. I have never thought before that Nora could be perceived as actually a clever figure. This point also brings up other questions, such as “Does Nora really deserve this criticism and hardship that she is currently receiving from other characters?” After all, she did have a good intention while forging Torvald’s signature. However, the law does not give in to someone who had a good motive but committed a real crime. I believe as though the state of the situation is worsed by other people’s problems, such as Krogstad’s desire to keep his job, and Dr. Rank’s propinquity to death.
DeleteI agree with your analysis and how Nora is meant to be an intelligent character. I especially began to notice this when Nora quickly found an excuse to distract Helmer from opening the mail and discovering the truth. She quickly decided to claim that she forgot how to dance the tarantella and followed through by dancing badly and knowing how to make it look like she truly forgot. Do you think that for the reason that Nora is clever and breaks the gender stereotypes that it is one of the reasons people dislike her character? And in the same way that people could really like her character?
DeleteI agree with your analysis and think that your point about how she was not the 'common Victorian woman' in that time period was very important because although small, she makes gestures that show how she will be more troublesome in the future. If she has the nerve to go against social norms to this extent and this soon into the play, I predict that later in the play she will cause even more trouble and drama due to her selfishness and need for approval from others. I also believe that she will cause harm to more people than just herself because in the first two acts, she seems to share her business with others when she deep down knows that it should be kept to herself.
DeleteIn the second act of "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen lying is shown to be quite disastrous through the case of Helmer and Nora. Nora has painted herself into a corner with her lies in the sense that she has so many false narratives going for her with so many different people it is becoming hard for her to keep up with all of them whilst simultaneously keeping them from contradicting each other. This is seen near the start of Act II: " HELMER. [Searching among his papers.] To settle the thing. [ELLEN
ReplyDeleteenters.] Here; take this letter; give it to a messenger. See that
he takes it at once. The address is on it. Here's the money.
ELLEN. Very well, sir.
[Goes with the letter.
HELMER. [Putting his papers together.] There, Madam Obstinacy.
NORA. [Breathless.] Torvald- what was in the letter?
HELMER. Krogstad's dismissal.
NORA. Call it back again, Torvald! There's still time. Oh, Torvald,
call it back again! For my sake, for your own, for the children's
sake! Do you hear, Torvald? Do it! You don't know what that
letter may bring upon us all.
HELMER. Too late.
NORA. Yes, too late.
HELMER. My dear Nora, I forgive your anxiety, though it's anything
but flattering to me. Why should you suppose that I would be
afraid of a wretched scribbler's spite? But I forgive you all the
same, for it's a proof of your great love for me. [Takes her in
his arms.] That's as it should be, my own dear Nora. Let what
will happen- when it comes to the pinch, I shall have strength
and courage enough. You shall see: my shoulders are broad enough"(II, 43).
At this point Nora has told Krogstad that he will be able to convince Helmer that Krogstad deserves to keep his job. If Nora can not do this Krogstad will tell Helmer about Nora's fraudulence and the loans that she had taken out after her father had died. Krogstad is essentially blackmailing Nora. Nora becomes very frightened when Helmer says that he is giving his notice (indicating that he will be fired from the bank). However, the story does not end here; matters become significantly more complicated once Nora has to try to convince Torvald that he should reconsider his firing of Krogstad (this makes matters more complicated because she must convince Torvald, without actually telling him why Krogstad deserves to keep his job. Torvald is unable to be convinced making matters worse for Nora as Korgstad will have to follow through with his blackmailing and reveal to Torvald that Nora has been lying the whole time. If Nora had not signed for her father in the first place and had told Torvald about the loans much sooner the entire situation could have been avoided.
