Unfortunately, in today’s society, lying is a more common habit than most people would like to admit. In A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen uses the characterization of Nora as a compulsive liar to convey a theme of deception. To begin, Act One opens with Nora returning home with various things, including a bag of macaroons. When she approaches Helmer’s study, the stage directions depict her stuffing the bag of macaroons in her pocket and wiping her mouth. Later on, Helmer asks Nora if she stopped at the confectioner’s to sample the preserves to which she responds, “No, Trovald, honestly, you must believe me…!”(Ibsen 5). While this little confrontation regarding a couple cookies may seem insignificant, it is the exact opposite on two counts. First, Helmer often refers to Nora by nicknames such as ‘songbird’ and ‘squirrel’, portraying her as a young and innocent girl. However, since this is not the last time Nora lies in the play, in reality, she is the exact opposite: a sly and cunning woman. In addition, a while later, Nora offers a macaroon to Dr. Rank, saying, “…these are some Kristine gave me” (Ibsen 19). Since Mrs. Linde was in no way affiliated with obtaining the macaroons, Nora lies once again, building on her first untruth; which ultimately leads into the bigger lie regarding her mysterious loan. This string of falsehoods is representative of Nora’s misleading nature and tendency to lie in order to elude others. Ibsen uses the characterization of Nora as a compulsive liar as an example of the prominent theme of deception in the first act, which will most likely be indicated by other characters throughout the rest of A Doll’s House.
I agree that Nora does lie on several occasions, but I believe that she does this out of necessity instead of her personality. She lives in this Victorian era society that expects her to be the perfect wife instead of a real person. Any wrong she does will be remembered for generations and will negatively affect her entire family. I believe she lies for this reason, for the necessity of preserving the power structure and protecting her reputation. I think this is obviously the reason she lies about the Italy money, and these small white lies do not characterize her as a terrible liar. Nobody is completely perfect, and I think these small white lies help present Nora as a real human being with real flaws who is nonetheless trying to do the best she can and helps the reader and audience connect to her.
In the play “A Doll’s House,” Henrik Ibsen uses the characterization of Nora to create a theme that money is the number one priority. In the beginning of act 1, Ibsen uses animal diction to characterize Nora, “... my little sky-lark chirruping…,” (I. 1) “... my little squirrel frisking…” (I. 2). Helmer is basically calling Nora a bird that makes repeated short high-pitched sounds and a squirrel that leaps or skips playfully. I believe he calls her this because of her love for money and how she sounds when she speaks about money, “Oh yes, Torvald, surely we can afford to be just a little bit extravagant now, can’t we? Just a teeny-weeny bit. You are getting quite a good salary now, and you are going to earn lots and lots of money”. Nora always seems very excited whenever she mentions money or someone mentions that topic, just like a bird that twitters a lot or a squirrel that loves to run around a lot. Also, both of these animals are fairly tiny which could describe Nora as a tiny or skinny person which was very likeable and preferable in the Victorian era since the women had to wear a very tight corset around their stomach. Ibsen also describes Nora as a braggy type of person. She likes to talk about how much money she now has access to, “... He starts at the Bank straight after New Year, and he’s getting a big salary and lots of commission. From now on we’ll be able to live quite differently now… we’ll just do what we want” (I. 9). Now that Helmer will be getting a promotion at the Bank, he is going to be able to make more money than he used to before and Nora is so excited that she will be able to have more money and she feels the need to explain that to others. This can show how, at this time, women valued money because with money, they could buy nice and expensive things. With showing this off, it can tell people that she must be wealthy or at least have a lot of money.
I agree with your idea that Nora is characterized as loving money. I think that this has a lot to do with the time period because money bought beauty, a highly sought after thing. Money also represents freedom which not very many women had. It's actually sad that Nora seeks money because she wants freedom from debt, not from the confines of her gender. I also like that you talked about the animals she was compared to. I noticed they are both very small animals which may signify a man's view of a women's importance during this time.
In Act 1 of A dolls House, Helmer says to his wife “And I wouldn’t want my pretty little song-bird to be the least bit different from what she is now” (5).
I think that this quote is used in the passage in order to convey the view that society had on women during the time period. First of all, calling her his song bird is possessive. I think that Ibsen wanted to show the reader that women were often times viewed as a possession of their husband’s and weren’t equal to them. Helmer also wants to know about everything that she did throughout the day, and doubts that she’s telling the truth (we know she’s not). He also calls her other names such as “squirrel”. These names are all meant to show that the role of a woman in the Victorian society was one of obedience to their husbands. In the same passage, the importance of money is shown. Throughout act 1, Nora tells her husband that she hadn’t been spending money, while also talking about all the things that they can do now that he makes a better living. I think that the author put so much emphasis on money to show that having enough money to buy even small luxuries (such as macaroons) meant a lot to people in that time period.
I think that, in addition to what you said about money being important, many families recently came into so much more money than they ever had before, it influenced their lives much more than they intended. It is the "new money, old money" issue that arose during the Industrial Revolution. People who came into money as adults flaunt it because it is new and exciting to them; money seems to have fixed all of their problems. Old money, on the other hand, isn't as excited about money as they have spent their whole life wealthy due to it being passed down in their family.
Nora [smiles and hums]. Never you mind! Never you mind! [walks about the room.] Yes, it really is terribly amusing to think that we... that Torvald now has power over so many people. [She takes the bag out of her pocket.] Pg.19
This quote is used to convey the theme of gender roles. As it is obvious in the quote Nora intends to say "we", Nora and her husband, but then changes to saying that Tarvold has power over so many people. The reason why Nora might wanted to say We have power over so many people is that because without her, Tarvold would have not even been alive to boss people at the bank. Also since she loves to spend money and the ability of spending money gives people a feeling of superiority and power, and she clearly states that she loves money and spending it she clearly sees herself as the member of higher social levels. But the main reason for her sentence is that even though women could not have jobs that gave them too much power and ability to have a lot of money, she still gathered enough money to help her husband. This shows that she is not like all the other women in her time and that she wants to do something and that is why she considers herself a "We" have power instead of only her husband. -Hajir Hosseini, P5
I agree with your analysis that Nora feels like she should be mentioned in the same light as her husband's but can't because of gender roles. Another good quote to support your analysis would be "but he mustn't know anything. Good heavens, can't you see! He wasn't even supposed to know how desperately ill he was" because it shows how Nora can't reveal she saved her own husband's life do to societal boundaries.
More often than not, the opinion of a person with high status has great impact on other people. In Victorian culture, it was widely established that the men had that great influence over the women. In A Doll's House, Ibsen uses the characterization of Nora as a protective mother to convey the patriarchal aspect of Victorian culture. At the end of Act One, Helmer says to Nora, "My dear Nora, as a lawyer I know what I'm talking about. Practically all juvenile delinquents come from homes where the mother is dishonest" (Ibsen 33). Soon afterwards, Nora says to herself, "Corrupt my children...! Poison my home? It's not true! It could never, never be true!" (Ibsen 34). Immediately, Nora is appalled by her husband’s remark and she passionately disbelieves his sexist comment; as a loving mother, she cannot fathom the idea of hurting her children with her dishonesty. However, in the beginning of Act Two, when Nora is talking with the maid, she asks, "Do they keep asking for me?" to which the nurse responds, "They are so used to being with their Mummy" (Ibsen 35). With this, despite her initial rejection of Helmer's comment, her guilt stemmed from the patriarchal influence of Helmer has had a great impact on her; an impact so great that she feels the need to distance herself from her children to protect them from corruption. Helmer’s words had such an effect on Nora that it led to her change in behavior. In order to completely represent Victorian culture, Ibsen uses the characterization of Nora as a protective mother to convey the influence of male opinion on women.
