The thing that I found most interesting about the beginning of A Doll’s House was the way that Ibsen reveals the plot to the audience and his tone. I think that his writing style here has a close tie in to the main character of Nora and her actions. I noticed that Ibsen writes his plays very differently from Shakespeare-- while Shakespeare tends to reveal his important plot twists (disguise, etc.) to the audience as they happen and before other characters find out, creating an often humorous situation of dramatic irony, Ibsen reveals the secrets of the plot to the reader as past events, in discussions among characters. The effect that this has is one of secrecy and deceit, rather than comedy. For example, as Nora reveals that she borrowed money to be able to take Torvald to Italy, she does it in a way that seems almost like the unraveling of a mystery in a crime novel. Ibsen does this so that the audience will be able to see clearly how little trust there really is in the relationship between Torvald and Nora. Ibsen also shows this by intentionally leaving discussions among Torvald, Rank, and Krogstad behind closed doors. This makes the reader question what Torvald has to hide from Nora. Another interesting thing to note about the mysterious tone of the novel is that it seems to connect to Victorian culture: Just as Torvald and Nora’s relationship on the outside appears to be ideal, but is really full of secrets, Victorians valued appearance so highly that it was more important to look perfect than to be perfect. I believe that Ibsen used this tone to critique his society-- it shows that when a person concerns themselves too much with outward image, there is a high potential for dishonesty, both to oneself and to others.
I agree with your idea that Isben and Shakespeare have very different approaches in writing and presenting characters. A specific example to support your idea of the contrasting tone is their uses of irony. In Taming of the Shrew, Shakespeare often uses irony in a comedic light, but Isben’s use of irony has a grim and ominous effect. When Nora and Torvald are discussing about the Krogstad’s stained morality, Torvald criticizes Krogstad as “morally depraved” and continues to collectively blame dishonest mothers as the cause of juvenile delinquents. This irony stems from the fact that Torvald, who “quite literally feels physically sick in the presence of such people” (I. pg 33), is married to the exact type of person he despises, his little precious songbird. Unfortunately, the shock of being called the cause of the corruption and poison in her perfect, little family horrifies Nora and she seems unable to accept the truth. Torvald’s words are intriguing to me because he seems aware of Nora’s secretive and deceitful nature, but Isben doesn’t really delve much into his actual reactions and thoughts behind these (at least in Act 1.) As you said, Torvald has numerous discussions behind closed doors, which leads me to question his own honesty and if he is actually any different from the very mothers/people he had criticized and blamed for as the cause of juvenile delinquents.
I found your analysis quite insightful in regard to the way Ibsen reveals the aspect of trust, or lack thereof, in Nora and Helmer’s marriage. In addition, your analysis of the Victorian influence on A Doll’s House opened my eyes to those secret meetings in Helmer’s study. Not only in the form of mystery or the illusion of a seemingly perfect marriage, but that the men feel that their matters are too righteous or advanced for the women to be a part of. This led me to wonder if Ibsen includes this cultural aspect in his play because he agrees with it or if he is trying to portray gender stereotypes in a negative way.
Mrs. Linde: One must live, Doctor. Rank: Yes, it’s generally thought to be necessary. Nora: Come, come, Dr. Rank. You are quite as keen to live as anybody. Rank: Quite keen, yes. Miserable as I am, I’m quite ready to let things drag on as long as possible. All my patients are the same. Even those with a moral affliction are no different. […] Rank: I wonder if you’ve got people in your part of the country too who go rushing round sniffing out cases of moral corruption, and then installing the individuals concerned in nice, well-paid jobs where they can keep them under observation. Sound, decent people have to be content to stay out in the cold. Mrs. Linde: Yet surely it’s the sick who most need to be brought in. Rank: Well, there we have it. It’s that attitude that’s turning society into a clinic.
This excerpt struck me because of the way that Dr. Rank turned a casual conversation into a morbid but matter-of-fact commentary on life. He says that living is “generally thought to be necessary” and that people are “ready to let things drag on as long as possible.” Dr. Rank’s comments serve as foreshadowing of Nora’s behavior. At the end of Act One, Nora says, “Corrupt my children…! Poison my home? [short pause; she throws back her head.] It’s not true! It could never, never be true!” (34). Nora does not accept the consequences of her actions. Instead of dealing with what Dr. Rank would call her “moral affliction,” Nora chooses to ignore it and let her problem drag out as long as possible. Dr. Rank’s weary tone is a reflection of his daily occupation of dealing with unaccountable people like Nora.
Rank further expresses his dissatisfaction with society when he comments on Krogstad’s job: “I wonder if you’ve got people in your part of the country too who go rushing round sniffing out cases of moral corruption, and then installing the individuals concerned in nice, well-paid jobs.” Dr. Rank suggests that Krogstad’s past misdeeds make him less deserving than “sound, decent people.” Ibsen uses these comments to characterize Dr. Rank as an idealistic man who believes in meritocracy—that people should be given opportunities based on their merit and not their need. Mrs. Linde counters his argument, suggesting that “the sick,” or the morally corrupted, are more deserving of help than others. This morally ambiguous attitude is what makes the idealistic Dr. Rank so weary: “It’s that attitude that’s turning society into a clinic.” Rank’s wording is ironic given the fact that he is a doctor. Instead of wishing to heal people as a doctor should, Rank has become jaded by the moral corruption of his patients.
I also that Dr. Rank was a very interesting character. I thought that it was very strange that he was a doctor and had such a negative view on life. The tone of his words is so sarcastic, especially when he says “ But even he began talking about having to live, as though it were something terribly important” (I.ii.). He has a very negative, but realistic view on life that makes readers wonder what he is talking about. My first impression of Dr. Rank was confusion, especially when he made comments that society was “turning into a clinic”. He is a doctor, but does not want to help people, which is the sole purpose of his job.
I agree with your statement about Dr. Rank and how he is different from the other characters we have been introduced to so far. I think that Rank is a character of modern society placed into the past, even though he is meant to be out of place in a bad way. He provides a second perspective to the play, versus being just another character that is accepting of the sexist and gender role-run society from the Victorian era.
Possible significant symbols in A Doll’s House are the doors that separate each room. Beginning with the opening stage directions, the author mentioned doors repeatedly throughout each sentence. This became noticeable when the overall living space was small and crowded, but there were many possible entrances and exits in each room. After reading the first act, the doors seem to resemble the separation and secretiveness between each family. That sides of each character are different behind closed doors versus when they are in public. Throughout the first act there are many secrets revealed to the audience. At first, the secrets begin with Nora eating/hiding macaroons from her husband, for the fact that he doesn’t like her eating them. These little white lies escalate as soon as Nora announces that she forged her father’s signature in order to get a loan for Torvald’s tropical vacation, “KROGSTAD: Your father died on 29 September. But look here. Your father has dated his signature on 2 October” (I. 28). And oddly enough, Nora never told Torvald the truth of where her source of money came from, which supports the fact that the family is not close with each other and not willing to confide in each other for an unknown reason. In addition, it seems mysterious when the doctor comes over and Helmer asks the maid, “Did he go straight into my room?” (I. 7). At first glance, the fact that Helmer states “my room” instead of “the bedroom” or “master bedroom” is interesting. Perhaps the husband and wife don’t sleep in the same room? Could it possibly be a reason to why Nora and Helmer seem so separated, and the reason why Nora seems to hide from Helmer more than she tells him the truth?
I definitely agree with your analysis of the doors as a symbol of the secretiveness that pervades the Helmer household. I think it's really interesting that you connected the doors with the separation of relationships between the people in the play because it's evident that Nore and Helmer don't trusts each other. I like your hypothesis of the couple not sleeping in the same room because it seems like they always part ways at the end of the day. I think this could definitely be the reason for their lack of trust because they never have the opportunity to relax and talk to each other.