DeleteI agree that lying will be detrimental for Nora. It irritates me that Nora tends to manipulate others to get what she wants, at the expense of others. She seems to have a pattern of creating new lies to cover up old ones, such as her encounter with Dr. Rank. It is inferred that she is going to ask Dr. Rank to help her with her problem with Krogstad, most likely by getting him to lie to get Krogstad his job back. She flirts with Dr. Rank and uses his affection for her to get him to lie for her. In all, I think that Nora’s deceitful nature and actions will catch up with her, possibly causing her to lose what she actually cares about.
“Krogstad: Your father was seriously ill, I believe.
ReplyDeleteNora: He was very near the end.
Krogstad: And died shortly afterwards?
Nora: Yes.” (Pg. 27)
This exchange can tell the reader a few things. First and foremost the mention of an illness goes no further than the word illness. The specifics of the incident are not clarified, and this gives more volume to the idea hidden in Victorian culture that has to do with not making conflict or getting too worked up. this attitude is displayed here when the author chooses not to use the actual name of the illness. It implies that the family doesn’t want to remember the finer details of such a horrible situation. Which is understandable, but it also perpetuates the idea that they wish to censor the harsh realities of life, to uphold the prestige they have. The second part of this passage, is that it gives the reader insight on the characterization of Krogstad, who is revealing his two faced mentality. He proceeds to blackmail Nora, using her father’s death as a key element of that blackmail. Which is an indecent thing to do to a daughter who just lost her father and he does this in order to not get laid off by her husband. So the reader can learn that Krogstad will do a number of things to get what he wants and has little sense of dignity.
Nice analysis! I definitely agree with your interpretation of the word "illness." They, of course, would never describe it as anything more in the Victorian era. Everything was just so proper and dignified, which I suppose was good and bad; it shined a more positive light on negative situations, but it did not portray the actual events that occurred giving it a lack of realism. I also agree with your interpretation of the next lines. Nora's father's death is an understandably sensitive topic for her. This displays Krogstad's intelligent and cruel qualities of manipulation. His personality type certainly fits a blackmailer. Maybe if he did not slack at his job, he would not find this necessary though!
ReplyDeleteIn A Doll’s House, most of the relationships are unhealthy and hanging by a thread. This is because in Victorian culture, it was traditional to keep many things secluded, closed off, and to themselves. They did not fully connect with others because it gave away secrets that reveal people’s tarnished character. During these times, everyone had to be perfect, living normal, lavish lives. Without this personal connection with others, there is lack of trust and emotion between two people. I found that Nora is not trusted by many characters in the story because she keeps secrets and hides her true self from everyone. She created a different personality, custom to whom ever she is speaking to. An example of this would be when she first meets with Mrs. Linde, and exaggerates the highlights of her life to make herself seem better than she actually was. This created a fake relationship between the two, which couldn’t be trusted. Soon after, we see that Mrs. Linde was only looking for a job, rather than to catch up with Nora. We see a similar relationship between Nora and Helmer. Helmer does not trust Nora with money or making decisions and he constantly treats her as if she is below him. He knows that in the past she has caused trouble and made bad decisions, so he has yet to trust her after the incident. Little does he know, that Nora was keeping the huge secret from him about borrowing money and being in debt. This creates a huge bump in their relationship and shows their disconnection. Lastly, Nora and Krogstad have the least healthy relationship out of all that have been introduced in the first two acts. Nora has borrowed a large sum of money from Krogstad and he is essentially blackmailing her. In this case, Krogstad is not to be trusted because he threatens her if she cannot get him the money and draws entertainment from frightening the woman. Again, this is a well-kept secret between her and Helmer, already creating a large ball of drama at the beginning of the play, in which the characters revolve around. In other words, This large sum of drama is simply caused from a lack of trust and connection, which would be a simple fix in the modern day, but this was a very common dilemma during the Victorian era. There may have been a situation exactly like the one Nora is in in every household back then, which relates to the title of the play, “A Doll’s House”. The idea that these characters are confined in this doll house, yet live lives with extravagant secrets and dramas, all which in the end mean nothing because they are just simple figurines trapped in a plastic house.
ReplyDelete“NORA: If a little squirrel were to ask so ever nicely… ?
