In the first act of Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House,” the first two main characters are introduced; a couple named Nora and Torvald Helmer. Helmer is referenced as a lawyer, while Nora just remains as his obedient wife. Right off the gate, assumptions between the two characters can be easily made by their diction in regular conversation, tone in voice, and action as they discuss for the majority of the first few pages of the play. Nora is characterized as a clueless, money-hungered child who knows little about the outside world. She repeatedly asks Helmer questions and ideas as if she were very young and seems as though she rely fully on him. Ibsen writes this way because during the time period of when the play is set, The Victorian Era, this was highly common and viewed as the norm for wives to fully depend on their husbands. Helmer also shows this as he says, “You can’t deny it, Nora, dear. My pretty little pet is very sweet, but it runs away with an awful a lot of money. It’s incredible how expensive it is for a man to keep such a pet” (I. 4), because of his usage of vulgarity diction. He doesn’t identify Nora as a human being, but rather refers to her as a pet, an animal. This shows his overall total control over her and how much she depends on him as a person. In the following lines after the quote, Helmer also makes it clear that he places a value on her and mocks her child-like features, further supporting the idea and motif within the play that males have a much upper hand towards all females during that time. This can also be seen as foreshadowing because it lets the reader question if Nora will ever change and eventually realize her lack of independence in her life.
Wow, what a post! Your analysis of the characterization of the two main characters is spot-on and went well with what I already had in mind about them! At this point in the story, Helmer is subtly exerting his control over Nora by using dehumanizing terminology and nicknames. The quote you chose demonstrates this quite well and further backs up my point. Your points about the possible foreshadowing were also very solid!
In act 1 Ibsen introduces many characters, the most essential being the married couple Nora and Helmer. The opening scene to A Doll’s House shows the transaction between Nora and the porter. This scene instantly puts the spotlight on money and Nora’s views on how to spend it. Though Nora owes the porter fifty øre, a Norwegian unit of currency, she gives him twice that amount. This presents the idea that either Nora is very wealthy but also very generous or the idea that Nora throws away money and does not understand the hard earned dollar, which was very common for a girl in this era. After this transaction occurs Helmer comes into the play with his opening line “Is that my little sky-lark chirping out there?” (i. 1). Then follows this sentence with the line “is that my little squirrel frisking about?” (i. 2). Both times he is referring to Nora as an animal. This name calling indicates that Helmer thinks of Nora as a pet, which he later calls her in this act. Pets are not equal to humans, though they are loved unconditionally by many, they are meant to be obedient to their owners. Helmer calling his wife a “squirrel”, “skylark”, and “pet” reflects how all men treated women in this time period, as obedient, fragile animals. The skylark, however, is an ironic name for Nora because skylarks are a powerful representative of freedom, inspiration, hope, and joy which so far contrasts Nora’s character and how women were treated during this time period. Bird songs are among the most complex sounds produced by animals and the skylark sings one of the most complex songs of all. This may be foreshadowing to Nora proposing that she is a complex character who eventually will hold the same traits of freedom, inspiration, hope, and joy just like these birds.
I completely agree with your analysis! We both see that these animal allusions are used to dehumanize Nora, however I also found it interesting how Torvald only calls Nora by these names when he is greeting or adoring her. For example, he says, "is that my little squirrel frisking about?" (Ibsen 2). I think that by doing this he is further showing how he thinks that Nora is helpless and needs him.
In the beginning of Act I in A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen, the readers are introduced to two main characters, Torvald Helmer and his wife Nora. Right away, it is evident, through the Helmer’s relationship, that there is a prominent distinction of gender inequality. An example of gender inequality is seen on page four when Nora begs her husband for money “Oh, please, Torvald dear! Please! I beg you” (Ibsen 4). This scene proves the point that during the Victorian Era, men had much more power than women. During this era, when a woman married, all of her property, money, any inheritance that she received automatically transferred/ belonged to her husband. Also the cringey names that Helmer gives to Nora is a way for him to charmingly assert power and reminds her who is in charge, “Is that my little sky-lark chirruping out there? / Yes, it is. / Is that my little squirrel frisking about? / Yes! / When did my little squirrel come home?” (Ibsen 1-2). By referring Nora to animals such as a bird and squirrel, he puts it into perspective that Nora is his possession and he’s more of her owner than as her husband. When Helmer hands Nora money, Nora says “Ten, twenty, thirty, forty. Oh thank you, thank you Torvald! This will see me quite a long way” (Ibsen 3). This scene shows the lack of equality between Helmer and Nora, and how much control he has over money and most probably other things as well. The way that she repeatedly says “thank you, thank you” displays how dependent she is of her husband.