During Act Two of A Doll’s House, there is a dominant motif of women being inferior to men. This began in Act One when Nora wanted to a new dress to go to the fancy dress party upstairs in. She had asked Torvald and when he disagreed and suggested that Mrs. Linde help repair one of her old dresses. After she agrees to his decision she states, “NORA: Wonderful! But wasn’t it also nice of me to let you have your way? HELMER [taking her under the chin]: Nice of you - because you let your husband have his way? All right, you little rogue, I know you didn’t mean it that way…” (II. 40). With Nora’s brave statement, she was willing to see what happens if she spoke up for herself. However, Torvald’s response implied that Nora was being absurd, as if she is always suppose to be obedient to him and that he is always suppose to have the controlling opinion. The dress is a symbol of their household hierarchy, and due to the fact that Nora cannot even dress herself nicely resembles the fact that as long as Torvald can help it, Nora can not and will not make any decisions for herself. With that being said, it would truly emphasize this notion if Torvald went to the event with a brand new polished tuxedo and tie. Additionally to gender roles, the societal norm of women being subordinate to men is implied when she discusses her options for repaying Krogstad. Nora states, “NORA: How did you know I was thinking of that? KROGSTAD: Most of us think of that, to begin with” (II. 53). The implication popularly assumed was that Nora meant suicide. Comparing that to our society today, most people in our era would not turn to suicide in a situation like this, they would probably turn to homicide. The fact that Nora considered this factor suggests that she feels unimportant and that if she ended her life, no one would care. Therefore, Nora’s self-esteem is low due to societal gender standards and the fact that her husband applies those standards.
I like that you pointed out that the dress is a symbol. I think it represents a lot of things including, as you mentioned, the household hierarchy and the importance of appearance. They have clearly had their financial difficulties and yet Helmer is willing to give large amounts of money to Nora so that she can spend it on clothes.
I agree with your analysis about how the dress is a symbol of their household hierarhcy. I thought it was very interesting to think about it in another way. But when I was reading this part of the play, I had analyzed it a little differently. I thought that Helmer wouldn't give Nora anymore money for a dress because of her reputaiton she has spending money. In the beginning of the play, it states that she's one that likes to spend money whenever she has some and she likes to spend it extravagantly. So when Helmer would not give her money to buy a new dress, I thought it was because he knew that Nora would spend that money on something else or ask for more money to buy a very expensive dress.
The thing that I found most interesting in Act II of A Doll’s House was the theme of inheritance and the passing down of issues from parent to child. Ibsen uses allusion rhetorical questions, and metaphor to show the connection between the actions of a parent and the life that their children grow up to lead. The most obvious example is that of Dr. Rank. Dr. Rank suffers from “tuberculosis of the spine” which is a historic way of alluding to syphilis. As Nora explains, Rank’s “father was a horrible man” (37), who was often with mistresses, which would explain how he caught syphilis. It is revealed in this act that Rank is in the last stages of his life due to his ailment. Rank says “Why should I suffer for another man’s sins? What justice is there in that?”(45). Ibsen uses Rank’s rhetorical questions and his illness to show that the actions of a parent can have a significant impact on the life of their child. He does this to show that often in society people have little or no choice in circumstances that can determine their entire life. This serves to foreshadow the way in which Nora’s choices will have a profound impact on the life of her children. Ibsen also connects Nora’s life with that of Krogstad. He writes “Helmer: He can never drop the mask, not even with his own wife and children. And the children-- that's the most terrible part of it... Every breath the children take is reeking with evil germs” (33). Here, Ibsen uses the metaphor of the air of Krogstad’s house reeking with germs to show that a parent’s lies and secrecy can infect children just like Dr. Rank’s father infected him with syphilis. The motif of inheriting bad things from one’s parents serves to prove that in a society as concerned with appearance as the Victorians, one bad mistake can serve to ruin the lives of your entire future family.
I also found this concept particularly interesting as it is far less prevalent (almost non existent) today. Before reading your analysis I found these references interesting, but I had not seen the precise literary devices used to show the role that inheritance and familial ties played in the Victorian era. I now can see the connection between the types of literary devices used to convey this because of your analysis. I will be very interested to see the role that these ties play in the rest of the play especially with Helmer and Nora and her gigantic web of lies. Good Job.
I like how you discussed figurative inheritance and as you put it, "the passing down of issues from parent to child." In modern times, we think of inheritance as the material objects we get when our parents or grandparents die. While this was a common occurrence of the time, Ibsen seems to ignore it completely. Nora hasn't mentioned any money passed to her from her father. Perhaps this is Ibsen's way of telling his audience to not focus on the material and pay more attention to how you treat others.
Henrik Ibsen explores the nature of dependency in A Doll’s House using the character of Nora. In Act Two, Nora faces extreme apprehension about her future path. Throughout her marriage, Nora has accepted her role as the inferior, childlike wife to her husband. Now that her secret is about to be revealed – that she took actions behind her husband’s back – her entire life is being called into question. This leads her to act in a frenzied manner, as when Krogstad leaves his letter and she exclaims, “Has he changed his mind? Is he…? In the letter-box! There it is! Torvald, Torvald! It’s hopeless now!” (55). Even though Torvald is not in the room, Nora invokes his name as if she is calling upon him to save her from her problems. This is something she has done throughout her life. In her childhood, Nora was dependent on her father. When her father had legal issues and Torvald came to help, Nora simply transferred her dependence onto Torvald. However, in this point in the play, it seems like Nora is on the verge of departing from this pattern of dependence. When Dr. Rank visits Nora, she is uncertain whether or not to ask him for help: “Supposing I were to ask you to…? No…” (48). However, when Rank confesses that he loves Nora, she says, “I can tell you nothing now” (49). Now that Nora knows of Dr. Rank’s love for her, she decides not to involve him. This suggests that she has learned from accepting Torvald’s help in the situation with her father and no longer wishes to be dependent on men who love her.
I agree with your idea that previously, Nora had always been dependent on her father and husband. I think a big part of her dependence is her tendency to immediately believe them and take their word without question. For example, she first becomes frantic when Torvald tells her “Because in such an atmosphere of lies home life is poisoned and contaminated in every fibre. Every breath the children draw contains some germ of evil” (I. 33), Nora immediately panics, “[Pale with terror.] Corrupt my children!- Poison my home! [Short pause. She throws back her head.] It's not true! It can never, never be true!” (I. 34). Upon hearing Torvald’s little speech, she doesn’t really contemplate about the accuracy of what he said, and is immediately convinced that she seems to be the cause of her children’s corruption. Although Nora’s trouble-making seem endless, Nora is still aware of her wrongdoings and feels insecure about herself, which she covers with lies, deceit, and bluffs that eventually lead her to her mental downfall.
“Nora Stands for a moment as though to collect herself, then looks at her watch. NORA: Five. Seven hours to midnight. Then twenty- four hours till the next midnight. Then the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four hours and Seven? Thirty one hours to live. HELMER: What’s happened to our little sky-lark? NORA: Here she is!” (61) This quote was the last one before the end of Act II. I found it very interesting because I believe that it symbolizes the way that Nora and Helmer’s relationship and lives together have deteriorated so quickly. Ibsen uses symbolism and a metaphor to show that Nora knows that her facade is about to disappear and that Helmer will be caught completely unawares. When Nora refers to the tarantella along with the fact that she has only “thirty one hours to live”, the tarantella is symbolic of the facade she has put up for Helmer. Nora knows that as soon as the tarantella dance, and thus her facade, is over because of the fact that Helmer will read the letter from Krogstad as soon as they finish the party. Just like Nora dances the tarantella to please Helmer, she puts up her facade so that Helmer will not suspect that anything is wrong. By creating this symbol, Ibsen shows that Nora realizes that as soon as her facade falls, she will be in deep trouble with Helmer. When Helmer then refers to her as his little sky- lark once again, Ibsen shows that Helmer clearly has no idea of the imminent demise of his relationship with his wife. I also find it interesting that it gives the image of a caged bird, a likely reference to Nora’s lack of self determination that is a result of the gender roles of her time. These two symbols also both show Nora as taking on a different identity-- while the tarantella shows the facade that she puts over herself to hide herself from Torvald, the songbird shows the dehumanization that Torvald places on her. All of this secrecy and dehumanization serves to reveal that the main cause of Nora’s issues stem from her lack of a real identity due to the nature of the treatment of women in Victorian society.
I agree with your analysis completely, and would add the importance of the dramatic irony when Helmer says “you are dancing as though your life depended on it,” to which Nora replies, “it does” (II.59). This interaction adds to the dramatic irony and the symbol that you described, because Nora’s “life” really does depend on her keeping Helmer busy by dancing. I think it is also very representative of the era this play was written that Nora believes that her reputation was her whole life and wellbeing. I think this shows how important status was in this society, and how this one mistake and a web of lies will “destroy” their family. I also really enjoyed how you interpreted Helmer's comparisons of Nora to animals as an act of dehumanization.