ReplyDeleteHELMER: Well?
NORA: Would you do something for it?
HELMER: Naturally I would first have to know what it is.
NORA: Please, if only you would let it have its way, and do what it wants, it’d scamper about and do all sorts of marvellous tricks.
HELMER: What is it?
NORA: And the pretty little sky-lark would sing all day long…” (II).
Through this conversation between Nora and Helmer in Act II, Ibsen builds on the characterization of the couple during the Victorian era by using the gender roles during this time period as a basis. Earlier in the play, Helmer refers to his wife on multiple occasions as a squirrel, sky-lark, and a song bird. The use of animal diction that Helmer uses to describe Nora is dehumanizing and reveals the way women were viewed during this era. I found it interesting that Nora goes along with it and continues to go along with her husband’s insults. I think Nora feels trapped in her marriage yet she goes along with his remarks to cover up her secret. In this conversation she calls herself a “little squirrel,” “it,” and “pretty little sky-lark.” This brings up the question whether or not Nora respects herself. I believe she is not brainwashed into the gender roles during this time, but rather she is clever enough to go along with it to get her way and get what she wants in her marriage. Nora is smart enough to know that Helmer’s name calling is not appropriate and is insulting. She knows that this was a common view during her time period and was considered normal. However, I think that Nora is challenging these gender roles as she has found a way to seem submissive on the outside, yet underneath she is more clever than she is given credit for. On the other hand, I think Helmer has succumbed to the social norms of marriage roles in his society and is too selfish to see what is really happening. Helmer takes on the role of being superior to his wife and treating her like an object, as seen by his use of dehumanizing diction. I think that this conversation foreshadows future events where Nora will tell her family how she really feels about the obligation she holds as a wife, a woman, and a mother in their society.
I like your idea that Nora is clever enough to be aware of her position as an inferior to Torvald’s authoritarian figure, but I also think that Nora is at least somewhat accepting of it partly because it was a cultural norm for husbands to be a superior figure, but mostly because of Nora’s childlike personality. She has always seemed to be very dependent on a male figure; through her flashbacks and memories, Nora was obviously a daddy’s girl father as a young child, and that parental figure merely shifted from her father to her husband after her marriage. Throughout the play, Torvald and Nora’s relationship seems more like a father and daughter relationship rather than that of a husband and wife, and personally, I think Nora is more comfortable in her position because she is always able to manipulate Torvald in a way to get what she wants and be spoiled. She also likes to bluff and seem important by using Torvald’s social status and his job, but she really is not interested in his job- just the fact that she can use for her power.
DeleteToday nicknames are not often seen as things of particular importance, mostly they are seen as a way to shorten a person's name, nothing more, however Ibsen makes use of nicknames to show how they can help allude to certain attributes of characters in his play "A Doll's House". Nicknames, in fact, are fairly important early on as they help to foreshadowing what is to come throughout the rest of the play. Near the very start of the play the reader is introduced to the main focus of the play: Torvald and Nora Helmer. They have their first exchange of conversation: "Torvald: Is that my little sky-lark chirruping out there?
ReplyDeleteNora: Yes, it is
Helmer: Is that my little squirrel frisking about?
Nora: Yes"(I, 1).
Readers can see that through Torvald's usage of nicknames for his wife shows that he is fairly affectionate toward her in what seems to be a fairly (modern) stereotypical way. Torvald calling her his "Skylark" and "squirrel" shows that he sees the positive attributes found in those respective animals in her (whatever those may be). Late Ibsen goes on to write "Helmer: Has my little spendthrift been out squandering money again?". This is Torvald highlighting the negative aspects of Nora's character. Those being that Nora has a tendency to handle and use money quite poorly. This is presumably what leads to Torvald giving her the nickname "Spendthrift". Early in the play this does not seem to play a very large role, but as the play progresses the reader can see that Torvald calling Nora a "Spendthrift" reveals as previously mentioned that she is bad with money, which ultimately complicates the situation following with Rank and Krogstad. Ibsen's use of nicknames early in the play allows for character traits to be revealed while also foreshadowing what may be to come as a result of these character traits.