I agree with you about how Nora shows she has the best interest in her family. The fact that Nora goes behind Torvald’s back for a loan to save his life and even forge her father’s signature shows that Nora will go to great lengths to protect the ones she loves. You mentioned that Ibsen characterizes Nora this way to portray women during the Victorian era. However I believe he did this to challenge the gender roles during this time period. Nora is brave enough to go to these great lengths, unlike the common Victorian woman who was just seen as a child bearer and often times an object rather than an equal human being.
n the play “A Doll’s House,” Henrik Ibsen uses the characterization of Krogstad to create a theme of deception throughout the play. Towards the end of act 1, the audience learns that Nora had forged her father’s signature to be able to get the loan to go on a trip to South America, “No, it wasn't. It was me who signed father's name” (I. 28). Krogstad had a curious hunch on that topic which ended in Nora telling him the truth about what really happened. Since everybody knew that Krogstad was going to lose his job at the bank because he committed forgery, he is blackmailing Nora to tell Helmer to let him keep his job or Krogstad will tell Helmer how she actually got that money, “... But I tell you this; if I'm pitched out a second time, you are going to keep me company” (I. 29). By suggesting blackmail, the audience can tell that Krogstad is an ambitious man. He will do anything to get his way, even if that means blackmailing someone. Blackmail is probably the lowest and most unkind thing to do to someone. But also, if Nora hadn't forged her father's signature, she would not be in this situation in the first place. The reason why Krogstad is getting fired from his job is because he committed forgery. He himself had did something deceiving, thinking he could get away with doing something illegal, just like Nora did. If he ends up blaming someone for his firing, it should be himself because if he hadn't committed forgery, he wouldn't have to stoop down to blackmail because he wouldn't even be in this situation in the first place.
I agree with your opinion on Krogstad- he is almost the villain in the play, the one to commit evil deeds against the protagonist. Perhaps he shouldn’t blame others for his own downfall at the bank, as you say- because it was his own fault in the crimes he committed in the past. But what about Nora? Should Nora blame Krogstad for her own downfall, or should she blame herself? Nora has committed the same crime, forgery, in forging her father’s signature for the money. She has done this, gained debt, and still has not revealed her secrets to her husband. This is why I believe Nora deserves punishment for her actions, even though she is the main character (not sure if she is the protagonist, they are all good / bad). Though Nora has reflected on what she’s done, even contemplating suicide as Krogstad says, “Under the ice, maybe? Down in the cold, black water? Then being washed up in the spring, bloated, hairless, unrecognizable…” (54), Nora still should face her actions and at least reveal the truth to her allies around her.
Helmer: My dear Nora, I forgive you this anxiety of yours, although it is actually a bit of an insult. Oh, but it is, I tell you! (43)
In this scene Nora begs Helmer to help Krogstad keep his position at the banks and not have him get fired, but instead he sends out Krogstad's notice. Even though Nora begs Helmer many times to not send that letter, for not only her sake but also for the sake of their children, Helmer does not listen to her and sends the message. Even after there was still time to get the message back and prevent it from being sent, he still didn't listen to her and ignored her. This shows how low he thinks of her and does not see her as an equal partner in this marriage. Which in this time period was not really uncommon since women did not have high paying jobs during this era which led to them being forced to wait at home and use the money that their husbands make. Giving them automatically less power in the marriage and being seen as second hand citizen. Also another reason for Helmer's stubborn behavior in this scene is because he is insulted by Nora, when she calls his motives of trying to remove Krogstad from office petty, which Helmer took as calling him petty. Also one other major reason for why he wanted Krogstad out of the office is because he challenges him and acts as if they are equals, and by not firing him because he has been convinced by his wife whom has been influenced by Krogstad is a sign of weakness for him; and may even lead to him losing his face at the bank and he does not want to take that risk. -Hajir Hosseini, Period 5
I understood what you wrote, because i too can speak english, but i don't agree with a word of it. Helmer always viewed Krogstad as a lower class then himself, he would never think of him as a threat. I also believe he was simply trying to check his mail and just disagreed with his wife, i dont think that would convey how he views his wife, sometimes a man just needs to check the mail.
“Five. Seven hours to midnight. Then twenty-four hours till the next midnight. Then the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live” Nora (II. 61). I found this quote very interesting because of the context. When I read this at first, I was a little confused on what she meant by “thirty-one hours to live” but after reading this quote a couple more times, I finally understood it. Nora is basically saying that she has thirty-one hours before Helmer finds out the truth about what happened with the whole money fiasco and then she will kill herself. Before this, Helmer was saying how he wouldn't do anything else besides thinking about the tarantella and Nora until the dance was done, which was where the thirty-one hours came from. Also I thought it was interesting how she disguised her emotions, like she knew that it would look suspicious to Helmer if she acted all sad and depressed and so she put on a jocund mask to hide her true feelings. Whenever Helmer was not paying attention to Nora, she’d always be cogitating what might happen if Helmer were to find out the truth but whenever Helmer was around her and talking to her, she’d always act all happy and cheerful as if nothing is wrong. I think that the emotional disguises in this play have a direct correlation with the theme of deception because there is a lot of lying and deceiving going on in this play and to be able to hide those lies and secrets, people put on masks to prevent others from figuring out the truth.
I also found this quote quite intriguing, and agree with your conclusion on it's meaning. In the theme of emotional disguise, I find that Nora is very good at putting on a show. However, it still shocks me that Nora believes she should kill herself and that will be the best way of solving her problems. Helmer treats her as though she is a child or pet who is incapable of making a decision. This clearly translates into Nora’s thoughts and actions throughout the play. She is merely behaving how she has been expected to, and how Helmer has “trained” her.
This was a very intriguing analysis. At first when I read this part of the play I had very little knowledge of the Tarantella dance and how it had so much secret symbolism within its context. However, do you know how the dance might contribute into the Victorian Era? Because I thought about what you said and how it was performed to rid oneself of the virulent tarantula bite, but was this might also be because of the lack of knowledge within these species and what can they do? Personally, I think it is, but coming back to your analysis, it allowed to me further understand how and why the Tarantella dance was incorporated into the play so strategically.
In act 2 of A Dolls House, Henrik Ibsen starts to describe Ms. Linde’s situation, and what she desires. It is shown that Ms. Linde (who is currently alone), wants to be with someone. We know this because in one of her many interactions with Krogstad she says “Nils give me somebody and something to work for”.