An important quotation in Act Two is when Nora states, “NORA: Yes, I certainly must, Torvald. But I just can’t get anywhere without your help: I’ve completely forgotten it” (II. 57). Quickly after Krogstad left the letter in the mailbox that explains Nora’s secrets, she had to come up with a decoy in order to not get caught and have her marriage ruined. The fact that she was able to come up with a clever and reasonable excuse (since the dance happened to be the next day). Therefore, Nora’s response to the situation makes her clever and intelligent, which is something women back then were not expected to be. Additionally, Nora was bright enough to realize that she had to follow through with her excuse. During her attempt to prove that she forgot the dance, Helmer says, “HELMER [stops]: No, no, that won’t do at all” (II.58). Nora had done such a wonderful job with her attempt at being horrible that Helmer actually believed her. Considering the fact that the dance would be rather hard for her to forget, her job of convincing had to be amazing. Since she sped up the tempo, it was even more clever due to the fact that forgetting the whole piece would have been unbelievable. Additionally, the fact that Nora understands not to get into arguments (that she knows she won’t win), proves her intelligence as well. As Nora tries to get Torvald to not fire Krogstad, even though she knows the consequences she says, “NORA: Yes…yes, that’s right” (II.42). Thus, even though Nora knows the truth, she is willing to agree because she is aware that there is no other option and trying to fight back will only do her worse.
Great analysis! I have thought about this previously, but your examples really brought it to light. This idea also makes me believe that there is hope for Nora in this story. She is very intelligent, no doubt, but it seems as though all of the odds are against her. She even believes that her end is near when the tarantella is over and Torvald might check on the letter that Krogstad placed in the mailbox. However, I believe that Nora’s wits will allow for a happy ending, or at least, something of the sort.
Krogstad: So if you are thinking of trying any desperate remedies… Nora: Which I am… Krogstad: …if you happen to be thinking of running away… Nora: Which I am! Krogstad: …or anything worse… Nora: How did you know? Krogstad: …forget it! Nora: How did you know I was thinking of that? Krogstad: Most of us think of that, to begin with. I did, too; but I didn’t have the courage…. Nora [tonelessly]: I haven’t either.
Ibsen uses somber diction and euphemisms in Nora and Krogstad’s discussion about escaping consequences to reveal truths about Victorian society. Nora and Krogstad both committed the same type of fraud, and experienced similar emotions afterwards. Krogstad relates himself to Nora and other people with moral failures when he says, “Most of us think of that, to begin with.” By talking about himself in such a way, Krogstad reveals that Victorian society views people who have made mistakes—no matter how small—as an inferior class of human beings. It is important to note that Nora’s fraud was not committed with malignant intent, nor did it have negative impacts on others. However, when Nora admits that she is thinking about something worse than running away, Ibsen implies that she is considering suicide. Krogstad’s matter-of-fact acceptance of this consideration serves to confirm the idea that any wrongdoing can absolutely ruin a person’s reputation if brought to public attention. It may seem strange to the modern reader that Nora and Krogstad admit that they don’t have the “courage” to commit suicide; today suicide in Nora’s situation would be viewed as an escape from facing the consequences of her actions. The fact that Nora and Krogstad view suicide as courageous demonstrates that reputation was of utmost importance in the Victorian era, and that once it was compromised a person was expected to no longer be a part of society. However, the Victorians never expressed this ultimatum aloud. In fact, social norms required Nora not only to consider taking her own life, but to do so with the littlest offense to anyone else. It is for this reason that both Nora and Krogstad never say the word “suicide;” instead, they use the euphemism “that.”
I like how you brought up that part about their "courage" to commit suicide. Nowadays suicide is thought of a selfish, "coward's way out" of our problems when in many cultures it hasn't been thought of like that. Most notable of examples is in Japanese culture during WWII. Instead of surrendering to the enemy, Japanese soldiers would commit suicide as it was seen as more honorable to die by one's own hand. I wish the U.S. would adopt a more proactive look on suicide, not that I condone it. Instead of shaming people for attempting it or even thinking of it, society should help those struggling with thoughts of suicide. I know their has been a greater move towards this behavior, but it is far from unanimous.
Nora: 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.
When Nora encountered Krogstad, he confronted her about doing something “unthinkable”, by which he was implying that she would run away, or take her own life to escape her crippling debt. When we read this excerpt, we are introduced to the idea that she actually not only is considering, but planning on taking her own life. When Ibsen writes, “Thirty-one hours to live.”, it seems to imply that in 31 hours, she plans to take her own life, thus why she says to live. This foreshadows what is soon to come in the following act, and is an interesting way to end act 2, as it leaves the audience on the edges of their seats, and we now know that Nora has another plan up her sleeve. But it is also brings up a motif of how after each lie she makes, she feels the need to make out another plan of lies and tricks to get herself out of the lies and tricks that just caught up to her.
Wow your analysis was exactly to similar to mine in how we both talked about the quote with "the thirty one hours to live" and how she is performing the tarantella and after planning committing suicide. I also thought her "thirty-one hours to live" could refer to the time left for her to live in her old lifestyle and then moving into a new life by leaving Torvald. Did you know the tarantella is performed as a death dance? I came to this conclusion because I found it a coincidence that Dr. Rank is playing the piano while she is performing the dance, and I found it this way because Dr. Rank is close to dying himself so he is aiding Nora with the dance, as she is "going" to die soon herself. Did you also know that this dance was first performed on Nora's and Torvald's honeymoon? This also contributes to the fact that she is performing this as a death dance, as she is recreating the pleasant moments she had with him before she moves on to her new life.
The thing that I found most interesting about Act III was when Nora and Helmer are talking about “the miracle” Ibsen writes, “Helmer: But Nobody sacrifices his honour for the ones he loves. Nora: Hundreds and thousands of women have.”(III.84) The miracle Nora is hoping for is one in which Helmer comes forward to take the blame for the entire saga between Nora and Krogstad. Nora wanted Helmer to sacrifice his status as an upstanding citizen, the very reputation that earned him his position at the bank, because she figured it was the only way he could show his love for her. What really stuck out to me was the fact that she called it a miracle. The way Nora explains it, you can tell she thinks of the miracle only as a way for Helmer to sacrifice for her. Ibsen wanted the reader to see that during this time, it was nothing short of a miracle for a man to make a sacrifice for his wife. The patriarchal society of the era forced women to sacrifice their independence, personality, and power for men. However, I feel that this scene was not totally negatively directed at men, especially not Helmer in general. Because of the way that Ibsen showed that Nora kept her desire to herself and never actually mentioned to Helmer that she wanted a sacrifice, it is likely that Ibsen also critiqued the way that people of the society did not seem to speak up and ask for change, lest they appear less honorable. Through this, Ibsen also showed that the men of the time were not necessarily oppressors at heart, but rather that they had simply been taught not to sacrifice for women through their society and their peers. This is also backed up by the way that Helmer tries to reconcile with Nora before she leaves.
I found your analysis very interesting, as this quote also resonated with me: the fact that in Helmer’s opinion, no one would sacrifice themselves for the people they love, when in reality, women did it every day. What stood out to me specifically in your analysis was the fact that it would be considered a miracle for Helmer to sacrifice his reputation in order to save Nora; not an expectation or a selfless gesture, but a pure phenomenon. This made me wonder, if the roles were reversed, whether or not Nora would take the blame for Helmer, or if he would be too prideful to accept assistance from his wife.
Your analysis showed me something that I hadn't thought of before. I hadn't made the connection that it was considered rare for a man to make a sacrifice for his wife. This also connects to my blog post, where I talked about men treasuring their wives, but at the end of the day, the wives were still possessions to them, and sacrificing their image for them may be too much to ask.