I agree with the idea that those nicknames foreshadow and highlight Nora's qualities and personality traits. It is interesting that Torvald calls Nora by these names, because he is characterizing his wife as a wild animal– perhaps one he has no control over. Although Torvald convinces himself that he can control his wife, as he treats her like a pet, we've seen that Nora really cannot be controlled at all. Nora is, in fact, just like a wild animal. She frequently ignores wishes, and will do whatever she pleases, often giving into temptation. In this way, Torvald's nicknames for Nora are very accurate, though perhaps giving the opposite effect of what Torvald hoped he was doing (he thought he was domesticating her, though she was never under his control at all).
Delete“Krogstad: You know I’ve been given my notice.
ReplyDeleteNora: I couldn’t prevent it, Mr. Krogstad, I did my utmost for you, but it was no use.
Krogstad: Has your husband so little affection for you? He knows what I can do to you, yet he dares…
Nora: You don’t imagine he knows about it!
Krogstad: No, I didn’t imagine he did. It didn’t seem a bit like my good friend Torvald Helmer to show that much courage…” (Pg. 52)
So at this moment in the play, Krogstad has returned to continue his manipulation of Nora. He is consistent, and will not seem to let up on her. Later on he would even reference the idea of her being put down. All this business is turning quite dirty and it seems it all is blowing up in Nora’s face. Nora has to deal with all the problems coming up, which is ironic. It is funny because usually the women is the one who “needs” protection, and in the case of this play it’s actually Nora who is protecting her husband. So it’s great use of irony because it twists gender roles in a subtle way. Kragstad even describes Torvald as a coward. This characterization helps with the gender role swap. The reader even realizes something new about Nora, and that is that she is actually trying to make an effort to put things back together, and is being a very strong person. Most readers feel she is pampered and submissive, while it seen here that she is actually challenging her role in society by even dealing with this mess and trying to break out of her box. She tries repeatedly throughout the play and it helps aid the idea that she is stronger than most think. She genuinely cares about her husband too. This marriage they have is one of love, because she really cares about Torvald’s life. She is willing to go through all this trouble to protect him.
Yes I agree with very much of what you wrote about and the different themes that were packed in this quote. You briefly mentioned the irony of Nora protecting her husband, and I really like that interpretation, because it would then lead to thematic idea that women are just as strong as men if not looked down upon. This is also present in other quotes of the book, as Nora could take any action a man could and do it just as well if not better/wiser, but since she is a woman it would be illegal or socially awkward if she did do those kinds of things. However, Ibsen made it look like that in this part of the play Nora is not doing it, because she knows she could, she is doing it all out of love, which you mentioned. Because Ibsen made it appear this way, it would then leave a greater dominant effect to the audience once they have finished reading the play and realize how Nora feels in the end. Great Analysis!
DeleteNora is beginning to morph into a wonderful abnormality from the stereotypical Victorian woman. There is evidence of this in act two, because when compared to act one, Nora takes more of the obedient characteristic. As we are learning more about her as the play goes on, we see that she has been keeping all of these secrets from her friends and especially Helmer. One would think they Nora would tell her husband everything because that was what they were supposed to do back then, but no. Nora chose to lie to Helmer about a series of things, one of these things being the large sum of money that she borrowed from Krogstad. At the end of act two, Helmer still has no clue about the drama between Krogstad and Nora and why it was caused because Nora believes she is doing what’s best and goes against social norms. At one point, Krogstad begins to blackmail Nora and he leaves a letter that would expose this giant secret if Helmer were to read it. Nora then does everything in her power to keep him from checking the mail. If this relationship were a normal Victorian era relationship, Nora would have never attempted to keep this secret in the first place and she would have told Helmer immediately. She also personally asks Mrs. Linde to help her contain this crazy mess. Act two makes the reader really question why she goes through all of this effort to keep this secret, and it is because all she has in mind is what is best for Helmer. So in a way, she is trying to improve their relationship and she shows how much she cares for him.