I think that Ibsen is trying to characterize her as lonely, and desperate to have someone else to be with. I say this because this is the first time that we have seen anything that would imply that she would want to be with Krogstad, yet in the scene she is ready to put his past behind her and be with him. During the Victorian era, woman like her were looked down upon, because they didn’t have husbands nor children, and this seemed to be the “purpose” of women at the time; to have children and to serve their husbands. This purpose is also seen between Nora and Torvald, because Nora relies on Torvald for everything, and she takes care of the children while trying to please him. From these two incidences, I think that we can draw the conclusion that this is how most relationships were like in the Victorian era.
What i found interesting about your analysis is that you found that Mrs.Linde was lonely and looking for someone because she was lonely. I would have to disagree with that because of a simple subtlety. All through out the play she is referred to as her dead husbands last name. She is also bearen with no children; she was the epitome f a disgraceful woman in the Victorian Era. I believe she wants to get back together with Krogtad so that society does not shun her anymore. Nice and concise analysis Rishi.
NORA: “With champagne flowing until dawn. And some macaroons, Helene… lots of them, for once in a while” (II.60).
A common theme in Victorian culture, it was expected that the woman be prim and proper: even if their true character was the exact opposite. In A Doll’s House, Ibsen uses food symbolism to represent the side of Nora that cannot be openly expressed as a result of cultural standards. Since the beginning of the play, it is obvious that Helmer has kept Nora on a tight leash. In the aspect of desserts, he had banned them completely from the house, out of worry that the sugar would ruin Nora’s teeth. Yet despite Helmer’s rule, in multiple circumstances, Nora has been sneaking around and lying about the sweet treats. In this passage, Nora orders the maid to keep the ‘champagne flowing’ and bring macaroons for dinner; food and beverage that she does not usually consume. These requests are representative of Nora’s true self that she is not normally allowed to show by Victorian standards. With this, the fact that she requests these luxuries before her grand performance of the tarantella only emphasizes this idea; the dance also symbolizes the side of a typical Victorian wife that is lost and forgotten when she is passionately performing. In combination, the champagne, macaroons and tarantella all represent Nora’s secret misbehavior and deceit, as they are all indulgences that she is not accustomed to partaking in, just as she cannot freely partake in her true passions. With this, the food symbolism used in A Doll’s House is utilized in such a way that Victorian culture is seen as a restraint to Nora’s self expression.
I enjoyed your analysis of the symbol of macaroons. I feel like these small symbols foreshadow future events. An example of this is when Nora’s true self and intentions are finally revealed in Act III, when she talks to Torvald about their relationship. She admits that she is tired of being just an object and pretending to be something that she is not. I think that throughout the whole play, she is just waiting to break through the constrictive gender roles that bind her, and the macaroons and tarantella are examples of little things that Nora does that are rebellious. That is why it is so easy for her to suggest to leave her children behind.
"It was simply that you didn't have the experience to judge what was the best way of going about things... No, no, you just lean on me, I shall give you all the advice and guidance you need. I wouldn't be a proper man if I didn't find a woman doubly attractive for being so obviously helpless."
This quote is yet another example of the role of women in marriage and how they are seen by society, as lower second citizens. As Helmer tells her that she did not have the right experience in life to judge what is best to do in that situation and tells her that she just needs to let him take control and "lean" on him and that her entire existence in this life and one of the factors he chose her is that she is helpless,he implies that women should not be placed in the same level as men and they should just let men be in charge and make decisions for them. Even though Nora is economically more advanced than most characters, she nevertheless leads a difficult life because society dictates that Torvald be the marriage’s dominant partner. Nora is forced to hide her loan from him because she knows Torvald could never accept the idea that his wife (a women) had helped save his life and also because it is illegal for a woman to obtain a loan without her husband’s permission. -Hajir Hosseini, Period 5
A person that stands up for their rights and beliefs is often viewed as admirable, as they are willing to verbalize what no one else has the courage to say. On the other hand, some people believe that most things are better off left alone. In A Doll’s House, Ibsen’s characterization of Nora as a loving mother is what justifies her decision to abandon her children; a choice that many people would disagree with. From the beginning of the play, the role of women in Victorian culture is obvious; to conform to the men. And with this, it was next to impossible for women to get jobs. In Act One, Nora brings attention to the fact that she and Helmer both had to work in order to make ends meet. But while Helmer got a high-paying job at the bank, Nora could only keep jobs like sewing and embroidery. Later, in Act Three, Nora makes the bold decision to leave her whole life with Helmer behind, including their children. Helmer is furious and pleads with Nora to stay, but all she says is, “I dare say I’ll often think about you and the children and this house” (III.86). And she leaves without even saying goodbye. It is obvious that Nora has a tremendous love for her children, yet she decides to leave them behind. Some would argue that this makes her a bad mother, yet the opposite is true; she knew that while she would not be able to support the children with her salary alone, Helmer could. So Nora’s love for her children justifies her decision to leave them with Helmer simply because she had their best interest in mind.
I really enjoyed your analysis of the fact that just because she leaves her children doesn’t make her a bad mother. I agree with the fact that she was forced to do this by the ridiculous society they lived in, and really enjoyed your justification. I also think that her actions are often interpreted as selfish, but the opposite is true. I think her actions are as selfless as possible in this situation, and she really does love her children, as seen earlier. I do wish that Nora had been a more multi-dimensional character though, and had shown more remorse when leaving her kids, even for the right reasons.
The fact that your blog post began with a hook drew me in immediately. Do you think the same for the alternate ending where it is ambiguous whether Nora actually stays or decides to leave? Due to the fact that most children back then were left with maids and nanny's instead of their mothers, do you think the children would be attached to Nora at all? Would they even notice if she left because she most likely wasn't their main caretaker? As much as her children love her and Nora loves her children would you consider it fine if Nora left to be an independent woman and "start her life over?"
Some people say that Nora was not right to leave her children and some say that she was smart to leave their children. I am on the fence about this topic. I believe that Nora was right to leave her children but at the same time, I believe that Nora shouldn't have left her children. A child shouldn't have to grow up without a mother on their life because their mother is the parent that the child relates to and the parent that the child learns how to make relationships and connections from. From reading the play, it seems as if the children are still in their juvenile years because of how much they always want to play with Nora, “All right, Mummy. Are you going to play again?” The Children (I. 30) Most pre-teens and teenagers nowadays never ask to play hide-and-seek with their mothers. From knowing how young these children are, it is very crucial for their mother to be on their lives at such a young age. Since the mother is the parent they learn how to make relationships from, without her the children wouldn’t do great in school and would not have a lot of friends. Nora believes that she is helping her children by leaving but she would just be making their lives worse. But I feel like if she stayed, like how it is described in the alternate German ending, she would not be the same character as Ibsen describes her throughout the whole play. She is portrayed as a woman that obeys her husband but not to the point where he tells her to do something and she does it all the time, she is a rebel. She also likes to defy the laws of how women should have acted in the Victorian era. Nora will do whatever it takes to save her family even if that moves doing something illegal, forgery, or doing something very drastic, leaving her family. If a woman were reading this play during the Victorian era, I think she would look up to the character of Nora as a leader and get inspired by her to change her life and do something for herself for once.