Act Three of A Doll’s House was the final and concluding act of the play. Thus, that is where the book finally begins to have all its pieces put together and begins to make sense as a whole. One of the most confusing parts of the play is its title. While reading the play, it is quite difficult to discover why the author gave it that title when in deed there are no actual dolls. After finishing the play, the realization of the dolls symbolism is an equivalent to the well-known allusion of puppets, except dolls have a schema relating specifically to females. Puppets are known to be a toy controlled by a greater power for entertainment or for the controller’s desires. The only difference between puppets and dolls (more popularly/generally known as Barbies), is the fact that Barbies are generally female characters and they hold true to the female stereotypes: weak, pretty, delicate, beautiful, perfect. Therefore, when Nora replies to Torvald making a connection with dolls, “NORA: I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Daddy’s doll child. And the children in turn have been my dolls. I thought it was fun when you came and played with me, just as they thought it was fun when I went and played with them” (III.81). The relevance of dolls connects to the fact that overall, the story has a feminist message. When Nora describes herself as a doll, she mentions how the people controlling her are powerful males. Thus, Nora is suppose to be a perfect and lovely wife/daughter who does as her higher power male tells her to do. However, when that does not go exactly as plan (because Nora is human and must have her own thoughts/opinions), everyone seems to get frustrated and blame her. The only people Nora could be the puppet master too were her own children, and she did so because she felt the need to be able to control something in her life. Additionally, the quote supports the idea of Nora pretending and forcing herself to deal with the situations she is not happy with because that’s how she assumed it was with society. Nora assumed and pretended everything was a game.
One thing I thought was interesting about your quote was that Nora talks about her children and how she plays with them also like dolls. This makes it seem like these acts are more of a cycle in this society. Also, I think that when Nora says that she thought that it was fun when Torvald “played” with him, she means that she liked the attention that Torvald would give her because it made her feel like Torvald actually loved her. Nora already established that Torvald only loved the idea of loving her, not actually her. The whole conversation between Nora and Torvald reflects the fakeness of their relationship and the social roles portrayed in the time period.
Something that I found very interesting about Act Three was the way that Helmer and Nora’s positions seemed to reverse at the conclusion of the play. Nora had spent the last eight years of their marriage waiting for the “miracle”—that is, for Helmer to demonstrate that he truly loved her enough to sacrifice his honor for her. When Nora says that “hundreds and thousands of women” have sacrificed their honor for their husbands, she represents her own relationship with Helmer. By forging her father’s signature in order to pay for the trip that she thought would save Helmer’s life, Nora sacrificed her honor for her husband. However unnecessary this may have been, Nora believed it to be the ultimate expression of her love for her husband. The situation repeats itself in Act Three; Helmer has the opportunity to take the entire situation upon himself and absolve Nora of guilt. Instead, he says “They might even think I was the one behind it all, that it was I who pushed you into it! […] The thing must be hushed up at all costs” (76). Helmer’s immediate reaction is one of self-preservation. However, when Helmer realized that Krogstad has sent back the IOU, he professes to forgive Nora and continue to love her. This is when Nora realizes that Helmer’s love is superficial and dependent on appearances more than true feeling. At the conclusion of the play, Nora has freed herself from dependence on the illusion of the “miracle” that would make her marriage worthwhile. In a bout of poetic justice, Ibsen writes, “Helmer: [With sudden hope] The miracle of miracles…?” (86). Just when Nora has been released from dependence on illusions, Helmer clutches at the dream that someday he will be reunited with Nora.
One of the things that I found most interesting at the end of the play was the way that Ibsen brought together Linde and Krogstad at the end of the novel. Those two characters are juxtaposed before they get together, and once they are together Ibsen uses their dialogue to show that often a relationship that is happy is based on a mutual need for someone else-- something much in contrast to traditional relationships of the Victorian era. Mrs. Linde, at the start of the book, is trying to take Krogstad’s job at the bank. By the end of the book, however, Linde says “now I’m completely alone in the world, and feeling horribly empty and forlorn. There’s no pleasure in working only for yourself. Nils, give me something and somebody to work for”(III.64). Here, Linde is suggesting that she and Krogstad should live their lives together (although she doesn’t necessarily mention marriage, she certainly seems to be hinting at a relationship). She has realized after years without a husband or family that the world is a very lonely place when you don’t have a set support system. Ibsen uses her lament to teach an important lesson about human nature: once a person has lived on their own for long enough, he will eventually crave the familiar presence of a husband or wife just as he once had the comfort and protection of his family. The Krogstad- Linde relationship is based off of their mutual need for each other. This is in direct contrast to the relationships that dominated the time, represented by Nora and Helmer, which occurred before either party was necessarily ready for marriage. As with many women of the time, Nora was forced to live for others her whole life, which inevitably led her to question why she had never lived for herself. Ibsen uses these contrasting relationships to show that marriages should be based on mutual readiness and need so that they will not end in tragedy like Nora’s.
I agree with your analysis as I also wrote about the relationship between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde. I noticed that the ending of the play includes two opposite endings for the relationships between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde and Torvald and Nora. As Mrs. Linde is finding fulfillment in her rekindled love with Krogstad, Nora is leaving her unhealthy marriage with Torvald. My main idea is similar to yours: After one finds their own identity, they are ready to share their lives with someone who they can love, accept, and care for as much as they can for themselves. In a sense, Mrs. Linde is finishing her journey while Nora is just beginning hers.
I found your analysis on the relationship between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde very thorough and in depth. However, what I found interesting was your surprise regarding Ibsen bringing the pair together in the end of the play, as I predicted their companionship. Nevertheless, your analysis got me thinking about the relationships throughout A Doll’s House: specifically whether or not Ibsen included the successful relationship of Krogstad and Mrs. Linde to emphasize the struggling marriage of Helmer and Nora. And with this, did Nora decide to leave Helmer partially because she saw what a desired relationship looked like with Krogstad and Mrs. Linde?
Ibsen includes Dr. Rank in the play to assist in the characterization of Nora, develop the theme that inheritance has a profound impact on a person’s life, and contribute to a mood of impending crisis. When Dr. Rank professes his love to Nora, Ibsen reveals both Nora’s discontent with her husband and her hesitance to make a change. Nora says that although she loves Helmer, she’d “almost rather be with” Dr. Rank. Despite her discontent in her married life, Nora becomes angry at Dr. Rank for disrupting it: “Oh, how could you be so clumsy, Dr. Rank! When everything was so nice” (49). Nora’s reaction reveals the sentiments behind her marriage. Although she is unhappy, she remains with Helmer because the marriage appears “so nice” on the outside. The lamp that is brought in during Nora and Rank’s conversation represents Nora’s changing perspective and her increasing realization that her life with Helmer is at a breaking point. Dr. Rank’s presence also develops the idea that the sins of the parent reflect on the child. Dr. Rank’s illness is due to his “father’s gay subaltern life” (46). Rank professes bitterness about his illness and society in general throughout the play. Earlier in the play, he says, “sound, decent people have to be content to stay out in the cold” (19). Rank’s character symbolizes the negative impacts that uncontrollable circumstances (such as parents and society) can have on an individual’s life. The same circumstances have had an important impact on Nora’s life. She grew up with no mother and a father who treated her like a doll. This, and social expectations for women, caused her to live life as a helpless dependent on her husband. Finally, Rank’s somber diction contributes to a sense of impending crisis that is mirrored by the escalation of events in the Helmer household. The end of the play is defined by the “final disintegration” (45) of Dr. Rank’s life as well as Nora and Helmer’s relationship.
Throughout the novel, Nora tends to make reference to many male characters, her father and Torvald included. These male characters are supposedly the most significant characters in Nora’s life, especially since her mother did not play a significant role in her life. Her father and husband are generally referenced when Nora is making life decisions, which also implies that Nora is not in control of her own life, rather she depends on her important male figures to almost control her. During Nora’s explanation of this to Torvald she states, “NORA: [imperturbably] What I mean is: I passed out of Daddy’s hands into yours. You arranged everything to your tastes, and I acquired the same tastes. Or I pretended too… I don’t really know… I think it was a bit of both, sometimes one thing and sometimes the other” (III. 80). In this scene of Act Three, Nora is finally discovering who she is as a person and that she has been living her life to please someone else. Finally proving to understand herself as a person, Nora uses this reference to show her understanding and dynamic character changes. Additionally, in the beginning of the play, Nora declares to Mrs. Linde, “NORA: Hush! There’s Torvald back. Look, you go and sit in there beside the children for the time being. Torvald can’t stand the sight of mending lying about” (II. 40). Thus, the fact that Nora made her decision to get Mrs. Linde to sit somewhere else was to please Torvald, which is her main focus and the reason that she lies.
