Victorian culture portrayed women as inferior to men. Beauty was seen as an important aspect by the middle to upper class society and secrecy was predominant to promote the importance of physical outlooks. Throughout “A Doll’s House”, Nora Helmer plays the role of an innocent and naive wife of a wealthy man, Torvald, but underneath the mask she personates lies many secrets. From the beginning, Torvald addresses her as “little” and often compares her to a songbird, literally belittling and dehumanizing her character and making her seem no more impactful than a doll or a pet. The symbolism of a songbird may also refer to perfection and the idea of women portraying a pure persona to please society’s expectations back then. At the end of Act 1, she is worried Mr. Krogstad will bring her forged signature to court and expose the lie she has created. Nora commands the maid to bring the Christmas tree into the room for her to decorate. While she dresses the tree with beautiful ornaments and flowers, she begins to feel distracted and becomes worried of the situation she has put herself in. The act of decorating the tree represent putting on a mask for society while her struggle to finish placing the decorations refers to the exhaustion of pleasing others.
I definitely agree with your analysis of Helmer's belittling nature and how that portrays the societal normalities of the time. The use of animal diction reminds me of the Taming of the Shrew because women were often juxtaposed with animals in that play as well as a satire of the gender roles in the 16th century. Before reading this, I couldn't find the significance of the Christmas tree, but I understand where you're coming from when you talk about conformity to social standards and Nora's struggle with it.
I agree with your analysis of how woman were inferior to men and were commonly dehumanized. I believe Torvald is also naive because he is too blind to see that his wife is keeping secrets from him. He depicts her as an innocent traditional wife, when really she is not. I thought that your idea about the Christmas tree was interesting and did not originally interpret it the same as you, but I do agree with your perspective and think that she has the struggle of pleasing others.
In Act 1 of Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, we can see the way in which Nora Helmer talks to her husband, Torvald Helmer, and another woman named Mrs. Kristine Linde. During the times of this play, men served as the authoritative figure in the family, and women were expected to submit. Not only can we see how Nora directly submits to her husband in front of him through the use of submissive diction, but also how Nora indirectly submits to Torvald while talking to other people in the play. In Nora and Torvald’s conversation early on in the play, we can see the use of this submissive language as Nora is acting defensively against the accusing Torvald. When asked if she ate any of the macaroons, Nora quickly denied and replied, “I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to”(i.5). She is extremely submissive towards Torvald, making sure that she doesn’t do anything that he doesn’t want her to or upset him. Also in this conversation, Nora asks for money as her Christmas present. However, she does it in a way so that she does not anger Torvald. She asks for money while “toying with his coat buttons, and without looking at him” (i.4). Her actions imply that she is nervous about talking about this kind of subject with her husband, and it could also suggest that she might use the money for mischievous affairs. Ibsen also displays Nora’s submission to her husband while she talks to other characters in the play, specifically when talking to Kristine Linde. Nora talks about how she will wait to tell her husband that she secretly borrowed money without his consent, waiting until “Torvald isn’t quite so much in love with [her] as he is now, when he’s lost interest in watching [her] dance, or get dressed up, or recite” (i.15). She degrades herself by saying that Torvald will eventually loose interest in her.
Henrik Ibsen uses childish diction to characterize women as children during the Victorian era in his play, “A Doll’s House”. Throughout Act one, Nora speaks of her past money problems and gloats about her new, higher status. In the beginning, she spends a long time begging her husband for money. She claims that it is for shopping and Torvald repeatedly tells her that she is wasting their money. Her language is very submissive and upon getting frustrated she’ll say things like “Pooh”. These outbursts are very childlike and reflect her inability to handle a bad situation. Her monetary struggles and childlike outbursts are ironic because later in act one she reveals that she is the one that has been covering the costs of her husband’s treatment. While both her husband and father were ill, Nora seeked out a loan and uses the money Torvald gives her for installments on that loan. Not only was she able to solve her family’s problems and get her husband healthy, she also uses the money that Torvald gives her to ensure that all of her payments are made on time. She is also clever enough to keep this whole arrangement a secret from her husband. This shows that she can handle a crisis and understands the power dynamic that existed in the Victorian era in a marriage. Married women at this time were often treated as children and never expected to solve any problems, especially those pertaining to money. Although Nora is characterized by childish diction, she reveals the irony of this by handling her family’s finances and maintaining her image as a helpless housewife in order to please her husband.
By the end of the first act, Nora has been characterized as a generally caring but childish woman. She is polite to her guest and old friend, Christine, constantly apologizing for any sort of behavior she showed that could be even slightly rude. This was a standard of the time, as manners were weighed heavily to judge the class of an individual and their family. Obviously trying to make herself look as polite and kind as possible, no one would guess that she too has skeletons in her closet. Nora took out a loan to take her husband on vacation to Italy in order to help him heal, claiming she got the money from her father. Alone, receiving a loan behind her husband’s back was considered inappropriate. A man is supposed to be the sole provider of the family; Nora taking the money indirectly belittles her husband’s authority. The other major issue with Nora taking the loan stems from the fact that she forged her father’s signature on the loan. Along with being illegal, it is dishonest. Krogstad knows that Nora forged the signature, so he threatens to reveal her to the public. The combination of legal and moral wrongdoing would ruin the family, because appearance is everything and Nora would be painted in the worst light possible. Nora’s fears are made even worse when talking to her husband. He convinces her that Krogstad is immoral due to how his mother was, and now he will corrupt his children, as “Practically all juvenile delinquents come from homes where the mother is dishonest” (Ibsen I. 33). This is a form of dramatic irony, as Helmer is unknowingly telling Nora that she is corrupting her children. The audience knows that Nora is dishonest, and she herself knows that she is dishonest. This dishonesty could ruin her family in so many different ways, Nora feels that she has to distance herself from her family. This is evidenced by how she told the maid to not bring the children to her.
In act 2 of Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, we can observe a slow degradation of Nora Helmer’s situation. We even saw a hint to this decline at the end of act 1 when Torvald emphasizes the corruptive nature of bad parents on their children. At the end of act 1, Nora shows her uncertainty and denial by saying “Corrupt my children…! Poison my home? It’s not true! It could never, never be true!” (i.34). Nora’s instability becomes more apparent as act 2 progresses. We can see another step in decline when Nora says “Yes, Anne Marie, from now on I can’t be with them as often as I was before” (ii.36). She is already starting to distance herself from her kids within the same day that she heard those warning comments from Torvald. In addition, Nora uses begging language when Torvald is about to check the mail and see Krogstad’s possible letter that would inform Torvald of Nora’s forgery when borrowing money. She pleads to Torvald, “You must devote yourself exclusively to me this evening. Pens away! Forget all about the office! Promise me, Torvald dear!” (ii.57). The use of begging language characterizes Nora as a desperate individual who is trying to save a crumbling and failing situation. At the end of act 2, we can see how Nora has almost given up hope, saying “Then the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live” (ii.61). When the tarantella is over, Nora assumes that Torvald will proceed to check the mail and read Krogstad’s letter. It makes it seem as though she is planning the end of her life, or possibly even suicide.
I agree with your analysis and actually blogged on something similar to this point. I believe that in the end of Act 2 Nora goes through a large character change. Up until this point she has believed that because her motives for breaking the law were good and because she is a “nice” person with three children, nothing bad could ever happen to her and nobody would ever purposefully hurt her in any way. She continues believing that until the part that you mentioned when she is counting down the hours until her life is “over”. I think this shows how she is being exposed to the harshness of the real world and is no longer protected by her illusions that nothing bad happens to good people like herself.