I am also torn between whether Nora's decision to leave her children was justifiable: on one hand, it is a humane duty of any parent to care for their child (especially mothers since that's who they pop out of.. you know?), but on the other hand, Nora does not seem to be fit for motherhood. She is questioning her beliefs, morals, and ultimate existence, how can she instill confidence in her children? It could end catastrophically, having people become parents who are not ready to manage the responsibilities of parenthood (example: teen parents). It is the parents who raise and inspire the future, it is what they teach that manifests itself in the world through their children. I think a Nora that has been shot around the world, experienced her greatest doubts and confirmed her truth, will be better fit to be a mother.
In Act 3 of A Dolls House, Henrik Ibsen continues to show the effects of gender roles in the Victorian era, however in act three he contrasts the two types of relationships that we see in the play. The relationship between Nora and Helmer is seen as a typical Victorian relationship, while Kristine’s relationship with Krogstad contrasts this. We see that Nora and Helmer have a traditional relationship when Helmer says “Can’t I look at my most treasured possession?” (69). This quote is meant to show that although Helmer treasures his wife, and she is important to him, she is still his possession. This kind of comment was viewed as normal in the Victorian era. Ibsen contrasts this with Kristine and Krogstad’s relationship, as their relationship seems to be a more modern one. Kristine talks about how it will be good to have someone to make her happy, and how she can reciprocate those feelings to someone else. The overall feel that Ibsen gives to the relationship seems to be more equal and giving than Helmer and Nora’s. We also never hear Krogstad talk to Kristine like she is a possession. Ibsen included this to show the reader that although many relationships had male dominant characteristics, that there were also deviations from this standard.
What makes A Doll’s House different from other literary works is the addition of an alternate ending. While it was not the intention of Ibsen to include it in his play, it is interpreted in such a way that furthers the gender stereotypes present in Victorian culture and shines light on Ibsen’s standing on gender equality. In the traditional ending of A Doll’s House, the act closes with Nora leaving and the door slamming shut behind her: and as she leaves, so do the gender stereotypes that were present through the extent of the play. Despite Helmer’s male status and previous control over every aspect of Nora’s life, she does not give in to his pleas to stay. Her will power was admirable, as she turned away from both her husband and Victorian tradition in which women were considered inferior to men. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the alternate ending replaces Nora’s dramatic exit with her compliance to Helmer. Although she had told him she did not want to see the children one last time, she peers through the door and sees them sleeping. She then sinks down by the door and says, “Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them” (III.88). A complete shift from the traditional ending, where she leaves against Helmer’s will, Nora ends up giving in to him and staying, which conforms to the gender stereotypes of Victorian culture. With this, the fact that it was against Ibsen’s wishes to include the alternate ending in the play suggests that he was a proponent for gender equality, and liked the idea of a woman standing up to a man for what she believes in.
I found your analysis very interesting about how Henrik Ibsen’s second ending of this play was not something that he was very fond of creating. However, I also think that the fact that Ibsen did agree to do it, albeit with discontent, shows the strong cultural norms at the time. Even though Ibsen strongly did not want to create the alternate ending, the strong pressure of societal norms and culture inclined him to do so. It also shows how even though Ibsen might have had feelings against gender norms and stereotypes, they were not strong enough to warrant not creating the ending at all and rebelling totally against societal norms.
I think that it was shown in the letters that we read that Ibsen did not want to create an alternate ending, but was forced to by society. It was either him writing an alternate ending, or a less skilled writer. He preferred to do it himself so the play was somewhat how he wanted it to end. Overall, I was not very pleased with the alternate ending because it went against the whole theme of the book, and made it almost pointless to read. Also, the alternate ending was very abrupt, compared to the original ending which is several pages longer. In the original ending, Nora seems to get some justice and gets to tell Helmer off, but in the alternate ending there is not a happy ending for Nora at all. She even admits that it is "a sin against herself" to stay with Helmer, which also shows Ibsen's views on the alternate ending.
In the play “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, one thing I found interesting was the multiple references to macaroons. Ibsen refers to macaroons many times but when he does mention it there is always one character that is connected to it, Nora, “[...She takes a bag of macaroons out of her pocket and eats one or two; and then she walked out of the across and listen to her husband’s door.]” (I. 1) Another mention of macaroons, “Didn't go nibbling a macaroon or two?” Helmer (I. 5). “No, Torvald, honestly, you must believe me…!” Nora (I. 5) Also, “ With champagne flowing until dawn. [Shouts] And some macaroons, Helene… lots of them, for once in a while” Nora (II. 60). Knowing that macaroons are fragile and very delicate, I think that the macaroons are a symbol of how the women in the Victorian era should have acted; fragile and proper. But these characteristics are the opposite of how Nora is characterized in the play. Nora is rebellious and doesn't follow the rules, the total opposite of macaroons. I believe that Nora eating the macaroons signifies how she does not want to be the stereotypical Victorian era wife, how she wants to do things her way sometimes. Also hiding it from Helmer helps build her rebellious state more by lying to him.
I like how in depth your analysis of such a subtle symbol is. Macaroons are not only fragile and delicate, but also visually pleasing in a colorful and cute sense. Aesthetics were very important to Victorian society, especially when it came to the home and women. Homes had to be well kept and inviting while women were expected to always be pretty and fashionable. This comes back to your point of how Nora doesn't necessarily lack these traits, but is forced to adopt them completely in society
I agreed with your analysis of macaroons symbolizes Nora, but I disagree that she is the total opposite. Macaroons have little cracks at the bottom, which we call foot. The foot is the symbol of Nora's flaws, her individual self making her do things like lying or shrouding her mistakes, and the smoothness symbolizes Nora ways of sticking to society, paying a crown for a cheap 50 öre Christmas tree. Overall, the little foot symbolizes Nora imperfection and the smoothness symbolizes society influence over her. Nam Nguyen
Something that I found intriguing about “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen was the use of the lamp. Ibsen first introduced that lamp when Dr.Rank professes his love for Nora. It is used to show that Nora has learned something new, but more importantly it foreshadows that the next time we see the lamp Nora will have learned something else. The next time that we see the lamp is after Helmer reads Krogstad’s letter, and becomes aware of the situation at hand. After a few exchanges, the lamp is mentioned in the setting. From this we know that Nora has learned something new again, only this time it is something much more significant to the plot line. The second time the lamp appears is when Nora realized that Helmer is not the man that she thought he was. She thought that Helmer would take the blame for her forgery, and they would continue to live as they had before, however Helmer refuses to do so. This also plays into some of the values that were held highly during the Victorian time period. We see earlier that Krogstad is looked down upon because of his past forgery, and now we see that Helmer won’t even consider taking some of the blame. This shows that defending honor was very important in the Victorian era.
I find it very interesting as to how found something so significant in a prop that is very subtle. Would you consider this symbol to be the most important? Do you think this helps support the fact that the stage directions are an important part of the novel? Is it ironic when the lamp appears in the novel last?
Your analyzation is interesting. I like the points you make about the lamp and the points brought up, but i’d like to offer some questions to think about. What else could the lamp represent? What about the letters exchanged so often? Could those be symbolic of people’s relationships? Otherwise I enjoyed your interpretation and hope you enjoyed the book. Think about those questions!
