In the Victorian Era, people prioritize aesthetic more than they appreciate how they are more economically stable than others. They prefer to spend their money frivolously on expensive things such as piano and porcelain, states in the play directions, "...a piano... a porcelain stove" (Henrik Ibsen 1). These luxurious dictions characterize the ranking of the main characters in their society as some what rich because these things were expensive and only the people of middle to upper class were able to afford this. Other evidence put focus on the fact the main characters are from the middle class. Ibsen writes, "... a small sofa... a small table... other small art objects... a small bookcase..." (A Doll's House 1). The repetitive usage of the word "small" pressures on the idea that the characters are of middle class because they could only spend on small furniture rather than larger one. Without the repetition of "small", then the time of the story is unknown until later in the book. It also repeats the theme of frivolous spending, Victorian prioritize aesthetic . In the play, A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, the author uses repetition and luxurious dictions to give an insight on the Victorian Era. Nam Nguyen
I agree with your analysis about the repetition of the word "small" throughout the stage directions, but I also thought that it could mean that with the repetition of the word "small", that it also meant that they were a part of the middle class but also that they didn't try and spend money on extravagant things but only buy things that they thought were necessity. But this view changed when I had analyzed the characterization of Nora because Ibsen described her as a woman that loves money and it clearly showed that, when she got the chance, she would try and go to the extra mile on her spending.
Throughout act one of A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen portrays Nora, one of the main characters up to this point, as a rather arrogant, boastful person. In her lengthy conversation with Mrs. Linde, a visitor from out of town whom she grew up with, Nora makes a point to bring up her good deed that she had done for her husband. Nora tells her of this right after Mrs. Linde explains the good she had done. Instead of expressing happiness for her friend, Nora shoos it away, and tells of her grand act. Anyway, she claims that she had saved Torvald’s life by taking him on an extended stay to Italy (a warmer place than Sweden where presently reside). This helped Torvald’s apparently dire health condition (she describes him in her dramatic fashion as “dramatically ill” (Ibsen 14). She goes on to explain that she does not want Torvald to find out for fear of embarrassing him. Now, this action seems fairly generous. However, Nora’s delivery comes off rather boastful instead of kind. She seems to feel as if she has superiority over others if she commits acts of kindness. In addition, she does not really care about others or in this case Mrs. Linde, whom she just brushes aside, which further supports the assertion of her as an arrogant character. One could certainly describe Nora as an immoral character as evident in this scene as well as the rest of the act, where she also gets revealed as a serial liar.
Although I agree with your analysis of Nora's personality, I would have used different evidence to support your claim. I feel that Nora was fairy humble with regards to her claiming to have saved Torvald's life. It says in the story that she hadn't told anyone else, so I feel like better evidence would have been the multiple times that she boasted about the amount of money that her husband will be earning in the new year.
In the beginning of Act One of “A Doll’s House”, Henrik Ibsen begins to set the scene and create intriguing characters. The characterization of Nora seemed unsettling as her actions were continually questionable. Her compulsive lying can first be seen when Helmer asks her, “Hasn't the little sweet-tooth been breaking the rules today?”(Ibsen 7) while Nora replies by saying, “No; how can you think of such a thing!” (Ibsen 7). Earlier, she was clearly shown eating a macaroon, and when her husband asks her if she ate any sweets, she blatantly lies. This directly puts her character under suspicion, and as the act progresses more odd situations occur. Additionally, Nora seems to believe that she has everything under control, when this is clearly not the case. From her scattered actions to the way she has secretly obtained a large amount of money, the way in which Ibsen characterizes Nora is quite concerning. The audience has immediately created a dislike for Nora and the chaos which she creates. Helmer seems sensible, especially in comparison to Nora, but gives into her as she begs him for money. While Nora does beg, she also makes a point to let others know how beautiful and full of herself she is. Nora is repeatedly called a “spendthrift” and seems to lack a reasonable understanding of money. Nevertheless, she later brags to Mrs. Linde about her financial capabilities. Overall, the presence of Nora emit a negative tone and leads the reader to foreshadow a future disaster which she will create, or has even already created.
I agree that while reading, Nora provided a negative tone to the play. It seems that Nora's biggest conflicts will only be present due to her mistakes. I found it interesting that Isben would create a character like Nora to be the center of the play. It may relate back to the title of the play, and Nora is living a life she believes is like a doll house. Nora appears to have little disregard to her actions and lies to get out of situations. She values money and possessions and beauty and all of her choices reflect her desire to live a perfect life, as if she were a doll.
I think that your analyzation is well thought out. I think that one reason she lies so much is that she feels intimidated by Helmer, a dominant male figure. She has been taught to be submissive and perhaps this is her trying to break out of the social norm. She feels a need to lie, because she has been told that she must follow authority all her life.
In the Victorian era, women had very few rights. There were laws that prevented women from having political rights, owning property and the right to divorce. While these are examples of unjust laws, laws are created to keep the citizens of a society safe and to protect the establishments set up. They do not take into account personal philosophies and issues with the governing of the society. In act one of A Doll’s House, Nora questions aspects the law, “Krogstad: The law takes no account of motives. Nora: Then they must have been very bad laws,” (Ibsen, 29). Just before this, Krogstad reveals that Nora was the one who signed for the loan from Krogstad and not her father. Being a woman during this time period, Nora is not allowed to take out a loan for herself. However, Nora desperately needed the loan to save her husband’s life. Nora found this motive just enough to forage her father’s signature. This however is a felony, which along with legal issues, reputation is dragged through the mud. Wanting to avoid all of this, Nora attempts to keep her crime a secret, unfortunately she is discovered. Due to the lack of Women’s rights, Nora was put in a situation where she had to choose from saving her husband, or saving her reputation and legality. Dramatic irony is found in Nora’s secret. This ends the act with a foreboding mood, because secrets never have a good ending.
Yes, i agree with your analyzation. I think as a women Nora walks a fine line. She wants her rights as a human being, but she can’t press to hard. Otherwise she could be shunned by the people around her who see this questioning of societal norms as threatening. Sadly she stumbles a bit into a tricky situation. It’ll be interesting to see how she gets herself out of this one. Overall good analyzation!
Towards the end of Act 1, Nora is confronted by Krogstad about her forgery. When she is discussing this topic with him she says, “I don’t believe it. Isn’t a daughter entitled to try and save her father from worry and anxiety on his deathbed? Isn’t a wife entitled to save her husband’s life?” (Ibsen 29). This indirectly characterizes Nora as naive and unaware of the consequences of forgery. Although she believes that she is fully capable of secretly dealing with financial loans, she continually shows lack of understanding and seriousness. The audience may become irritated with her as she doesn't see the importance of her decisions and how they may impact her family. Her selfishness can be seen through her reasoning to leave her children for her safety when she says, “ Do you think they [the children] would forget their mummy if she went away for good?”(36). This same idea is later seen when Krogstad says “if you happen to be thinking of running away... “ while Nora interrupts “which I am!” (53). It is frustrating that she feels the need to run away because she made a rash decision to get a loan behind her husbands back. This will be completely unfair to both her husband, Torvald, and her children. The way in which she presents herself is very childish as she cannot seem to clean up the mess she created. Although she thinks that she is more intelligent than she appears to be, the audience may come to the conclusion that she is actually less intelligent. Someone who does not know enough about financials, the law, and forgery should not believe they have the capability to successfully handle all these things by oneself.
I found your analysis of the character of Nora very interesting. One thing that I found interesting about her in all the forgery is that her story is told in a way that seems to demand sympathy-- she depicts herself as heroic in her struggle to save Helmer. It is interesting to me that Krogstad is guilty of a similar crime for similar reasons but he is painted as the villain of the story. I think it shows that in the real world right and wrong are far less defined than in the black and white law.