ReplyDeleteIn the final act of A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen builds on the characterization of Helmer by using the cultural norms of the Victorian era as a platform. During this time period, men were the main authority figures in a household who held all the control. Families also cared a lot about their reputation, appearance, and how others perceived them. This aspect is shown true through the relationship between Nora and Helmer throughout the entire play. On multiple occasions, Helmer treats Nora as more of an object, rather than the other half of a loving, genuine relationship. He controls her like a doll to make others believe that they have their life together and everything is okay. The importance of one’s reputation is most prominent in the scene where Helmer is exposed to Nora’s secret. Helmer says, “Now you have ruined my entire happiness, jeopardized my whole future. It’s terrible to think of" ... “I’m done for, a miserable failure, and it’s all the fault of a feather-brained woman!” (III). He goes on to yell at Nora and say, “... people might even suspect me of being an accomplice in these criminal acts of yours. They might even think I was the one behind it all, that it was I who pushed you into it!”... “Now do you understand what you have to done to me?” (III). It is very obvious that the first thing that comes to Helmer’s mind in this crisis is the fact that their community is going to think they are crazy criminals who committed an absurd crime. Helmer’s repeated use of singular pronouns like “my,” “I”, and “me” show that Helmer is worried more about his own image rather than Nora’s or the family’s as a whole. Helmer wants to “preserve appearances” (III) as much as possible because he does not want his peers to see his family as corrupt.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your analysis of how Victorian era stigmas and cultural traditions are evident in this last act with Torvald. I also believe that at the end of this act, there is a rapid change in said stigmas and traditions. As soon as Torvald finds out about the second letter that allows him to forgive Nora for her sins, Nora uses this as her chance to separate herself from Torvald, and this is when the cultural traditions switch. Normally, the male has the authority, but in this situation, Torvald is begging for Nora not to leave him, leaving Nora with all of the power.
DeleteI have come to the same conclusion as yours regarding the objectification of women throughout the Victorian era as well as being portrayed through Torvald. The patriarchal hierarchy within each household was extreme. The allusion to Nora's life while living with Torvald to being that of a doll's life living in a dollhouse is well suiting. Although some may reference a “doll’s life” to being perfect or secure, Nora shows the powerless life she lives. Nora is unable to make her own choices while she is married to Torvald. However, in this certain time period it was not as uncommon.
Delete“Helmer: No, Let’s forget the whole ghastly thing. We can rejoice and say: It’s all over! It’s all over! Why this grim look on your face? Oh, poor little Nora, of course I understand. You can’t bring yourself to believe I’ve forgiven you. But I have, Nora, I swear. I forgive you everything. I know you did what you did because you loved me.” (Pg. 77)
ReplyDeleteTo put the quote in context, Helmer only a matter of seconds ago, rejected Nora for how she got him in trouble with the loan she had taken out. He then opens up a letter Nora has and with the snap of a finger his attitude flips. He is now delighted to hear that the whole ordeal is over and assures Nora that he takes back what he said. It’s ironic that he says, “Let’s forget the whole ghastly thing” (Pg. 77). The reason why is that he acts as if the whole orderly has been equally as burdening. When the whole time, Nora has had to bear the burden. He also dominates the conversation with large segments of speech cut out for him, while Nora is left to one to four word sentences. Whereas throughput a majority of the play, Nora actually is the main focus. Then he takes back what he had said previously about this being, “Oh, that I should have to say this to the women I loved so dearly, the women I still…. Well, that must be all over and done with” (76). Which obviously states that he wishes to part ways. However he changes his mind in this quote and thinks that it will all be okay, because he has a sense of entitlement. He thinks that she is his to throw away and pick back up like a rag doll. It’s a part of the Victorian culture, and it has heavily influenced the interactions between Helmer and Nora, most evidently in this passage. Through the play it’s easy to see how Nora can be blamed for the misfortunate of Helmer, but her actions were well intentioned and if she hadn’t been as sheltered maybe she would have been able to handle the situation better. He consistently dominates her life, telling her what to do and scolding her for wanting to indulge herself occasionally.