Unfortunately, in today’s society, lying is a more common habit than most people would like to admit. In A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen uses the characterization of Nora as a compulsive liar to convey a theme of deception. To begin, Act One opens with Nora returning home with various things, including a bag of macaroons. When she approaches Helmer’s study, the stage directions depict her stuffing the bag of macaroons in her pocket and wiping her mouth. Later on, Helmer asks Nora if she stopped at the confectioner’s to sample the preserves to which she responds, “No, Trovald, honestly, you must believe me…!”(Ibsen 5). While this little confrontation regarding a couple cookies may seem insignificant, it is the exact opposite on two counts. First, Helmer often refers to Nora by nicknames such as ‘songbird’ and ‘squirrel’, portraying her as a young and innocent girl. However, since this is not the last time Nora lies in the play, in reality, she is the exact opposite: a sly and cunning woman. In addition, a while later, Nora offers a macaroon to Dr. Rank, saying, “…these are some Kristine gave me” (Ibsen 19). Since Mrs. Linde was in no way affiliated with obtaining the macaroons, Nora lies once again, building on her first untruth; which ultimately leads into the bigger lie regarding her mysterious loan. This string of falsehoods is representative of Nora’s misleading nature and tendency to lie in order to elude others. Ibsen uses the characterization of Nora as a compulsive liar as an example of the prominent theme of deception in the first act, which will most likely be indicated by other characters throughout the rest of A Doll’s House.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Nora does lie on several occasions, but I believe that she does this out of necessity instead of her personality. She lives in this Victorian era society that expects her to be the perfect wife instead of a real person. Any wrong she does will be remembered for generations and will negatively affect her entire family. I believe she lies for this reason, for the necessity of preserving the power structure and protecting her reputation. I think this is obviously the reason she lies about the Italy money, and these small white lies do not characterize her as a terrible liar. Nobody is completely perfect, and I think these small white lies help present Nora as a real human being with real flaws who is nonetheless trying to do the best she can and helps the reader and audience connect to her.
DeleteIn the play “A Doll’s House,” Henrik Ibsen uses the characterization of Nora to create a
ReplyDeletetheme that money is the number one priority. In the beginning of act 1, Ibsen uses animal diction to characterize Nora, “... my little sky-lark chirruping…,” (I. 1) “... my little squirrel frisking…” (I. 2). Helmer is basically calling Nora a bird that makes repeated short high-pitched sounds and a squirrel that leaps or skips playfully. I believe he calls her this because of her love for money and how she sounds when she speaks about money, “Oh yes, Torvald, surely we can afford to be just a little bit extravagant now, can’t we? Just a teeny-weeny bit. You are getting quite a good salary now, and you are going to earn lots and lots of money”. Nora always seems very excited whenever she mentions money or someone mentions that topic, just like a bird that twitters a lot or a squirrel that loves to run around a lot. Also, both of these animals are fairly tiny which could describe Nora as a tiny or skinny person which was very likeable and preferable in the Victorian era since the women had to wear a very tight corset around their stomach. Ibsen also describes Nora as a braggy type of person. She likes to talk about how much money she now has access to, “... He starts at the Bank straight after New Year, and he’s getting a big salary and lots of commission. From now on we’ll be able to live quite differently now… we’ll just do what we want” (I. 9). Now that Helmer will be getting a promotion at the Bank, he is going to be able to make more money than he used to before and Nora is so excited that she will be able to have more money and she feels the need to explain that to others. This can show how, at this time, women valued money because with money, they could buy nice and expensive things. With showing this off, it can tell people that she must be wealthy or at least have a lot of money.
I agree with your idea that Nora is characterized as loving money. I think that this has a lot to do with the time period because money bought beauty, a highly sought after thing. Money also represents freedom which not very many women had. It's actually sad that Nora seeks money because she wants freedom from debt, not from the confines of her gender. I also like that you talked about the animals she was compared to. I noticed they are both very small animals which may signify a man's view of a women's importance during this time.
DeleteIn Act 1 of A dolls House, Helmer says to his wife “And I wouldn’t want my pretty little song-bird to be the least bit different from what she is now” (5).
ReplyDeleteI think that this quote is used in the passage in order to convey the view that society had on women during the time period. First of all, calling her his song bird is possessive. I think that Ibsen wanted to show the reader that women were often times viewed as a possession of their husband’s and weren’t equal to them. Helmer also wants to know about everything that she did throughout the day, and doubts that she’s telling the truth (we know she’s not). He also calls her other names such as “squirrel”. These names are all meant to show that the role of a woman in the Victorian society was one of obedience to their husbands. In the same passage, the importance of money is shown. Throughout act 1, Nora tells her husband that she hadn’t been spending money, while also talking about all the things that they can do now that he makes a better living. I think that the author put so much emphasis on money to show that having enough money to buy even small luxuries (such as macaroons) meant a lot to people in that time period.
I think that, in addition to what you said about money being important, many families recently came into so much more money than they ever had before, it influenced their lives much more than they intended. It is the "new money, old money" issue that arose during the Industrial Revolution. People who came into money as adults flaunt it because it is new and exciting to them; money seems to have fixed all of their problems. Old money, on the other hand, isn't as excited about money as they have spent their whole life wealthy due to it being passed down in their family.
DeleteNora [smiles and hums]. Never you mind! Never you mind! [walks about the room.] Yes, it really is terribly amusing to think that we... that Torvald now has power over so many people. [She takes the bag out of her pocket.] Pg.19
ReplyDeleteThis quote is used to convey the theme of gender roles. As it is obvious in the quote Nora intends to say "we", Nora and her husband, but then changes to saying that Tarvold has power over so many people. The reason why Nora might wanted to say We have power over so many people is that because without her, Tarvold would have not even been alive to boss people at the bank. Also since she loves to spend money and the ability of spending money gives people a feeling of superiority and power, and she clearly states that she loves money and spending it she clearly sees herself as the member of higher social levels. But the main reason for her sentence is that even though women could not have jobs that gave them too much power and ability to have a lot of money, she still gathered enough money to help her husband. This shows that she is not like all the other women in her time and that she wants to do something and that is why she considers herself a "We" have power instead of only her husband.
-Hajir Hosseini, P5
I agree with your analysis that Nora feels like she should be mentioned in the same light as her husband's but can't because of gender roles. Another good quote to support your analysis would be "but he mustn't know anything. Good heavens, can't you see! He wasn't even supposed to know how desperately ill he was" because it shows how Nora can't reveal she saved her own husband's life do to societal boundaries.