Henrik Ibsen uses flirtatious diction in act two of his play, “A Doll’s House”, to convey the theme of deception. Dr. Rank is supposedly Helmer’s best friend and yet in this scene he confesses that he's always loved Nora, his wife. The betrayal of his best friend contributes to the theme of deception. Nora, however, isn't completely innocent in her relationship with Dr. Rank. She leads him on with her undressing and flirting. Nora has mentioned throughout the play that Dr. Rank makes regular visits. In this time period, it was highly inappropriate for another man to be alone with a married woman. Nora makes it clear that she is more than comfortable in his presence and even contemplates telling him her secret about forging the signature. This kind of trust and flirtatious behavior isn’t rare for Nora, however. She has already shared her secret with Kristine and acts very friendly toward nearly all of the characters. Nora acts more innocently than Dr. Rank because she brings up Torvald several times during her conversation with Dr. Rank. She almost pretends that she doesn’t know an affair with another man is a bad thing. This, again, characterizes her as a child. She also shows him her stockings which can be construed as a sexual reference but it can also just be Nora’s way of feeling valued. Women of the time were appreciated for little other than their looks and Nora constantly mentions how pretty she thinks she is. Regardless, it is still highly inappropriate for her to be flirting with another man and for Dr. Rank to not only reciprocate but take it to the next level by confessing her love. This flirtatious relationship adds to the theme of deception.
I agree with your proposal of Nora being a purile teen. She is disloyal to her husband and have no consideration for the consequences. She seems similar to a person who has the mindset of "now" (present) rather than a person who thinks of the future. I had a similar analysis with your saying her inability of thinking about the future and her immaturity of acting as an adult. The way she reveals her intentions, unconsciously, to murder Krogstad in front of him proven she is a child.
In Act 2, I noticed examples of possessing and commanding diction which emphasizes the lack of power of the women in Victorian culture. For example, when Krogstad and Nora discuss his terms and threatens to put the letter in the box, Nora refuses to accept that her whole life is in Krogstad’s hands. Krogstad opposes this and says, “Have you forgotten that it is I who have the keeping of your reputation?” (II. 45). As I read their conservations, I noticed Krogstad does not hesitate to destroy her social status. He uses violent tones to exaggerate his ownership of her reputation. Nora feels completely helpless in the situation she has put herself in. Her desperation to save herself from exposure by asking Ms. Linde to be her witness can create more problems in the end that may return with unpleasant effects. Foreshadowing and death diction also takes place when Nora makes her husband promise that he will give her his full attention later that evening. Helmer then replies, “This evening I will be wholly and absolutely at your service, you helpless little mortal.” (II. 47). Helmer again (literally) belittles her by calling her “helpless” and “little”, making her think she is unstable without him. It is a little odd he calls her mortal in this quote which refers to her death. This may represent the future death of her reputation and marriage. Nora has already contemplated on committing suicide when she admits it to Krogstad. He says, “So that if the thought of it has driven you to any desperate resolution-” and Nora confides, “It has.” (II. 46). At this point, Nora is so close to giving up that she might as well die so she does not have to deal with this issue. She cannot reveal her secret to others since her family’s name may be ruined. It seems to me that trying to keep up the high standards of society’s idea of perfection in Victorian times is too difficult in the Helmer household.
In Act 2, Ibsen uses dance and dismal diction to discuss the topic of death, and how people come to terms with it. Nora’s tarantella is quite literally a final dance, as she intends to commit suicide once the dance is over. Fittingly, Dr. Rank plays the piano for Nora during her rehearsal of the dance. Both characters are nearing death; Nora by suicide and Rank by disease. However, how they choose to spend the last moments of their lives are different. The tarantella is a fast tempoed, upbeat type of Italian folk dance. It symbolizes happiness, suggesting that Nora wants to have some sort of happiness in her last moments of life. This is also supported by the fact that Nora had learned the dance while with her husband in Italy, a trip that apparently saved his life; in a sense juxtaposing life and death with a single dance. Dr. Rank, on the other hand, decides that he would rather spend his last moments alone, “I’ll lock the door on / him. - As soon as I’m absolutely certain of the worst, I’ll send you / my visiting card with a black cross on it. You’ll know when the final / horrible disintegration has begun” (Ibsen. II. pg 45). Rank chooses to spare his best friend, and the woman he loves, of seeing him descend into lifelessness. It is a much lonelier and depressing option, but it is the one he chooses. Ibsen uses words like “horrible disintegration” to expand on the notion of death. Death is the act of leaving the world behind, to disintegrate the mind, soul, or whatever else someone may choose to believe ties them to Earth. Both characters are obviously upset about leaving their lives behind, but Torvald is more accepting of his fate, beginning his isolation before his death. That isn’t to say Nora isn’t wrong in choosing to spend her final moments distracting herself with joyous music and dance. Her choice is her own, and that is what Ibsen is trying to say; with so little control over one’s life, they should at least get the ability to plan their death
Your analysis was really complete! The connections you made between life and death were very interesting. Also I really liked the juxtaposing of life and death with the dance, Nora learned during their trip to Italy. Your analysis shows the different ways people take death, either by enjoying the last moments and accepting their fate or by choosing to spend their lat moments regretting their life and being depressed and I think this is a very interesting topic. -Hajir Hosseini, Period 5
NORA. “Five. Seven hours to midnight. Then twenty-four hours till the next midnight. Then the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live.” (ii.61)
In act 2 of Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, we can see parallel ideas between Nora Helmer and Dr. Rank, especially with this quote. In this act, Nora’s situation continues to decline and become worse. However, we can also see how this connects to Dr. Rank’s situation. Rank is suffering from “tuberculosis of the spine” which his synonymous with syphilis. During a conversation between Rank and Nora, Rank frequently makes references that connect so well to Nora’s life that she cannot stand to hear anymore of it. Towards the end of the act, it becomes apparent that Nora is starting to loose hope when she says the above quote. At the beginning of Rank and Nora’s exchange, Rank uses pessimistic diction when he talks about how he is suffering from “tuberculosis of the spine” and how he is “slowly sinking” and that “there’s nothing to be done about it” (ii.45), referencing his propinquity to death. Also, Rank mentions how he is suffering “for another man’s sins” (ii.45). This refers to how his parents contracted syphilis and then passed it on to their children, one of who was Rank. However, after Rank says this, Nora immediately tries to cheer him up and plugs up her ears because she cannot stand how much this relates to how she thinks she is “poisoning” her own children with her mischievous actions. Later in the act, we can see how Nora’s situation reflects that of Rank, when Nora says “Then the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live” (ii.61). The author uses depressing language to describe Nora’s feelings about her declining situation. Just like how Rank lost hope in life, Nora is beginning to reflect some of those qualities by saying how she does not have much time to live. This quote is important because it reflects Nora’s current state and sets the fast-paced and dramatic mood for the rest of the play, as time now plays a role in Nora’s “survival”.
I found your analysis very insightful. I hadn't made the connection that Nora didn't want to listen because it related to her so much. However I don't feel that your description of Nora "poisoning her own children with her mischievous actions". I think that this would imply that her actions are having an immediate impact upon the children, when in reality she is risking her ability to take care of them. Other than that I thought that you had a very intriguing analysis of Nora and Rank's interation.