I agree with what you have to say about Victorian culture in that men view women as property, much as most of history has. However, I feel you could have phrased your last sentence better. By saying that "[he was] scolding her for wanting to indulge herself occasionally" you are suggesting that Nora is not intending to gain anything but temporary comfort, unless of course I am reading too deeply into this. For the sake of discussion though, I would have phrased it as something similar to "scolding her for wanting to be her own person and experience some sort of individuality." I feel this would be much more in line with Ibsen's intended message of pursuing independence and happiness
DeleteNearing the end of the play "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen, Helmer's attempts to cope with Nora Helmer's newfound sense of independence are demonstrated through Helmer's drastic mood change and his change in diction. Ibsen writes "Helmer: I see. I see. There is a tremendous gulf dividing us. But, Nora, is there no way we might bridge it?
ReplyDeleteNora :As I am now, I am no wife for you
Helmer: I still have it in me to change.
Nora: Perhaps ... if you have your doll taken away
Helmer: And be separated from you! No, no Nora, the very thought is inconceivable.
Nora: All the more reason why it must be done." (page 85)
In this instance Nora has come forward to her husband about her previous fraud and the current situation with Krogstad. Helmer is at first fairly mad at Nora, but later learns that the situation is resolved, however this is before he learns that Nora has committed a crime. After this Nora realizes that she can no longer stay with Helmer if she even wants to retain a sense of self. She tells him that she will be leaving in the morning and Helmer sees this as very unfavorable. Helmer starts to actually treat her like a human being by not referring to her by a pet name or anything of the sort. In addition Helmer also starts to offer compromise in exchange for her stay. This is seen in this instance later in the conversation "Couldn't we go on living her like brother and sister?". These changes in Helmer's diction indicate that he fears Nora becoming her "own person" so to speak, which indicates that Helmer is possibly fearful of women in general and would rather prefer for them to remain obedient to men. This would not have been anomalous from the opinion of most men during this time.
I like how you mentioned the change in Helmer’s diction in the passage. Something I also noticed was that Nora suggests, “Perhaps…if you have your doll taken away.” In this quote, Nora has a very parental tone that contrasts with her usual childish diction. Throughout the play, Nora accepts her role as Helmer’s plaything and even plays along with his diminutive diction and pet names. However, once Nora realizes that Helmer does not truly love her, she is less willing to humor him. Instead of trying to make him happy, Nora now realizes that she must teach Helmer to be a better person by not allowing him to treat her as a toy.