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? In act two of A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, the author uses ellipses to create the feeling of desperation whole exposing the theme of immaturity. Ibsen usage of ellipses presents interruption between Krogstad and Nora. He reveals Nora's compulsiveness of having no limits. She has the intention of killing Krogstad because she worries about the secret debt being divulge to her husband, Torvald. Her desperation of unable to solve the problem leads her thought astray. This put pressures on her puerile personality. She does not want her husband to find out about the debt which is similar to a child shrouding their mistake away from their parents. Instead of being honest, she is dishonest and wants the easier way out. She thinks if she gets rid of the source if her trouble, then it would simply go away. When she unveils her ill intention toward Krogstad, it symbolizes her immaturity. Any adults with common sense would know not to enshroud their plan to the enemy. This shows her inability to think or rationalize ahead, and compulsively act as a child. Nam
Yes Nam, I agree very much with your statement that immaturity could be a reoccurring theme of this play when studying character's such as Nora. I would also add if I were you more examples of her childlike behavior. For an example when she speaks to Krogstad she implies she would kill herself in order to keep Krogstad at his social low, as well as avoiding any secular punishment that would have been against her. To me any statement such as this is child talk, and also adds a new literary element. To further build on top of the theme of being immature, you might want to consider some sort of diction or hyperbole because of the wild claims made by Nora in different parts of the story. Other than that I like your examples and that evidence you chose to strengthen your claim. Thanks
Nora. Torvald, surely you aren’t serious? Helmer. Oh? Why not? Nora. Well, it’s all so petty. Helmer. What’s that you say? Petty? Do you think I’m petty? Nora. No, not at all, Torvald dear! And that’s why…
This passage exemplifies the disconnect between Nora and Torvald. In most all of their conversation, with this one no different, a misunderstanding occurs between them. These disconnections stem from a variety of sources including Nora’s serial lying habit, as well as the gender bias present in this time as exhibited by Torvald. Nora describes Torvald’s actions as “petty” in an attempt to stop Torvald’s job termination notice from getting mailed to Krogstad. During this moment, she immediately feels desperate because she had gotten blackmailed by Krogstad just a little while before; if he gets fired, she gets punished, as he reveals her secret. However, the blame for this fight cannot entirely get put on Nora. Because of the gender roles at the time, Torvald has complete control of the household. This means that even Nora’s desperate pleas to stop the sending of the letter have no effect on him, even if they benefit both of them (at least sort of). Nora, after all, only tries to help the situation here, even if she does lie to Torvald about the reasoning. Alas, Torvald will have none of it, which makes sense in context of the story, as he really just treats her like an animal anyway with all of the playful yet unfortunately offensive nicknames he has for her. Likely, this misunderstanding and fighting will not cease soon since it does not seem to have a resolution as of this point in the play. Because of this, Torvald and Nora seem like tragic heroes in a literary sense.
“Nora: Torvald...what was that letter? Helmer: Krogstad’s notice. Nora: Get it back, Torvald! There’s still time! Oh, Torvald, get it back! Please for my sake, for your sake, for the sake of the children! Listen Torvald, please! You don’t realize what it can do to us,” (Ibsen, 43).
In this passage, Nora finds out about Torvald’s plan to replace Torvald with Mrs. Linde at the bank. Nora is upset when she finds out about this due to her situation with Krogstad. Krogstad is trying to blackmail Nora into convincing her husband to keep Krogstad at the bank. Krogstad knows that he is next to go due to the change of management and his bad reputation. The fear of bad reputation drives people to do things that they normally would not. Nora fears having a similar reputation that Krogstad has yet she went into shady business with him. Krogstad threatens revealing their transaction if Nora can’t secure his employment. This adds dramatic irony to the play. This conversation which would normally been seen as a normal conversation topic is escalated by Nora’s reaction to the notice. Anaphora is used to emphasise the trouble that they will be in if Krogstad shares his information. Although in social and legal danger, Nora still won’t tell her husband the importance of the notice. This could be out of fear of her husband becoming furious at Nora’s secret felony. She could also feel the need not to tell him out of pride of being able to handle this difficult situation all by herself. Either way, there is lack of communication on a subject as important as forgery, which brings up the question, How many secrets are there really between Nora and Torvald?
In Act II, Nora explains to Mrs. Linde what could possibly happen later when she says, “Nora. If I should go mad... which might easily happen... Mrs. Linde. Nora! Nora. Or if anything happened to me... which meant I couldn’t be here....” (Ibsen 57). This adds an emphasis to the foreshadowing which Ibsen uses with Nora’s wishes to disappear, whether it be through death or running away. It is not the first time where Nora has mentioned this option when dealing with her unfortunate situation at hand. This repetition makes her intentions quite clear and the audience has a strong sense of something unpleasant occurring in the near future. Within this quote, Ibsen uses the parallel structure of “...” consistently when Nora speaks. The way in which her thoughts trail off after each part creates a tone of uncertainty for the reader. It is previously understood that Nora’s decisions are impulsive and carelessly thought out. With her past of poor-decision making, her words do not have much weight to them. Therefore, the audience isn’t certain that Nora will go to drastic measures such as suicide. Mrs. Linde only says one word, but the exclamation points adds to her disbelief towards Nora’s desired actions. This quote is intriguing because it shows Nora’s originally impromptu decision progressing into that of a feasible reality. It is important to the play due to its foreshadowing and Nora’s trust in Mrs. Linde. Nora presumes that if she disappears, her problems will vanish as well. However, this is not a mature way to solve one’s dilemmas in life.
I agree with your analysis about Nora’s comments foreshadowing her disappearance. I also noticed another scene that supports your idea about Nora running away. During a conversation between Nora and the Nursemaid in the beginning of Act II, Nora interrogates the Nursemaid about how she felt when the Nursemaid left her own daughter to take on a new life. Nora asks, “Yes but… how could you bring yourself to do it?” (II). There is a little uncertainty in her voice which shows she has the best interest in her children, yet it is still an important decision she has thought and will need to think about carefully.
“Krogstad: What else was there to understand, apart from the old, old story? A heartless women throws a man over the moment something more profitable offers itself. Mrs. Linde: Do you really think I’m so heartless? Do you think I found it easy to break off?” (Ibsen 63).
Earlier in the play, Mrs. Linde’s background was briefly discussed but in Act 3 she is further characterized. There were vague details mentioned about Mrs. Linde’s past, including that she had a previous relationship with Krogstad. However the extent of their relationship was not stated. Mrs. Linde also married rich, but she lost her husband and her mother. This left her to support her and her younger brother alone. This made it necessary for her to find work and fend for herself. This made her appear ruthless and cutthroat to Krogstad. In Act three, the relationship between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde becomes unveiled. Krogstad and Mrs. Linde appear to have a history of a romantic relationship. Mrs. Linde however didn’t chose him and decided on a richer man. Her decision broke his heart and ruined his image of her. Though Krogstad saw her as a merciless status obsessed gold digger, Mrs. Linde’s intentions were different. She only married rich to ensure a stable income to support her family and didn’t act on her own true feelings. The point of view of this relationship changes the views of it. Krogstad never knew the true motives going into her decision. This leads for a snap judgement about Mrs. Linde’s character. Their conversation foreshadows an improved relationship between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde.
I found your analysis of this quote very interesting, and while I was reading it, I found a connection between A Doll’s House and The Taming of the Shrew. In The Taming of the Shrew, Petruchio hears of a daughter of a rich man and agrees to marry her on the spot; he was interested not in the woman he would be marrying, but in the money he would get in return. On the other hand, in A Doll’s House, Mrs. Linde decides to marry a rich man, not her true love, Krogstad, solely to support her family. So to highlight some gender stereotypes, while Mrs. Linde and Petruchio both marry for money, both have different motives and intentions: Petruchio only wants to become richer, while Mrs. Linde only wants to help her family.
Nora. It's no use. It's hopeless. The letter is there in the box. Mrs. Linde. Your husband keeps the key? Nora. Always. In act two of " A Doll's House" by Henrik Ubsen, the author uses symbolism to expose the powerlessness of women in the Victorian Era while creating the dominant effect of frustration in the readers' mind. In the passage above, the mailbox key represents the imperium of men over women in the Victorian Age. The mailbox itself symbolizes the extreme power, and the key resembles the access of that power. When Mrs. Linde immediately says Torvald has the key to the mailbox, it strongly reflects how Nora having zero power in her household. Torvald, the one who has access to the key, holds control over everything in the house. This frustrates readers because the fact that Nora has no access to the key hints that women has no power in the Victorian Age. It also symbolizes women participation in the financial of the house, which they have no control over. Any bills or payments are sent to the mailbox and whoever has access to the mailbox control the household. Readers can see this theme earlier in the play. When Nora has to forge her father signature , in order to cure her husband illness, symbolizes the powerlessness of women. Signature is the representation of the person admitting to the contract or deal that they sign, therefore the action of Nora forging represents her powerlessness and had to resorts to her father help. Nam Nguyen
I agree with your analysis completely. The letter box is an subtle example of the male dominance in the household, and I had not thought of it before. This particular scene could also foreshadow later events when Nora confronts Torvald when she confesses how they have a very distant relationship and that he often tries to control her actions. Nora is locked out of the letter box much like she is locked out of emotional connection with her husband.
I totally agree with your analysis about how the mailbox represents the extreme power of that household and how the key represents the access to that extreme power. I found it interesting that how you analyzed this passage. I would have never thought that the mailbox and the mailbox key were symbols of the dominant power of men in a household. Like you said, it is kind of sad that women, in the Victorian era, had no power in a household. They had to always listen and obey to whatever the men in their lives told them to do. I believe that with this kind of relationship between Nora and Helmer, that is why she decided to leave him. After their fight, even though he had forgiven her, she still decided to leave him and her children.
Nora: Dr. Rank, am I right in thinking you carried out a certain laboratory test today? Rank: Exactly. Helmer: Look at our little Nora talking about laboratory tests!