DeleteMore often than not, the opinion of a person with high status has great impact on other people. In Victorian culture, it was widely established that the men had that great influence over the women. In A Doll's House, Ibsen uses the characterization of Nora as a protective mother to convey the patriarchal aspect of Victorian culture. At the end of Act One, Helmer says to Nora, "My dear Nora, as a lawyer I know what I'm talking about. Practically all juvenile delinquents come from homes where the mother is dishonest" (Ibsen 33). Soon afterwards, Nora says to herself, "Corrupt my children...! Poison my home? It's not true! It could never, never be true!" (Ibsen 34). Immediately, Nora is appalled by her husband’s remark and she passionately disbelieves his sexist comment; as a loving mother, she cannot fathom the idea of hurting her children with her dishonesty. However, in the beginning of Act Two, when Nora is talking with the maid, she asks, "Do they keep asking for me?" to which the nurse responds, "They are so used to being with their Mummy" (Ibsen 35). With this, despite her initial rejection of Helmer's comment, her guilt stemmed from the patriarchal influence of Helmer has had a great impact on her; an impact so great that she feels the need to distance herself from her children to protect them from corruption. Helmer’s words had such an effect on Nora that it led to her change in behavior. In order to completely represent Victorian culture, Ibsen uses the characterization of Nora as a protective mother to convey the influence of male opinion on women.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about how Nora shows she has the best interest in her family. The fact that Nora goes behind Torvald’s back for a loan to save his life and even forge her father’s signature shows that Nora will go to great lengths to protect the ones she loves. You mentioned that Ibsen characterizes Nora this way to portray women during the Victorian era. However I believe he did this to challenge the gender roles during this time period. Nora is brave enough to go to these great lengths, unlike the common Victorian woman who was just seen as a child bearer and often times an object rather than an equal human being.
Deleten the play “A Doll’s House,” Henrik Ibsen uses the characterization of Krogstad to create a theme of deception throughout the play. Towards the end of act 1, the audience learns that Nora had forged her father’s signature to be able to get the loan to go on a trip to South America, “No, it wasn't. It was me who signed father's name” (I. 28). Krogstad had a curious hunch on that topic which ended in Nora telling him the truth about what really happened. Since everybody knew that Krogstad was going to lose his job at the bank because he committed forgery, he is blackmailing Nora to tell Helmer to let him keep his job or Krogstad will tell Helmer how she actually got that money, “... But I tell you this; if I'm pitched out a second time, you are going to keep me company” (I. 29). By suggesting blackmail, the audience can tell that Krogstad is an ambitious man. He will do anything to get his way, even if that means blackmailing someone. Blackmail is probably the lowest and most unkind thing to do to someone. But also, if Nora hadn't forged her father's signature, she would not be in this situation in the first place. The reason why Krogstad is getting fired from his job is because he committed forgery. He himself had did something deceiving, thinking he could get away with doing something illegal, just like Nora did. If he ends up blaming someone for his firing, it should be himself because if he hadn't committed forgery, he wouldn't have to stoop down to blackmail because he wouldn't even be in this situation in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion on Krogstad- he is almost the villain in the play, the one to commit evil deeds against the protagonist. Perhaps he shouldn’t blame others for his own downfall at the bank, as you say- because it was his own fault in the crimes he committed in the past. But what about Nora? Should Nora blame Krogstad for her own downfall, or should she blame herself? Nora has committed the same crime, forgery, in forging her father’s signature for the money. She has done this, gained debt, and still has not revealed her secrets to her husband. This is why I believe Nora deserves punishment for her actions, even though she is the main character (not sure if she is the protagonist, they are all good / bad). Though Nora has reflected on what she’s done, even contemplating suicide as Krogstad says, “Under the ice, maybe? Down in the cold, black water? Then being washed up in the spring, bloated, hairless, unrecognizable…” (54), Nora still should face her actions and at least reveal the truth to her allies around her.
DeleteHelmer: My dear Nora, I forgive you this anxiety of yours, although it is actually a bit of an insult. Oh, but it is, I tell you! (43)
ReplyDeleteIn this scene Nora begs Helmer to help Krogstad keep his position at the banks and not have him get fired, but instead he sends out Krogstad's notice. Even though Nora begs Helmer many times to not send that letter, for not only her sake but also for the sake of their children, Helmer does not listen to her and sends the message. Even after there was still time to get the message back and prevent it from being sent, he still didn't listen to her and ignored her. This shows how low he thinks of her and does not see her as an equal partner in this marriage. Which in this time period was not really uncommon since women did not have high paying jobs during this era which led to them being forced to wait at home and use the money that their husbands make. Giving them automatically less power in the marriage and being seen as second hand citizen. Also another reason for Helmer's stubborn behavior in this scene is because he is insulted by Nora, when she calls his motives of trying to remove Krogstad from office petty, which Helmer took as calling him petty. Also one other major reason for why he wanted Krogstad out of the office is because he challenges him and acts as if they are equals, and by not firing him because he has been convinced by his wife whom has been influenced by Krogstad is a sign of weakness for him; and may even lead to him losing his face at the bank and he does not want to take that risk.
-Hajir Hosseini, Period 5
I understood what you wrote, because i too can speak english, but i don't agree with a word of it. Helmer always viewed Krogstad as a lower class then himself, he would never think of him as a threat. I also believe he was simply trying to check his mail and just disagreed with his wife, i dont think that would convey how he views his wife, sometimes a man just needs to check the mail.
Delete“Five. Seven hours to midnight. Then twenty-four hours till the next midnight. Then the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live” Nora (II. 61).
ReplyDeleteI found this quote very interesting because of the context. When I read this at first, I was a little confused on what she meant by “thirty-one hours to live” but after reading this quote a couple more times, I finally understood it. Nora is basically saying that she has thirty-one hours before Helmer finds out the truth about what happened with the whole money fiasco and then she will kill herself. Before this, Helmer was saying how he wouldn't do anything else besides thinking about the tarantella and Nora until the dance was done, which was where the thirty-one hours came from. Also I thought it was interesting how she disguised her emotions, like she knew that it would look suspicious to Helmer if she acted all sad and depressed and so she put on a jocund mask to hide her true feelings. Whenever Helmer was not paying attention to Nora, she’d always be cogitating what might happen if Helmer were to find out the truth but whenever Helmer was around her and talking to her, she’d always act all happy and cheerful as if nothing is wrong. I think that the emotional disguises in this play have a direct correlation with the theme of deception because there is a lot of lying and deceiving going on in this play and to be able to hide those lies and secrets, people put on masks to prevent others from figuring out the truth.
I also found this quote quite intriguing, and agree with your conclusion on it's meaning. In the theme of emotional disguise, I find that Nora is very good at putting on a show. However, it still shocks me that Nora believes she should kill herself and that will be the best way of solving her problems. Helmer treats her as though she is a child or pet who is incapable of making a decision. This clearly translates into Nora’s thoughts and actions throughout the play. She is merely behaving how she has been expected to, and how Helmer has “trained” her.
DeleteThis was a very intriguing analysis. At first when I read this part of the play I had very little knowledge of the Tarantella dance and how it had so much secret symbolism within its context. However, do you know how the dance might contribute into the Victorian Era? Because I thought about what you said and how it was performed to rid oneself of the virulent tarantula bite, but was this might also be because of the lack of knowledge within these species and what can they do? Personally, I think it is, but coming back to your analysis, it allowed to me further understand how and why the Tarantella dance was incorporated into the play so strategically.
DeleteIn act 2 of A Dolls House, Henrik Ibsen starts to describe Ms. Linde’s situation, and what she desires. It is shown that Ms. Linde (who is currently alone), wants to be with someone. We know this because in one of her many interactions with Krogstad she says “Nils give me somebody and something to work for”.
