Helmer [calls out from his room]. Is that my little lark twittering out there? Nora [busy opening some of the parcels]. Yes, it is! Helmer. Is it my little squirrel bustling about? Nora. Yes! Helmer. When did my squirrel come home? Nora. Just now. [Puts the bag of macaroons into her pocket and wipes her mouth.] Come in here, Torvald, and see what I have bought. Helmer. Don't disturb me. [A little later, he opens the door and looks into the room, pen in hand.] Bought, did you say? All these things? Has my little spendthrift been wasting money again? Nora. Yes but, Torvald, this year we really can let ourselves go a little. This is the first Christmas that we have not needed to economise.
In this passage Nora is referred to as a lark, a squirrel and a spendthrift. The fact that Torvald refers to her as a songbird. The bird used to describe Nora is a lark, most likely referring to the Eurasian skylark. The skylark is a very plain bird when viewed on the ground but has white section on its belly and the underside of its wings. They often have large families for bird as well which also fits in well to the expectations of women to have large families and the importance of children in the culture. This is a compliment to Nora as well as a sign of how women were viewed in that time. Birds are characterized by two major traits, being scatterbrains and being hyperactive.This can also be seen through the use of the word twittering, which in the context connotes with hyperactive thoughtless activity. This fits in with the era’s view of most women being airheads that need to be taken care of. The comparison to the squirrel also fits this cultural stereotype as well.Also it draws a similarity through the action of Nora rifling through the parcels for the macaroons much like a squirrel searching for nuts. A spendthrift is a person who spends money in expensive and extravagant ways. Even though it is used as a term of endearment in this case it also fits the stereotype of women being airheads and having no business sense. The last line of Nora’s concerning the expenses also fits this image of women, creating of them an image of having no idea of financial situations.
I agree with your analysis of Nora Helmer. She seems to be a childish woman, who does not give a care for her future. She overlooks the number of things she spends on, supports by the fact that she was spending a crown on a 50 öre pine tree. She depends on her husband for money and assumes he will forever providing for the family. When her husband was sick, she tries to spend as much money as possible to cure him. This action shows her appreciation to keep her wealth more than she cares about Torvald when she brags it to Mrs. Linde. We can even see her child-like self when she was playing hide and seek with her children, how she quietly laugh under the table. Overall, Nora seems to be a compulsive spender.
“Torvald: Never again must my song-bird do a thing like that! Little song-birds must keep their pretty little beaks out of mischief; no chirruping out of tune! Isn’t that the way we want things to be? Yes, of course it is. So let’s say no more about it” (I. i.) Throughout Act I, I noticed that Torvald calls Nora his “song-bird”. This represents the ideas of many men in this time period, because they only think of women as their pets. They thought that they owned their wives, and they had control over all of their wives’ lives. When reading, I thought that it was interesting that Nora is a woman, yet she thinks of herself more than that, and is very rebellious. This can be seen through her forbidden macaroon eating and her lies to her husband. Despite her husband thinking that she does not have power, she realizes that she does have influence over him. After Torvald sees that Nora has a mind of her own, he is quick to put her in her place. In this quote, he uses an analogy to compare Nora to a song-bird. He says that Nora should not get in any trouble, and should continue to be submissive. He changes the topic after saying this, not allowing Nora to speak on the subject. After this, Nora seems to distract him by asking for his help, which I thought made Torvald feel needed, and making Nora seem more like he wanted her to be. This characterizes Nora as very manipulative because she knows how to control her husband, when it should be the other way around. Plus, she lies behind his back for many years, without telling him the truth of how she got the money for a trip to Italy. All of these things combined make me very suspicious of Nora, and I look forward to seeing how she develops throughout the play.
In “A Doll’s House”, Ibsen displays Nora as an impatient, hasty and greedy young wife. However, not the traditional woman. The Helmer’s are definitely in the middle class and are living well which is partially the reason why Nora is so impatient and greedy. The tone Nora uses with her husband shows how she doesn’t think of anyone besides herself. Ibsen writes, “Nora. If anything as awful as that did happen, I wouldn’t care if I owed anybody anything or not. Helmer. Yes, but what about the people I’d borrowed from? Nora. Them? Who cares about them! They are only strangers!”(2). The fact that she was comfortable talking to her husband in all seriousness about such a serious matter and seem almost as if she were joking shows how she is very careless. She is very greedy and we see this when she explains that if her husband were to die, she would not pay any attention to anyone whom he owed money to. Another reason why she is so impatient is because she willingly borrowed money to pay for the family's trip to Italy in the past and had expressed to everyone that her father had given her the money when later in the scene we find that she had actually borrowed it. The impulsive decision that she made to borrow money shows how she takes action for herself and is definitely not the traditional wife or woman considering she is lying to everyone including her husband. The common type of woman in this time period were very conservative and stayed lowkey for the most part. They would obey what their husbands told them to and would not usually act as suspicious as Nora. When Nora is explaining to Mrs. Linde about how she borrowed the money to “save” her husband, Mrs. Linde says, “Listen to me now, Nora dear - you haven’t done anything rash, have you?”(14). Nora replies, “Is it rash to save your husband's life?”(14). Ibsen uses an understatement to show Nora’s impulsive and sneaky personality. She is trying to degrade the fact that she did not communicate with her husband about where the money truly came from and continues to ease up the tension by stating that she saved him. Overall, in Act one we see how Nora is portrayed as sneaky and untraditional.
There was a lot I found interesting in this Act, but what really struck me came in the final parts of this Act. During the last parts of Act 1 I found a lot about what Torvald says as very contradicting. Especially in this specific quote when Torvald says “I honestly feel sick, sick to my stomach, in the presence of such people” I find it to be somewhat passive aggressive, but is also in aIn this quote, Torvald is clearly talking about Krogstad, but in a sense it could also be interpreted that he would be talking about Nora. Krogstad is disliked by Torvald in this context, because of his past where he would forge signatures, but his wife had also done the same exact thing. Even though Torvald was not aiming this remark towards his wife Nora, he unwittingly did it in which only the audience would notice the flaw of his statement. This would also play as dramatic irony, because it portrays Torvald’s ignorance for being married to someone who based off of his statement would very much be disliked. Torvald and nor does anybody else notice what was wrong with what he said and the mistakes he made marrying Nora, but the audience could easily find out if they put what he said in the correct context. Despite such remarks, Torvald still sticks by his Nora’s side, and holds a deep feeling of contempt against Krogstad even though they both committed the same exact crime to Torvald’s knowledge.
Rank: A person called Krogstad-nobody you would know. He’s rotten to the core. But even he began talking about having to live, as though it were something terribly important.
The passage above by Doctor Rank is representative of how doctors and hospitals were viewed in the Victorian Era. While hospitals are considered places of healing, Victorian hospitals could be considered places of death. Doctor Rank serves as a commentary to the medical practices of the medical practices of the Victorian era “but even he began talking about wanting to live, as though it were something terribly important.” Victorian hospitals adopted dangerous practices such as, surgery without anesthesia and overcrowded wards. These both contributed to foul air and the spread of disease. Rank remarks living as unimportant reflecting how the hospitals a person like him practices at would most likely bring its patients closer to death. Ranks comments on Krogstad's reflects how doctors often misdiagnosed patients. The audience is given no real evidence of Krogstad’s poor character except from Rank’s words. Victorian era doctors often misdiagnosed their patients leading which could often lead to their deaths. While Rank’s word could be true the doctor’s opinion is questionable at times leaving suspicion of Krogstad’s character.
“Rank: I swore to myself you would know before I went. I’ll never have a better opportunity. Well, Nora! Now you know. And now you know that you can confide in me as in nobody else. Nora: ...Oh, my dear Dr. Rank, that really was rather horrid of you. Rank: That I have loved you every bit as much as anybody? Is that horrid? Nora: No, but that you had to go and tell me. When it was all so unnecessary… “(II.) Once again, I am utterly astounded by Nora! She continues to march around her house all the while not caring about anyone but herself. All of her actions show her trying to save herself from going to prison for forging a signature. But by attempting to save herself all she does is get deeper and deeper in her own lies. At this point, I do not think that Nora has a bright future ahead of her. I am bewildered by her reaction to Dr. Rank’s confession of his love for her. Nora does not seem to care about Dr. Rank’s feelings toward her, and seems somewhat annoyed about it. I understand that she may see it “unnecessary” because she has a husband, and that he is going to die. I would think that a normal person would be happy to have more love in their life, but Nora is not a normal person. Just a few pages ago, she was flirting with Dr. Rank, and now she is angry that he is in love with her! I am surprised that she didn’t see this coming, because she was the one that led him on in the first place. This characterizes Nora as someone whose general apathy for others and lack of empathy tends to get in other people’s way, including her own. Overall, Nora’s stupidity annoys me (especially when she asks her nursemaid if she would take care of her children if she ran away).