This is yet another example of the gender bias present in this play. Helmer again talks down to her, even if it seems lighthearted, by personifying her as a lesser person simply because she is a woman. This time he personifies her as more of a child than animal, as he had referred to her previously even using some childlike diction by describing her as “little,” and referring to her to Rank when she is in the same room. He finds it shocking that she has even ever heard of a laboratory test, which does not make a whole lot of sense; most people have heard of it at some point. With this, he displays her as childlike and naive, unaware of the world around her. In addition, he uses the term “our” when referring to her reflecting his feeling that he and Rank own her since they are the male figures in the room. This again exemplifies the customs at the time of male dominance in Victorian society. While Torvald’s behavior here can certainly get described as objectionable, it is slightly more understandable, as Nora is not exactly the kind of person who someone would trust to know things (or trust in general). Her serial lying and suspicious behavior do not help her win any trust in the household. This, combined with the awful customs in the era, are key contributors to why she does not even have a key to her own mailbox! Helmer certainly underestimates Nora’s intelligence though. After all, she possibly saved his life without him even knowing it, as well as, manipulated him on numerous occasions.
On a previous blog I discussed the prevalence of gender roles (specifically those of females) and how they altered some situations that could have potentially turned out differently if gender roles were not a factor. I discussed how Torvald was painted and respected as his family's breadwinner and how all that Nora does is squander the family's money. I feel that my and your analysis had similar points regarding the effects gender roles had on the outcome and decision making in the play. I particularly like the idea of Nora being able to manipulate people and get away with it because of the notions that the Victorians had about women. Good job.
“Helmer: This is outrageous! You are betraying your most sacred duty. Nora: And what do you consider to be my most sacred duty? Helmer: Does it take me to tell you that? Isn't it your duty to your husband and your children? Nora: I have another duty equally sacred. Helmer: You have not. What duty might that be? Nora: My duty to myself.” (Ibsen 82).
Throughout the play, there has been an obvious unequal power dynamic between Helmer and Nora. He often refers to her as “sky-lark” or other pet names. This insinuates that Helmer view Nora as less of an equal in their marriage and more of a pet. This idea is carried over to the face that Nora has no rights in their household or in society. Nora only receives what Helmer gives her, she has no property that she earned herself. The only property that she has is provided by Helmer. Along with the lack of property, she has a lack of money. As a wife and a mother she has to stay at home and keep her house in order. This inhibits Nora’s ability to get a job and a source of income of her own. The entire play Nora has obliged to societal standards of being a homemaker who is submissive to her husband’s rulings. In Act three she finally stands up for her rights. Nora no longer wants to be controlled by her husband, so she has a discussion with him about her finding her own path in life. Naturally, Helmer does not want to lose his wife, but he fights for her in such ways that make me cringe. Instead of allowing Nora to get a job, contribute to society, be apart of financial decisions for their household, have a key to the mailbox, or even having a serious conversation with him, he throws gender roles at her as a reason to stay. He describes her job that she would be abandoning as ,”your most sacred duty,”. Helmer talks about Nora’s responsibilities as if it is the only way she can contribute, that she has no other value. It is in this conversation that Nora stands up for herself as not just a woman, but a person and acknowledged that she has a choice in the way she lives her life.
I agree with your point about how Nora is finally standing up for her right to determine her own life. However both your challenge to the time at which I blogged and your analysis of Torvald rubbed me the wrong way. I believe that Torvald was only saying that which he had heard many times in his life. He did not "throw" gender roles at Nora but rather shows that his views are products of an extremely narrow minded society rather than a malicious mind. Torvald would later show that he does, in fact, respect Nora when he tells her that he will change for her, but she leaves anyways
“NORA. As I now am, I am no wife for you. HELMER. I have strength to become another man. NORA. Perhaps- when your doll is taken away from you. HELMER. To part- to part from you! No, Nora, no; I can't grasp the thought. NORA. The more reason for the thing to happen. ... NORA. Goodbye, Torvald. No. I won't go to the children. I know they are in better hands than mine. As I now am, I can be nothing to them” (Ibsen 84).
Towards the end of Act III (the end of the play), Nora explains that she cannot keep living as the person she currently is. Nora implies that Helmer must become his own person when she is gone when he says, “HELMER. I have strength to become another man. NORA. Perhaps- when your doll is taken away from you” (84). This quote also references her life as a doll, with all of her decisions being made for her. Helmer and her father have controlled her for as long as she has lived. During the Victorian Era, the society was very patriarchal and the men held the power in the relationship. Nora believes she was never truly given the chance to find herself and make her own decisions, until now. Helmer’s attachment to Nora further proves how much of a toy she is to him because she merely acts as he wishes. Helmer wasn’t in love with the real Nora underneath, he was in love with the thought of her and the way she acted as he wished. When Nora says, “Goodbye, Torvald. No. I won't go to the children. I know they are in better hands than mine. As I now am, I can be nothing to them” (84), it supports her decision to leave. When she would interact with her children, there was a clear disconnect as she seemed to only spend time with them because she was supposed to. The previous Nora was a shell of a person sculpted to Helmer’s likes and the way in which society portrayed women.
Nora: At home, Daddy used to tell me what he thought, then I thought the same. And if I thought differently, I kept quiet about it, because he wouldn’t have like it. He used to call me his baby doll, and he played with me as I used to play with my dolls. then I came to live in your house… From act 3.
At this point in the play, Nora has a sort of epiphany, as she finally realizes she has lived in a sort of trap all of her life. She describes herself as a metaphorical “doll,” which, obviously, get reflected in the title. Nora believes that all of her views on life have reflected the views of her father and husband, and they do not reflect her’s. Her “keeping quiet about it” makes sense based on the time period (Victorian era); Submissiveness like this was expected. She has become like the “baby dolls” she played with as a girl. However, she finally realizes what she has to do: leave and discover her own life. This marks the point of dramatic conclusion in the play, as she finally stands up to authority. Nora makes a very large personality shift, as the play progresses. She begins as a serial liar, and overall objectionable individual. However, as time goes by, she becomes a sort of hero, who even with all of her faults, comes out on top in the end, escaping the dull, cookie-cutter lifestyle that has consumed her. Alas, she still faces many obstacles. Nobody knows what happened to Nora after the end of the play (there is no sequel after all), but one could guess that she would face many challenges in a time where women had few rights to begin with, not even factoring in the fact that she would be completely alone. Therefore, was this really the right decision for Nora. No one will ever know.
I find it interesting that Nora, a mother, found it so easy to leave her husband and children after so many years, only after a realization. Just three days before their talk, Nora did not even have a thought of leaving. She was thought to be content, having a silly relationship with her husband and a steady supply of money for her shopping. In three days she realizes that this life that she's had for so many years isn't real– even though she has three children. So my question is: can you trust an impulsive judgement off of three days? I say no. Answering your question, "did Nora made the right decision?" I also have to say no. Nora left behind her three children, having no knowledge of any problems in the household, without even saying goodbye. She does this for selfish reasons, and I think Nora should have at least tried to fix things with the family (now that Torvald became aware of their relationship).
Nora. Motherless! [Struggle with herself, lets her travelling bag fall, and says.] O, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them. [Half sinks down by the door.] Act 3 page 88. In the alternative ending of "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen, the author uses label diction to expose the theme of identity while creating the dominant effect of empathy. When Nora tries to leave Torvald and the children behind, she had an empathy moment and decides to stay with her children. She understand, as once being motherless herself, and stay. She knows how the emotion to not have a mother, but she also left because she worries about having the title of a woman who abandon her child. As earlier in the play, she values her identity as a middle class Victorian when she pay a crown for a 50 öre Christmas tree. The way Ibsen gives the audience an alternative ending of Nora conflict between her individual self and her identity self. If she leaves, her name will be stain with the title of abandoning children, but if she stay then it is a symbol of her not being an individualist. With the alternative ending, the author makes it clear that she values what society views her as and not how she views herself; vice versa with the real ending. Nam Nguyen
Absolutely! I agree very much of your interpretation of the endings and how they affect the theme/message of the whole play. I too believe without the alternate ending the message is that Nora is an independent woman, who believes that the status of women and how they are treated is worth way more than the life of her children. With the alternate ending though, it portrays more of the importance of reputation and how much a person is affected based off of how society views him/her. Your interpretation may have been great, but I would have also used more evidence not only from Act III, but also referring to previous acts that assist in supporting the longing of these two paths. One prime example that came to mind though is that of when Nora refused to commit suicide, because she was afraid Krogstad would ruin her reputation once she was dead in Act II, and this would signify how much of an importance reputation is in the play.