ReplyDeleteI think that Ibsen is trying to characterize her as lonely, and desperate to have someone else to be with. I say this because this is the first time that we have seen anything that would imply that she would want to be with Krogstad, yet in the scene she is ready to put his past behind her and be with him. During the Victorian era, woman like her were looked down upon, because they didn’t have husbands nor children, and this seemed to be the “purpose” of women at the time; to have children and to serve their husbands. This purpose is also seen between Nora and Torvald, because Nora relies on Torvald for everything, and she takes care of the children while trying to please him. From these two incidences, I think that we can draw the conclusion that this is how most relationships were like in the Victorian era.
What i found interesting about your analysis is that you found that Mrs.Linde was lonely and looking for someone because she was lonely. I would have to disagree with that because of a simple subtlety. All through out the play she is referred to as her dead husbands last name. She is also bearen with no children; she was the epitome f a disgraceful woman in the Victorian Era. I believe she wants to get back together with Krogtad so that society does not shun her anymore. Nice and concise analysis Rishi.
DeleteNORA: “With champagne flowing until dawn. And some macaroons, Helene… lots of them, for once in a while” (II.60).
ReplyDeleteA common theme in Victorian culture, it was expected that the woman be prim and proper: even if their true character was the exact opposite. In A Doll’s House, Ibsen uses food symbolism to represent the side of Nora that cannot be openly expressed as a result of cultural standards. Since the beginning of the play, it is obvious that Helmer has kept Nora on a tight leash. In the aspect of desserts, he had banned them completely from the house, out of worry that the sugar would ruin Nora’s teeth. Yet despite Helmer’s rule, in multiple circumstances, Nora has been sneaking around and lying about the sweet treats. In this passage, Nora orders the maid to keep the ‘champagne flowing’ and bring macaroons for dinner; food and beverage that she does not usually consume. These requests are representative of Nora’s true self that she is not normally allowed to show by Victorian standards. With this, the fact that she requests these luxuries before her grand performance of the tarantella only emphasizes this idea; the dance also symbolizes the side of a typical Victorian wife that is lost and forgotten when she is passionately performing. In combination, the champagne, macaroons and tarantella all represent Nora’s secret misbehavior and deceit, as they are all indulgences that she is not accustomed to partaking in, just as she cannot freely partake in her true passions. With this, the food symbolism used in A Doll’s House is utilized in such a way that Victorian culture is seen as a restraint to Nora’s self expression.
I enjoyed your analysis of the symbol of macaroons. I feel like these small symbols foreshadow future events. An example of this is when Nora’s true self and intentions are finally revealed in Act III, when she talks to Torvald about their relationship. She admits that she is tired of being just an object and pretending to be something that she is not. I think that throughout the whole play, she is just waiting to break through the constrictive gender roles that bind her, and the macaroons and tarantella are examples of little things that Nora does that are rebellious. That is why it is so easy for her to suggest to leave her children behind.
Delete"It was simply that you didn't have the experience to judge what was the best way of going about things... No, no, you just lean on me, I shall give you all the advice and guidance you need. I wouldn't be a proper man if I didn't find a woman doubly attractive for being so obviously helpless."
ReplyDeleteThis quote is yet another example of the role of women in marriage and how they are seen by society, as lower second citizens. As Helmer tells her that she did not have the right experience in life to judge what is best to do in that situation and tells her that she just needs to let him take control and "lean" on him and that her entire existence in this life and one of the factors he chose her is that she is helpless,he implies that women should not be placed in the same level as men and they should just let men be in charge and make decisions for them. Even though Nora is economically more advanced than most characters, she nevertheless leads a difficult life because society dictates that Torvald be the marriage’s dominant partner. Nora is forced to hide her loan from him because she knows Torvald could never accept the idea that his wife (a women) had helped save his life and also because it is illegal for a woman to obtain a loan without her husband’s permission.
-Hajir Hosseini, Period 5
A person that stands up for their rights and beliefs is often viewed as admirable, as they are willing to verbalize what no one else has the courage to say. On the other hand, some people believe that most things are better off left alone. In A Doll’s House, Ibsen’s characterization of Nora as a loving mother is what justifies her decision to abandon her children; a choice that many people would disagree with. From the beginning of the play, the role of women in Victorian culture is obvious; to conform to the men. And with this, it was next to impossible for women to get jobs. In Act One, Nora brings attention to the fact that she and Helmer both had to work in order to make ends meet. But while Helmer got a high-paying job at the bank, Nora could only keep jobs like sewing and embroidery. Later, in Act Three, Nora makes the bold decision to leave her whole life with Helmer behind, including their children. Helmer is furious and pleads with Nora to stay, but all she says is, “I dare say I’ll often think about you and the children and this house” (III.86). And she leaves without even saying goodbye. It is obvious that Nora has a tremendous love for her children, yet she decides to leave them behind. Some would argue that this makes her a bad mother, yet the opposite is true; she knew that while she would not be able to support the children with her salary alone, Helmer could. So Nora’s love for her children justifies her decision to leave them with Helmer simply because she had their best interest in mind.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your analysis of the fact that just because she leaves her children doesn’t make her a bad mother. I agree with the fact that she was forced to do this by the ridiculous society they lived in, and really enjoyed your justification. I also think that her actions are often interpreted as selfish, but the opposite is true. I think her actions are as selfless as possible in this situation, and she really does love her children, as seen earlier. I do wish that Nora had been a more multi-dimensional character though, and had shown more remorse when leaving her kids, even for the right reasons.
DeleteThe fact that your blog post began with a hook drew me in immediately. Do you think the same for the alternate ending where it is ambiguous whether Nora actually stays or decides to leave? Due to the fact that most children back then were left with maids and nanny's instead of their mothers, do you think the children would be attached to Nora at all? Would they even notice if she left because she most likely wasn't their main caretaker? As much as her children love her and Nora loves her children would you consider it fine if Nora left to be an independent woman and "start her life over?"
DeleteSome people say that Nora was not right to leave her children and some say that she was smart to leave their children. I am on the fence about this topic. I believe that Nora was right to leave her children but at the same time, I believe that Nora shouldn't have left her children. A child shouldn't have to grow up without a mother on their life because their mother is the parent that the child relates to and the parent that the child learns how to make relationships and connections from. From reading the play, it seems as if the children are still in their juvenile years because of how much they always want to play with Nora, “All right, Mummy. Are you going to play again?” The Children (I. 30) Most pre-teens and teenagers nowadays never ask to play hide-and-seek with their mothers. From knowing how young these children are, it is very crucial for their mother to be on their lives at such a young age. Since the mother is the parent they learn how to make relationships from, without her the children wouldn’t do great in school and would not have a lot of friends. Nora believes that she is helping her children by leaving but she would just be making their lives worse. But I feel like if she stayed, like how it is described in the alternate German ending, she would not be the same character as Ibsen describes her throughout the whole play. She is portrayed as a woman that obeys her husband but not to the point where he tells her to do something and she does it all the time, she is a rebel. She also likes to defy the laws of how women should have acted in the Victorian era. Nora will do whatever it takes to save her family even if that moves doing something illegal, forgery, or doing something very drastic, leaving her family. If a woman were reading this play during the Victorian era, I think she would look up to the character of Nora as a leader and get inspired by her to change her life and do something for herself for once.