DeleteHenrik Ibsen writes a story about a young woman, Nora, and her relationships with others, specifically her deteriorating relationship with her husband. Act three has drastically changed in comparison to act one and by today’s standards, it has changed for the better. Ibsen mysteriously titles the poem, “A Doll’s House”, and the reader dives into the daily life of Nora in act one with no reasoning for the name. As the story progresses, the more you see Nora characterized just like a doll. A child owns a doll, plays with it, dresses it up, and it is forever their possession. This is the same type of relationship as between Nora and Helmer. Helmer acts as he owns her and she is a pet or a “doll”. He does this by calling Nora names throughout the play, such as “squirrel” or “skylark”. However, Helmer fails to realize the power that Nora has and how she has secretly been using it behind his back. In act one, Nora is an obedient housewife and her purpose is to care for Helmer and please him. Ibsen shows this with diction as he uses very soft and compliant diction. During act two, conflict begins to arise as the reader finds out more about Nora’s past. Ibsen reveals that Nora has been going behind Helmer’s back and borrowing money in order to take care of Helmer and the children. As the stress increases, she begins to stray from that obedient doll she began as. Finally, in act three, Nora breaks away from that stereotypical shell of a woman and becomes independent, leaving Helmer. As he begs her to stay, she refuses, showing how dynamic of a character she has become. She completely flipped and now controls her own life instead of leaving it in the hands of Helmer. I believe this is the reason why Ibsen titled this poem, “A Doll’s House”. I also noticed that toward the end of act three when Helmer was trying to talk Nora into staying, he claimed that the house was hers instead of his. With Nora being the “doll”, him saying this proves the theory. The title is meant to show the change she goes through from the beginning of the poem to the end, where she starts as the doll but ends up owning the whole house and taking control of her own life. So instead of the child directing the doll around the doll house, she becomes independent and is no longer the child’s possession.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your analysis of Nora being the doll in the title of the play. I think your idea that the house belongs to her at the end of the play is really interesting because I hadn't previously considered it. In my opinion, I think the house is representative of the ideals of perfection that she, and society, have. For example, the Christmas tree that she so frantically decorates in order to mask her negative emotions is also to make her home more beautiful in order to mask the negative atmosphere that is present there. Basically to cover up the imperfection in her home life with pretty things.
DeleteThrough his play A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen uses the characterization of Kristine Linde to foreshadow the future of Nora after she decides to leave her family. Mrs. Linde originally married her first husband just for his money to support her mother and to care for her younger brothers. The play takes place years after this when both of Mrs. Linde’s mother and husband have passed away and her brothers are old enough to take care of themselves. She arrives at Nora’s doorstep in search of employment to now find money to continue to support herself. Through her interactions with Nora and the other characters, Ibsen characterizes Mrs. Linde as honest and independent. Mrs. Linde has taken the responsibility upon herself to find employment and to not rely on someone who she does not love to support her. She also believes that honesty is the best policy, unlike Nora, whose marriage is surrounded by deceit and secrecy. Mrs. Linde knows that although Nora’s secret may ruin her relationship with Torvald, it is better for the both of them to know the truth. Mrs. Linde says, “All this secrecy and deception, it just can’t go on”... “Nora.. you must tell your husband everything” (III). Mrs. Linde knows from experience that a marriage that is based off of secrets and not true love will not be successful. This proves true in the end when Nora leaves her unhealthy marriage, and it is revealed that Krogstad and Mrs. Linde used to be together but were separated due to Mrs. Linde’s financial needs. However in the end they get back together because they find true love between each other. Mrs. Linde and Nora are literary foils of each other as Mrs. Linde has a strong sense of self-worth and independence, while Nora lacks her own personal identity. Nora’s final decision at the end of the play to live on her own and for herself represents the type of life that Mrs. Linde once lived where she made her own decisions and was an independent. Nora is starting a new journey in her life to find her self-worth and Mrs. Linde is finding fulfillment through her rekindled love with Krogstad.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the idea that Mrs. Linde is Nora’s foil, but I don’t think that Mrs. Linde is as perfect as you described. Mrs. Linde left Krogstad for a man with more money, which demonstrates how she let society get to her. The society they lived in valued money and status, and Mrs. Linde was tempted and left someone she truly loved for a man with better prospects. I think this develops Mrs. Linde into a dynamic character who has since realized that she prefers honesty and connections with people over what society views as important. She wants to work, something that women don’t ordinarily do, and she has had not had the stereotypical “successful” life of a husband and children, but she finds happiness caring for people nonetheless. I think she also contradicts Nora in the fact that she actually enjoys caring for people, while Nora feels forced into the role of a "doll's wife".