I agree with your analysis about how Nora only valued what society thought of her in the alternative ending. I feel like if the alternative ending was the actual ending, it wouldn't match with how Ibsen describes her throughout the entire play. Nora is one that seems rebellious and doesn't follow the stereotypical role of a woman in the Victorian era. In the alternate ending, instead of leaving how she originally wanted to, Nora decides to stay and I do believe it was because of how she thought of how society would think of her if she did leave her children.
“Helmer: may I write to you, Nora? Nora: no, never. I won't let you. Helmer: But surely I can send you... Nora: Nothing, nothing. Helmer: Can’t I help you if you ever need it? Nora I said no I do not accept things from strangers” (86).
In the very end of the play, I found Torvald and Nora’s final conversation to be very fascinating as they said their goodbyes. Nora finds it imperative to completely disconnect herself from Helmer. She believes that his presence will never allow her to find her true being and begin to live the life of a human, not a doll. Initially, Nora’s conditions seem harsh and comes as a shock to Ibsen’s audience. Her desire to abandon her children and former life are well explained as she continues to clarify her intentions to Helmer. The relationship which she shared with Torvald was inequitable and was promoted by the Victorian society. This patriarchal marriage placed the power in Helmer’s hands and left Nora to only be what Torvald wanted, a mere doll. Torvald’s reaction to this news surprises him as he doesn’t understand why Nora would suddenly want to leave and remove all communication with him. He does not know that Nora has been molded into another person that who she really is and that she is unhappy. Now that Nora has decided to become her true self, she feels that Helmer is simply a stranger and that he cannot offer her anything. Immediately after this conversation, Nora says that a miracle, if even, will be the only thing to bring them back together. She has come to the conclusion that her life will not desire the same people with whom she shared her past life with. Her children were never able to make a true connection with their mother and she feels as though she isn’t the person to do the job. Just as Helmer had played with her, she had been playing with her children to satisfy society's demands.
I had kind of-ish the same analysis in terms of Torvald being shocked at the fact that Nora is actually seeking independence on her own and not following society's expectations. It is shocking that she would abandon her husband and children but I believe it was a necessity to leave them so she can focus on her own well-being and not the expectations of others. Nora finally noticed how she treated her children and believes that leaving them would benefit them more than staying and treating them like dolls, just like her father and husband treated her.
I like your idea that Torvald did not understand why Nora would not let them stay in contact. I think a big part of the lack of value of individuality apparent in this play was as a result of the Victorian culture that demanded perfection. Unfortunately, the perfection expected in the society did not often allow for people to seek their true identity. In the current era, society tried to encourage and emphasize the importance of individuality. People have become considerably for accepting and open to new ideas and culture. However, the Victorian culture did not allow people to experience the same freedom we have now, so many people lived unhappily and unfulfilled lives that only appeared to be glamorous on the surface. Because the culture itself is unfamiliar and hostile to nonconformity, Torvald would have had a very difficult time understanding the value of individuality as Nora has experienced.
“Helmer: Go then! But first you shall see your children for the last time! Nora: Let me go! I will not see them! I cannot! Helmer: You shall see them. Look, there they are asleep, peaceful, carefree. Tomorrow, when they wake up and call for their mother, they will be- motherless. Nora: Motherless…! Helmer: As you once were. Nora: Motherless! Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them.”
A Doll’s House had a very impactful message for a play written in the Victorian era. Many topics were addressed that were not socially accepted to be discussed, including women's rights, forgery, and tuberculosis of the spine. The play shocked and scared everyone when it was released due to the social taboo of the play. Many people had concerns about the ending of the play and sent numerous complaints with the hope for Ibsen to change the ending of the play. Ibsen wrote this play with a certain intent for the ending of the play. Reluctantly, Ibsen wrote an alternative ending to the play, one that changed the entire message of the play. One of the main themes of this play was one of self discovery. Nora knows she can only make her own path if she is by herself. Her decision to leave is simple, except that she would be leaving her children. In the original ending, Nora leaves without saying goodbye to her children, which makes her leaving easier. However in the alternate ending Torvald makes Nora see her children, which interrupts her self-liberating path to finding herself and she decides to stay. I did not like this ending for many reasons. The entire play foreshadowed Nora leaving Torvald and her children. With the alternate ending, the play has a blunt ending. The whole story builds up to something that is not there. Another reason that I did not like this ending to the play is that it is changing the author’s intent. Most people, are not best selling playwrights, we are mostly mere peasants in the literary world. So for Ibsen to receive so many requests for him to change his literary works due to personal beliefs makes me upset. The alternate ending ruined the play due to the ending that Ibsen had in mind and foreshadowed to the entire play.
Nora: Motherless! Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them. Torvald: Nora!
This scene, overall, has a disappointing feel to me. Nora, the sort of “hero” in this ending piece of the play, simply succumbs to the pressure of the world in which she lives, and she now will go back to the life she had before: one of little happiness for her. I can see why Ibsen had so passionate about not writing it. This ending ruins one of the most intriguing, and probably most dynamic, characters in the the whole play. Everything in the final act leads up to the tumultuous exit Nora makes to escape her life of mediocrity, but then it abruptly swings her all the way back to having to stay. Before this alternate conclusion, the book says that Ibsen was under pressure to pen a more “conciliatory” ending (conciliatory meaning to pacify or make peace). This was the sad reality of the 1800’s when Ibsen wrote this play. Even though the more appropriate and dramatic ending was for Nora to leave, apparently nineteenth century Germany was just not ready. It is sadly ironic that the play’s theme of gender bias played out in the real world. This, most definitely, was not the intention of Ibsen. Another sad fact about this alternate scene is that it does not reflect the original intentions of the writer. Ibsen, as a playwright most likely wrote the play for a specific purpose, and each line and scene in the play reflects this (if he did want to write it, he would not of). It is a crime that his wishes to see the play performed as intended were not always carried out.
I agree that this alternate ending ruins Nora's entire character development throughout the play. She makes drastic changes to her life and evolves into a character so unique and daunting to the society in which she lives in, that I believe the alternate ending does not do her transformation justice. By following Torvald's orders once again and remaining in the house, the theme of self renewal and women strength is undermined greatly. Isben had valid reason to be prevolked with this ending, as are most all people who read the play as it was written, and as it was changed.
A Doll's House is a speech, a message from Ibsen that talks about human nature as a whole. He gives example such as Nora copying the maid to become a woman. This evidence speaks volume as to what Ibsen perception of humanity. By giving this situation, he is saying that humans are to be control by others. Nora, a character that Ibsen builds as an individualist, copies another personality which might seems odd and ironic for her character. She is influenced by her caretaker, and is molded into a version of them. Another evidence that supports this is the trend of aesthetic. Nora is influenced by her society, how to look like the class that she is in. She pay a crown for a 50 öre Christmas tree. She is influenced by the outside setting. This happens again when Nora tries to cover her financial problem with Krogstad. The Victorian Era idea of an ideal woman is their subjugation to their husband. Nora tries to cover up the problem, which is the influence of the society on her. Woman cannot take out a loan without their husband consent, so Nora fears that if her husband finds out then she will get punish for her action. Overall, Ibsen is saying people are easily persuaded by their surrounding/society. Nam Nguyen
The Absurdist philosophy explains the human desire to find a “true” meaning and purpose of life with the silence of the Universe conflicting with their search. This absurdity displays the tragic and fundamental disharmony in the existence of humans. In the first portion of the novel Meursault lives a similar life to the myth of Sisyphus where he repeatedly completes meaningless tasks. He does not consider death, or anything else for that matter. Meursault never questions his purpose in life, or desires change/ improve something in his life. Once his maman dies, the aspect of death becomes clearer and more prominent to him. He portrays the image of an existentialist (shaping one through their actions, free will, and consequence of those actions). Friedrich Nietzsche presented the groundwork for future existentialists, but he did not consider himself to be one. A main philosophy of his included the idea that “God is Dead”. This is very similar to the way in which Meursault perceives life. When the pastor repeatedly visits Meursault in prison, he tries to convince him to have faith in God. However, Meursault refuses to believe that there is anything beyond himself which could shape his life. This abandonment by God was also expressed in Jean Paul Sartre’s philosophy. Jean Paul Sartre also believed the morals were dead and that humans were alone in the universe. Meursault’s attitude agrees with these ideas because he doesn’t place importance on finding someone to share his life with. Marie wants to marry him but he seems very apathetic towards the topic. Overall, there is a large use of philosophy from the Founding Fathers of Existentialism in The Stranger.
In the Victorian Era, people prioritize aesthetic more than they appreciate how they are more economically stable than others. They prefer to spend their money frivolously on expensive things such as piano and porcelain, states in the play directions, "...a piano... a porcelain stove" (Henrik Ibsen 1). These luxurious dictions characterize the ranking of the main characters in their society as some what rich because these things were expensive and only the people of middle to upper class were able to afford this. Other evidence put focus on the fact the main characters are from the middle class. Ibsen writes, "... a small sofa... a small table... other small art objects... a small bookcase..." (A Doll's House 1). The repetitive usage of the word "small" pressures on the idea that the characters are of middle class because they could only spend on small furniture rather than larger one. Without the repetition of "small", then the time of the story is unknown until later in the book. It also repeats the theme of frivolous spending, Victorian prioritize aesthetic . In the play, A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, the author uses repetition and luxurious dictions to give an insight on the Victorian Era.