I find your hatred towards Nora hilarious. It is rather irritating how she continued to flirt with Rank but completely turns him down. She says, "...there are some people one loves best and others whom one would almost always rather have as companions." (II. 41). This is referring to Nora loving Torvald and only having Dr. Rank as a companion. Then she continues to explain how she loved her father the most but enjoyed joining the maids in their gossips. Rank then sees that she is comparing him to her former maids and that she only enjoys him because of the adrenaline she receives as they flirt.
In Act two of “A Doll’s House” Ibsen uses a little bit of foreshadowing to imply what is soon to come next later in the play. On page 36 he writes: “Nora. Dear old Anne Marie, you were a good mother to me when I was little. Nursemaid. My poor little Nora never had any other mother but me. Nora. And if my little ones had only you, I know you would…. Oh, what am I talking about! Go in to them. I must… tomorrow I’ll let you see how pretty I am going to look.” Ibsen gives the impression that Nora is going to leave. Based on her getting blackmailed by Krogstad in the previous act, she is now frightened and thinks that leaving would essentially be a better solution than if her husband were to find out. Ibsen characterizes Nora as a weak and selfish being due to her thoughts about leaving and expressing that to a number of people. Later in the act Ibsen writes: “Nora. I want to tell you something, Kristine, so you can be my witness. Mrs. Linde. What do you mean ‘witness’? What do you want me to…? Nora. If I should go mad… which might easily happen… Mrs. Linde. Nora! Nora. Or is anything happened to me… which meant I couldn’t be here….”(55). Again we see that Nora is selfish and seeks attention and approval from others. By her hinting to multiple people that she wants to leave and kill herself shows that she is crying out for help and seeking other people’s attention. If she were really going to act on her feelings and thoughts about leaving or possibly killing herself, she would have kept it to herself. But by practically telling Mrs. Linde and the Nursemaid, she is clearly seeking help and or attention. Nora is weak and needs others attention to feel good about herself and that is how she tends to live her everyday life… On edge and always wanting something more.
I agree with your analysis that Nora is selfish and insecure for wishing to live her husband and children to evade her consequences. However, Nora's actions may be due to the nature of her society. Victorian society value perfection, wealth and beauty, and when Nora is threatened to lose all of what she owns as well as her husbands trust and love, the raw fear she feels may validate her reasons to end her life. After the truth were to come out, Torvald would lose his trust and love in Nora, and in a time where a woman has no value without a man, life may be perceived as unworthy in the aftermath of events in Nora's mind.
With Act II there is a huge motif that reveals itself to contribute in the play as an important factor of the different actions certain character’s perform. As far as context goes with the whole Victorian era and such, I find that honor/reputation becomes a motif of the play. In numerous instances is the protection as well as care of one’s reputation revealed as an important aspect of society. There are several prime examples of the different character’s trying to improve or protect their social image. In one such case, Nora asks Mrs. Linde if she were to ever run away, Mrs. Linde must be a witness that claims it was Nora who forged the signature of her father, and that Torvald had no part in it. Nora attempts to destroy her reputation, but all the while she is protecting that of her husband’s because she knows in this type of society that if he were to even be suspected of such a crime his status would fall as low as a criminal’s. Status is also very important, because it was get defined by reputation/honor and that a higher status was always strived for in this type of society. Another example in which the protection of one’s reputation reveals itself as a motif is when Nora threatens to kill herself, but Krogstad replies by saying he would expose her crime and therefore ruining her reputation. This threat by Krogstad causes Nora to think twice, because every member of a Victorian society wants to die with great respect rather than that of a criminal with no dignity. By studying these different events that occurred in Act II, it could be concluded that with the motif of character’s trying to protect their reputation lies a theme that one will act accordingly to protect/improve their social image.
I agree with your analysis on how characters will endeavor to do anything merely to save their reputation. Its funny how this is prevalent in our society today. We often see how crimes are committed to protect reputation. It almost makes me wonder what life would be like if judgement wasn't in the world. Particularly in the Doll's House, the children set a great example of how when individuals don't care about how they act out, they are able to be joyful and free.
While I was reading the play, i also found this ongoing motif of the characters. But i believe the best character that shows this motif the best is Torvald, the father of the Helmer family. All throughout the play it appears that Helmer's actions all revolve around him increasing or protecting his pride. This is shown when Nora tries to convince Helmer to not fir Krogstad and he strongly replies saying "What's that you say? Petty? Do you think I'm petty" (43). Helmer clearly shows through this passive aggresive dialogue his attempts to protect his pride. Anyways, nice analysis, it helped me find how this also applied to the other characters.
Helmer: Oh nothing! As long as the little woman gets her own stubborn way...! Do you want me to make myself a laughing stock in the office?... Give the people the idea that I'm susceptible to any kind of outside pressure? You can imagine how to soon I’d feel the consequence of that!
This quote by Helmer exemplifies the sexism, hypocrisy, and pridefulness of the Victorian era. Helmer and Nora are arguing over letting Krogstad keep his job and neither of them want to back down “As long as the little woman gets her own stubborn way”(49). While he’s also being incredibly stubborn Helmer angrily remarks that Nora is being stubborn, while she’s been pleading and he’s been yelling. Torvald feels that he’s in the right not only out of pride but do to the fact that Nora is a woman. Torvald’s even calls Nora a little woman in a petty way to demean her and her argument because he, and society, feel he should be in control and his opinion shouldn’t be questioned as much as Nora did. Torvald is also very fearful of the opinions of others “Do you want me to make myself a laughing stock in the office?... Give the people the idea that I'm susceptible to any kind of outside pressure?” (49). Torvald feels that he can’t back down to keep up his appearance as a strong leader which speaks great lengths of Victorian culture and how much appearance matters. What’s really important to Torvald is not marriage but his self esteem Torvald reflects Victorian culture with his shallow behavior.
I really liked your analysis and I agree with what you discussed in your analysis. Another quote that would fit with your analysis is during the conversation between Mrs. Linde and Nora. Nora says "Kristine! Hush! There's Torvald back. Look, you go and sit there beside the children for the time being. Torvald can't stand the sight of mending lying about. Get Anne Marie to help you" (II.40) This quote also relates to what you discussed about becuase Torvald doesn’t like to see sewing in his home, which is why Nora tells Mrs. Linde to leave. This tells us that Torvald likes the idea and the appearance of a beautiful, carefree wife who does not have to work but rather serves as a showpiece. His treatment of Nora as a doll shows that his character trait seems to be static and that he doesn't seem to be hiding anything. Nora's stubborn attitude is also seen throughout Act II as she tries to follow the exact rules and standards of her husband so that in return he rewards her by letting Krogstad keep his job. I thought that your analysis was well done.
Rank With death stalking beside me?--To have to pay this penalty for another man's sin? Is there any justice in that? And in every single family, in one way or another, some such inexorable retribution is being exacted-- Nora [putting her hands over her ears] Rubbish! Do talk of something cheerful. Rank Oh, it's a mere laughing matter, the whole thing. My poor innocent spine has to suffer for my father's youthful amusements. In this quote Dr. Rank explains that the reason for his disease is because of his father’s moral corruption.This is referred to when Rank says that his father contracted syphilis, which was a major health issue at the time because of the prevalence of unprotected sex, and the fact that syphilis can be contracted through hereditary means. Since syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease and sex was not condoned in Victorian society it is safe to assume that, had this been known about Rank’s father, he would have been considered extremely morally corrupt. This carries the idea of corruption of the moral kind being passed on from parent to child. This also shows how important both morals and parenting were to the Victorian people. Having a connection to a person who was known to be considered as morally corrupt was very harmful to a person’s reputation which was the most important thing to people at the time. This fear of reputation loss through association and corruption is prevalent throughout the book. Nora exhibits this fear when she hears Torvald talk about how Krogstad supposedly passed on moral corruption to his children. She then becomes worried that she’ll cause her children to become morally afflicted because of her. This causes her to have anxiety over her secret loan with the bank. Also since the signature she used on the loan was fake, she committed a crime and felt morally bankrupt. This combined with the restriction of the society made Nora almost have a mental breakdown.
“Nora: That’s just it. You have never understood me… I’ve been greatly wronged, Torvald. First by my father, and then by you. Helmer: What! Us two! The two people who loved you more than anybody? Nora: You two never loved me. You only thought how nice it was to be in love with me. Helmer: But, Nora, what’s this you are saying? Nora: It’s right , you know, Torvald. 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 liked it. He use 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…” In Act III of A Doll’s House, readers get to see a different side of Nora. We get to see the reasoning behind all of her crazy actions. She comments on gender roles and how she feels as if she has never been loved by her husband, because he does not know the real her. She uses a metaphor by comparing herself to a doll, and how she was “played with”. She does not feel understood by any men because they do not like her rebellious nature. Men only see her as an object (Torvald sees her as a bird, and her father a doll) and ooze superiority. Nora says that Torvald only thought about “how nice it was to be in love with her”, meaning that he only like the appearance of Nora, not her actual personality. It makes more sense now why Nora always tries to make Torvald believe that she follows his rules and is compliant, when she actually has a mind of her own. When Nora finally stands up for herself, I feel like I can understand her better, and I do not feel as angry about her actions because she has reasons for them. After Torvald is so mean to Nora, I understand why she did not want to anger him. His comments were very surprising and terrible, so Nora had been so fake towards Torvald to avoid what happened when he found out about her real self.