Great analysis Kelly, really well thought out! I like how you mentioned the fact that there is a gender equality between Helmer and Nora. That he thinks he is her superior and that this can be represented through the diction that Ibsen gives to Nora. The way the she begs him and has to ask permission to spend money. Usually in a marriage, it’s a combined income and spouses don’t have to ask for permission to spend money. Yes, they talk about what they will chose to spend their money on, but that is for large scale purchases/investments. In this conversation. Helmer was mad at Nora because she bought a few more christmas presents than she would have last year. Later in the play, we will see that gender equality carries on throughout many other characters. Thanks for posting!
In the first few pages of Act I, the author introduces the character of Nora using diction to portray her childlike and unwary character. This can first be seen throughout her conversation with her husband, Helmer, in which he uses words such as “little singing bird”, “little squirrel”, and “pretty little pet” (I. 4) when referring to her. As we know, the Victorian Era was a time where women had little to no saying in things, had few rights and lack of dignity, since they were succumbed to their husbands needs and desires. Even though the relationship between Nora and Helmer seem vital and caring, it is clear how Nora seems guileless and ingenious regarding this situation, as she accepts the fact that she is called under names of animals, or treated like a child. However, the contextual situation of Nora and Helmer are not the only circumstances that create these distinct and odd characteristics of Nora’s character; she is treated as she is because of the way she is. In other words, Nora seems like a mindless, and empty-headed women, as it is evident she seems to lack a sense of adulthood. This is seen in the conversation between Nora and Mrs. Linde, in which Mrs. Linde is not surprised by Nora’s attitude, and asks if she “haven’t learned any sense yet?” (I.9). Nora’s attitude towards money makes the reader expect the plot, or conflict of the play will regard Nora entangled in a financial problem, considering her childish and immature behaviour.
“NORA: I don’t believe it. Isn’t a daughter entitled to try and save her father from worry and anxiety on his deathbed? Isn’t a wife entitled to save her husband’s life? I might not know very much about the law, but I feel sure of one thing: it must say somewhere that things like this are allowed”. (I.i.29).
This quote says a lot about the context of the play, the character of Nora, and is introducing the plot of Ibsen’s book. To begin with, regarding the social and cultural contexts of the play, we can see how there are fair similarities with today’s social standards and the legal systems, and how they go against people’s morals. For instance, the fact that Nora committed a crime (falsifying her father’s signature when dealing with financial situations) to save her husband’s life and for the sake of her own father’s life creates the whole controversial ideas concerning law and order. Did Nora do wrong by faking her father’s signature just to save her husband’s life? Did she really have to go through all the legal process even though it would take weeks and Helmer’s health was at risk? We can see how these questions rise up and can be argued from both sides, but is a clear indice of how social standards are similar, or even the same as today’s. Furthermore, this is also shows us how mere aspects of Nora’s character, and how she seems foolish and ingenious towards these issues; not only does it seem that she does not respect her (women’s) position at this time period, but she also seems irresponsible and careless towards important matters like these. Though it may seem that she is childish in all aspects, and lacks certain adult traits, it is clear how devoted and caring she is for her husband which, at the end, is the most important feature to consider. Lastly, the fact that Nora is undergoing the same situation as Krogstad had gone through a few years prior, which had deteriorated him and ruined his professional reputations, creates the tension in the play. The reader now seems to relate and connect the conflict of Nora and of Krogstad, and how Nora not only is getting caught in an entanglement while being blackmailed, but also can relate to Krogstad’s problem since he was portrayed as fouly and a criminal.