ReplyDeleteNam Nguyen
I agree with your analysis about the repetition of the word "small" throughout the stage directions, but I also thought that it could mean that with the repetition of the word "small", that it also meant that they were a part of the middle class but also that they didn't try and spend money on extravagant things but only buy things that they thought were necessity. But this view changed when I had analyzed the characterization of Nora because Ibsen described her as a woman that loves money and it clearly showed that, when she got the chance, she would try and go to the extra mile on her spending.
DeleteThroughout act one of A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen portrays Nora, one of the main characters up to this point, as a rather arrogant, boastful person. In her lengthy conversation with Mrs. Linde, a visitor from out of town whom she grew up with, Nora makes a point to bring up her good deed that she had done for her husband. Nora tells her of this right after Mrs. Linde explains the good she had done. Instead of expressing happiness for her friend, Nora shoos it away, and tells of her grand act. Anyway, she claims that she had saved Torvald’s life by taking him on an extended stay to Italy (a warmer place than Sweden where presently reside). This helped Torvald’s apparently dire health condition (she describes him in her dramatic fashion as “dramatically ill” (Ibsen 14). She goes on to explain that she does not want Torvald to find out for fear of embarrassing him. Now, this action seems fairly generous. However, Nora’s delivery comes off rather boastful instead of kind. She seems to feel as if she has superiority over others if she commits acts of kindness. In addition, she does not really care about others or in this case Mrs. Linde, whom she just brushes aside, which further supports the assertion of her as an arrogant character. One could certainly describe Nora as an immoral character as evident in this scene as well as the rest of the act, where she also gets revealed as a serial liar.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with your analysis of Nora's personality, I would have used different evidence to support your claim. I feel that Nora was fairy humble with regards to her claiming to have saved Torvald's life. It says in the story that she hadn't told anyone else, so I feel like better evidence would have been the multiple times that she boasted about the amount of money that her husband will be earning in the new year.
DeleteIn the beginning of Act One of “A Doll’s House”, Henrik Ibsen begins to set the scene and create intriguing characters. The characterization of Nora seemed unsettling as her actions were continually questionable. Her compulsive lying can first be seen when Helmer asks her, “Hasn't the little sweet-tooth been breaking the rules today?”(Ibsen 7) while Nora replies by saying, “No; how can you think of such a thing!” (Ibsen 7). Earlier, she was clearly shown eating a macaroon, and when her husband asks her if she ate any sweets, she blatantly lies. This directly puts her character under suspicion, and as the act progresses more odd situations occur. Additionally, Nora seems to believe that she has everything under control, when this is clearly not the case. From her scattered actions to the way she has secretly obtained a large amount of money, the way in which Ibsen characterizes Nora is quite concerning. The audience has immediately created a dislike for Nora and the chaos which she creates. Helmer seems sensible, especially in comparison to Nora, but gives into her as she begs him for money. While Nora does beg, she also makes a point to let others know how beautiful and full of herself she is. Nora is repeatedly called a “spendthrift” and seems to lack a reasonable understanding of money. Nevertheless, she later brags to Mrs. Linde about her financial capabilities. Overall, the presence of Nora emit a negative tone and leads the reader to foreshadow a future disaster which she will create, or has even already created.
ReplyDeleteI agree that while reading, Nora provided a negative tone to the play. It seems that Nora's biggest conflicts will only be present due to her mistakes. I found it interesting that Isben would create a character like Nora to be the center of the play. It may relate back to the title of the play, and Nora is living a life she believes is like a doll house. Nora appears to have little disregard to her actions and lies to get out of situations. She values money and possessions and beauty and all of her choices reflect her desire to live a perfect life, as if she were a doll.
DeleteI think that your analyzation is well thought out. I think that one reason she lies so much is that she feels intimidated by Helmer, a dominant male figure. She has been taught to be submissive and perhaps this is her trying to break out of the social norm. She feels a need to lie, because she has been told that she must follow authority all her life.
DeleteIn the Victorian era, women had very few rights. There were laws that prevented women from having political rights, owning property and the right to divorce. While these are examples of unjust laws, laws are created to keep the citizens of a society safe and to protect the establishments set up. They do not take into account personal philosophies and issues with the governing of the society. In act one of A Doll’s House, Nora questions aspects the law, “Krogstad: The law takes no account of motives. Nora: Then they must have been very bad laws,” (Ibsen, 29). Just before this, Krogstad reveals that Nora was the one who signed for the loan from Krogstad and not her father. Being a woman during this time period, Nora is not allowed to take out a loan for herself. However, Nora desperately needed the loan to save her husband’s life. Nora found this motive just enough to forage her father’s signature. This however is a felony, which along with legal issues, reputation is dragged through the mud. Wanting to avoid all of this, Nora attempts to keep her crime a secret, unfortunately she is discovered. Due to the lack of Women’s rights, Nora was put in a situation where she had to choose from saving her husband, or saving her reputation and legality. Dramatic irony is found in Nora’s secret. This ends the act with a foreboding mood, because secrets never have a good ending.
ReplyDeleteYes, i agree with your analyzation. I think as a women Nora walks a fine line. She wants her rights as a human being, but she can’t press to hard. Otherwise she could be shunned by the people around her who see this questioning of societal norms as threatening. Sadly she stumbles a bit into a tricky situation. It’ll be interesting to see how she gets herself out of this one. Overall good analyzation!
DeleteTowards the end of Act 1, Nora is confronted by Krogstad about her forgery. When she is discussing this topic with him she says, “I don’t believe it. Isn’t a daughter entitled to try and save her father from worry and anxiety on his deathbed? Isn’t a wife entitled to save her husband’s life?” (Ibsen 29). This indirectly characterizes Nora as naive and unaware of the consequences of forgery. Although she believes that she is fully capable of secretly dealing with financial loans, she continually shows lack of understanding and seriousness. The audience may become irritated with her as she doesn't see the importance of her decisions and how they may impact her family. Her selfishness can be seen through her reasoning to leave her children for her safety when she says, “ Do you think they [the children] would forget their mummy if she went away for good?”(36). This same idea is later seen when Krogstad says “if you happen to be thinking of running away... “ while Nora interrupts “which I am!” (53). It is frustrating that she feels the need to run away because she made a rash decision to get a loan behind her husbands back. This will be completely unfair to both her husband, Torvald, and her children. The way in which she presents herself is very childish as she cannot seem to clean up the mess she created. Although she thinks that she is more intelligent than she appears to be, the audience may come to the conclusion that she is actually less intelligent. Someone who does not know enough about financials, the law, and forgery should not believe they have the capability to successfully handle all these things by oneself.
ReplyDeleteI found your analysis of the character of Nora very interesting. One thing that I found interesting about her in all the forgery is that her story is told in a way that seems to demand sympathy-- she depicts herself as heroic in her struggle to save Helmer. It is interesting to me that Krogstad is guilty of a similar crime for similar reasons but he is painted as the villain of the story. I think it shows that in the real world right and wrong are far less defined than in the black and white law.
DeleteNora. Which I am...
ReplyDeleteKrogstad. ... If you happen to be thinking of running away...
Nora. Which I am!
Krogstad. ...or anything worse...
Nora. How did you know?
In act two of A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, the author uses ellipses to create the feeling of desperation whole exposing the theme of immaturity. Ibsen usage of ellipses presents interruption between Krogstad and Nora. He reveals Nora's compulsiveness of having no limits. She has the intention of killing Krogstad because she worries about the secret debt being divulge to her husband, Torvald. Her desperation of unable to solve the problem leads her thought astray. This put pressures on her puerile personality. She does not want her husband to find out about the debt which is similar to a child shrouding their mistake away from their parents. Instead of being honest, she is dishonest and wants the easier way out. She thinks if she gets rid of the source if her trouble, then it would simply go away. When she unveils her ill intention toward Krogstad, it symbolizes her immaturity. Any adults with common sense would know not to enshroud their plan to the enemy. This shows her inability to think or rationalize ahead, and compulsively act as a child.
Nam
(Act 2 page 53)
DeleteYes Nam, I agree very much with your statement that immaturity could be a reoccurring theme of this play when studying character's such as Nora. I would also add if I were you more examples of her childlike behavior. For an example when she speaks to Krogstad she implies she would kill herself in order to keep Krogstad at his social low, as well as avoiding any secular punishment that would have been against her. To me any statement such as this is child talk, and also adds a new literary element. To further build on top of the theme of being immature, you might want to consider some sort of diction or hyperbole because of the wild claims made by Nora in different parts of the story. Other than that I like your examples and that evidence you chose to strengthen your claim. Thanks
DeleteNora. Torvald, surely you aren’t serious?