DeleteI agreee with your analysis of how Mrs. Linde is Nora's foil. But I also agree with Katja's idea of how Mrs. Linde wasn't as perfect as how you described her to be. She did leave Krogstad for a more wealthy man. I think that the only reason why Mrs. Linde came crawling back to Krogstad, wasn't just because of how much she realized she loved him, but also she felt really lonely. Her mother died, her brothers had died, and her husband had left her; she felt lonely. I also agree with how Ibsen characterized Mrs. Linde and Nora. Mrs. Linde is more of a honest person and prefers to have connections with people while Nora prefers to be more secretive and worries about what society views her as and what's important
DeleteIn the final scene of "A Doll's House" Ibsen conveys the theme that all people are entitled to their own unique sense of self through his characterization of the character Nora. At the very beginning of the play Nora is shown to be a submissive and perhaps dimwitted housewife that has a bit of a problem managing money properly. Very quickly this notion is proven false; Nora is a compulsive liar who portrays multiple versions of herself through the various lies that she has told to the people around her. The theory of her being a poor money manager is proven to be quite an understatement as the truth about her committing crimes involving money in the past in addition to also being quite the "spendthrift" according to her husband. After everything is said and done and Nora has come forward with the truth (or truths as she reveals multiple important pieces of information to him in a fairly short period of time) she decides that 1) she can not continue to live with her husband who has a complete lack of respect for her human rights and 2) she does not want to go into an enormous amount of debt with her husband. She, mostly because of factor 1, leaves her stereotypical as the housewife that was so common in the Victorian Era. While the decision to abandon her children and start a new life may not have been the correct one, she did realize that she needed to leave her husband if she wanted to establish any sort of personal identity apart from being Helmer's wife. Nora's case is what Ibsen used to show a specific example of how people can leave their current situations in order to start a new portion of their lives as a new person.
ReplyDeleteNice analysis! It, of course, is well documented that Nora is a compulsive liar. This is her number one character flaw, and it gets her in immense amounts of trouble as the play progresses. However, this same character flaw allows her to do many things, including saving her husband without him even knowing it (a smart play in that time, as he may not have agreed upon hearing the truth). As you said, as these same lies come out, she has a realization that she must leave her unsatisfactory lifestyle and live and learn for herself. While lying is an, in general, objectionable quality, it seems that Nora gets away with it by using her lies to her advantage.
DeleteThis is the moment in the story where Nora has finally had enough of Helmer’s domination over her. This is the result of a build up over time of her curiosity about being independent. She has had to push down her true feelings for a long time in this dead marriage and here she has finally come to that realization. The fact that she has been boxed in all her life, explains why she makes such a sudden burst for the door. She wants to leave him forever and she does. Which is great to see happen, because it stays true to the characterization she has throughout the book. She finally stands up to him in this passage, which is awesome to see happen. Especially after he scolds her so often in this book and controls her so much. The conversation had been dominated by him in the previous pages and suddenly the script flips. He begs for forgiveness and she will not have it, and rejects him once and for all. He is reduced to small cuts of language, while she dominates. The theme is then carried full circle and the alternate ending totally demolishes the overall theme. The Feminist and Humanist messages within the book are forgotten in the few lines at the end of the play. It’s understandable that this happens, though and it isn’t the author’s fault, because germany at the time was controlled by authoritarian regime. This regime was a response to the French revolution’s nationalist vehement. This vehement perfumed in places of higher learning, and eventually students helped organize a rebellion in March 1848. This rebellion failed and in turn the German government restricted the rights of its citizens. This is why the author had such a difficult time publishing what he wanted to publish. The whole premise of the story was disobeying authority at the end.
ReplyDeleteHello Everybody,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:(urgentloan22@gmail.com) Thank you.
BORROWERS APPLICATION DETAILS
1. Name Of Applicant in Full:……..
2. Telephone Numbers:……….
3. Address and Location:…….
4. Amount in request………..
5. Repayment Period:………..
6. Purpose Of Loan………….
7. country…………………
8. phone…………………..
9. occupation………………
10.age/sex…………………
11.Monthly Income…………..
12.Email……………..
Regards.
Managements
Email Kindly Contact: urgentloan22@gmail.com