The thing that I found most interesting about the beginning of A Doll’s House was the way that Ibsen reveals the plot to the audience and his tone. I think that his writing style here has a close tie in to the main character of Nora and her actions. I noticed that Ibsen writes his plays very differently from Shakespeare-- while Shakespeare tends to reveal his important plot twists (disguise, etc.) to the audience as they happen and before other characters find out, creating an often humorous situation of dramatic irony, Ibsen reveals the secrets of the plot to the reader as past events, in discussions among characters. The effect that this has is one of secrecy and deceit, rather than comedy. For example, as Nora reveals that she borrowed money to be able to take Torvald to Italy, she does it in a way that seems almost like the unraveling of a mystery in a crime novel. Ibsen does this so that the audience will be able to see clearly how little trust there really is in the relationship between Torvald and Nora. Ibsen also shows this by intentionally leaving discussions among Torvald, Rank, and Krogstad behind closed doors. This makes the reader question what Torvald has to hide from Nora. Another interesting thing to note about the mysterious tone of the novel is that it seems to connect to Victorian culture: Just as Torvald and Nora’s relationship on the outside appears to be ideal, but is really full of secrets, Victorians valued appearance so highly that it was more important to look perfect than to be perfect. I believe that Ibsen used this tone to critique his society-- it shows that when a person concerns themselves too much with outward image, there is a high potential for dishonesty, both to oneself and to others.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea that Isben and Shakespeare have very different approaches in writing and presenting characters. A specific example to support your idea of the contrasting tone is their uses of irony. In Taming of the Shrew, Shakespeare often uses irony in a comedic light, but Isben’s use of irony has a grim and ominous effect. When Nora and Torvald are discussing about the Krogstad’s stained morality, Torvald criticizes Krogstad
Deleteas “morally depraved” and continues to collectively blame dishonest mothers as the cause of juvenile delinquents. This irony stems from the fact that Torvald, who “quite literally feels physically sick in the presence of such people” (I. pg 33), is married to the exact type of person he despises, his little precious songbird. Unfortunately, the shock of being called the cause of the corruption and poison in her perfect, little family horrifies Nora and she seems unable to accept the truth. Torvald’s words are intriguing to me because he seems aware of Nora’s secretive and deceitful nature, but Isben doesn’t really delve much into his actual reactions and thoughts behind these (at least in Act 1.) As you said, Torvald has numerous discussions behind closed doors, which leads me to question his own honesty and if he is actually any different from the very mothers/people he had criticized and blamed for as the cause of juvenile delinquents.
I found your analysis quite insightful in regard to the way Ibsen reveals the aspect of trust, or lack thereof, in Nora and Helmer’s marriage. In addition, your analysis of the Victorian influence on A Doll’s House opened my eyes to those secret meetings in Helmer’s study. Not only in the form of mystery or the illusion of a seemingly perfect marriage, but that the men feel that their matters are too righteous or advanced for the women to be a part of. This led me to wonder if Ibsen includes this cultural aspect in his play because he agrees with it or if he is trying to portray gender stereotypes in a negative way.
DeleteAct One, Page 18-19
ReplyDeleteMrs. Linde: One must live, Doctor.
Rank: Yes, it’s generally thought to be necessary.
Nora: Come, come, Dr. Rank. You are quite as keen to live as anybody.
Rank: Quite keen, yes. Miserable as I am, I’m quite ready to let things drag on as long as possible. All my patients are the same. Even those with a moral affliction are no different. […]
Rank: I wonder if you’ve got people in your part of the country too who go rushing round sniffing out cases of moral corruption, and then installing the individuals concerned in nice, well-paid jobs where they can keep them under observation. Sound, decent people have to be content to stay out in the cold.
Mrs. Linde: Yet surely it’s the sick who most need to be brought in.
Rank: Well, there we have it. It’s that attitude that’s turning society into a clinic.
This excerpt struck me because of the way that Dr. Rank turned a casual conversation into a morbid but matter-of-fact commentary on life. He says that living is “generally thought to be necessary” and that people are “ready to let things drag on as long as possible.” Dr. Rank’s comments serve as foreshadowing of Nora’s behavior. At the end of Act One, Nora says, “Corrupt my children…! Poison my home? [short pause; she throws back her head.] It’s not true! It could never, never be true!” (34). Nora does not accept the consequences of her actions. Instead of dealing with what Dr. Rank would call her “moral affliction,” Nora chooses to ignore it and let her problem drag out as long as possible. Dr. Rank’s weary tone is a reflection of his daily occupation of dealing with unaccountable people like Nora.
Rank further expresses his dissatisfaction with society when he comments on Krogstad’s job: “I wonder if you’ve got people in your part of the country too who go rushing round sniffing out cases of moral corruption, and then installing the individuals concerned in nice, well-paid jobs.” Dr. Rank suggests that Krogstad’s past misdeeds make him less deserving than “sound, decent people.” Ibsen uses these comments to characterize Dr. Rank as an idealistic man who believes in meritocracy—that people should be given opportunities based on their merit and not their need. Mrs. Linde counters his argument, suggesting that “the sick,” or the morally corrupted, are more deserving of help than others. This morally ambiguous attitude is what makes the idealistic Dr. Rank so weary: “It’s that attitude that’s turning society into a clinic.” Rank’s wording is ironic given the fact that he is a doctor. Instead of wishing to heal people as a doctor should, Rank has become jaded by the moral corruption of his patients.
I also that Dr. Rank was a very interesting character. I thought that it was very strange that he was a doctor and had such a negative view on life. The tone of his words is so sarcastic, especially when he says “ But even he began talking about having to live, as though it were something terribly important” (I.ii.). He has a very negative, but realistic view on life that makes readers wonder what he is talking about. My first impression of Dr. Rank was confusion, especially when he made comments that society was “turning into a clinic”. He is a doctor, but does not want to help people, which is the sole purpose of his job.
DeleteI agree with your statement about Dr. Rank and how he is different from the other characters we have been introduced to so far. I think that Rank is a character of modern society placed into the past, even though he is meant to be out of place in a bad way. He provides a second perspective to the play, versus being just another character that is accepting of the sexist and gender role-run society from the Victorian era.
DeletePossible significant symbols in A Doll’s House are the doors that separate each room. Beginning with the opening stage directions, the author mentioned doors repeatedly throughout each sentence. This became noticeable when the overall living space was small and crowded, but there were many possible entrances and exits in each room. After reading the first act, the doors seem to resemble the separation and secretiveness between each family. That sides of each character are different behind closed doors versus when they are in public. Throughout the first act there are many secrets revealed to the audience. At first, the secrets begin with Nora eating/hiding macaroons from her husband, for the fact that he doesn’t like her eating them. These little white lies escalate as soon as Nora announces that she forged her father’s signature in order to get a loan for Torvald’s tropical vacation, “KROGSTAD: Your father died on 29 September. But look here. Your father has dated his signature on 2 October” (I. 28). And oddly enough, Nora never told Torvald the truth of where her source of money came from, which supports the fact that the family is not close with each other and not willing to confide in each other for an unknown reason. In addition, it seems mysterious when the doctor comes over and Helmer asks the maid, “Did he go straight into my room?” (I. 7). At first glance, the fact that Helmer states “my room” instead of “the bedroom” or “master bedroom” is interesting. Perhaps the husband and wife don’t sleep in the same room? Could it possibly be a reason to why Nora and Helmer seem so separated, and the reason why Nora seems to hide from Helmer more than she tells him the truth?
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your analysis of the doors as a symbol of the secretiveness that pervades the Helmer household. I think it's really interesting that you connected the doors with the separation of relationships between the people in the play because it's evident that Nore and Helmer don't trusts each other. I like your hypothesis of the couple not sleeping in the same room because it seems like they always part ways at the end of the day. I think this could definitely be the reason for their lack of trust because they never have the opportunity to relax and talk to each other.