ReplyDeleteI am also torn between whether Nora's decision to leave her children was justifiable: on one hand, it is a humane duty of any parent to care for their child (especially mothers since that's who they pop out of.. you know?), but on the other hand, Nora does not seem to be fit for motherhood. She is questioning her beliefs, morals, and ultimate existence, how can she instill confidence in her children? It could end catastrophically, having people become parents who are not ready to manage the responsibilities of parenthood (example: teen parents). It is the parents who raise and inspire the future, it is what they teach that manifests itself in the world through their children. I think a Nora that has been shot around the world, experienced her greatest doubts and confirmed her truth, will be better fit to be a mother.
DeleteIn Act 3 of A Dolls House, Henrik Ibsen continues to show the effects of gender roles in the Victorian era, however in act three he contrasts the two types of relationships that we see in the play. The relationship between Nora and Helmer is seen as a typical Victorian relationship, while Kristine’s relationship with Krogstad contrasts this. We see that Nora and Helmer have a traditional relationship when Helmer says “Can’t I look at my most treasured possession?” (69). This quote is meant to show that although Helmer treasures his wife, and she is important to him, she is still his possession. This kind of comment was viewed as normal in the Victorian era. Ibsen contrasts this with Kristine and Krogstad’s relationship, as their relationship seems to be a more modern one. Kristine talks about how it will be good to have someone to make her happy, and how she can reciprocate those feelings to someone else. The overall feel that Ibsen gives to the relationship seems to be more equal and giving than Helmer and Nora’s. We also never hear Krogstad talk to Kristine like she is a possession. Ibsen included this to show the reader that although many relationships had male dominant characteristics, that there were also deviations from this standard.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes A Doll’s House different from other literary works is the addition of an alternate ending. While it was not the intention of Ibsen to include it in his play, it is interpreted in such a way that furthers the gender stereotypes present in Victorian culture and shines light on Ibsen’s standing on gender equality. In the traditional ending of A Doll’s House, the act closes with Nora leaving and the door slamming shut behind her: and as she leaves, so do the gender stereotypes that were present through the extent of the play. Despite Helmer’s male status and previous control over every aspect of Nora’s life, she does not give in to his pleas to stay. Her will power was admirable, as she turned away from both her husband and Victorian tradition in which women were considered inferior to men. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the alternate ending replaces Nora’s dramatic exit with her compliance to Helmer. Although she had told him she did not want to see the children one last time, she peers through the door and sees them sleeping. She then sinks down by the door and says, “Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them” (III.88). A complete shift from the traditional ending, where she leaves against Helmer’s will, Nora ends up giving in to him and staying, which conforms to the gender stereotypes of Victorian culture. With this, the fact that it was against Ibsen’s wishes to include the alternate ending in the play suggests that he was a proponent for gender equality, and liked the idea of a woman standing up to a man for what she believes in.
ReplyDeleteI found your analysis very interesting about how Henrik Ibsen’s second ending of this play was not something that he was very fond of creating. However, I also think that the fact that Ibsen did agree to do it, albeit with discontent, shows the strong cultural norms at the time. Even though Ibsen strongly did not want to create the alternate ending, the strong pressure of societal norms and culture inclined him to do so. It also shows how even though Ibsen might have had feelings against gender norms and stereotypes, they were not strong enough to warrant not creating the ending at all and rebelling totally against societal norms.
DeleteI think that it was shown in the letters that we read that Ibsen did not want to create an alternate ending, but was forced to by society. It was either him writing an alternate ending, or a less skilled writer. He preferred to do it himself so the play was somewhat how he wanted it to end. Overall, I was not very pleased with the alternate ending because it went against the whole theme of the book, and made it almost pointless to read. Also, the alternate ending was very abrupt, compared to the original ending which is several pages longer. In the original ending, Nora seems to get some justice and gets to tell Helmer off, but in the alternate ending there is not a happy ending for Nora at all. She even admits that it is "a sin against herself" to stay with Helmer, which also shows Ibsen's views on the alternate ending.
DeleteIn the play “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, one thing I found interesting was the multiple references to macaroons. Ibsen refers to macaroons many times but when he does mention it there is always one character that is connected to it, Nora, “[...She takes a bag of macaroons out of her pocket and eats one or two; and then she walked out of the across and listen to her husband’s door.]” (I. 1) Another mention of macaroons, “Didn't go nibbling a macaroon or two?” Helmer (I. 5). “No, Torvald, honestly, you must believe me…!” Nora (I. 5) Also, “ With champagne flowing until dawn. [Shouts] And some macaroons, Helene… lots of them, for once in a while” Nora (II. 60). Knowing that macaroons are fragile and very delicate, I think that the macaroons are a symbol of how the women in the Victorian era should have acted; fragile and proper. But these characteristics are the opposite of how Nora is characterized in the play. Nora is rebellious and doesn't follow the rules, the total opposite of macaroons. I believe that Nora eating the macaroons signifies how she does not want to be the stereotypical Victorian era wife, how she wants to do things her way sometimes. Also hiding it from Helmer helps build her rebellious state more by lying to him.
ReplyDeleteI like how in depth your analysis of such a subtle symbol is. Macaroons are not only fragile and delicate, but also visually pleasing in a colorful and cute sense. Aesthetics were very important to Victorian society, especially when it came to the home and women. Homes had to be well kept and inviting while women were expected to always be pretty and fashionable. This comes back to your point of how Nora doesn't necessarily lack these traits, but is forced to adopt them completely in society
DeleteI agreed with your analysis of macaroons symbolizes Nora, but I disagree that she is the total opposite. Macaroons have little cracks at the bottom, which we call foot. The foot is the symbol of Nora's flaws, her individual self making her do things like lying or shrouding her mistakes, and the smoothness symbolizes Nora ways of sticking to society, paying a crown for a cheap 50 öre Christmas tree. Overall, the little foot symbolizes Nora imperfection and the smoothness symbolizes society influence over her.
DeleteNam Nguyen
Something that I found intriguing about “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen was the use of the lamp. Ibsen first introduced that lamp when Dr.Rank professes his love for Nora. It is used to show that Nora has learned something new, but more importantly it foreshadows that the next time we see the lamp Nora will have learned something else. The next time that we see the lamp is after Helmer reads Krogstad’s letter, and becomes aware of the situation at hand. After a few exchanges, the lamp is mentioned in the setting. From this we know that Nora has learned something new again, only this time it is something much more significant to the plot line. The second time the lamp appears is when Nora realized that Helmer is not the man that she thought he was. She thought that Helmer would take the blame for her forgery, and they would continue to live as they had before, however Helmer refuses to do so. This also plays into some of the values that were held highly during the Victorian time period. We see earlier that Krogstad is looked down upon because of his past forgery, and now we see that Helmer won’t even consider taking some of the blame. This shows that defending honor was very important in the Victorian era.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting as to how found something so significant in a prop that is very subtle. Would you consider this symbol to be the most important? Do you think this helps support the fact that the stage directions are an important part of the novel? Is it ironic when the lamp appears in the novel last?
DeleteYour analyzation is interesting. I like the points you make about the lamp and the points brought up, but i’d like to offer some questions to think about. What else could the lamp represent? What about the letters exchanged so often? Could those be symbolic of people’s relationships? Otherwise I enjoyed your interpretation and hope you enjoyed the book. Think about those questions!
Delete