In Act three of “A Doll’s House” Ibsen portrays Helmer’s character as a completely different character than he in the previous acts. In the beginning of the play, Helmer is very laid-back with limited worries. However, it becomes evident in act three that when something is presented to him that is a slight bit stressful, his true personality shows. Gender roles in the Victorian society are prominent in this act. On page 76, Helmer states, “...I should have seen it coming. All your father’s irresponsible ways are coming out in you. No religion, no morals, no sense of duty…. Oh, this is my punishment for turning a blind eye to him….” Besides the fact that Helmer is totally talking down upon Nora’s father, he is also insulting her at the same time. He doesn’t try and support or help Nora with the situation, but instead attempts to make her feel unimportant and foolish. Even when Nora thought that she was making a kind gesture and trying to save him. Shortly after this scene, Helmer discovers that there is no problem after all and attempts to have things go back to the way they were before he had said all those horrible things about Nora. He states, “You try and get some rest, and set your mind at peace again, my frightened little song-bird. Have a good long sleep; you know you are safe and sound under my wing”(78). Here Helmer is in a way contradicting himself because just minutes ago he was criticizing and belittling Nora and certainly not making her feel safe, if anything she would have been frightened of his actions. Then he explains how she can always feel safe with him. Helmer’s possessive trait also becomes evident in this scene when he explains how Nora can always feel ‘safe under his wing’ because he is suggesting that Nora should always go to him for support and help with anything. Taking one under another’s wing implies you are caring for them. It is also entailed that he thinks of her as a bird which is not only an animal, proving that he sees her as inferior, but a very small and insignificant animal proposing that she cannot provide on her own, she needs assistance. In this time period, male dominance is noticeable and is a contributing factor as to why Helmer feels comfortable treating Nora as less significant than himself.
“Nora: Just to do some sewing on my dress. Good Lord, how absurd you are! Now Dr. Rank, cheer up. You’ll see tomorrow how nicely I can dance. And you can pretend I’m doing it just for you-and for Torvald as well, of course. Come here, Dr. Rank. I want to show you something. Rank: What is it? Nora: Look! Rank: Silk stockings. Nora: Flesh-coloured! Aren’t they lovely! Of course, it’s dark in here now, but tomorrow… No, no, no, you can only look at the feet. Oh well, you might as well see a bit higher up too. Rank: Hm…”(Act II page. 47).
I find this quote to incredibly interesting especially when considering the context of the play, because of Nora’s actions and how she misleads Dr. Rank. She begins by cheering Dr. Rank up by saying she would dance for him, and then reveals an unbelievable part of her body. In this time period it is important to note that the fashion of women was to be heavily dressed and reveal no part of their body to a man who is not their husband. Nora disregards this fact of context, and shows Dr. Rank not only her stockings on her feet, but go continues to reveal more of her body to Dr. Rank. These actions break all social customs, and because of that, Dr. Rank gets misled by Nora into thinking she is flirting with him. This would then ultimately result in Dr. Rank confessing his love for Nora, who does not share the same feelings. It is also important to know that it would have been very probable that Dr. Rank would not have confessed his love for Nora if she had not lead him on into thinking she had the same feelings for him by flirting with him.
I agree with your analysis, I also was shocked when I read this. As you said the shocking part is that Nora who claims to be so much in love with Helmer and was willing to put herself at risk for him and be in danger of getting black mailed, willingly showed him parts of her body that are not appropriate to be seen in this time and for a married women. This just shows her rebellious characteristics and this has been proved by not only this incident and also the fact that she has taken a loan too which in this time was not acceptable without the permission of the husband. -Hajir Hosseini, Period 5
Mrs. Linde: Without working I couldn’t live. All my life I have worked, for as long as i can remember; that has always been my one great joy. But 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 somebody and something to work for (64).
This passage in Act 3 of A Doll’s House sets up the future contrast between Nora and Mrs. Linde’s different endings. While Mrs. Linde decided to reunite with a former lover and work for them them and their family, Nora decided that she must leave her husband and her family, both did this in order to find happiness. Mrs. Linde is characterized as a workaholic, and represent women of the Victorian age who worked in order to feel complete and were breadwinners, and chose their life. On the other hand Nora represents the women in the Victorian era who were forced into their positions and have little say what to do with their lives and seek more with their lives. Kristine’s workaholic nature is evident in that, in most of the scenes looking for a job or performing some task, like fixing Nora’s dress. She lives to work and believes that her life is empty without it. When an opportunity to reunite with Krogstad arises it comes to question whether or not she’s using Krogstad so she has someone to take care of, fulfilling her desire to work and be a breadwinner, or if she was still in love with her. Nora’s one that looks for excitement and tries to find fulfillment in various ways, working jobs, flirting with Dr. Rank, doing things that would go against societal standards. Nora’s emptiness ultimately leads her to leave her family in order to find happiness, because she feels restricted in her environment and realizes living for herself would lead her closer to what she seek. These characters reflect 2 separate paths to happiness that the women in the story take.
“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.” Included at the end of A Doll’s House, there is an alternate ending. I thought this was very interesting, but after reading the alternate ending, I understood the reasoning behind the ending. The play was about a woman finding herself and breaking free from social bonds, which was very against the norms of the time period. Many people did not agree with what the play represented, so they must have requested an alternate ending. In the alternate ending, Torvald forces Nora to see her children before she leaves, and she agrees to stay so her children won’t be motherless, like she was. She admits that she will be “sinning against herself”, meaning that she will forever be unhappy and will not be free. Personally, I did not like this ending because it seemed very abrupt, as opposed to the longer ending in the real book. Also, the message of the book is completely lost in the alternate ending. The theme of the play is a woman’s liberation, and liberation cannot take place without Nora leaving the house. The whole play built up and foreshadows Nora leaving Helmer, and it is confusing to readers to change that. There is no point to the play with the alternate ending and A Doll’s House is not as strong with it included. Another thing that surprised me is that Nora would be willing to leave her children so willingly, and then would change her mind so quickly. At the beginning of the book, she was even asking her Nursemaid if she would take care of her children if she left! The differences between the alternate ending and the real ending show that the real ending presents the theme in a more accurate way.
I agree that the alternate ending was abrupt and didn't serve the purpose of the play. It is slightly ironic how an entire play written to enhance the importance of women independence can be overlooked to the point of a new ending being created because the society of that time couldn't settle with a woman taking charge and making the decisions in her own life.
One of the most profound themes I found in “A Doll's House” appeared most clear for me upon reading Act III. This theme is the gender role bias, and how men think of women in this specific period. In Act III there are numerous examples of this theme appearing, especially when Torvald speaks to his “little skylark” of a wife Nora. In one scene right after the party, Torvald speaks to Nora as if she is an object and does not respect her as a human being when he calls says to her “Can’t I look at my most treasured possession? At all this loveliness that’s mine and mine alone, completely and utterly mine”(Act III pg. 69). In here Torvald completely disregards the fact that rather than a treasure Nora is a human, and he continues on with treating her as if she is a trophy by claiming he owns her and no one else possesses her. The perspective men have on women get even worse, as later on in their conversation in this scene, Torvald attempts to receive sexual pleasure out of her by almost forcing her to obey him, and when she refuses he says “What’s this? It’s just your little game isn’t it, my little Nora Won’t! Won’t! Am I not your husband…?(Act III pg. 70). This statement made by Torvald the husband then implies as the husband of Nora he has the absolute right/power to get what he wants from her despite her refusal. With a dehumanization perspective from men in this time period it makes me glad I live in 21st century where male domination over women is not as present as it used to be.
Very intrigue analysis! I agree that gender role bias is a very prevalent theme in "A Doll's House." However, I do not think that the theme is any more profound in this act than any other. For example, you referenced Torvald's "little skylark" nickname by which he calls her. This is not the first time he uses animal diction to describe her (he uses it in both acts one and two as well) nor is it the first time he mentions that specific phrase. Undeniably though, gender bias is a very profound theme (possibly the most important in the play) and it dominates the ending, ultimately causing Nora to take the extreme action of abandoning her husband and even more shocking: her kids.
“Does that make you happy now? There, there, don’t look at me with those eyes, like a frightened little dove. Why don’t you run through the tarantella and try out the tambourine?”(44).