Henrik Ibsen uses the macaroons to represent Nora’s lack of self control, the importance of physical appearance and deception in his play, “A Doll’s House”. On the first page of the play Nora is preparing the house for Christmas when Ibsen writes, “She takes a bag of macaroons out of her pocket and eats one or two; then she walks stealthily across and listens at her husband’s door”(I.i). This is the first appearance of the macaroons in the play. This clearly shows Nora’s deceptive side because she keeps them hidden in her pocket and walks “stealthily” to her husband’s door, probably to make sure he’s not coming out of his study. Later in act one she tells Dr. Rank and Kristine “You weren’t to know that Torvald has forbidden them. He’s worried in case they ruin my teeth, you know. Still...what’s it the matter once in a while! Don’t you think so, Dr. Rank? Here! [She pops a macaroon into his mouth.]” (I.i). Torvald has such control over his wife that he has forbidden a food that she clearly really likes. The reason for this, as with many other discomforts in this era, was appearance. Nora claims that Torvald doesn’t want her teeth to rot, however, macaroons aren’t very healthy and a woman’s waist was expected to be extremely small. Nora, continuing her childish behavior, doesn’t have the self control to stop eating them no matter how much she claims to love Torvald. She also doesn’t protest his rules and chooses to eat them in secret. Toward the end of this quote this secrecy is clear when she shoves a macaroon into Dr. Rank’s mouth after he confronts her about disobeying Torvald. She very literally silences him and also uses the macaroon as an incentive to keep quiet. Nora’s inability to give up macaroons or stand up to Torvald shows her lack of self control and power. The macaroons are forbidden to protect Nora’s appearance and her eating them leads to deceptive behavior.
Throughout “A Doll’s House”, the use of foreshadowing emphasizes Nora’s hopelessness in improving her situation. Prevalent mostly in the beginning of Act 2, Nora begins to use negative diction to showcase her pessimism of being able to rid this burden. When she announces that she will be leaving to fetch Mrs. Linde, the nurse persists in letting her leave in the terrible weather. Nora then replies, “Well, worse than that might happen.” (II. 29). This refers to the fact that catching a cold is unparalleled to being exposed to court and her family the wrong she has committed. She then proceeds to blabber about her children and says, “... I shall not be able to be so much with them now as I was before.” (II. 30) which signifies the future absence of her role as a mother and that she will not be able to spend as much time with her children as in the past. The nurse begins to lack certainty on what Nora may be referring her and assures her everything will be alright. Nora, the stubborn and her ability to make others feel the guilt she currently occupies, resumes to feel doubtful when she cries out, “And if my little ones had no mother, I am sure you would- What nonsense I am talking!” (II. 30). At this point, Nora is not able to focus on anything but worry about what her life will be when everyone discovers her secret. She is even mentioning the nurse caring for the children when she disappears from their lives because of her apprehension on her condition.
A Doll’s House reads like the script of a movie about high schoolers. The characters are so overly dramatic they must be children. Nora and Torvald are petty and superficial, Dr. Rank is melodramatic, and Krogstad is pointlessly cruel towards others. I think that Ibsen uses these characters to criticize the very tendencies they hold, and makes them so apparently puerile to cause the readers to not feel as strongly towards them. All Nora and Torvald seem to care about are their appearances, they are the “power couple” of A Doll’s House. Torvald attempts to keep Nora from eating macaroons because they will add to her figure; Nora is seen bragging about how much money her husband makes and how they can do whatever they want now that they have it; Torvald reveals that the real reason he doesn’t want to let Krogstad keep his job is because he is overly familiar to him and it challenges his authoritative position. Everything to them is about their appearance and power within their own little world. Perhaps this was overwhelmingly common in their society, so Ibsen exaggerates how superficial they are just to illustrate the depth of his point to his audience. Dr. Rank is comparable to a teenage girl in his melodramatic tendencies. It’s all very pointlessly over complicated; spending as much time as possible with someone who will never love him back, or at least can never openly reciprocate it; choosing to lock himself in his home before dying instead of cherishing what time he has left. Ibsen probably uses Rank as way to show how emotional men of the era are, despite their macho attitude. Krogstad is just like your average day bully; he threatens, blackmails and is notorious for his moral inadequacies. I feel that in this regard, Ibsen uses Krogstad as a representation of the corruption the society faced
In act 3 of Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, we can see a side of Nora Helmer that we have never seen before in the play. Nora undergoes a catharsis of feelings, as she lets her true beliefs become apparent to Torvald Helmer. Despite previously dreading the idea of Torvald reading the letter from Krogstad, Nora is now actually glad that it happened, as it gave her a reason to separate herself from Torvald. In this act, Nora uses insightful and articulate language to convey her true feelings about her situation. She says “I believe that first and foremost I am an individual, just as much as you are” (iii.82). Nora is finally standing up to Torvald and telling her true thoughts, rather than just agreeing or complying with him. This is just a small part of the lengthy lines that Nora had in this section of the play. She continues to shoot down all of Torvald’s attempts to keep her with him. Not only can this serve as a message for Nora and Torvald, but it also serves as a lesson for anyone and how no one should be unfairly subjected to the rule of another. In addition, we can also see a reversal or roles between Torvald and Nora towards the end of this act. Previously, Nora has always been begging for Torvald to not read the letter that she thought would be the end of her. However, now Torvald is the one begging for Nora not to leave him. At the end of the act, Torvald is left devastated as he shouts out “Nora! Nora” Empty! She’s gone!” (iii.86) with his face in his hands, sinking down into a chair.
At the end of “A Doll’s House”, Nora shocked the audience when she went against her husband and made the decision to leave her family. Her new-found perspective shifted from trusting her instincts and listening to what others ordered her to do into becoming a more reasonable person who sees the fault in Victorian culture and the idea of perfection. By the end of Nora’s and Torvald’s argument, she blames the men in her life, her father and husband, for treating her like a doll. Towards the end, Helmer’s true colors are revealed when he becomes angry at Nora and creates a plan to keep their secret to themselves then quickly changes his mood when he realizes HE is saved. He praises once he read the letter from Krogstad, “Nora! I must read it once again. Yes, it is true! I am saved! Nora, I am saved!” (III. 63). This goes to show the flaw in their marriage and Helmer’s intentions of saving himself from embarrassment. The repetition of “I” also emphasizes this idea since he did not really care if his wife was saved or not. He then continues to say, “...only lean on me; I will advise and direct you.” (III. 64) referring to the fact that he shall be the one who directs her daily routine and support on how to live a stress-free environment. After realizing her role in their marriage, Nora sits him down and tells him her true and honest opinions and point out the weaknesses in their relationship while also explaining how her own father treated her the same way he did. She announces, “When I was at home with Papa he told me his opinion about everything, and so I had the same opinions; and if I differed from him I concealed the fact, because he would not have liked it. He called me his doll child, and he played with me as I used to play with my dolls.” (III. 66). This is a reference to the title, revealing that the doll is herself since she has never been treated as a human being but more like a puppet. She compares her father to Torvald to stress the idea that men has always controlled her everyday decisions and how she has never been able to reach her full potential.
Henrik Ibsen uses the opening and closing of doors in his play, “A Doll’s House”, to contribute to the theme of secrecy and deceit. Throughout the first two acts, doors are nearly always closed immediately following the entry or exit of a character. Act three opens with a secret conversation between Mrs. Linde and Krogstad, in which many revelations are shared. As Krogstad takes his leave, Ibsen writes, “He goes out by the front door. The door out into the hall remains standing open”(III.i). This open door foreshadows the uncovering of a secret. The doors represent physical barriers that stand between each character and the truth. When one is opened, a secret is revealed. Just after Krogstad leaves, Nora and Torvald enter and Mrs. Linde leaves. A knock at the door follows and Dr. Rank enters through the open door. He reveals that his health is in imminent danger and plans says his goodbyes. Helmer then proceeds to his room with the letter that contains a huge secret and closes the door. After he reads the letter, Ibsen writes, “...Helmer flings open his door and stands there with an open letter in his hand”(III.i). Ibsen chose the verb “flings” because it contributes to the emphasis of this particular secret. It also shows how suddenly and unexpected this information came to Torvald. The reveal of this secret causes Nora to leave her entire life behind and has provided the basis of this plot. The reveal of deceit is shown through the use of open and closed doors.