DeleteDuring Act Two of A Doll’s House, there is a dominant motif of women being inferior to men. This began in Act One when Nora wanted to a new dress to go to the fancy dress party upstairs in. She had asked Torvald and when he disagreed and suggested that Mrs. Linde help repair one of her old dresses. After she agrees to his decision she states, “NORA: Wonderful! But wasn’t it also nice of me to let you have your way? HELMER [taking her under the chin]: Nice of you - because you let your husband have his way? All right, you little rogue, I know you didn’t mean it that way…” (II. 40). With Nora’s brave statement, she was willing to see what happens if she spoke up for herself. However, Torvald’s response implied that Nora was being absurd, as if she is always suppose to be obedient to him and that he is always suppose to have the controlling opinion. The dress is a symbol of their household hierarchy, and due to the fact that Nora cannot even dress herself nicely resembles the fact that as long as Torvald can help it, Nora can not and will not make any decisions for herself. With that being said, it would truly emphasize this notion if Torvald went to the event with a brand new polished tuxedo and tie. Additionally to gender roles, the societal norm of women being subordinate to men is implied when she discusses her options for repaying Krogstad. Nora states, “NORA: How did you know I was thinking of that? KROGSTAD: Most of us think of that, to begin with” (II. 53). The implication popularly assumed was that Nora meant suicide. Comparing that to our society today, most people in our era would not turn to suicide in a situation like this, they would probably turn to homicide. The fact that Nora considered this factor suggests that she feels unimportant and that if she ended her life, no one would care. Therefore, Nora’s self-esteem is low due to societal gender standards and the fact that her husband applies those standards.
ReplyDeleteI like that you pointed out that the dress is a symbol. I think it represents a lot of things including, as you mentioned, the household hierarchy and the importance of appearance. They have clearly had their financial difficulties and yet Helmer is willing to give large amounts of money to Nora so that she can spend it on clothes.
DeleteI agree with your analysis about how the dress is a symbol of their household hierarhcy. I thought it was very interesting to think about it in another way. But when I was reading this part of the play, I had analyzed it a little differently. I thought that Helmer wouldn't give Nora anymore money for a dress because of her reputaiton she has spending money. In the beginning of the play, it states that she's one that likes to spend money whenever she has some and she likes to spend it extravagantly. So when Helmer would not give her money to buy a new dress, I thought it was because he knew that Nora would spend that money on something else or ask for more money to buy a very expensive dress.
DeleteThe thing that I found most interesting in Act II of A Doll’s House was the theme of inheritance and the passing down of issues from parent to child. Ibsen uses allusion rhetorical questions, and metaphor to show the connection between the actions of a parent and the life that their children grow up to lead. The most obvious example is that of Dr. Rank. Dr. Rank suffers from “tuberculosis of the spine” which is a historic way of alluding to syphilis. As Nora explains, Rank’s “father was a horrible man” (37), who was often with mistresses, which would explain how he caught syphilis. It is revealed in this act that Rank is in the last stages of his life due to his ailment. Rank says “Why should I suffer for another man’s sins? What justice is there in that?”(45). Ibsen uses Rank’s rhetorical questions and his illness to show that the actions of a parent can have a significant impact on the life of their child. He does this to show that often in society people have little or no choice in circumstances that can determine their entire life. This serves to foreshadow the way in which Nora’s choices will have a profound impact on the life of her children. Ibsen also connects Nora’s life with that of Krogstad. He writes “Helmer: He can never drop the mask, not even with his own wife and children. And the children-- that's the most terrible part of it... Every breath the children take is reeking with evil germs” (33). Here, Ibsen uses the metaphor of the air of Krogstad’s house reeking with germs to show that a parent’s lies and secrecy can infect children just like Dr. Rank’s father infected him with syphilis. The motif of inheriting bad things from one’s parents serves to prove that in a society as concerned with appearance as the Victorians, one bad mistake can serve to ruin the lives of your entire future family.
ReplyDeleteI also found this concept particularly interesting as it is far less prevalent (almost non existent) today. Before reading your analysis I found these references interesting, but I had not seen the precise literary devices used to show the role that inheritance and familial ties played in the Victorian era. I now can see the connection between the types of literary devices used to convey this because of your analysis. I will be very interested to see the role that these ties play in the rest of the play especially with Helmer and Nora and her gigantic web of lies. Good Job.
DeleteI like how you discussed figurative inheritance and as you put it, "the passing down of issues from parent to child." In modern times, we think of inheritance as the material objects we get when our parents or grandparents die. While this was a common occurrence of the time, Ibsen seems to ignore it completely. Nora hasn't mentioned any money passed to her from her father. Perhaps this is Ibsen's way of telling his audience to not focus on the material and pay more attention to how you treat others.
DeleteHenrik Ibsen explores the nature of dependency in A Doll’s House using the character of Nora. In Act Two, Nora faces extreme apprehension about her future path. Throughout her marriage, Nora has accepted her role as the inferior, childlike wife to her husband. Now that her secret is about to be revealed – that she took actions behind her husband’s back – her entire life is being called into question. This leads her to act in a frenzied manner, as when Krogstad leaves his letter and she exclaims, “Has he changed his mind? Is he…? In the letter-box! There it is! Torvald, Torvald! It’s hopeless now!” (55). Even though Torvald is not in the room, Nora invokes his name as if she is calling upon him to save her from her problems. This is something she has done throughout her life. In her childhood, Nora was dependent on her father. When her father had legal issues and Torvald came to help, Nora simply transferred her dependence onto Torvald. However, in this point in the play, it seems like Nora is on the verge of departing from this pattern of dependence. When Dr. Rank visits Nora, she is uncertain whether or not to ask him for help: “Supposing I were to ask you to…? No…” (48). However, when Rank confesses that he loves Nora, she says, “I can tell you nothing now” (49). Now that Nora knows of Dr. Rank’s love for her, she decides not to involve him. This suggests that she has learned from accepting Torvald’s help in the situation with her father and no longer wishes to be dependent on men who love her.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea that previously, Nora had always been dependent on her father and husband. I think a big part of her dependence is her tendency to immediately believe them and take their word without question. For example, she first becomes frantic when Torvald tells her “Because in such an atmosphere of lies home life is poisoned and contaminated in every fibre. Every breath the children draw contains some germ of evil” (I. 33), Nora immediately panics, “[Pale with terror.] Corrupt my children!- Poison my home! [Short pause. She throws back her head.] It's not true! It can never, never be true!” (I. 34). Upon hearing Torvald’s little speech, she doesn’t really contemplate about the accuracy of what he said, and is immediately convinced that she seems to be the cause of her children’s corruption. Although Nora’s trouble-making seem endless, Nora is still aware of her wrongdoings and feels insecure about herself, which she covers with lies, deceit, and bluffs that eventually lead her to her mental downfall.
Delete“Nora Stands for a moment as though to collect herself, then looks at her watch.
ReplyDeleteNORA: Five. Seven hours to midnight. Then twenty- four hours till the next midnight. Then the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four hours and Seven? Thirty one hours to live.
HELMER: What’s happened to our little sky-lark?
NORA: Here she is!” (61)
This quote was the last one before the end of Act II. I found it very interesting because I believe that it symbolizes the way that Nora and Helmer’s relationship and lives together have deteriorated so quickly. Ibsen uses symbolism and a metaphor to show that Nora knows that her facade is about to disappear and that Helmer will be caught completely unawares. When Nora refers to the tarantella along with the fact that she has only “thirty one hours to live”, the tarantella is symbolic of the facade she has put up for Helmer. Nora knows that as soon as the tarantella dance, and thus her facade, is over because of the fact that Helmer will read the letter from Krogstad as soon as they finish the party. Just like Nora dances the tarantella to please Helmer, she puts up her facade so that Helmer will not suspect that anything is wrong. By creating this symbol, Ibsen shows that Nora realizes that as soon as her facade falls, she will be in deep trouble with Helmer. When Helmer then refers to her as his little sky- lark once again, Ibsen shows that Helmer clearly has no idea of the imminent demise of his relationship with his wife. I also find it interesting that it gives the image of a caged bird, a likely reference to Nora’s lack of self determination that is a result of the gender roles of her time. These two symbols also both show Nora as taking on a different identity-- while the tarantella shows the facade that she puts over herself to hide herself from Torvald, the songbird shows the dehumanization that Torvald places on her. All of this secrecy and dehumanization serves to reveal that the main cause of Nora’s issues stem from her lack of a real identity due to the nature of the treatment of women in Victorian society.
I agree with your analysis completely, and would add the importance of the dramatic irony when Helmer says “you are dancing as though your life depended on it,” to which Nora replies, “it does” (II.59). This interaction adds to the dramatic irony and the symbol that you described, because Nora’s “life” really does depend on her keeping Helmer busy by dancing. I think it is also very representative of the era this play was written that Nora believes that her reputation was her whole life and wellbeing. I think this shows how important status was in this society, and how this one mistake and a web of lies will “destroy” their family. I also really enjoyed how you interpreted Helmer's comparisons of Nora to animals as an act of dehumanization.