In act two, I am astonished by the huge estrangement between genders and amount of male dominance during the Victorian era. I found it very interesting how the author’s word choice can play such a ginormous part in how something may present itself. For example, ‘like a frightened dove’. When Helmer says this, he does not mean to necessarily deride Nora, but that is how it comes across to the reader. By using animal diction Helmer is automatically dehumanizing Nora because by comparing her to a tiny and somewhat insignificant animal compared to a human comes to show how he simply portrays her as nothing more than inconsequential. This clearly presents that men were highly prominent compared to women of this time because it was acceptable for men to use detracting language towards women and get away with it. However, if a woman were to act the same way towards a man, it would go against society’s norms. I found it ironic that Nora took eight years to realize that there was a significant separation between her and Helmer in the roles of their relationship. Another thing that I found interesting was how a lot of Helmer’s questions imply that he actually wants Nora to do something over another. For instance, he says ‘why don’t you run through the tarantella and try out the tambourine?’. He is wanting her to do that, but asking her a question as if she has a choice. And being the type of woman that they were in Victorian time, Nora did not have much room to make a decision based on what she really wanted to do. This is why Helmer asks nicely because he knows that he has the power in the relationship and Nora will do what he wants in the end anyway. Overall, there are definitely clear examples, some more than others, as to how men are dominant in this time period.
Is A Doll's House a play with a humanist or a feminist approach? Act 3 of A Doll’s House illustrates that A Doll’s house is a feminist play due to how both central conflicts in the story are resolved through women breaking societal rules and expectations and making decisions through their own accord. The first conflict between rogstad and the Helmer’s is resolved through the actions of Mrs. Linde. Kristine resolves the conflict through her will to work and provide for her family. She reunites with her ex lover Krogstad so she can take care of him and his children, taking his job at the bank where Helmer works. This would put Krogstad out of jeopardy of being homeless na dallow mrs. Linde to take care of a family, which she relishes. In the Victorian Era women working alongside her husband was considered taboo and a women being the breadwinner completely went against all societal norms. Men were expected to provide for their families and women took care of children, while Krogstad and Kristine’s relationship would actually be the complete opposite do to their view going against the norm. Their decision is both extremely brave and risky as they could be seen as outcasts. The next conflict was between Nora and Torvald, especially his diminutive treatment of her. In the last scene after realizing she and her husband are not in a true loving relationship, Nora decides to leave torvald and her children to live for herself. Nora is expected to always listen to her husband and take care of her children yet in she refuses Torvald requests and decides that she wants to go on her own. Throughout the play Torvald had treated Nora almost like a child, he used animal diction to degrade her and thought very lowly of her. Nora leaving was the only way to resolve their problems and by having the bravery to break societal norm she did so.
I completely agree with the idea that A Doll's House takes on a feminist approach. Through both the relationship conflicts, the women are presented as powerful and influential in taking initiative to make their own decisions. I find it interesting how the author, Ibsen, has the courage to bring about such a topic when the rest of society seems to go against it. There is a quote by Nora, which is ironic: "I know most people agree with you, Torvald, and that's also what it says in books. But I'm not content any more with what most people say, or with what it says in books" (82). This quote is ironic in that Nora is saying that books say that wives should belong to their husbands, but Ibsen presents feminism in this play, which belongs to the category of "what it says in books."
In the play “A Doll’s House” I find that one of the most interesting aspects of it is the title of the play. Towards the ending of the play, the word doll first appears, as that is how Nora describes what she is in regards to Torvald and her father’s perspective. This then implies that Nora understands that she is not viewed as an actual human being with rights/intelligence of her own, but rather just a valuable possession. Helmer’s view of Nora is almost most clear in those quote when he says, “Helmer. Can’t I look at my most treasured possession? At all this loveliness that’s mine and mine alone, completely and utterly mine” (Act III page. 69). Along with this quote it not only proves Nora’s point that she nothing but a prized item to Helmer, but that she is owned by him, rather than being her own independent human being. With this idea of Nora not being her own person in mind, the metaphor of her living as Helmer’s doll would then make sense. Nora’s choices are constantly overruled by Helmer will, and she can only live the life he wants her to. She is not her own human being, and lives under the rules of Helmer with almost no free will. A prime example of this is when Helmer restricts Nora from eating any macaroons. With all of this evidence summed up, and placed in Nora’s perspective of how she views herself in the eyes of others, the title of the play makes a lot of sense.
One thing that I found very prevalent throughout the whole play was the idea of appearances. It seemed as though all of the characters in the play were extremely worried about what others would think about them. First, this is seen through Helmer, who is very set on following social conduct. When Nora discusses letting Krogstad keep his job at the bank, Helmer says, “Do you want me to make myself a laughing stock at the office?... Give people the idea that I am susceptible to any kind of outside pressure? You imagine how soon I’d feel the consequences of that!” (II). Helmer obviously cares more about how others look at him than his wife’s preferences. He would rather see his wife unhappy than have other people think he is weak. He wants to appear powerful to other people and assert dominance. Also, Nora cares a lot about appearances. Although she is not happy in her current situation, she pretends to be the wife that Helmer wants her to be. This is seen in the first act when Torvald asks Nora if she bought any macaroons, which Nora is not allowed to eat. She lies and tells him that she hasn’t eaten any macaroons. Nora wants Helmer to think that she is the perfect wife and is obedient to him, but in reality she is hiding behind a mask of falseness. Nora’s attitude when she is talking to Helmer is much different from her actions such as lying and forgery. Finally, Dr. Rank cares about his appearance. It is known that he has syphilis, but he always says that he has “tuberculosis of the spine”. Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease, so he does not want anyone to know that he has it because he does not want to risk his reputation. At the end of the play, he even locks himself up in his home when he is sure that he is going to die so no one can see him looking sickly. All of these characters represent the ideals of the Victorian society and show that appearances were important.
I really liked that you connected the motif of appearances to a lot of different characters in the play. One character who I think you could also connect this motif to is Krogstad. Krogstad is in an interesting position- he has already lost his standing in society and is trying to get his appearance to improve. Despite how hard he has worked, and how much he has cleaned up his act, people like Helmer who refuse to change their opinion of others hold Krogstad back from truly being able to shed his bad reputation
Overall in the play “A Doll’s House” Ibsen shows the change in roles within the men and woman of the Victorian era. At the beginning of the play it is very evident that the women are inferior to the men of their society. This was common and seen as the norm, so many women decided to stick to playing their part in their society because they didn't want to be looked down upon or judged. For example, in act 1 Nora says to Helmer, “I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to”(5). Nora is playing the part of the traditional wife and mother so that her and Helmer’s relationship and life together always seems put together and healthy. If she fakes it for long enough, maybe it will become real. In act three she states, “We have now been married eight years. Hasn't it struck you this is the first time you and I, man and wife, have had a serious talk together?”(79). Nora realizes here that she had been trying to fit a mold for everyone except herself. She sees now that she has been faking it for so long that she realizes she never had an equal part in the relationship to begin with. The change in her role is evident at the end when she decides that she is leaving because she needs to find herself and learn to rely on someone other than Helmer. She writes, “... I can at any rate free you from all responsibility. You must not feel in any way bound, any more than I shall. There must be full freedom on both sides. Look, here’s your ring back. Give me mine”(85). This is in a sense a little bit selfish due to her having to leave her children, but it is what she needs to do for herself. Helmer says, “You are talking like a child. You understand nothing about the society you live in”(83). Here he is getting concerned because he doesn’t know any life without a woman. He is attempting to guilt her into staying and make her feel like she cannot live without him because of his personal fear of what others will think of him.
I really enjoyed reading your analysis. I noticed that too as well with how towards the end it pretty much contradicts what society believed in during that time. I feel that even though leaving the children she raised was an selfish act, it was the right thing to do because Torvald treats Nora like her "doll," and if you recall Nora describes her own children as "her little dolls." Seeing this she feels like if she is there any longer, they will follow the steps as their father. I really liked your analysis and found it interesting that we both had similar ideas.
In A Doll’s House a theme that secrets cause problems is made when present when once all the secrets are unraveled the play comes to a resolution. Once Helmer receives knowledge of Nora’s forgery the play's resolution begins. Torvald begins to insult Nora and his true character is revealed. Torvald’s shown to be incredibly prideful, misogynistic, and how lowly he views his wife. While Torvalds character was hinted at through dialogue, yet it wasn't entirely revealed. Torvald doesn't know that Krogstad decided to stop blackmailing. This use of dramatic irony, allowed for the reader to have a greater understanding of how Torvald views Nora. Torvald sees Nora as one would view a highly groomed and trained pet. Nora must obey him and if she doesn't she loses value to him. Torvald does not really love her but wishes to keep her by his side to flaunt. After Torvald lambasts her, Nora is revealed the secret of how he views her causing her to want to leave. Nora realizes that she is living for Torvald and not for herself. This leads her way to leave Torvald. She sees that Torvald views her as a doll, to dress and play with but not love. Nora realizes that this type of relationship is very unhealthy and that she can not go one being Torvald’s doll.
Helmer [calls out from his room]. Is that my little lark twittering out there?
ReplyDeleteNora [busy opening some of the parcels]. Yes, it is!
Helmer. Is it my little squirrel bustling about?
Nora. Yes!
Helmer. When did my squirrel come home?