Ibsen attempts to find what makes a person good, and what makes a person bad. Or rather, he tries to illustrate the typical character archetypes in a new light. He does this with multiple “twist endings.” The obvious one being Nora’s decision to leave Torvald, Ibsen also uses Mrs. Linde and Krogstad. These three characters seem to be set in their respective ways throughout the play, but due to the events of the final act they undergo a sort of catharsis. Mrs. Linde is the tragic heroine of the play. Her backstory pains audiences as she had to give up on love and marry for financial security; yet here she is now, attempting to put her life back together the way she wants. Originally Ibsen portrays her as a strong women intent on holding her own in the world, but the last act reveals that she came back for Krogstad, the man she loved those many years ago. Linde portrays the “never give up on the things you want” attitude that so many people attempt to achieve. In a society that tries to pressure you into doing things you don’t like, Mrs. Linde is an example of the right way to get what you want. Krogstad, originally the bully of the play, also undergoes a behavioural overhaul. Being the prime example of corruption in society, in the third act, Krogstad shows his true colors as a soft hearted romantic. He would do anything for the woman he loves, even after all this time away from her. It is because of this love for her that he gives up on blackmailing the Helmers and offers to remove his letter from their mailbox. Ibsen uses Krogstad as an example of the inherent capability of good in anyone, even those who are predisposed to be bad. Finally, Nora’s catharsis. Her fight to be her own person, to discover who she is outside of the shadow cast by her father and her husband, is empowering to both men and women. It is unknown if Ibsen meant Nora’s separation from Krogstad as a step for women’s rights or as a step for basic human rights, but there is strong evidence for both. Everyone at some point in their lives has or will feel oppressed in their own way, and Nora sends a message that they can take their lives into their own hands and walk away from whatever it is that belittles them. Protesting human rights is essentially protesting the rights of men, women and children; young and old; black, white and any color in between; Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or any other religion.
I agreed with your analysis of the twist ending. Mrs. Linde was very independent in the first few act of the book, saying that she would come stand on her own. Then she shed her mask and revealed her true self to the audience as to looking for love. This reflected on Ibsen's childhood. Most of his works reflected on his life, how his mother chose to stay with his father to support the family through their financial crisis. I think the act of Mrs. Linde leaving and finding true love is a way of Ibsen saying "what if". He wanted to see if his mother had left his father and created a new life for herself, what would have happened to her. I think this was a way of him saying thankful, but regrets his mother choice of staying with his father. He probably wanted his mother to have a better chance in life. Overall, A Doll's House is a reflection on Ibsen's childhood.
Throughout all of the acts in Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, Dr. Rank’s roll in the plot becomes very clear, and we can begin to draw connections and conclusions with the relationship between him and Nora Helmer. Dr. Rank serves as a reflection as well as a foreshadowing of Nora’s life. In act 2, Rank and Nora are discussing Rank’s disease that he has, which is “tuberculosis of the spine”, or syphilis. Rank is talking about how he is suffering “for another man’s sins” (ii.45). He is referring to how he is now suffering from syphilis that was passed down from his parents. This resonates with Nora because she is also scared of influencing her children in a negative way. This is when she starts to distance herself from her own children, fearing that she is affecting her children in the same way that Rank’s parents affected him. Also, just as how Dr. Rank talks about his parents in a bad light, Nora does the same. At the end of act 3 when Nora is separating herself from Torvald Helmer, she states “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” (iii.80). She is referring to how her current situation with Torvald is very similar to her situation with her own father and how in both, she is played with like a doll, hence the title of the play.
By the end of the play, Torvald is appalled towards Nora’s decision to seek independence in the world by leaving her family and the house. I found his reaction amusing in a sense because he was not used to the idea of going against what society expects in a Victorian individual, especially in a woman. Nora claims, “...but I can no longer content myself with what most people say or with what is found in books.” (III. 68). The books symbolize the indirectly given standards at that time. In this quote, she is referring to her quest to separate herself from the norm behind Victorian culture and seek out what it means to fulfill her life that is not based on what her father, husband, and most people in her life, presumes. Her now-former husband opposes to this proposition and might think she’s a little bit crazy for not following the customary qualities of a wife and mother. He replies, “This is unheard of in a girl of your age!” (III. 68), continuing to dehumanize her by calling her a girl instead of the woman she is. Torvald also continues by exclaiming, “You don’t understand the conditions of the world in which you live.” (III.69), which refers to the strict morals and reliance on conformity to fit in during that era. Nora, the new-found pragmatic ;) woman, answers this by mentioning the fact that she doesn’t understand because she has never been given the chance to, and that’s what she wants to figure out on her own without the discouragement of others.
I also found it interesting that Helmer was so outraged and upset about Nora's decision. After all, it was HER decision and if she chooses to leave her family and husband, that is her choice that will come with consequences that she is clearly willing to endure. I believe that much of the reason why Helmer is acting out and trying to convince her to stay is because he is scared what others in their society will think of a man without a wife, as well as him having to take over all the roles that Nora had done for the past eight years. Although it wasn't much, the men in that society were not used to taking care of the kids and staying home. Torvald doesn't say that he needs Nora, but his actions and efforts to try and talk Nora down as if she couldn't live on her own shows that he is just acting out to attempt to keep her in his life because he essentially needs her.
I am not going to lie, I don’t really like A Doll’s House. I see why others like it, and I see why it has become a classic, but I find the characters immature, the plot boring and also generally predictable. That being said, I do believe it is necessary to be taught. A Doll’s House serves the same purpose as The Catcher in the Rye, which happens to be my favorite book. These works usually aren’t “fan favorites.” Both books deal with generally unlikeable characters in a time period where the customs and culture are different from how they are now. They serve as windows into a world that we can’t experience in any other way so that we may learn the lessons their stories have to teach. A Doll’s House teaches the audience that there is nothing wrong with pursuing happiness, no matter what your situation is. Every character, with the exception of Torvald, decides to live their lives, or what is left of them, on their own terms and no longer give in to the pressure of society. The play is also taught because it brings the idea of humanism to light. There is a plethora of literature concerning feminism, and this piece is also considered to be one of them, although Ibsen himself argues that it is one of humanism. This can lead to discussions over what is considered purely feminist or generally humanist. In my opinion, all feminism is humanism, but not all humanism is feminism
I found your analysis of A Dolls House intriguing. Something else that I saw was that Ibsen was showing the importance of finding your own identity. He shows that Mrs. Linde is completely independent and on her own near the beginning of the book, and Nora struggles throughout the book, finally realizing near the end that in order for her to become her own person and to find her own identity, she can't be with Helmer. I think that Ibsen reinforces this message when Krogstad and Mrs.Linde seem to enter an equally balanced relationship because it shows that once you have found out who you are as a person and found your own identity, you wont worry about conforming to other people's ideas about who you should be or who you are.