ReplyDeleteHelmer. Oh? Why not?
Nora. Well, it’s all so petty.
Helmer. What’s that you say? Petty? Do you think I’m petty?
Nora. No, not at all, Torvald dear! And that’s why…
This passage exemplifies the disconnect between Nora and Torvald. In most all of their conversation, with this one no different, a misunderstanding occurs between them. These disconnections stem from a variety of sources including Nora’s serial lying habit, as well as the gender bias present in this time as exhibited by Torvald. Nora describes Torvald’s actions as “petty” in an attempt to stop Torvald’s job termination notice from getting mailed to Krogstad. During this moment, she immediately feels desperate because she had gotten blackmailed by Krogstad just a little while before; if he gets fired, she gets punished, as he reveals her secret. However, the blame for this fight cannot entirely get put on Nora. Because of the gender roles at the time, Torvald has complete control of the household. This means that even Nora’s desperate pleas to stop the sending of the letter have no effect on him, even if they benefit both of them (at least sort of). Nora, after all, only tries to help the situation here, even if she does lie to Torvald about the reasoning. Alas, Torvald will have none of it, which makes sense in context of the story, as he really just treats her like an animal anyway with all of the playful yet unfortunately offensive nicknames he has for her. Likely, this misunderstanding and fighting will not cease soon since it does not seem to have a resolution as of this point in the play. Because of this, Torvald and Nora seem like tragic heroes in a literary sense.
“Nora: Torvald...what was that letter?
ReplyDeleteHelmer: Krogstad’s notice.
Nora: Get it back, Torvald! There’s still time! Oh, Torvald, get it back! Please for my sake, for your sake, for the sake of the children! Listen Torvald, please! You don’t realize what it can do to us,” (Ibsen, 43).
In this passage, Nora finds out about Torvald’s plan to replace Torvald with Mrs. Linde at the bank. Nora is upset when she finds out about this due to her situation with Krogstad. Krogstad is trying to blackmail Nora into convincing her husband to keep Krogstad at the bank. Krogstad knows that he is next to go due to the change of management and his bad reputation. The fear of bad reputation drives people to do things that they normally would not. Nora fears having a similar reputation that Krogstad has yet she went into shady business with him. Krogstad threatens revealing their transaction if Nora can’t secure his employment. This adds dramatic irony to the play. This conversation which would normally been seen as a normal conversation topic is escalated by Nora’s reaction to the notice. Anaphora is used to emphasise the trouble that they will be in if Krogstad shares his information. Although in social and legal danger, Nora still won’t tell her husband the importance of the notice. This could be out of fear of her husband becoming furious at Nora’s secret felony. She could also feel the need not to tell him out of pride of being able to handle this difficult situation all by herself. Either way, there is lack of communication on a subject as important as forgery, which brings up the question, How many secrets are there really between Nora and Torvald?
In Act II, Nora explains to Mrs. Linde what could possibly happen later when she says,
ReplyDelete“Nora. If I should go mad... which might easily happen...
Mrs. Linde. Nora!
Nora. Or if anything happened to me... which meant I couldn’t be here....” (Ibsen 57). This adds an emphasis to the foreshadowing which Ibsen uses with Nora’s wishes to disappear, whether it be through death or running away. It is not the first time where Nora has mentioned this option when dealing with her unfortunate situation at hand. This repetition makes her intentions quite clear and the audience has a strong sense of something unpleasant occurring in the near future. Within this quote, Ibsen uses the parallel structure of “...” consistently when Nora speaks. The way in which her thoughts trail off after each part creates a tone of uncertainty for the reader. It is previously understood that Nora’s decisions are impulsive and carelessly thought out. With her past of poor-decision making, her words do not have much weight to them. Therefore, the audience isn’t certain that Nora will go to drastic measures such as suicide. Mrs. Linde only says one word, but the exclamation points adds to her disbelief towards Nora’s desired actions. This quote is intriguing because it shows Nora’s originally impromptu decision progressing into that of a feasible reality. It is important to the play due to its foreshadowing and Nora’s trust in Mrs. Linde. Nora presumes that if she disappears, her problems will vanish as well. However, this is not a mature way to solve one’s dilemmas in life.
I agree with your analysis about Nora’s comments foreshadowing her disappearance. I also noticed another scene that supports your idea about Nora running away. During a conversation between Nora and the Nursemaid in the beginning of Act II, Nora interrogates the Nursemaid about how she felt when the Nursemaid left her own daughter to take on a new life. Nora asks, “Yes but… how could you bring yourself to do it?” (II). There is a little uncertainty in her voice which shows she has the best interest in her children, yet it is still an important decision she has thought and will need to think about carefully.
Delete“Krogstad: What else was there to understand, apart from the old, old story? A heartless women throws a man over the moment something more profitable offers itself.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Linde: Do you really think I’m so heartless? Do you think I found it easy to break off?” (Ibsen 63).
Earlier in the play, Mrs. Linde’s background was briefly discussed but in Act 3 she is further characterized. There were vague details mentioned about Mrs. Linde’s past, including that she had a previous relationship with Krogstad. However the extent of their relationship was not stated. Mrs. Linde also married rich, but she lost her husband and her mother. This left her to support her and her younger brother alone. This made it necessary for her to find work and fend for herself. This made her appear ruthless and cutthroat to Krogstad. In Act three, the relationship between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde becomes unveiled. Krogstad and Mrs. Linde appear to have a history of a romantic relationship. Mrs. Linde however didn’t chose him and decided on a richer man. Her decision broke his heart and ruined his image of her. Though Krogstad saw her as a merciless status obsessed gold digger, Mrs. Linde’s intentions were different. She only married rich to ensure a stable income to support her family and didn’t act on her own true feelings. The point of view of this relationship changes the views of it. Krogstad never knew the true motives going into her decision. This leads for a snap judgement about Mrs. Linde’s character. Their conversation foreshadows an improved relationship between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde.
I found your analysis of this quote very interesting, and while I was reading it, I found a connection between A Doll’s House and The Taming of the Shrew. In The Taming of the Shrew, Petruchio hears of a daughter of a rich man and agrees to marry her on the spot; he was interested not in the woman he would be marrying, but in the money he would get in return. On the other hand, in A Doll’s House, Mrs. Linde decides to marry a rich man, not her true love, Krogstad, solely to support her family. So to highlight some gender stereotypes, while Mrs. Linde and Petruchio both marry for money, both have different motives and intentions: Petruchio only wants to become richer, while Mrs. Linde only wants to help her family.
DeleteNora. It's no use. It's hopeless. The letter is there in the box.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Linde. Your husband keeps the key?
Nora. Always.
In act two of " A Doll's House" by Henrik Ubsen, the author uses symbolism to expose the powerlessness of women in the Victorian Era while creating the dominant effect of frustration in the readers' mind. In the passage above, the mailbox key represents the imperium of men over women in the Victorian Age. The mailbox itself symbolizes the extreme power, and the key resembles the access of that power. When Mrs. Linde immediately says Torvald has the key to the mailbox, it strongly reflects how Nora having zero power in her household. Torvald, the one who has access to the key, holds control over everything in the house. This frustrates readers because the fact that Nora has no access to the key hints that women has no power in the Victorian Age. It also symbolizes women participation in the financial of the house, which they have no control over. Any bills or payments are sent to the mailbox and whoever has access to the mailbox control the household. Readers can see this theme earlier in the play. When Nora has to forge her father signature , in order to cure her husband illness, symbolizes the powerlessness of women. Signature is the representation of the person admitting to the contract or deal that they sign, therefore the action of Nora forging represents her powerlessness and had to resorts to her father help.
Nam Nguyen
I agree with your analysis completely. The letter box is an subtle example of the male dominance in the household, and I had not thought of it before. This particular scene could also foreshadow later events when Nora confronts Torvald when she confesses how they have a very distant relationship and that he often tries to control her actions. Nora is locked out of the letter box much like she is locked out of emotional connection with her husband.
DeleteI totally agree with your analysis about how the mailbox represents the extreme power of that household and how the key represents the access to that extreme power. I found it interesting that how you analyzed this passage. I would have never thought that the mailbox and the mailbox key were symbols of the dominant power of men in a household. Like you said, it is kind of sad that women, in the Victorian era, had no power in a household. They had to always listen and obey to whatever the men in their lives told them to do. I believe that with this kind of relationship between Nora and Helmer, that is why she decided to leave him. After their fight, even though he had forgiven her, she still decided to leave him and her children.
DeleteNora: Dr. Rank, am I right in thinking you carried out a certain laboratory test today?