DeleteAn important quotation in Act Two is when Nora states, “NORA: Yes, I certainly must, Torvald. But I just can’t get anywhere without your help: I’ve completely forgotten it” (II. 57). Quickly after Krogstad left the letter in the mailbox that explains Nora’s secrets, she had to come up with a decoy in order to not get caught and have her marriage ruined. The fact that she was able to come up with a clever and reasonable excuse (since the dance happened to be the next day). Therefore, Nora’s response to the situation makes her clever and intelligent, which is something women back then were not expected to be. Additionally, Nora was bright enough to realize that she had to follow through with her excuse. During her attempt to prove that she forgot the dance, Helmer says, “HELMER [stops]: No, no, that won’t do at all” (II.58). Nora had done such a wonderful job with her attempt at being horrible that Helmer actually believed her. Considering the fact that the dance would be rather hard for her to forget, her job of convincing had to be amazing. Since she sped up the tempo, it was even more clever due to the fact that forgetting the whole piece would have been unbelievable. Additionally, the fact that Nora understands not to get into arguments (that she knows she won’t win), proves her intelligence as well. As Nora tries to get Torvald to not fire Krogstad, even though she knows the consequences she says, “NORA: Yes…yes, that’s right” (II.42). Thus, even though Nora knows the truth, she is willing to agree because she is aware that there is no other option and trying to fight back will only do her worse.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis! I have thought about this previously, but your examples really brought it to light. This idea also makes me believe that there is hope for Nora in this story. She is very intelligent, no doubt, but it seems as though all of the odds are against her. She even believes that her end is near when the tarantella is over and Torvald might check on the letter that Krogstad placed in the mailbox. However, I believe that Nora’s wits will allow for a happy ending, or at least, something of the sort.
DeleteAct Two, Page 53
ReplyDeleteKrogstad: So if you are thinking of trying any desperate remedies…
Nora: Which I am…
Krogstad: …if you happen to be thinking of running away…
Nora: Which I am!
Krogstad: …or anything worse…
Nora: How did you know?
Krogstad: …forget it!
Nora: How did you know I was thinking of that?
Krogstad: Most of us think of that, to begin with. I did, too; but I didn’t have the courage….
Nora [tonelessly]: I haven’t either.
Ibsen uses somber diction and euphemisms in Nora and Krogstad’s discussion about escaping consequences to reveal truths about Victorian society. Nora and Krogstad both committed the same type of fraud, and experienced similar emotions afterwards. Krogstad relates himself to Nora and other people with moral failures when he says, “Most of us think of that, to begin with.” By talking about himself in such a way, Krogstad reveals that Victorian society views people who have made mistakes—no matter how small—as an inferior class of human beings. It is important to note that Nora’s fraud was not committed with malignant intent, nor did it have negative impacts on others. However, when Nora admits that she is thinking about something worse than running away, Ibsen implies that she is considering suicide. Krogstad’s matter-of-fact acceptance of this consideration serves to confirm the idea that any wrongdoing can absolutely ruin a person’s reputation if brought to public attention. It may seem strange to the modern reader that Nora and Krogstad admit that they don’t have the “courage” to commit suicide; today suicide in Nora’s situation would be viewed as an escape from facing the consequences of her actions. The fact that Nora and Krogstad view suicide as courageous demonstrates that reputation was of utmost importance in the Victorian era, and that once it was compromised a person was expected to no longer be a part of society. However, the Victorians never expressed this ultimatum aloud. In fact, social norms required Nora not only to consider taking her own life, but to do so with the littlest offense to anyone else. It is for this reason that both Nora and Krogstad never say the word “suicide;” instead, they use the euphemism “that.”
I like how you brought up that part about their "courage" to commit suicide. Nowadays suicide is thought of a selfish, "coward's way out" of our problems when in many cultures it hasn't been thought of like that. Most notable of examples is in Japanese culture during WWII. Instead of surrendering to the enemy, Japanese soldiers would commit suicide as it was seen as more honorable to die by one's own hand. I wish the U.S. would adopt a more proactive look on suicide, not that I condone it. Instead of shaming people for attempting it or even thinking of it, society should help those struggling with thoughts of suicide. I know their has been a greater move towards this behavior, but it is far from unanimous.
DeleteAct 2, Page 61
ReplyDeleteNora: 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.
When Nora encountered Krogstad, he confronted her about doing something “unthinkable”, by which he was implying that she would run away, or take her own life to escape her crippling debt. When we read this excerpt, we are introduced to the idea that she actually not only is considering, but planning on taking her own life. When Ibsen writes, “Thirty-one hours to live.”, it seems to imply that in 31 hours, she plans to take her own life, thus why she says to live. This foreshadows what is soon to come in the following act, and is an interesting way to end act 2, as it leaves the audience on the edges of their seats, and we now know that Nora has another plan up her sleeve. But it is also brings up a motif of how after each lie she makes, she feels the need to make out another plan of lies and tricks to get herself out of the lies and tricks that just caught up to her.
ELH
Wow your analysis was exactly to similar to mine in how we both talked about the quote with "the thirty one hours to live" and how she is performing the tarantella and after planning committing suicide. I also thought her "thirty-one hours to live" could refer to the time left for her to live in her old lifestyle and then moving into a new life by leaving Torvald. Did you know the tarantella is performed as a death dance? I came to this conclusion because I found it a coincidence that Dr. Rank is playing the piano while she is performing the dance, and I found it this way because Dr. Rank is close to dying himself so he is aiding Nora with the dance, as she is "going" to die soon herself. Did you also know that this dance was first performed on Nora's and Torvald's honeymoon? This also contributes to the fact that she is performing this as a death dance, as she is recreating the pleasant moments she had with him before she moves on to her new life.
DeleteThe thing that I found most interesting about Act III was when Nora and Helmer are talking about “the miracle” Ibsen writes, “Helmer: But Nobody sacrifices his honour for the ones he loves.
ReplyDeleteNora: Hundreds and thousands of women have.”(III.84) The miracle Nora is hoping for is one in which Helmer comes forward to take the blame for the entire saga between Nora and Krogstad. Nora wanted Helmer to sacrifice his status as an upstanding citizen, the very reputation that earned him his position at the bank, because she figured it was the only way he could show his love for her. What really stuck out to me was the fact that she called it a miracle. The way Nora explains it, you can tell she thinks of the miracle only as a way for Helmer to sacrifice for her. Ibsen wanted the reader to see that during this time, it was nothing short of a miracle for a man to make a sacrifice for his wife. The patriarchal society of the era forced women to sacrifice their independence, personality, and power for men. However, I feel that this scene was not totally negatively directed at men, especially not Helmer in general. Because of the way that Ibsen showed that Nora kept her desire to herself and never actually mentioned to Helmer that she wanted a sacrifice, it is likely that Ibsen also critiqued the way that people of the society did not seem to speak up and ask for change, lest they appear less honorable. Through this, Ibsen also showed that the men of the time were not necessarily oppressors at heart, but rather that they had simply been taught not to sacrifice for women through their society and their peers. This is also backed up by the way that Helmer tries to reconcile with Nora before she leaves.
I found your analysis very interesting, as this quote also resonated with me: the fact that in Helmer’s opinion, no one would sacrifice themselves for the people they love, when in reality, women did it every day. What stood out to me specifically in your analysis was the fact that it would be considered a miracle for Helmer to sacrifice his reputation in order to save Nora; not an expectation or a selfless gesture, but a pure phenomenon. This made me wonder, if the roles were reversed, whether or not Nora would take the blame for Helmer, or if he would be too prideful to accept assistance from his wife.
DeleteYour analysis showed me something that I hadn't thought of before. I hadn't made the connection that it was considered rare for a man to make a sacrifice for his wife. This also connects to my blog post, where I talked about men treasuring their wives, but at the end of the day, the wives were still possessions to them, and sacrificing their image for them may be too much to ask.