Victorian culture portrayed women as inferior to men. Beauty was seen as an important aspect by the middle to upper class society and secrecy was predominant to promote the importance of physical outlooks. Throughout “A Doll’s House”, Nora Helmer plays the role of an innocent and naive wife of a wealthy man, Torvald, but underneath the mask she personates lies many secrets. From the beginning, Torvald addresses her as “little” and often compares her to a songbird, literally belittling and dehumanizing her character and making her seem no more impactful than a doll or a pet. The symbolism of a songbird may also refer to perfection and the idea of women portraying a pure persona to please society’s expectations back then. At the end of Act 1, she is worried Mr. Krogstad will bring her forged signature to court and expose the lie she has created. Nora commands the maid to bring the Christmas tree into the room for her to decorate. While she dresses the tree with beautiful ornaments and flowers, she begins to feel distracted and becomes worried of the situation she has put herself in. The act of decorating the tree represent putting on a mask for society while her struggle to finish placing the decorations refers to the exhaustion of pleasing others.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your analysis of Helmer's belittling nature and how that portrays the societal normalities of the time. The use of animal diction reminds me of the Taming of the Shrew because women were often juxtaposed with animals in that play as well as a satire of the gender roles in the 16th century. Before reading this, I couldn't find the significance of the Christmas tree, but I understand where you're coming from when you talk about conformity to social standards and Nora's struggle with it.
DeleteI agree with your analysis of how woman were inferior to men and were commonly dehumanized. I believe Torvald is also naive because he is too blind to see that his wife is keeping secrets from him. He depicts her as an innocent traditional wife, when really she is not. I thought that your idea about the Christmas tree was interesting and did not originally interpret it the same as you, but I do agree with your perspective and think that she has the struggle of pleasing others.
DeleteIn Act 1 of Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, we can see the way in which Nora Helmer talks to her husband, Torvald Helmer, and another woman named Mrs. Kristine Linde. During the times of this play, men served as the authoritative figure in the family, and women were expected to submit. Not only can we see how Nora directly submits to her husband in front of him through the use of submissive diction, but also how Nora indirectly submits to Torvald while talking to other people in the play.
ReplyDeleteIn Nora and Torvald’s conversation early on in the play, we can see the use of this submissive language as Nora is acting defensively against the accusing Torvald. When asked if she ate any of the macaroons, Nora quickly denied and replied, “I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to”(i.5). She is extremely submissive towards Torvald, making sure that she doesn’t do anything that he doesn’t want her to or upset him. Also in this conversation, Nora asks for money as her Christmas present. However, she does it in a way so that she does not anger Torvald. She asks for money while “toying with his coat buttons, and without looking at him” (i.4). Her actions imply that she is nervous about talking about this kind of subject with her husband, and it could also suggest that she might use the money for mischievous affairs.
Ibsen also displays Nora’s submission to her husband while she talks to other characters in the play, specifically when talking to Kristine Linde. Nora talks about how she will wait to tell her husband that she secretly borrowed money without his consent, waiting until “Torvald isn’t quite so much in love with [her] as he is now, when he’s lost interest in watching [her] dance, or get dressed up, or recite” (i.15). She degrades herself by saying that Torvald will eventually loose interest in her.
Henrik Ibsen uses childish diction to characterize women as children during the Victorian era in his play, “A Doll’s House”. Throughout Act one, Nora speaks of her past money problems and gloats about her new, higher status. In the beginning, she spends a long time begging her husband for money. She claims that it is for shopping and Torvald repeatedly tells her that she is wasting their money. Her language is very submissive and upon getting frustrated she’ll say things like “Pooh”. These outbursts are very childlike and reflect her inability to handle a bad situation. Her monetary struggles and childlike outbursts are ironic because later in act one she reveals that she is the one that has been covering the costs of her husband’s treatment. While both her husband and father were ill, Nora seeked out a loan and uses the money Torvald gives her for installments on that loan. Not only was she able to solve her family’s problems and get her husband healthy, she also uses the money that Torvald gives her to ensure that all of her payments are made on time. She is also clever enough to keep this whole arrangement a secret from her husband. This shows that she can handle a crisis and understands the power dynamic that existed in the Victorian era in a marriage. Married women at this time were often treated as children and never expected to solve any problems, especially those pertaining to money. Although Nora is characterized by childish diction, she reveals the irony of this by handling her family’s finances and maintaining her image as a helpless housewife in order to please her husband.
ReplyDeleteBy the end of the first act, Nora has been characterized as a generally caring but childish woman. She is polite to her guest and old friend, Christine, constantly apologizing for any sort of behavior she showed that could be even slightly rude. This was a standard of the time, as manners were weighed heavily to judge the class of an individual and their family. Obviously trying to make herself look as polite and kind as possible, no one would guess that she too has skeletons in her closet. Nora took out a loan to take her husband on vacation to Italy in order to help him heal, claiming she got the money from her father. Alone, receiving a loan behind her husband’s back was considered inappropriate. A man is supposed to be the sole provider of the family; Nora taking the money indirectly belittles her husband’s authority. The other major issue with Nora taking the loan stems from the fact that she forged her father’s signature on the loan. Along with being illegal, it is dishonest. Krogstad knows that Nora forged the signature, so he threatens to reveal her to the public. The combination of legal and moral wrongdoing would ruin the family, because appearance is everything and Nora would be painted in the worst light possible. Nora’s fears are made even worse when talking to her husband. He convinces her that Krogstad is immoral due to how his mother was, and now he will corrupt his children, as “Practically all juvenile delinquents come from homes where the mother is dishonest” (Ibsen I. 33). This is a form of dramatic irony, as Helmer is unknowingly telling Nora that she is corrupting her children. The audience knows that Nora is dishonest, and she herself knows that she is dishonest. This dishonesty could ruin her family in so many different ways, Nora feels that she has to distance herself from her family. This is evidenced by how she told the maid to not bring the children to her.
ReplyDeleteIn act 2 of Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, we can observe a slow degradation of Nora Helmer’s situation. We even saw a hint to this decline at the end of act 1 when Torvald emphasizes the corruptive nature of bad parents on their children. At the end of act 1, Nora shows her uncertainty and denial by saying “Corrupt my children…! Poison my home? It’s not true! It could never, never be true!” (i.34). Nora’s instability becomes more apparent as act 2 progresses.
ReplyDeleteWe can see another step in decline when Nora says “Yes, Anne Marie, from now on I can’t be with them as often as I was before” (ii.36). She is already starting to distance herself from her kids within the same day that she heard those warning comments from Torvald. In addition, Nora uses begging language when Torvald is about to check the mail and see Krogstad’s possible letter that would inform Torvald of Nora’s forgery when borrowing money. She pleads to Torvald, “You must devote yourself exclusively to me this evening. Pens away! Forget all about the office! Promise me, Torvald dear!” (ii.57). The use of begging language characterizes Nora as a desperate individual who is trying to save a crumbling and failing situation.
At the end of act 2, we can see how Nora has almost given up hope, saying “Then the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live” (ii.61). When the tarantella is over, Nora assumes that Torvald will proceed to check the mail and read Krogstad’s letter. It makes it seem as though she is planning the end of her life, or possibly even suicide.
I agree with your analysis and actually blogged on something similar to this point. I believe that in the end of Act 2 Nora goes through a large character change. Up until this point she has believed that because her motives for breaking the law were good and because she is a “nice” person with three children, nothing bad could ever happen to her and nobody would ever purposefully hurt her in any way. She continues believing that until the part that you mentioned when she is counting down the hours until her life is “over”. I think this shows how she is being exposed to the harshness of the real world and is no longer protected by her illusions that nothing bad happens to good people like herself.