Nora. Just now. [Puts the bag of macaroons into her pocket and wipes her mouth.] Come in here, Torvald, and see what I have bought.
Helmer. Don't disturb me. [A little later, he opens the door and looks into the room, pen in hand.] Bought, did you say? All these things? Has my little spendthrift been wasting money again?
Nora. Yes but, Torvald, this year we really can let ourselves go a little. This is the first Christmas that we have not needed to economise.
In this passage Nora is referred to as a lark, a squirrel and a spendthrift. The fact that Torvald refers to her as a songbird. The bird used to describe Nora is a lark, most likely referring to the Eurasian skylark. The skylark is a very plain bird when viewed on the ground but has white section on its belly and the underside of its wings. They often have large families for bird as well which also fits in well to the expectations of women to have large families and the importance of children in the culture. This is a compliment to Nora as well as a sign of how women were viewed in that time. Birds are characterized by two major traits, being scatterbrains and being hyperactive.This can also be seen through the use of the word twittering, which in the context connotes with hyperactive thoughtless activity. This fits in with the era’s view of most women being airheads that need to be taken care of. The comparison to the squirrel also fits this cultural stereotype as well.Also it draws a similarity through the action of Nora rifling through the parcels for the macaroons much like a squirrel searching for nuts. A spendthrift is a person who spends money in expensive and extravagant ways. Even though it is used as a term of endearment in this case it also fits the stereotype of women being airheads and having no business sense. The last line of Nora’s concerning the expenses also fits this image of women, creating of them an image of having no idea of financial situations.
I agree with your analysis of Nora Helmer. She seems to be a childish woman, who does not give a care for her future. She overlooks the number of things she spends on, supports by the fact that she was spending a crown on a 50 öre pine tree. She depends on her husband for money and assumes he will forever providing for the family. When her husband was sick, she tries to spend as much money as possible to cure him. This action shows her appreciation to keep her wealth more than she cares about Torvald when she brags it to Mrs. Linde. We can even see her child-like self when she was playing hide and seek with her children, how she quietly laugh under the table. Overall, Nora seems to be a compulsive spender.
Delete“Torvald: Never again must my song-bird do a thing like that! Little song-birds must keep their pretty little beaks out of mischief; no chirruping out of tune! Isn’t that the way we want things to be? Yes, of course it is. So let’s say no more about it” (I. i.)
ReplyDeleteThroughout Act I, I noticed that Torvald calls Nora his “song-bird”. This represents the ideas of many men in this time period, because they only think of women as their pets. They thought that they owned their wives, and they had control over all of their wives’ lives. When reading, I thought that it was interesting that Nora is a woman, yet she thinks of herself more than that, and is very rebellious. This can be seen through her forbidden macaroon eating and her lies to her husband. Despite her husband thinking that she does not have power, she realizes that she does have influence over him. After Torvald sees that Nora has a mind of her own, he is quick to put her in her place. In this quote, he uses an analogy to compare Nora to a song-bird. He says that Nora should not get in any trouble, and should continue to be submissive. He changes the topic after saying this, not allowing Nora to speak on the subject. After this, Nora seems to distract him by asking for his help, which I thought made Torvald feel needed, and making Nora seem more like he wanted her to be. This characterizes Nora as very manipulative because she knows how to control her husband, when it should be the other way around. Plus, she lies behind his back for many years, without telling him the truth of how she got the money for a trip to Italy. All of these things combined make me very suspicious of Nora, and I look forward to seeing how she develops throughout the play.
In “A Doll’s House”, Ibsen displays Nora as an impatient, hasty and greedy young wife. However, not the traditional woman. The Helmer’s are definitely in the middle class and are living well which is partially the reason why Nora is so impatient and greedy. The tone Nora uses with her husband shows how she doesn’t think of anyone besides herself. Ibsen writes, “Nora. If anything as awful as that did happen, I wouldn’t care if I owed anybody anything or not.
ReplyDeleteHelmer. Yes, but what about the people I’d borrowed from?
Nora. Them? Who cares about them! They are only strangers!”(2).
The fact that she was comfortable talking to her husband in all seriousness about such a serious matter and seem almost as if she were joking shows how she is very careless. She is very greedy and we see this when she explains that if her husband were to die, she would not pay any attention to anyone whom he owed money to. Another reason why she is so impatient is because she willingly borrowed money to pay for the family's trip to Italy in the past and had expressed to everyone that her father had given her the money when later in the scene we find that she had actually borrowed it. The impulsive decision that she made to borrow money shows how she takes action for herself and is definitely not the traditional wife or woman considering she is lying to everyone including her husband. The common type of woman in this time period were very conservative and stayed lowkey for the most part. They would obey what their husbands told them to and would not usually act as suspicious as Nora. When Nora is explaining to Mrs. Linde about how she borrowed the money to “save” her husband, Mrs. Linde says, “Listen to me now, Nora dear - you haven’t done anything rash, have you?”(14).
Nora replies, “Is it rash to save your husband's life?”(14).
Ibsen uses an understatement to show Nora’s impulsive and sneaky personality. She is trying to degrade the fact that she did not communicate with her husband about where the money truly came from and continues to ease up the tension by stating that she saved him. Overall, in Act one we see how Nora is portrayed as sneaky and untraditional.
There was a lot I found interesting in this Act, but what really struck me came in the final parts of this Act. During the last parts of Act 1 I found a lot about what Torvald says as very contradicting. Especially in this specific quote when Torvald says “I honestly feel sick, sick to my stomach, in the presence of such people” I find it to be somewhat passive aggressive, but is also in aIn this quote, Torvald is clearly talking about Krogstad, but in a sense it could also be interpreted that he would be talking about Nora. Krogstad is disliked by Torvald in this context, because of his past where he would forge signatures, but his wife had also done the same exact thing. Even though Torvald was not aiming this remark towards his wife Nora, he unwittingly did it in which only the audience would notice the flaw of his statement. This would also play as dramatic irony, because it portrays Torvald’s ignorance for being married to someone who based off of his statement would very much be disliked. Torvald and nor does anybody else notice what was wrong with what he said and the mistakes he made marrying Nora, but the audience could easily find out if they put what he said in the correct context. Despite such remarks, Torvald still sticks by his Nora’s side, and holds a deep feeling of contempt against Krogstad even though they both committed the same exact crime to Torvald’s knowledge.
ReplyDelete-Justin Lim
Rank: A person called Krogstad-nobody you would know. He’s rotten to the core. But even he began talking about having to live, as though it were something terribly important.
ReplyDeleteThe passage above by Doctor Rank is representative of how doctors and hospitals were viewed in the Victorian Era. While hospitals are considered places of healing, Victorian hospitals could be considered places of death. Doctor Rank serves as a commentary to the medical practices of the medical practices of the Victorian era “but even he began talking about wanting to live, as though it were something terribly important.” Victorian hospitals adopted dangerous practices such as, surgery without anesthesia and overcrowded wards. These both contributed to foul air and the spread of disease. Rank remarks living as unimportant reflecting how the hospitals a person like him practices at would most likely bring its patients closer to death. Ranks comments on Krogstad's reflects how doctors often misdiagnosed patients. The audience is given no real evidence of Krogstad’s poor character except from Rank’s words. Victorian era doctors often misdiagnosed their patients leading which could often lead to their deaths. While Rank’s word could be true the doctor’s opinion is questionable at times leaving suspicion of Krogstad’s character.
“Rank: I swore to myself you would know before I went. I’ll never have a better opportunity. Well, Nora! Now you know. And now you know that you can confide in me as in nobody else.
ReplyDeleteNora: ...Oh, my dear Dr. Rank, that really was rather horrid of you.
Rank: That I have loved you every bit as much as anybody? Is that horrid?
Nora: No, but that you had to go and tell me. When it was all so unnecessary… “(II.)
Once again, I am utterly astounded by Nora! She continues to march around her house all the while not caring about anyone but herself. All of her actions show her trying to save herself from going to prison for forging a signature. But by attempting to save herself all she does is get deeper and deeper in her own lies. At this point, I do not think that Nora has a bright future ahead of her. I am bewildered by her reaction to Dr. Rank’s confession of his love for her. Nora does not seem to care about Dr. Rank’s feelings toward her, and seems somewhat annoyed about it. I understand that she may see it “unnecessary” because she has a husband, and that he is going to die. I would think that a normal person would be happy to have more love in their life, but Nora is not a normal person. Just a few pages ago, she was flirting with Dr. Rank, and now she is angry that he is in love with her! I am surprised that she didn’t see this coming, because she was the one that led him on in the first place. This characterizes Nora as someone whose general apathy for others and lack of empathy tends to get in other people’s way, including her own. Overall, Nora’s stupidity annoys me (especially when she asks her nursemaid if she would take care of her children if she ran away).
I find your hatred towards Nora hilarious. It is rather irritating how she continued to flirt with Rank but completely turns him down. She says, "...there are some people one loves best and others whom one would almost always rather have as companions." (II. 41). This is referring to Nora loving Torvald and only having Dr. Rank as a companion. Then she continues to explain how she loved her father the most but enjoyed joining the maids in their gossips. Rank then sees that she is comparing him to her former maids and that she only enjoys him because of the adrenaline she receives as they flirt.