DeleteAct Three of A Doll’s House was the final and concluding act of the play. Thus, that is where the book finally begins to have all its pieces put together and begins to make sense as a whole. One of the most confusing parts of the play is its title. While reading the play, it is quite difficult to discover why the author gave it that title when in deed there are no actual dolls. After finishing the play, the realization of the dolls symbolism is an equivalent to the well-known allusion of puppets, except dolls have a schema relating specifically to females. Puppets are known to be a toy controlled by a greater power for entertainment or for the controller’s desires. The only difference between puppets and dolls (more popularly/generally known as Barbies), is the fact that Barbies are generally female characters and they hold true to the female stereotypes: weak, pretty, delicate, beautiful, perfect. Therefore, when Nora replies to Torvald making a connection with dolls, “NORA: I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Daddy’s doll child. And the children in turn have been my dolls. I thought it was fun when you came and played with me, just as they thought it was fun when I went and played with them” (III.81). The relevance of dolls connects to the fact that overall, the story has a feminist message. When Nora describes herself as a doll, she mentions how the people controlling her are powerful males. Thus, Nora is suppose to be a perfect and lovely wife/daughter who does as her higher power male tells her to do. However, when that does not go exactly as plan (because Nora is human and must have her own thoughts/opinions), everyone seems to get frustrated and blame her. The only people Nora could be the puppet master too were her own children, and she did so because she felt the need to be able to control something in her life. Additionally, the quote supports the idea of Nora pretending and forcing herself to deal with the situations she is not happy with because that’s how she assumed it was with society. Nora assumed and pretended everything was a game.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I thought was interesting about your quote was that Nora talks about her children and how she plays with them also like dolls. This makes it seem like these acts are more of a cycle in this society. Also, I think that when Nora says that she thought that it was fun when Torvald “played” with him, she means that she liked the attention that Torvald would give her because it made her feel like Torvald actually loved her. Nora already established that Torvald only loved the idea of loving her, not actually her. The whole conversation between Nora and Torvald reflects the fakeness of their relationship and the social roles portrayed in the time period.
DeleteSomething that I found very interesting about Act Three was the way that Helmer and Nora’s positions seemed to reverse at the conclusion of the play. Nora had spent the last eight years of their marriage waiting for the “miracle”—that is, for Helmer to demonstrate that he truly loved her enough to sacrifice his honor for her. When Nora says that “hundreds and thousands of women” have sacrificed their honor for their husbands, she represents her own relationship with Helmer. By forging her father’s signature in order to pay for the trip that she thought would save Helmer’s life, Nora sacrificed her honor for her husband. However unnecessary this may have been, Nora believed it to be the ultimate expression of her love for her husband. The situation repeats itself in Act Three; Helmer has the opportunity to take the entire situation upon himself and absolve Nora of guilt. Instead, he says “They might even think I was the one behind it all, that it was I who pushed you into it! […] The thing must be hushed up at all costs” (76). Helmer’s immediate reaction is one of self-preservation. However, when Helmer realized that Krogstad has sent back the IOU, he professes to forgive Nora and continue to love her. This is when Nora realizes that Helmer’s love is superficial and dependent on appearances more than true feeling. At the conclusion of the play, Nora has freed herself from dependence on the illusion of the “miracle” that would make her marriage worthwhile. In a bout of poetic justice, Ibsen writes, “Helmer: [With sudden hope] The miracle of miracles…?” (86). Just when Nora has been released from dependence on illusions, Helmer clutches at the dream that someday he will be reunited with Nora.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that I found most interesting at the end of the play was the way that Ibsen brought together Linde and Krogstad at the end of the novel. Those two characters are juxtaposed before they get together, and once they are together Ibsen uses their dialogue to show that often a relationship that is happy is based on a mutual need for someone else-- something much in contrast to traditional relationships of the Victorian era. Mrs. Linde, at the start of the book, is trying to take Krogstad’s job at the bank. By the end of the book, however, Linde says “now I’m completely alone in the world, and feeling horribly empty and forlorn. There’s no pleasure in working only for yourself. Nils, give me something and somebody to work for”(III.64). Here, Linde is suggesting that she and Krogstad should live their lives together (although she doesn’t necessarily mention marriage, she certainly seems to be hinting at a relationship). She has realized after years without a husband or family that the world is a very lonely place when you don’t have a set support system. Ibsen uses her lament to teach an important lesson about human nature: once a person has lived on their own for long enough, he will eventually crave the familiar presence of a husband or wife just as he once had the comfort and protection of his family. The Krogstad- Linde relationship is based off of their mutual need for each other. This is in direct contrast to the relationships that dominated the time, represented by Nora and Helmer, which occurred before either party was necessarily ready for marriage. As with many women of the time, Nora was forced to live for others her whole life, which inevitably led her to question why she had never lived for herself. Ibsen uses these contrasting relationships to show that marriages should be based on mutual readiness and need so that they will not end in tragedy like Nora’s.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis as I also wrote about the relationship between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde. I noticed that the ending of the play includes two opposite endings for the relationships between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde and Torvald and Nora. As Mrs. Linde is finding fulfillment in her rekindled love with Krogstad, Nora is leaving her unhealthy marriage with Torvald. My main idea is similar to yours: After one finds their own identity, they are ready to share their lives with someone who they can love, accept, and care for as much as they can for themselves. In a sense, Mrs. Linde is finishing her journey while Nora is just beginning hers.
DeleteI found your analysis on the relationship between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde very thorough and in depth. However, what I found interesting was your surprise regarding Ibsen bringing the pair together in the end of the play, as I predicted their companionship. Nevertheless, your analysis got me thinking about the relationships throughout A Doll’s House: specifically whether or not Ibsen included the successful relationship of Krogstad and Mrs. Linde to emphasize the struggling marriage of Helmer and Nora. And with this, did Nora decide to leave Helmer partially because she saw what a desired relationship looked like with Krogstad and Mrs. Linde?
DeleteIbsen includes Dr. Rank in the play to assist in the characterization of Nora, develop the theme that inheritance has a profound impact on a person’s life, and contribute to a mood of impending crisis. When Dr. Rank professes his love to Nora, Ibsen reveals both Nora’s discontent with her husband and her hesitance to make a change. Nora says that although she loves Helmer, she’d “almost rather be with” Dr. Rank. Despite her discontent in her married life, Nora becomes angry at Dr. Rank for disrupting it: “Oh, how could you be so clumsy, Dr. Rank! When everything was so nice” (49). Nora’s reaction reveals the sentiments behind her marriage. Although she is unhappy, she remains with Helmer because the marriage appears “so nice” on the outside. The lamp that is brought in during Nora and Rank’s conversation represents Nora’s changing perspective and her increasing realization that her life with Helmer is at a breaking point. Dr. Rank’s presence also develops the idea that the sins of the parent reflect on the child. Dr. Rank’s illness is due to his “father’s gay subaltern life” (46). Rank professes bitterness about his illness and society in general throughout the play. Earlier in the play, he says, “sound, decent people have to be content to stay out in the cold” (19). Rank’s character symbolizes the negative impacts that uncontrollable circumstances (such as parents and society) can have on an individual’s life. The same circumstances have had an important impact on Nora’s life. She grew up with no mother and a father who treated her like a doll. This, and social expectations for women, caused her to live life as a helpless dependent on her husband. Finally, Rank’s somber diction contributes to a sense of impending crisis that is mirrored by the escalation of events in the Helmer household. The end of the play is defined by the “final disintegration” (45) of Dr. Rank’s life as well as Nora and Helmer’s relationship.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the novel, Nora tends to make reference to many male characters, her father and Torvald included. These male characters are supposedly the most significant characters in Nora’s life, especially since her mother did not play a significant role in her life. Her father and husband are generally referenced when Nora is making life decisions, which also implies that Nora is not in control of her own life, rather she depends on her important male figures to almost control her. During Nora’s explanation of this to Torvald she states, “NORA: [imperturbably] What I mean is: I passed out of Daddy’s hands into yours. You arranged everything to your tastes, and I acquired the same tastes. Or I pretended too… I don’t really know… I think it was a bit of both, sometimes one thing and sometimes the other” (III. 80). In this scene of Act Three, Nora is finally discovering who she is as a person and that she has been living her life to please someone else. Finally proving to understand herself as a person, Nora uses this reference to show her understanding and dynamic character changes. Additionally, in the beginning of the play, Nora declares to Mrs. Linde, “NORA: Hush! There’s Torvald back. Look, you go and sit in there beside the children for the time being. Torvald can’t stand the sight of mending lying about” (II. 40). Thus, the fact that Nora made her decision to get Mrs. Linde to sit somewhere else was to please Torvald, which is her main focus and the reason that she lies.
ReplyDelete