DeleteHenrik Ibsen uses flirtatious diction in act two of his play, “A Doll’s House”, to convey the theme of deception. Dr. Rank is supposedly Helmer’s best friend and yet in this scene he confesses that he's always loved Nora, his wife. The betrayal of his best friend contributes to the theme of deception. Nora, however, isn't completely innocent in her relationship with Dr. Rank. She leads him on with her undressing and flirting. Nora has mentioned throughout the play that Dr. Rank makes regular visits. In this time period, it was highly inappropriate for another man to be alone with a married woman. Nora makes it clear that she is more than comfortable in his presence and even contemplates telling him her secret about forging the signature. This kind of trust and flirtatious behavior isn’t rare for Nora, however. She has already shared her secret with Kristine and acts very friendly toward nearly all of the characters. Nora acts more innocently than Dr. Rank because she brings up Torvald several times during her conversation with Dr. Rank. She almost pretends that she doesn’t know an affair with another man is a bad thing. This, again, characterizes her as a child. She also shows him her stockings which can be construed as a sexual reference but it can also just be Nora’s way of feeling valued. Women of the time were appreciated for little other than their looks and Nora constantly mentions how pretty she thinks she is. Regardless, it is still highly inappropriate for her to be flirting with another man and for Dr. Rank to not only reciprocate but take it to the next level by confessing her love. This flirtatious relationship adds to the theme of deception.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your proposal of Nora being a purile teen. She is disloyal to her husband and have no consideration for the consequences. She seems similar to a person who has the mindset of "now" (present) rather than a person who thinks of the future. I had a similar analysis with your saying her inability of thinking about the future and her immaturity of acting as an adult. The way she reveals her intentions, unconsciously, to murder Krogstad in front of him proven she is a child.
DeleteIn Act 2, I noticed examples of possessing and commanding diction which emphasizes the lack of power of the women in Victorian culture. For example, when Krogstad and Nora discuss his terms and threatens to put the letter in the box, Nora refuses to accept that her whole life is in Krogstad’s hands. Krogstad opposes this and says, “Have you forgotten that it is I who have the keeping of your reputation?” (II. 45). As I read their conservations, I noticed Krogstad does not hesitate to destroy her social status. He uses violent tones to exaggerate his ownership of her reputation. Nora feels completely helpless in the situation she has put herself in. Her desperation to save herself from exposure by asking Ms. Linde to be her witness can create more problems in the end that may return with unpleasant effects.
ReplyDeleteForeshadowing and death diction also takes place when Nora makes her husband promise that he will give her his full attention later that evening. Helmer then replies, “This evening I will be wholly and absolutely at your service, you helpless little mortal.” (II. 47). Helmer again (literally) belittles her by calling her “helpless” and “little”, making her think she is unstable without him. It is a little odd he calls her mortal in this quote which refers to her death. This may represent the future death of her reputation and marriage. Nora has already contemplated on committing suicide when she admits it to Krogstad. He says, “So that if the thought of it has driven you to any desperate resolution-” and Nora confides, “It has.” (II. 46). At this point, Nora is so close to giving up that she might as well die so she does not have to deal with this issue. She cannot reveal her secret to others since her family’s name may be ruined. It seems to me that trying to keep up the high standards of society’s idea of perfection in Victorian times is too difficult in the Helmer household.
In Act 2, Ibsen uses dance and dismal diction to discuss the topic of death, and how people come to terms with it. Nora’s tarantella is quite literally a final dance, as she intends to commit suicide once the dance is over. Fittingly, Dr. Rank plays the piano for Nora during her rehearsal of the dance. Both characters are nearing death; Nora by suicide and Rank by disease. However, how they choose to spend the last moments of their lives are different. The tarantella is a fast tempoed, upbeat type of Italian folk dance. It symbolizes happiness, suggesting that Nora wants to have some sort of happiness in her last moments of life. This is also supported by the fact that Nora had learned the dance while with her husband in Italy, a trip that apparently saved his life; in a sense juxtaposing life and death with a single dance. Dr. Rank, on the other hand, decides that he would rather spend his last moments alone, “I’ll lock the door on / him. - As soon as I’m absolutely certain of the worst, I’ll send you / my visiting card with a black cross on it. You’ll know when the final / horrible disintegration has begun” (Ibsen. II. pg 45). Rank chooses to spare his best friend, and the woman he loves, of seeing him descend into lifelessness. It is a much lonelier and depressing option, but it is the one he chooses. Ibsen uses words like “horrible disintegration” to expand on the notion of death. Death is the act of leaving the world behind, to disintegrate the mind, soul, or whatever else someone may choose to believe ties them to Earth. Both characters are obviously upset about leaving their lives behind, but Torvald is more accepting of his fate, beginning his isolation before his death. That isn’t to say Nora isn’t wrong in choosing to spend her final moments distracting herself with joyous music and dance. Her choice is her own, and that is what Ibsen is trying to say; with so little control over one’s life, they should at least get the ability to plan their death
ReplyDeleteYour analysis was really complete! The connections you made between life and death were very interesting. Also I really liked the juxtaposing of life and death with the dance, Nora learned during their trip to Italy. Your analysis shows the different ways people take death, either by enjoying the last moments and accepting their fate or by choosing to spend their lat moments regretting their life and being depressed and I think this is a very interesting topic.
Delete-Hajir Hosseini, Period 5
NORA. “Five. Seven hours to midnight. Then twenty-four hours till the next midnight. Then the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live.” (ii.61)
ReplyDeleteIn act 2 of Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, we can see parallel ideas between Nora Helmer and Dr. Rank, especially with this quote. In this act, Nora’s situation continues to decline and become worse. However, we can also see how this connects to Dr. Rank’s situation. Rank is suffering from “tuberculosis of the spine” which his synonymous with syphilis. During a conversation between Rank and Nora, Rank frequently makes references that connect so well to Nora’s life that she cannot stand to hear anymore of it. Towards the end of the act, it becomes apparent that Nora is starting to loose hope when she says the above quote.
At the beginning of Rank and Nora’s exchange, Rank uses pessimistic diction when he talks about how he is suffering from “tuberculosis of the spine” and how he is “slowly sinking” and that “there’s nothing to be done about it” (ii.45), referencing his propinquity to death. Also, Rank mentions how he is suffering “for another man’s sins” (ii.45). This refers to how his parents contracted syphilis and then passed it on to their children, one of who was Rank. However, after Rank says this, Nora immediately tries to cheer him up and plugs up her ears because she cannot stand how much this relates to how she thinks she is “poisoning” her own children with her mischievous actions. Later in the act, we can see how Nora’s situation reflects that of Rank, when Nora says “Then the tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live” (ii.61). The author uses depressing language to describe Nora’s feelings about her declining situation. Just like how Rank lost hope in life, Nora is beginning to reflect some of those qualities by saying how she does not have much time to live. This quote is important because it reflects Nora’s current state and sets the fast-paced and dramatic mood for the rest of the play, as time now plays a role in Nora’s “survival”.
I found your analysis very insightful. I hadn't made the connection that Nora didn't want to listen because it related to her so much. However I don't feel that your description of Nora "poisoning her own children with her mischievous actions". I think that this would imply that her actions are having an immediate impact upon the children, when in reality she is risking her ability to take care of them. Other than that I thought that you had a very intriguing analysis of Nora and Rank's interation.