ReplyDeleteRank: Exactly.
Helmer: Look at our little Nora talking about laboratory tests!
This is yet another example of the gender bias present in this play. Helmer again talks down to her, even if it seems lighthearted, by personifying her as a lesser person simply because she is a woman. This time he personifies her as more of a child than animal, as he had referred to her previously even using some childlike diction by describing her as “little,” and referring to her to Rank when she is in the same room. He finds it shocking that she has even ever heard of a laboratory test, which does not make a whole lot of sense; most people have heard of it at some point. With this, he displays her as childlike and naive, unaware of the world around her. In addition, he uses the term “our” when referring to her reflecting his feeling that he and Rank own her since they are the male figures in the room. This again exemplifies the customs at the time of male dominance in Victorian society. While Torvald’s behavior here can certainly get described as objectionable, it is slightly more understandable, as Nora is not exactly the kind of person who someone would trust to know things (or trust in general). Her serial lying and suspicious behavior do not help her win any trust in the household. This, combined with the awful customs in the era, are key contributors to why she does not even have a key to her own mailbox! Helmer certainly underestimates Nora’s intelligence though. After all, she possibly saved his life without him even knowing it, as well as, manipulated him on numerous occasions.
From act three page 71 in the book
DeleteOn a previous blog I discussed the prevalence of gender roles (specifically those of females) and how they altered some situations that could have potentially turned out differently if gender roles were not a factor. I discussed how Torvald was painted and respected as his family's breadwinner and how all that Nora does is squander the family's money. I feel that my and your analysis had similar points regarding the effects gender roles had on the outcome and decision making in the play. I particularly like the idea of Nora being able to manipulate people and get away with it because of the notions that the Victorians had about women. Good job.
Delete“Helmer: This is outrageous! You are betraying your most sacred duty.
ReplyDeleteNora: And what do you consider to be my most sacred duty?
Helmer: Does it take me to tell you that? Isn't it your duty to your husband and your children?
Nora: I have another duty equally sacred.
Helmer: You have not. What duty might that be?
Nora: My duty to myself.” (Ibsen 82).
Throughout the play, there has been an obvious unequal power dynamic between Helmer and Nora. He often refers to her as “sky-lark” or other pet names. This insinuates that Helmer view Nora as less of an equal in their marriage and more of a pet. This idea is carried over to the face that Nora has no rights in their household or in society. Nora only receives what Helmer gives her, she has no property that she earned herself. The only property that she has is provided by Helmer. Along with the lack of property, she has a lack of money. As a wife and a mother she has to stay at home and keep her house in order. This inhibits Nora’s ability to get a job and a source of income of her own. The entire play Nora has obliged to societal standards of being a homemaker who is submissive to her husband’s rulings. In Act three she finally stands up for her rights. Nora no longer wants to be controlled by her husband, so she has a discussion with him about her finding her own path in life. Naturally, Helmer does not want to lose his wife, but he fights for her in such ways that make me cringe. Instead of allowing Nora to get a job, contribute to society, be apart of financial decisions for their household, have a key to the mailbox, or even having a serious conversation with him, he throws gender roles at her as a reason to stay. He describes her job that she would be abandoning as ,”your most sacred duty,”. Helmer talks about Nora’s responsibilities as if it is the only way she can contribute, that she has no other value. It is in this conversation that Nora stands up for herself as not just a woman, but a person and acknowledged that she has a choice in the way she lives her life.
I just want to point out that I blogged before Dante.
DeleteI agree with your point about how Nora is finally standing up for her right to determine her own life. However both your challenge to the time at which I blogged and your analysis of Torvald rubbed me the wrong way. I believe that Torvald was only saying that which he had heard many times in his life. He did not "throw" gender roles at Nora but rather shows that his views are products of an extremely narrow minded society rather than a malicious mind. Torvald would later show that he does, in fact, respect Nora when he tells her that he will change for her, but she leaves anyways
Delete“NORA. As I now am, I am no wife for you.
ReplyDeleteHELMER. I have strength to become another man.
NORA. Perhaps- when your doll is taken away from you.
HELMER. To part- to part from you! No, Nora, no; I can't grasp the thought.
NORA. The more reason for the thing to happen.
...
NORA. Goodbye, Torvald. No. I won't go to the children. I know they are in better hands than mine. As I now am, I can be nothing to them” (Ibsen 84).
Towards the end of Act III (the end of the play), Nora explains that she cannot keep living as the person she currently is. Nora implies that Helmer must become his own person when she is gone when he says, “HELMER. I have strength to become another man. NORA. Perhaps- when your doll is taken away from you” (84). This quote also references her life as a doll, with all of her decisions being made for her. Helmer and her father have controlled her for as long as she has lived. During the Victorian Era, the society was very patriarchal and the men held the power in the relationship. Nora believes she was never truly given the chance to find herself and make her own decisions, until now. Helmer’s attachment to Nora further proves how much of a toy she is to him because she merely acts as he wishes. Helmer wasn’t in love with the real Nora underneath, he was in love with the thought of her and the way she acted as he wished. When Nora says, “Goodbye, Torvald. No. I won't go to the children. I know they are in better hands than mine. As I now am, I can be nothing to them” (84), it supports her decision to leave. When she would interact with her children, there was a clear disconnect as she seemed to only spend time with them because she was supposed to. The previous Nora was a shell of a person sculpted to Helmer’s likes and the way in which society portrayed women.
Nora: At home, Daddy used to tell me what he thought, then I thought the same. And if I thought differently, I kept quiet about it, because he wouldn’t have like it. He used to call me his baby doll, and he played with me as I used to play with my dolls. then I came to live in your house… From act 3.
ReplyDeleteAt this point in the play, Nora has a sort of epiphany, as she finally realizes she has lived in a sort of trap all of her life. She describes herself as a metaphorical “doll,” which, obviously, get reflected in the title. Nora believes that all of her views on life have reflected the views of her father and husband, and they do not reflect her’s. Her “keeping quiet about it” makes sense based on the time period (Victorian era); Submissiveness like this was expected. She has become like the “baby dolls” she played with as a girl. However, she finally realizes what she has to do: leave and discover her own life. This marks the point of dramatic conclusion in the play, as she finally stands up to authority. Nora makes a very large personality shift, as the play progresses. She begins as a serial liar, and overall objectionable individual. However, as time goes by, she becomes a sort of hero, who even with all of her faults, comes out on top in the end, escaping the dull, cookie-cutter lifestyle that has consumed her. Alas, she still faces many obstacles. Nobody knows what happened to Nora after the end of the play (there is no sequel after all), but one could guess that she would face many challenges in a time where women had few rights to begin with, not even factoring in the fact that she would be completely alone. Therefore, was this really the right decision for Nora. No one will ever know.
I find it interesting that Nora, a mother, found it so easy to leave her husband and children after so many years, only after a realization. Just three days before their talk, Nora did not even have a thought of leaving. She was thought to be content, having a silly relationship with her husband and a steady supply of money for her shopping. In three days she realizes that this life that she's had for so many years isn't real– even though she has three children. So my question is: can you trust an impulsive judgement off of three days? I say no. Answering your question, "did Nora made the right decision?" I also have to say no. Nora left behind her three children, having no knowledge of any problems in the household, without even saying goodbye. She does this for selfish reasons, and I think Nora should have at least tried to fix things with the family (now that Torvald became aware of their relationship).
DeleteNora. Motherless! [Struggle with herself, lets her travelling bag fall, and says.] O, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them. [Half sinks down by the door.]
ReplyDeleteAct 3 page 88.
In the alternative ending of "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen, the author uses label diction to expose the theme of identity while creating the dominant effect of empathy.
When Nora tries to leave Torvald and the children behind, she had an empathy moment and decides to stay with her children. She understand, as once being motherless herself, and stay. She knows how the emotion to not have a mother, but she also left because she worries about having the title of a woman who abandon her child. As earlier in the play, she values her identity as a middle class Victorian when she pay a crown for a 50 öre Christmas tree. The way Ibsen gives the audience an alternative ending of Nora conflict between her individual self and her identity self. If she leaves, her name will be stain with the title of abandoning children, but if she stay then it is a symbol of her not being an individualist. With the alternative ending, the author makes it clear that she values what society views her as and not how she views herself; vice versa with the real ending.
Nam Nguyen
Absolutely! I agree very much of your interpretation of the endings and how they affect the theme/message of the whole play. I too believe without the alternate ending the message is that Nora is an independent woman, who believes that the status of women and how they are treated is worth way more than the life of her children. With the alternate ending though, it portrays more of the importance of reputation and how much a person is affected based off of how society views him/her. Your interpretation may have been great, but I would have also used more evidence not only from Act III, but also referring to previous acts that assist in supporting the longing of these two paths. One prime example that came to mind though is that of when Nora refused to commit suicide, because she was afraid Krogstad would ruin her reputation once she was dead in Act II, and this would signify how much of an importance reputation is in the play.