ReplyDeleteIn Act two of “A Doll’s House” Ibsen uses a little bit of foreshadowing to imply what is soon to come next later in the play. On page 36 he writes:
ReplyDelete“Nora. Dear old Anne Marie, you were a good mother to me when I was little.
Nursemaid. My poor little Nora never had any other mother but me.
Nora. And if my little ones had only you, I know you would…. Oh, what am I talking about! Go in to them. I must… tomorrow I’ll let you see how pretty I am going to look.”
Ibsen gives the impression that Nora is going to leave. Based on her getting blackmailed by Krogstad in the previous act, she is now frightened and thinks that leaving would essentially be a better solution than if her husband were to find out. Ibsen characterizes Nora as a weak and selfish being due to her thoughts about leaving and expressing that to a number of people. Later in the act Ibsen writes:
“Nora. I want to tell you something, Kristine, so you can be my witness.
Mrs. Linde. What do you mean ‘witness’? What do you want me to…?
Nora. If I should go mad… which might easily happen…
Mrs. Linde. Nora!
Nora. Or is anything happened to me… which meant I couldn’t be here….”(55).
Again we see that Nora is selfish and seeks attention and approval from others. By her hinting to multiple people that she wants to leave and kill herself shows that she is crying out for help and seeking other people’s attention. If she were really going to act on her feelings and thoughts about leaving or possibly killing herself, she would have kept it to herself. But by practically telling Mrs. Linde and the Nursemaid, she is clearly seeking help and or attention. Nora is weak and needs others attention to feel good about herself and that is how she tends to live her everyday life… On edge and always wanting something more.
I agree with your analysis that Nora is selfish and insecure for wishing to live her husband and children to evade her consequences. However, Nora's actions may be due to the nature of her society. Victorian society value perfection, wealth and beauty, and when Nora is threatened to lose all of what she owns as well as her husbands trust and love, the raw fear she feels may validate her reasons to end her life. After the truth were to come out, Torvald would lose his trust and love in Nora, and in a time where a woman has no value without a man, life may be perceived as unworthy in the aftermath of events in Nora's mind.
DeleteWith Act II there is a huge motif that reveals itself to contribute in the play as an important factor of the different actions certain character’s perform. As far as context goes with the whole Victorian era and such, I find that honor/reputation becomes a motif of the play. In numerous instances is the protection as well as care of one’s reputation revealed as an important aspect of society. There are several prime examples of the different character’s trying to improve or protect their social image. In one such case, Nora asks Mrs. Linde if she were to ever run away, Mrs. Linde must be a witness that claims it was Nora who forged the signature of her father, and that Torvald had no part in it. Nora attempts to destroy her reputation, but all the while she is protecting that of her husband’s because she knows in this type of society that if he were to even be suspected of such a crime his status would fall as low as a criminal’s. Status is also very important, because it was get defined by reputation/honor and that a higher status was always strived for in this type of society. Another example in which the protection of one’s reputation reveals itself as a motif is when Nora threatens to kill herself, but Krogstad replies by saying he would expose her crime and therefore ruining her reputation. This threat by Krogstad causes Nora to think twice, because every member of a Victorian society wants to die with great respect rather than that of a criminal with no dignity. By studying these different events that occurred in Act II, it could be concluded that with the motif of character’s trying to protect their reputation lies a theme that one will act accordingly to protect/improve their social image.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis on how characters will endeavor to do anything merely to save their reputation. Its funny how this is prevalent in our society today. We often see how crimes are committed to protect reputation. It almost makes me wonder what life would be like if judgement wasn't in the world. Particularly in the Doll's House, the children set a great example of how when individuals don't care about how they act out, they are able to be joyful and free.
DeleteWhile I was reading the play, i also found this ongoing motif of the characters. But i believe the best character that shows this motif the best is Torvald, the father of the Helmer family. All throughout the play it appears that Helmer's actions all revolve around him increasing or protecting his pride. This is shown when Nora tries to convince Helmer to not fir Krogstad and he strongly replies saying "What's that you say? Petty? Do you think I'm petty" (43). Helmer clearly shows through this passive aggresive dialogue his attempts to protect his pride. Anyways, nice analysis, it helped me find how this also applied to the other characters.
DeleteHelmer: Oh nothing! As long as the little woman gets her own stubborn way...! Do you want me to make myself a laughing stock in the office?... Give the people the idea that I'm susceptible to any kind of outside pressure? You can imagine how to soon I’d feel the consequence of that!
ReplyDeleteThis quote by Helmer exemplifies the sexism, hypocrisy, and pridefulness of the Victorian era. Helmer and Nora are arguing over letting Krogstad keep his job and neither of them want to back down “As long as the little woman gets her own stubborn way”(49). While he’s also being incredibly stubborn Helmer angrily remarks that Nora is being stubborn, while she’s been pleading and he’s been yelling. Torvald feels that he’s in the right not only out of pride but do to the fact that Nora is a woman. Torvald’s even calls Nora a little woman in a petty way to demean her and her argument because he, and society, feel he should be in control and his opinion shouldn’t be questioned as much as Nora did. Torvald is also very fearful of the opinions of others “Do you want me to make myself a laughing stock in the office?... Give the people the idea that I'm susceptible to any kind of outside pressure?” (49). Torvald feels that he can’t back down to keep up his appearance as a strong leader which speaks great lengths of Victorian culture and how much appearance matters. What’s really important to Torvald is not marriage but his self esteem Torvald reflects Victorian culture with his shallow behavior.
I really liked your analysis and I agree with what you discussed in your analysis. Another quote that would fit with your analysis is during the conversation between Mrs. Linde and Nora. Nora says "Kristine! Hush! There's Torvald back. Look, you go and sit there beside the children for the time being. Torvald can't stand the sight of mending lying about. Get Anne Marie to help you" (II.40) This quote also relates to what you discussed about becuase Torvald doesn’t like to see sewing in his home, which is why Nora tells Mrs. Linde to leave. This tells us that Torvald likes the idea and the appearance of a beautiful, carefree wife who does not have to work but rather serves as a showpiece. His treatment of Nora as a doll shows that his character trait seems to be static and that he doesn't seem to be hiding anything. Nora's stubborn attitude is also seen throughout Act II as she tries to follow the exact rules and standards of her husband so that in return he rewards her by letting Krogstad keep his job. I thought that your analysis was well done.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteRank
With death stalking beside me?--To have to pay this penalty for another man's sin? Is there any justice in that? And in every single family, in one way or another, some such inexorable retribution is being exacted--
Nora
[putting her hands over her ears]
Rubbish! Do talk of something cheerful.
Rank
Oh, it's a mere laughing matter, the whole thing. My poor innocent spine has to suffer for my father's youthful amusements.
In this quote Dr. Rank explains that the reason for his disease is because of his father’s moral corruption.This is referred to when Rank says that his father contracted syphilis, which was a major health issue at the time because of the prevalence of unprotected sex, and the fact that syphilis can be contracted through hereditary means. Since syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease and sex was not condoned in Victorian society it is safe to assume that, had this been known about Rank’s father, he would have been considered extremely morally corrupt. This carries the idea of corruption of the moral kind being passed on from parent to child. This also shows how important both morals and parenting were to the Victorian people. Having a connection to a person who was known to be considered as morally corrupt was very harmful to a person’s reputation which was the most important thing to people at the time. This fear of reputation loss through association and corruption is prevalent throughout the book. Nora exhibits this fear when she hears Torvald talk about how Krogstad supposedly passed on moral corruption to his children. She then becomes worried that she’ll cause her children to become morally afflicted because of her. This causes her to have anxiety over her secret loan with the bank. Also since the signature she used on the loan was fake, she committed a crime and felt morally bankrupt. This combined with the restriction of the society made Nora almost have a mental breakdown.
“Nora: That’s just it. You have never understood me… I’ve been greatly wronged, Torvald. First by my father, and then by you.
ReplyDeleteHelmer: What! Us two! The two people who loved you more than anybody?
Nora: You two never loved me. You only thought how nice it was to be in love with me.
Helmer: But, Nora, what’s this you are saying?
Nora: It’s right , you know, Torvald. 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 liked it. He use 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…”
In Act III of A Doll’s House, readers get to see a different side of Nora. We get to see the reasoning behind all of her crazy actions. She comments on gender roles and how she feels as if she has never been loved by her husband, because he does not know the real her. She uses a metaphor by comparing herself to a doll, and how she was “played with”. She does not feel understood by any men because they do not like her rebellious nature. Men only see her as an object (Torvald sees her as a bird, and her father a doll) and ooze superiority. Nora says that Torvald only thought about “how nice it was to be in love with her”, meaning that he only like the appearance of Nora, not her actual personality. It makes more sense now why Nora always tries to make Torvald believe that she follows his rules and is compliant, when she actually has a mind of her own. When Nora finally stands up for herself, I feel like I can understand her better, and I do not feel as angry about her actions because she has reasons for them. After Torvald is so mean to Nora, I understand why she did not want to anger him. His comments were very surprising and terrible, so Nora had been so fake towards Torvald to avoid what happened when he found out about her real self.