DeleteHenrik Ibsen uses the macaroons to represent Nora’s lack of self control, the importance of physical appearance and deception in his play, “A Doll’s House”. On the first page of the play Nora is preparing the house for Christmas when Ibsen writes, “She takes a bag of macaroons out of her pocket and eats one or two; then she walks stealthily across and listens at her husband’s door”(I.i). This is the first appearance of the macaroons in the play. This clearly shows Nora’s deceptive side because she keeps them hidden in her pocket and walks “stealthily” to her husband’s door, probably to make sure he’s not coming out of his study. Later in act one she tells Dr. Rank and Kristine “You weren’t to know that Torvald has forbidden them. He’s worried in case they ruin my teeth, you know. Still...what’s it the matter once in a while! Don’t you think so, Dr. Rank? Here! [She pops a macaroon into his mouth.]” (I.i). Torvald has such control over his wife that he has forbidden a food that she clearly really likes. The reason for this, as with many other discomforts in this era, was appearance. Nora claims that Torvald doesn’t want her teeth to rot, however, macaroons aren’t very healthy and a woman’s waist was expected to be extremely small. Nora, continuing her childish behavior, doesn’t have the self control to stop eating them no matter how much she claims to love Torvald. She also doesn’t protest his rules and chooses to eat them in secret. Toward the end of this quote this secrecy is clear when she shoves a macaroon into Dr. Rank’s mouth after he confronts her about disobeying Torvald. She very literally silences him and also uses the macaroon as an incentive to keep quiet. Nora’s inability to give up macaroons or stand up to Torvald shows her lack of self control and power. The macaroons are forbidden to protect Nora’s appearance and her eating them leads to deceptive behavior.
ReplyDeleteThroughout “A Doll’s House”, the use of foreshadowing emphasizes Nora’s hopelessness in improving her situation. Prevalent mostly in the beginning of Act 2, Nora begins to use negative diction to showcase her pessimism of being able to rid this burden. When she announces that she will be leaving to fetch Mrs. Linde, the nurse persists in letting her leave in the terrible weather. Nora then replies, “Well, worse than that might happen.” (II. 29). This refers to the fact that catching a cold is unparalleled to being exposed to court and her family the wrong she has committed. She then proceeds to blabber about her children and says, “... I shall not be able to be so much with them now as I was before.” (II. 30) which signifies the future absence of her role as a mother and that she will not be able to spend as much time with her children as in the past. The nurse begins to lack certainty on what Nora may be referring her and assures her everything will be alright. Nora, the stubborn and her ability to make others feel the guilt she currently occupies, resumes to feel doubtful when she cries out, “And if my little ones had no mother, I am sure you would- What nonsense I am talking!” (II. 30). At this point, Nora is not able to focus on anything but worry about what her life will be when everyone discovers her secret. She is even mentioning the nurse caring for the children when she disappears from their lives because of her apprehension on her condition.
ReplyDeleteA Doll’s House reads like the script of a movie about high schoolers. The characters are so overly dramatic they must be children. Nora and Torvald are petty and superficial, Dr. Rank is melodramatic, and Krogstad is pointlessly cruel towards others. I think that Ibsen uses these characters to criticize the very tendencies they hold, and makes them so apparently puerile to cause the readers to not feel as strongly towards them. All Nora and Torvald seem to care about are their appearances, they are the “power couple” of A Doll’s House. Torvald attempts to keep Nora from eating macaroons because they will add to her figure; Nora is seen bragging about how much money her husband makes and how they can do whatever they want now that they have it; Torvald reveals that the real reason he doesn’t want to let Krogstad keep his job is because he is overly familiar to him and it challenges his authoritative position. Everything to them is about their appearance and power within their own little world. Perhaps this was overwhelmingly common in their society, so Ibsen exaggerates how superficial they are just to illustrate the depth of his point to his audience. Dr. Rank is comparable to a teenage girl in his melodramatic tendencies. It’s all very pointlessly over complicated; spending as much time as possible with someone who will never love him back, or at least can never openly reciprocate it; choosing to lock himself in his home before dying instead of cherishing what time he has left. Ibsen probably uses Rank as way to show how emotional men of the era are, despite their macho attitude. Krogstad is just like your average day bully; he threatens, blackmails and is notorious for his moral inadequacies. I feel that in this regard, Ibsen uses Krogstad as a representation of the corruption the society faced
ReplyDeleteIn act 3 of Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, we can see a side of Nora Helmer that we have never seen before in the play. Nora undergoes a catharsis of feelings, as she lets her true beliefs become apparent to Torvald Helmer. Despite previously dreading the idea of Torvald reading the letter from Krogstad, Nora is now actually glad that it happened, as it gave her a reason to separate herself from Torvald.
ReplyDeleteIn this act, Nora uses insightful and articulate language to convey her true feelings about her situation. She says “I believe that first and foremost I am an individual, just as much as you are” (iii.82). Nora is finally standing up to Torvald and telling her true thoughts, rather than just agreeing or complying with him. This is just a small part of the lengthy lines that Nora had in this section of the play. She continues to shoot down all of Torvald’s attempts to keep her with him. Not only can this serve as a message for Nora and Torvald, but it also serves as a lesson for anyone and how no one should be unfairly subjected to the rule of another.
In addition, we can also see a reversal or roles between Torvald and Nora towards the end of this act. Previously, Nora has always been begging for Torvald to not read the letter that she thought would be the end of her. However, now Torvald is the one begging for Nora not to leave him. At the end of the act, Torvald is left devastated as he shouts out “Nora! Nora” Empty! She’s gone!” (iii.86) with his face in his hands, sinking down into a chair.
At the end of “A Doll’s House”, Nora shocked the audience when she went against her husband and made the decision to leave her family. Her new-found perspective shifted from trusting her instincts and listening to what others ordered her to do into becoming a more reasonable person who sees the fault in Victorian culture and the idea of perfection. By the end of Nora’s and Torvald’s argument, she blames the men in her life, her father and husband, for treating her like a doll. Towards the end, Helmer’s true colors are revealed when he becomes angry at Nora and creates a plan to keep their secret to themselves then quickly changes his mood when he realizes HE is saved. He praises once he read the letter from Krogstad, “Nora! I must read it once again. Yes, it is true! I am saved! Nora, I am saved!” (III. 63). This goes to show the flaw in their marriage and Helmer’s intentions of saving himself from embarrassment. The repetition of “I” also emphasizes this idea since he did not really care if his wife was saved or not. He then continues to say, “...only lean on me; I will advise and direct you.” (III. 64) referring to the fact that he shall be the one who directs her daily routine and support on how to live a stress-free environment. After realizing her role in their marriage, Nora sits him down and tells him her true and honest opinions and point out the weaknesses in their relationship while also explaining how her own father treated her the same way he did. She announces, “When I was at home with Papa he told me his opinion about everything, and so I had the same opinions; and if I differed from him I concealed the fact, because he would not have liked it. He called me his doll child, and he played with me as I used to play with my dolls.” (III. 66). This is a reference to the title, revealing that the doll is herself since she has never been treated as a human being but more like a puppet. She compares her father to Torvald to stress the idea that men has always controlled her everyday decisions and how she has never been able to reach her full potential.
ReplyDeleteHenrik Ibsen uses the opening and closing of doors in his play, “A Doll’s House”, to contribute to the theme of secrecy and deceit. Throughout the first two acts, doors are nearly always closed immediately following the entry or exit of a character. Act three opens with a secret conversation between Mrs. Linde and Krogstad, in which many revelations are shared. As Krogstad takes his leave, Ibsen writes, “He goes out by the front door. The door out into the hall remains standing open”(III.i). This open door foreshadows the uncovering of a secret. The doors represent physical barriers that stand between each character and the truth. When one is opened, a secret is revealed. Just after Krogstad leaves, Nora and Torvald enter and Mrs. Linde leaves. A knock at the door follows and Dr. Rank enters through the open door. He reveals that his health is in imminent danger and plans says his goodbyes. Helmer then proceeds to his room with the letter that contains a huge secret and closes the door. After he reads the letter, Ibsen writes, “...Helmer flings open his door and stands there with an open letter in his hand”(III.i). Ibsen chose the verb “flings” because it contributes to the emphasis of this particular secret. It also shows how suddenly and unexpected this information came to Torvald. The reveal of this secret causes Nora to leave her entire life behind and has provided the basis of this plot. The reveal of deceit is shown through the use of open and closed doors.