DeleteI agree with your analysis about how Nora only valued what society thought of her in the alternative ending. I feel like if the alternative ending was the actual ending, it wouldn't match with how Ibsen describes her throughout the entire play. Nora is one that seems rebellious and doesn't follow the stereotypical role of a woman in the Victorian era. In the alternate ending, instead of leaving how she originally wanted to, Nora decides to stay and I do believe it was because of how she thought of how society would think of her if she did leave her children.
DeleteCyan Perry
ReplyDelete“Helmer: may I write to you, Nora? Nora: no, never. I won't let you. Helmer: But surely I can send you... Nora: Nothing, nothing. Helmer: Can’t I help you if you ever need it? Nora I said no I do not accept things from strangers” (86).
In the very end of the play, I found Torvald and Nora’s final conversation to be very fascinating as they said their goodbyes. Nora finds it imperative to completely disconnect herself from Helmer. She believes that his presence will never allow her to find her true being and begin to live the life of a human, not a doll. Initially, Nora’s conditions seem harsh and comes as a shock to Ibsen’s audience. Her desire to abandon her children and former life are well explained as she continues to clarify her intentions to Helmer. The relationship which she shared with Torvald was inequitable and was promoted by the Victorian society. This patriarchal marriage placed the power in Helmer’s hands and left Nora to only be what Torvald wanted, a mere doll. Torvald’s reaction to this news surprises him as he doesn’t understand why Nora would suddenly want to leave and remove all communication with him. He does not know that Nora has been molded into another person that who she really is and that she is unhappy. Now that Nora has decided to become her true self, she feels that Helmer is simply a stranger and that he cannot offer her anything. Immediately after this conversation, Nora says that a miracle, if even, will be the only thing to bring them back together. She has come to the conclusion that her life will not desire the same people with whom she shared her past life with. Her children were never able to make a true connection with their mother and she feels as though she isn’t the person to do the job. Just as Helmer had played with her, she had been playing with her children to satisfy society's demands.
I had kind of-ish the same analysis in terms of Torvald being shocked at the fact that Nora is actually seeking independence on her own and not following society's expectations. It is shocking that she would abandon her husband and children but I believe it was a necessity to leave them so she can focus on her own well-being and not the expectations of others. Nora finally noticed how she treated her children and believes that leaving them would benefit them more than staying and treating them like dolls, just like her father and husband treated her.
DeleteI like your idea that Torvald did not understand why Nora would not let them stay in contact. I think a big part of the lack of value of individuality apparent in this play was as a result of the Victorian culture that demanded perfection. Unfortunately, the perfection expected in the society did not often allow for people to seek their true identity. In the current era, society tried to encourage and emphasize the importance of individuality. People have become considerably for accepting and open to new ideas and culture. However, the Victorian culture did not allow people to experience the same freedom we have now, so many people lived unhappily and unfulfilled lives that only appeared to be glamorous on the surface. Because the culture itself is unfamiliar and hostile to nonconformity, Torvald would have had a very difficult time understanding the value of individuality as Nora has experienced.
Delete“Helmer: Go then! But first you shall see your children for the last time!
ReplyDeleteNora: Let me go! I will not see them! I cannot!
Helmer: You shall see them. Look, there they are asleep, peaceful, carefree. Tomorrow, when they wake up and call for their mother, they will be- motherless.
Nora: Motherless…!
Helmer: As you once were.
Nora: Motherless! Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them.”
A Doll’s House had a very impactful message for a play written in the Victorian era. Many topics were addressed that were not socially accepted to be discussed, including women's rights, forgery, and tuberculosis of the spine. The play shocked and scared everyone when it was released due to the social taboo of the play. Many people had concerns about the ending of the play and sent numerous complaints with the hope for Ibsen to change the ending of the play. Ibsen wrote this play with a certain intent for the ending of the play. Reluctantly, Ibsen wrote an alternative ending to the play, one that changed the entire message of the play. One of the main themes of this play was one of self discovery. Nora knows she can only make her own path if she is by herself. Her decision to leave is simple, except that she would be leaving her children. In the original ending, Nora leaves without saying goodbye to her children, which makes her leaving easier. However in the alternate ending Torvald makes Nora see her children, which interrupts her self-liberating path to finding herself and she decides to stay. I did not like this ending for many reasons. The entire play foreshadowed Nora leaving Torvald and her children. With the alternate ending, the play has a blunt ending. The whole story builds up to something that is not there. Another reason that I did not like this ending to the play is that it is changing the author’s intent. Most people, are not best selling playwrights, we are mostly mere peasants in the literary world. So for Ibsen to receive so many requests for him to change his literary works due to personal beliefs makes me upset. The alternate ending ruined the play due to the ending that Ibsen had in mind and foreshadowed to the entire play.
From the alternate German ending:
ReplyDeleteNora: Motherless! Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them.
Torvald: Nora!
This scene, overall, has a disappointing feel to me. Nora, the sort of “hero” in this ending piece of the play, simply succumbs to the pressure of the world in which she lives, and she now will go back to the life she had before: one of little happiness for her. I can see why Ibsen had so passionate about not writing it. This ending ruins one of the most intriguing, and probably most dynamic, characters in the the whole play. Everything in the final act leads up to the tumultuous exit Nora makes to escape her life of mediocrity, but then it abruptly swings her all the way back to having to stay. Before this alternate conclusion, the book says that Ibsen was under pressure to pen a more “conciliatory” ending (conciliatory meaning to pacify or make peace). This was the sad reality of the 1800’s when Ibsen wrote this play. Even though the more appropriate and dramatic ending was for Nora to leave, apparently nineteenth century Germany was just not ready. It is sadly ironic that the play’s theme of gender bias played out in the real world. This, most definitely, was not the intention of Ibsen. Another sad fact about this alternate scene is that it does not reflect the original intentions of the writer. Ibsen, as a playwright most likely wrote the play for a specific purpose, and each line and scene in the play reflects this (if he did want to write it, he would not of). It is a crime that his wishes to see the play performed as intended were not always carried out.
I agree that this alternate ending ruins Nora's entire character development throughout the play. She makes drastic changes to her life and evolves into a character so unique and daunting to the society in which she lives in, that I believe the alternate ending does not do her transformation justice. By following Torvald's orders once again and remaining in the house, the theme of self renewal and women strength is undermined greatly. Isben had valid reason to be prevolked with this ending, as are most all people who read the play as it was written, and as it was changed.
DeleteA Doll's House is a speech, a message from Ibsen that talks about human nature as a whole. He gives example such as Nora copying the maid to become a woman. This evidence speaks volume as to what Ibsen perception of humanity. By giving this situation, he is saying that humans are to be control by others. Nora, a character that Ibsen builds as an individualist, copies another personality which might seems odd and ironic for her character. She is influenced by her caretaker, and is molded into a version of them. Another evidence that supports this is the trend of aesthetic. Nora is influenced by her society, how to look like the class that she is in. She pay a crown for a 50 öre Christmas tree. She is influenced by the outside setting. This happens again when Nora tries to cover her financial problem with Krogstad. The Victorian Era idea of an ideal woman is their subjugation to their husband. Nora tries to cover up the problem, which is the influence of the society on her. Woman cannot take out a loan without their husband consent, so Nora fears that if her husband finds out then she will get punish for her action. Overall, Ibsen is saying people are easily persuaded by their surrounding/society.
ReplyDeleteNam Nguyen
The Absurdist philosophy explains the human desire to find a “true” meaning and purpose of life with the silence of the Universe conflicting with their search. This absurdity displays the tragic and fundamental disharmony in the existence of humans. In the first portion of the novel Meursault lives a similar life to the myth of Sisyphus where he repeatedly completes meaningless tasks. He does not consider death, or anything else for that matter. Meursault never questions his purpose in life, or desires change/ improve something in his life. Once his maman dies, the aspect of death becomes clearer and more prominent to him. He portrays the image of an existentialist (shaping one through their actions, free will, and consequence of those actions). Friedrich Nietzsche presented the groundwork for future existentialists, but he did not consider himself to be one. A main philosophy of his included the idea that “God is Dead”. This is very similar to the way in which Meursault perceives life. When the pastor repeatedly visits Meursault in prison, he tries to convince him to have faith in God. However, Meursault refuses to believe that there is anything beyond himself which could shape his life. This abandonment by God was also expressed in Jean Paul Sartre’s philosophy. Jean Paul Sartre also believed the morals were dead and that humans were alone in the universe. Meursault’s attitude agrees with these ideas because he doesn’t place importance on finding someone to share his life with. Marie wants to marry him but he seems very apathetic towards the topic. Overall, there is a large use of philosophy from the Founding Fathers of Existentialism in The Stranger.
ReplyDelete