I agree with your analysis, especially with what you said about the controversy of society's rules with Nora's actions. The question here could be "do the ends justify the means?" in that to Nora, it is worth the risk to break the law to save her husband's life and let her father die peacefully. Although it is foolish of her to believe that laws would allow for being broken in extenuating circumstances, it shows how determined she is to help those she cares for, and to finish her business with Krogstad without Torvald finding out.
Towards the end of Act I in A Doll’s House, Ibsen characterizes Krogstad as a bully and the antagonist in the play. Since Krogstad’s position in the bank might be jeopardized in the near future, he goes to talk to Nora in the hope that the influence she has over her husband, Torvald Helmer, will allow him to keep his job. He begins by giving Nora a subtle threat, “That’s because you haven’t the will to help me. But I have ways of making you” (I. 26). Nora, half choking with tears, replies by saying “You would make things horrible unpleasant for me….” (I. 26). Later on, the audience learns that Krogstad figured out how Nora had forged her father’s signature in order to get a loan, and because of that, Krogstad is using this against her “The curious thing is, Mrs. Helmer, that you father signed this document three days after his death” (I. 28). The reason why Krogstad might lose his job is because in the past he forged signatures. Consequently, this bad mistake that he committed ruined his reputation and his career. Krogstad is desperate to keep his position at the bank because he doesn’t want his bad reputation to affect his children, and he wishes to fix his bad reputation. I find it kind of funny that he’s threatening Nora with forging her father’s signature, but did he not commit the same crime as well?
The first rising action we see in this play is Nora’s first conversation with Mrs. Linde. This conversation plays a key role in establishing Nora’s selfish, insensitive, and child-like character. During this conversation we see that Nora always finds a way to revert the conversation back to her life and her problems, showing no care for Mrs. Linde’s stories. Not only this, Nora also realizes that she never sent a letter to Mrs. Linde after her husband has passed away and it is now, three years later, that she decides to finally show the slightest bit of sympathy. Like a child Nora does not seem to have any sort of filter, she just speaks her mind without question to what is and is not appropriate. This trait was especially bad and not accepted in this era because one of the biggest rules of this era was to always be prim, proper, and respectful to others. Nora shows no sort of respect to Mrs. Linde when she says “NORA ...But you are a bit paler Kristine… and perhaps even a bit thinner! MRS LINDE. And much, much older, Nora NORA. Yes, perhaps a little older… very, very little, not really very much’ (i. 7). Here Nora tactlessly comments that Mrs. Linde’s looks have declined over the years which is a big deal in this era when appearance was so important to woman. She also acts very insensitive to her friend when she talks about how much money Torvald and her were going to make even though she recognizes that Mrs. Linde is poor. Nora is again insensitive when she asks Mrs. Linde if she has any children. When Mrs. Linde replies back saying no, Nora then says to her, “so utterly alone. How terribly sad that must be for you. I have three lovely children” (i. 8). Nora addresses her sympathy for Mrs. Linde but then right after goes on to talk about her “three lovely children” being very insensitive to Mrs. Linde and also seeming as though she is trying to one up her.
In Ibsen’s play “A Doll’s House,” symbolism is used repeatedly to enhance the themes and motifs Ibsen presents of the Victorian Era. The first two main ones are located at the very beginning of the play in Act 1; the Christmas tree and the bag of macaroons. At the beginning of the Act, Nora and Helmer have a feud about a Christmas tree and the decorations around the house for the celebration of Christmas and continually discuss their plans and problems that arise. As the Christmas tree was delivered by the jocund wife of Helmer, Nora showed a flurry of excitement and joy for Christmas. This represents the family's happiness and unity due to Nora’s great desire to make her home pleasant and attractive for her husband and family who will experience it. However, at the beginning of Act 2, the stage directions say, “In the corner stands the Christmas tree, stripped, bedraggled, and with its candles burnt out” (II. 35), which gives an indication of how this symbol all fell down. This conveys Nora’s lost of innocence and also indicates foreshadowing. It foreshadows the possibility of Nora’s family being disintegrated and perished as she and other possible characters might realize how poorly their situation is being treated. Besides that, the other present symbol in the play is the bag of macaroons. For the making of a macaron, the chef must first creates layers of the macaron, and then place the layers on top of each other. This is shown in the book because it represent Nora’s numerous amount of layers in her personality and character. Helmer bans Nora from eating macaroons, and she keeps insisting that she never disobeys, however, this is proved false as she repeatedly digests numbers of macaroons by herself in the living room. This shows Nora’s disobedience and deceit.