ReplyDeleteIbsen attempts to find what makes a person good, and what makes a person bad. Or rather, he tries to illustrate the typical character archetypes in a new light. He does this with multiple “twist endings.” The obvious one being Nora’s decision to leave Torvald, Ibsen also uses Mrs. Linde and Krogstad. These three characters seem to be set in their respective ways throughout the play, but due to the events of the final act they undergo a sort of catharsis. Mrs. Linde is the tragic heroine of the play. Her backstory pains audiences as she had to give up on love and marry for financial security; yet here she is now, attempting to put her life back together the way she wants. Originally Ibsen portrays her as a strong women intent on holding her own in the world, but the last act reveals that she came back for Krogstad, the man she loved those many years ago. Linde portrays the “never give up on the things you want” attitude that so many people attempt to achieve. In a society that tries to pressure you into doing things you don’t like, Mrs. Linde is an example of the right way to get what you want. Krogstad, originally the bully of the play, also undergoes a behavioural overhaul. Being the prime example of corruption in society, in the third act, Krogstad shows his true colors as a soft hearted romantic. He would do anything for the woman he loves, even after all this time away from her. It is because of this love for her that he gives up on blackmailing the Helmers and offers to remove his letter from their mailbox. Ibsen uses Krogstad as an example of the inherent capability of good in anyone, even those who are predisposed to be bad. Finally, Nora’s catharsis. Her fight to be her own person, to discover who she is outside of the shadow cast by her father and her husband, is empowering to both men and women. It is unknown if Ibsen meant Nora’s separation from Krogstad as a step for women’s rights or as a step for basic human rights, but there is strong evidence for both. Everyone at some point in their lives has or will feel oppressed in their own way, and Nora sends a message that they can take their lives into their own hands and walk away from whatever it is that belittles them. Protesting human rights is essentially protesting the rights of men, women and children; young and old; black, white and any color in between; Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or any other religion.
ReplyDeleteI agreed with your analysis of the twist ending. Mrs. Linde was very independent in the first few act of the book, saying that she would come stand on her own. Then she shed her mask and revealed her true self to the audience as to looking for love. This reflected on Ibsen's childhood. Most of his works reflected on his life, how his mother chose to stay with his father to support the family through their financial crisis. I think the act of Mrs. Linde leaving and finding true love is a way of Ibsen saying "what if". He wanted to see if his mother had left his father and created a new life for herself, what would have happened to her. I think this was a way of him saying thankful, but regrets his mother choice of staying with his father. He probably wanted his mother to have a better chance in life. Overall, A Doll's House is a reflection on Ibsen's childhood.
DeleteNam Nguyen ^^^
DeleteThroughout all of the acts in Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, Dr. Rank’s roll in the plot becomes very clear, and we can begin to draw connections and conclusions with the relationship between him and Nora Helmer. Dr. Rank serves as a reflection as well as a foreshadowing of Nora’s life.
ReplyDeleteIn act 2, Rank and Nora are discussing Rank’s disease that he has, which is “tuberculosis of the spine”, or syphilis. Rank is talking about how he is suffering “for another man’s sins” (ii.45). He is referring to how he is now suffering from syphilis that was passed down from his parents. This resonates with Nora because she is also scared of influencing her children in a negative way. This is when she starts to distance herself from her own children, fearing that she is affecting her children in the same way that Rank’s parents affected him.
Also, just as how Dr. Rank talks about his parents in a bad light, Nora does the same. At the end of act 3 when Nora is separating herself from Torvald Helmer, she states “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” (iii.80). She is referring to how her current situation with Torvald is very similar to her situation with her own father and how in both, she is played with like a doll, hence the title of the play.
By the end of the play, Torvald is appalled towards Nora’s decision to seek independence in the world by leaving her family and the house. I found his reaction amusing in a sense because he was not used to the idea of going against what society expects in a Victorian individual, especially in a woman. Nora claims, “...but I can no longer content myself with what most people say or with what is found in books.” (III. 68). The books symbolize the indirectly given standards at that time. In this quote, she is referring to her quest to separate herself from the norm behind Victorian culture and seek out what it means to fulfill her life that is not based on what her father, husband, and most people in her life, presumes. Her now-former husband opposes to this proposition and might think she’s a little bit crazy for not following the customary qualities of a wife and mother. He replies, “This is unheard of in a girl of your age!” (III. 68), continuing to dehumanize her by calling her a girl instead of the woman she is. Torvald also continues by exclaiming, “You don’t understand the conditions of the world in which you live.” (III.69), which refers to the strict morals and reliance on conformity to fit in during that era. Nora, the new-found pragmatic ;) woman, answers this by mentioning the fact that she doesn’t understand because she has never been given the chance to, and that’s what she wants to figure out on her own without the discouragement of others.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting that Helmer was so outraged and upset about Nora's decision. After all, it was HER decision and if she chooses to leave her family and husband, that is her choice that will come with consequences that she is clearly willing to endure. I believe that much of the reason why Helmer is acting out and trying to convince her to stay is because he is scared what others in their society will think of a man without a wife, as well as him having to take over all the roles that Nora had done for the past eight years. Although it wasn't much, the men in that society were not used to taking care of the kids and staying home. Torvald doesn't say that he needs Nora, but his actions and efforts to try and talk Nora down as if she couldn't live on her own shows that he is just acting out to attempt to keep her in his life because he essentially needs her.
DeleteI am not going to lie, I don’t really like A Doll’s House. I see why others like it, and I see why it has become a classic, but I find the characters immature, the plot boring and also generally predictable. That being said, I do believe it is necessary to be taught. A Doll’s House serves the same purpose as The Catcher in the Rye, which happens to be my favorite book. These works usually aren’t “fan favorites.” Both books deal with generally unlikeable characters in a time period where the customs and culture are different from how they are now. They serve as windows into a world that we can’t experience in any other way so that we may learn the lessons their stories have to teach. A Doll’s House teaches the audience that there is nothing wrong with pursuing happiness, no matter what your situation is. Every character, with the exception of Torvald, decides to live their lives, or what is left of them, on their own terms and no longer give in to the pressure of society. The play is also taught because it brings the idea of humanism to light. There is a plethora of literature concerning feminism, and this piece is also considered to be one of them, although Ibsen himself argues that it is one of humanism. This can lead to discussions over what is considered purely feminist or generally humanist. In my opinion, all feminism is humanism, but not all humanism is feminism
ReplyDeleteI found your analysis of A Dolls House intriguing. Something else that I saw was that Ibsen was showing the importance of finding your own identity. He shows that Mrs. Linde is completely independent and on her own near the beginning of the book, and Nora struggles throughout the book, finally realizing near the end that in order for her to become her own person and to find her own identity, she can't be with Helmer. I think that Ibsen reinforces this message when Krogstad and Mrs.Linde seem to enter an equally balanced relationship because it shows that once you have found out who you are as a person and found your own identity, you wont worry about conforming to other people's ideas about who you should be or who you are.
Delete