In Act three of “A Doll’s House” Ibsen portrays Helmer’s character as a completely different character than he in the previous acts. In the beginning of the play, Helmer is very laid-back with limited worries. However, it becomes evident in act three that when something is presented to him that is a slight bit stressful, his true personality shows. Gender roles in the Victorian society are prominent in this act. On page 76, Helmer states, “...I should have seen it coming. All your father’s irresponsible ways are coming out in you. No religion, no morals, no sense of duty…. Oh, this is my punishment for turning a blind eye to him….”
ReplyDeleteBesides the fact that Helmer is totally talking down upon Nora’s father, he is also insulting her at the same time. He doesn’t try and support or help Nora with the situation, but instead attempts to make her feel unimportant and foolish. Even when Nora thought that she was making a kind gesture and trying to save him. Shortly after this scene, Helmer discovers that there is no problem after all and attempts to have things go back to the way they were before he had said all those horrible things about Nora. He states, “You try and get some rest, and set your mind at peace again, my frightened little song-bird. Have a good long sleep; you know you are safe and sound under my wing”(78).
Here Helmer is in a way contradicting himself because just minutes ago he was criticizing and belittling Nora and certainly not making her feel safe, if anything she would have been frightened of his actions. Then he explains how she can always feel safe with him. Helmer’s possessive trait also becomes evident in this scene when he explains how Nora can always feel ‘safe under his wing’ because he is suggesting that Nora should always go to him for support and help with anything. Taking one under another’s wing implies you are caring for them. It is also entailed that he thinks of her as a bird which is not only an animal, proving that he sees her as inferior, but a very small and insignificant animal proposing that she cannot provide on her own, she needs assistance. In this time period, male dominance is noticeable and is a contributing factor as to why Helmer feels comfortable treating Nora as less significant than himself.
“Nora: Just to do some sewing on my dress. Good Lord, how absurd you are! Now Dr. Rank, cheer up. You’ll see tomorrow how nicely I can dance. And you can pretend I’m doing it just for you-and for Torvald as well, of course. Come here, Dr. Rank. I want to show you something.
ReplyDeleteRank: What is it?
Nora: Look!
Rank: Silk stockings.
Nora: Flesh-coloured! Aren’t they lovely! Of course, it’s dark in here now, but tomorrow… No, no, no, you can only look at the feet. Oh well, you might as well see a bit higher up too.
Rank: Hm…”(Act II page. 47).
I find this quote to incredibly interesting especially when considering the context of the play, because of Nora’s actions and how she misleads Dr. Rank. She begins by cheering Dr. Rank up by saying she would dance for him, and then reveals an unbelievable part of her body. In this time period it is important to note that the fashion of women was to be heavily dressed and reveal no part of their body to a man who is not their husband. Nora disregards this fact of context, and shows Dr. Rank not only her stockings on her feet, but go continues to reveal more of her body to Dr. Rank. These actions break all social customs, and because of that, Dr. Rank gets misled by Nora into thinking she is flirting with him. This would then ultimately result in Dr. Rank confessing his love for Nora, who does not share the same feelings. It is also important to know that it would have been very probable that Dr. Rank would not have confessed his love for Nora if she had not lead him on into thinking she had the same feelings for him by flirting with him.
I agree with your analysis, I also was shocked when I read this. As you said the shocking part is that Nora who claims to be so much in love with Helmer and was willing to put herself at risk for him and be in danger of getting black mailed, willingly showed him parts of her body that are not appropriate to be seen in this time and for a married women. This just shows her rebellious characteristics and this has been proved by not only this incident and also the fact that she has taken a loan too which in this time was not acceptable without the permission of the husband.
ReplyDelete-Hajir Hosseini, Period 5
Mrs. Linde: Without working I couldn’t live. All my life I have worked, for as long as i can remember; that has always been my one great joy. But 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 somebody and something to work for (64).
ReplyDeleteThis passage in Act 3 of A Doll’s House sets up the future contrast between Nora and Mrs. Linde’s different endings. While Mrs. Linde decided to reunite with a former lover and work for them them and their family, Nora decided that she must leave her husband and her family, both did this in order to find happiness. Mrs. Linde is characterized as a workaholic, and represent women of the Victorian age who worked in order to feel complete and were breadwinners, and chose their life. On the other hand Nora represents the women in the Victorian era who were forced into their positions and have little say what to do with their lives and seek more with their lives. Kristine’s workaholic nature is evident in that, in most of the scenes looking for a job or performing some task, like fixing Nora’s dress. She lives to work and believes that her life is empty without it. When an opportunity to reunite with Krogstad arises it comes to question whether or not she’s using Krogstad so she has someone to take care of, fulfilling her desire to work and be a breadwinner, or if she was still in love with her. Nora’s one that looks for excitement and tries to find fulfillment in various ways, working jobs, flirting with Dr. Rank, doing things that would go against societal standards. Nora’s emptiness ultimately leads her to leave her family in order to find happiness, because she feels restricted in her environment and realizes living for herself would lead her closer to what she seek. These characters reflect 2 separate paths to happiness that the women in the story take.
“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.”
Included at the end of A Doll’s House, there is an alternate ending. I thought this was very interesting, but after reading the alternate ending, I understood the reasoning behind the ending. The play was about a woman finding herself and breaking free from social bonds, which was very against the norms of the time period. Many people did not agree with what the play represented, so they must have requested an alternate ending. In the alternate ending, Torvald forces Nora to see her children before she leaves, and she agrees to stay so her children won’t be motherless, like she was. She admits that she will be “sinning against herself”, meaning that she will forever be unhappy and will not be free. Personally, I did not like this ending because it seemed very abrupt, as opposed to the longer ending in the real book. Also, the message of the book is completely lost in the alternate ending. The theme of the play is a woman’s liberation, and liberation cannot take place without Nora leaving the house. The whole play built up and foreshadows Nora leaving Helmer, and it is confusing to readers to change that. There is no point to the play with the alternate ending and A Doll’s House is not as strong with it included. Another thing that surprised me is that Nora would be willing to leave her children so willingly, and then would change her mind so quickly. At the beginning of the book, she was even asking her Nursemaid if she would take care of her children if she left! The differences between the alternate ending and the real ending show that the real ending presents the theme in a more accurate way.
I agree that the alternate ending was abrupt and didn't serve the purpose of the play. It is slightly ironic how an entire play written to enhance the importance of women independence can be overlooked to the point of a new ending being created because the society of that time couldn't settle with a woman taking charge and making the decisions in her own life.
DeleteOne of the most profound themes I found in “A Doll's House” appeared most clear for me upon reading Act III. This theme is the gender role bias, and how men think of women in this specific period. In Act III there are numerous examples of this theme appearing, especially when Torvald speaks to his “little skylark” of a wife Nora. In one scene right after the party, Torvald speaks to Nora as if she is an object and does not respect her as a human being when he calls says to her “Can’t I look at my most treasured possession? At all this loveliness that’s mine and mine alone, completely and utterly mine”(Act III pg. 69). In here Torvald completely disregards the fact that rather than a treasure Nora is a human, and he continues on with treating her as if she is a trophy by claiming he owns her and no one else possesses her. The perspective men have on women get even worse, as later on in their conversation in this scene, Torvald attempts to receive sexual pleasure out of her by almost forcing her to obey him, and when she refuses he says “What’s this? It’s just your little game isn’t it, my little Nora Won’t! Won’t! Am I not your husband…?(Act III pg. 70). This statement made by Torvald the husband then implies as the husband of Nora he has the absolute right/power to get what he wants from her despite her refusal. With a dehumanization perspective from men in this time period it makes me glad I live in 21st century where male domination over women is not as present as it used to be.
ReplyDeleteVery intrigue analysis! I agree that gender role bias is a very prevalent theme in "A Doll's House." However, I do not think that the theme is any more profound in this act than any other. For example, you referenced Torvald's "little skylark" nickname by which he calls her. This is not the first time he uses animal diction to describe her (he uses it in both acts one and two as well) nor is it the first time he mentions that specific phrase. Undeniably though, gender bias is a very profound theme (possibly the most important in the play) and it dominates the ending, ultimately causing Nora to take the extreme action of abandoning her husband and even more shocking: her kids.
Delete“Does that make you happy now? There, there, don’t look at me with those eyes, like a frightened little dove. Why don’t you run through the tarantella and try out the tambourine?”(44).
ReplyDeleteIn act two, I am astonished by the huge estrangement between genders and amount of male dominance during the Victorian era. I found it very interesting how the author’s word choice can play such a ginormous part in how something may present itself. For example, ‘like a frightened dove’. When Helmer says this, he does not mean to necessarily deride Nora, but that is how it comes across to the reader. By using animal diction Helmer is automatically dehumanizing Nora because by comparing her to a tiny and somewhat insignificant animal compared to a human comes to show how he simply portrays her as nothing more than inconsequential. This clearly presents that men were highly prominent compared to women of this time because it was acceptable for men to use detracting language towards women and get away with it. However, if a woman were to act the same way towards a man, it would go against society’s norms. I found it ironic that Nora took eight years to realize that there was a significant separation between her and Helmer in the roles of their relationship. Another thing that I found interesting was how a lot of Helmer’s questions imply that he actually wants Nora to do something over another. For instance, he says ‘why don’t you run through the tarantella and try out the tambourine?’. He is wanting her to do that, but asking her a question as if she has a choice. And being the type of woman that they were in Victorian time, Nora did not have much room to make a decision based on what she really wanted to do. This is why Helmer asks nicely because he knows that he has the power in the relationship and Nora will do what he wants in the end anyway. Overall, there are definitely clear examples, some more than others, as to how men are dominant in this time period.
This is my blog for the quote from act two because I blogged about act three last time***
DeleteIs A Doll's House a play with a humanist or a feminist approach? Act 3 of A Doll’s House illustrates that A Doll’s house is a feminist play due to how both central conflicts in the story are resolved through women breaking societal rules and expectations and making decisions through their own accord. The first conflict between rogstad and the Helmer’s is resolved through the actions of Mrs. Linde. Kristine resolves the conflict through her will to work and provide for her family. She reunites with her ex lover Krogstad so she can take care of him and his children, taking his job at the bank where Helmer works. This would put Krogstad out of jeopardy of being homeless na dallow mrs. Linde to take care of a family, which she relishes. In the Victorian Era women working alongside her husband was considered taboo and a women being the breadwinner completely went against all societal norms. Men were expected to provide for their families and women took care of children, while Krogstad and Kristine’s relationship would actually be the complete opposite do to their view going against the norm. Their decision is both extremely brave and risky as they could be seen as outcasts. The next conflict was between Nora and Torvald, especially his diminutive treatment of her. In the last scene after realizing she and her husband are not in a true loving relationship, Nora decides to leave torvald and her children to live for herself. Nora is expected to always listen to her husband and take care of her children yet in she refuses Torvald requests and decides that she wants to go on her own. Throughout the play Torvald had treated Nora almost like a child, he used animal diction to degrade her and thought very lowly of her. Nora leaving was the only way to resolve their problems and by having the bravery to break societal norm she did so.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the idea that A Doll's House takes on a feminist approach. Through both the relationship conflicts, the women are presented as powerful and influential in taking initiative to make their own decisions. I find it interesting how the author, Ibsen, has the courage to bring about such a topic when the rest of society seems to go against it. There is a quote by Nora, which is ironic: "I know most people agree with you, Torvald, and that's also what it says in books. But I'm not content any more with what most people say, or with what it says in books" (82). This quote is ironic in that Nora is saying that books say that wives should belong to their husbands, but Ibsen presents feminism in this play, which belongs to the category of "what it says in books."
DeleteIn the play “A Doll’s House” I find that one of the most interesting aspects of it is the title of the play. Towards the ending of the play, the word doll first appears, as that is how Nora describes what she is in regards to Torvald and her father’s perspective. This then implies that Nora understands that she is not viewed as an actual human being with rights/intelligence of her own, but rather just a valuable possession. Helmer’s view of Nora is almost most clear in those quote when he says,
ReplyDelete“Helmer. Can’t I look at my most treasured possession? At all this loveliness that’s mine and mine alone, completely and utterly mine” (Act III page. 69).
Along with this quote it not only proves Nora’s point that she nothing but a prized item to Helmer, but that she is owned by him, rather than being her own independent human being. With this idea of Nora not being her own person in mind, the metaphor of her living as Helmer’s doll would then make sense. Nora’s choices are constantly overruled by Helmer will, and she can only live the life he wants her to. She is not her own human being, and lives under the rules of Helmer with almost no free will. A prime example of this is when Helmer restricts Nora from eating any macaroons. With all of this evidence summed up, and placed in Nora’s perspective of how she views herself in the eyes of others, the title of the play makes a lot of sense.
One thing that I found very prevalent throughout the whole play was the idea of appearances. It seemed as though all of the characters in the play were extremely worried about what others would think about them. First, this is seen through Helmer, who is very set on following social conduct. When Nora discusses letting Krogstad keep his job at the bank, Helmer says, “Do you want me to make myself a laughing stock at the office?... Give people the idea that I am susceptible to any kind of outside pressure? You imagine how soon I’d feel the consequences of that!” (II). Helmer obviously cares more about how others look at him than his wife’s preferences. He would rather see his wife unhappy than have other people think he is weak. He wants to appear powerful to other people and assert dominance. Also, Nora cares a lot about appearances. Although she is not happy in her current situation, she pretends to be the wife that Helmer wants her to be. This is seen in the first act when Torvald asks Nora if she bought any macaroons, which Nora is not allowed to eat. She lies and tells him that she hasn’t eaten any macaroons. Nora wants Helmer to think that she is the perfect wife and is obedient to him, but in reality she is hiding behind a mask of falseness. Nora’s attitude when she is talking to Helmer is much different from her actions such as lying and forgery. Finally, Dr. Rank cares about his appearance. It is known that he has syphilis, but he always says that he has “tuberculosis of the spine”. Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease, so he does not want anyone to know that he has it because he does not want to risk his reputation. At the end of the play, he even locks himself up in his home when he is sure that he is going to die so no one can see him looking sickly. All of these characters represent the ideals of the Victorian society and show that appearances were important.
ReplyDeleteI really liked that you connected the motif of appearances to a lot of different characters in the play. One character who I think you could also connect this motif to is Krogstad. Krogstad is in an interesting position- he has already lost his standing in society and is trying to get his appearance to improve. Despite how hard he has worked, and how much he has cleaned up his act, people like Helmer who refuse to change their opinion of others hold Krogstad back from truly being able to shed his bad reputation
DeleteOverall in the play “A Doll’s House” Ibsen shows the change in roles within the men and woman of the Victorian era. At the beginning of the play it is very evident that the women are inferior to the men of their society. This was common and seen as the norm, so many women decided to stick to playing their part in their society because they didn't want to be looked down upon or judged. For example, in act 1 Nora says to Helmer, “I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to”(5). Nora is playing the part of the traditional wife and mother so that her and Helmer’s relationship and life together always seems put together and healthy. If she fakes it for long enough, maybe it will become real. In act three she states, “We have now been married eight years. Hasn't it struck you this is the first time you and I, man and wife, have had a serious talk together?”(79). Nora realizes here that she had been trying to fit a mold for everyone except herself. She sees now that she has been faking it for so long that she realizes she never had an equal part in the relationship to begin with. The change in her role is evident at the end when she decides that she is leaving because she needs to find herself and learn to rely on someone other than Helmer. She writes, “... I can at any rate free you from all responsibility. You must not feel in any way bound, any more than I shall. There must be full freedom on both sides. Look, here’s your ring back. Give me mine”(85). This is in a sense a little bit selfish due to her having to leave her children, but it is what she needs to do for herself. Helmer says, “You are talking like a child. You understand nothing about the society you live in”(83). Here he is getting concerned because he doesn’t know any life without a woman. He is attempting to guilt her into staying and make her feel like she cannot live without him because of his personal fear of what others will think of him.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your analysis. I noticed that too as well with how towards the end it pretty much contradicts what society believed in during that time. I feel that even though leaving the children she raised was an selfish act, it was the right thing to do because Torvald treats Nora like her "doll," and if you recall Nora describes her own children as "her little dolls." Seeing this she feels like if she is there any longer, they will follow the steps as their father. I really liked your analysis and found it interesting that we both had similar ideas.
DeleteIn A Doll’s House a theme that secrets cause problems is made when present when once all the secrets are unraveled the play comes to a resolution. Once Helmer receives knowledge of Nora’s forgery the play's resolution begins. Torvald begins to insult Nora and his true character is revealed. Torvald’s shown to be incredibly prideful, misogynistic, and how lowly he views his wife. While Torvalds character was hinted at through dialogue, yet it wasn't entirely revealed. Torvald doesn't know that Krogstad decided to stop blackmailing. This use of dramatic irony, allowed for the reader to have a greater understanding of how Torvald views Nora. Torvald sees Nora as one would view a highly groomed and trained pet. Nora must obey him and if she doesn't she loses value to him. Torvald does not really love her but wishes to keep her by his side to flaunt. After Torvald lambasts her, Nora is revealed the secret of how he views her causing her to want to leave. Nora realizes that she is living for Torvald and not for herself. This leads her way to leave Torvald. She sees that Torvald views her as a doll, to dress and play with but not love. Nora realizes that this type of relationship is very unhealthy and that she can not go one being Torvald’s doll.
ReplyDelete