I found your analysis to be intriguing, especially the comparison between Nora and the macaroons that she loves to eat. I believe that what you said about Helmer and Nora was correct in how Helmer likes to control Nora, especially when Nora asked Helmer for help choosing and outfit for a party, he seemed excited. Helmer seems to be the type of person who enjoys always being in control as shown by how he restricts her allowance, prohibits her from eating macaroons, and makes time to choose her outfit which also shows how he enjoys being the “provider” or the “breadwinner” in the relationship, which is ironic seeing as how it was thanks to Nora’s hard work that allowed them to raise the money in order to take the trip South, saving Helmer’s life.
I find your analysis very interesting and I completely agree. My analysis is very similar to yours; I talked about the symbol of the Christmas by analyzing the beginning of Act II where it talks about the stage directions. Something I think that you could add to your analysis could be to discuss more specifically how the Christmas tree is in the corner of the room much like how Nora feels trapped or cornered by her secret. Also the Christmas tree parallels Nora’s psychological state (you mentioned this a little) throughout the play. When the tree first came home, she was excited and jubilant about her husband’s promotion similar to how the tree was looking fresh, but in the beginning of the second Act, the tree is droopy with burnt out candles reflecting how Nora is flustered and nervous. Also, I would like to point out that in the beginning of the play, Nora orders the maid to hide the Christmas tree from her children just like how she is hiding and secret from Torvald.
“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 people the idea that I am susceptible to any kind of outside pressure?” (Ibsen, II.42)
At this point of the novel, almost halfway through act 2, Nora has been blackmailed by Krogstad to keep his position, and even promote it, at the bank. However, by now, we all know how Torvald feels about Krogstad, since he has committed a crime unforgiving at that period (the same one Nora has committed). However, in this quote, we do realize certain aspects of Helmer’s character, and how Ibsen, in a way, is slowly briefly revealing the reader how the whole ‘Nora situation’ will turn out in the future if Torvald finds out about it. On one hand, we can see through the quote how the author has empowered the character of Torvald, and how he is making him seem more superior and condescending towards Nora. This, once again, reflects the contextual aspect of the play, since women were undermined and regarded as less than men, as they lacked political and social rights. We can also see this aspect in the fact that Torvald is afraid that she would “make [himself] a laughing stock in the office[?]... Give people the idea that [he is] susceptible to any kind of outside pressure [?]” (Ibsen, II.42) if he let’s Krogstad maintain his job at the bank because of Nora. Not only does this show how disdainful and supercilious Helmer is, but it also shows he in fact deeply cares about what people might think of him, and it helps the reader know and think about him finding out what Nora had done. Not only would he be upset due to the fact the Nora lied to him, but he will be infuriated because it will humiliate him, and destroy his reputation, as it did to Krogstad.
Wow, great analysis! I like the point that you brought up about how Helmer feels he is superior to Nora and this can be seen in the way he speaks to her. I also like the point that you brought up about how he really in truly does care about what people think about him. I had never thought of this idea and inferred that gender roles may not be the only reason he speaks to Nora in the manner he does. Perhaps he speaks down to her due to lack of self-esteem rather than just the problem of gender roles. Thanks for posting!
“Nora: With champagne flowing until dawn. And some macaroons, Helene… lots of them, for once in awhile. Helmer: Now, now, not so wild and excitable! Let me see you being my own little singing bird again.” (Ibsen, 60)
One of the key symbols that I noticed while reading this play is the popular almond meringue-based dessert, macaroons. Throughout the play, the forbidden macaroons serve as temptation and deception. In Act I, thanks to Dr. Rank, we learn that Helmer had forbidden Nora from eating macaroons, “Look at this, eh? Macaroons. I thought they were forbidden here” (I. 19). Nora quickly comes up with a lie: she tells Dr. Rank that Mrs. Linde gave them to her and said to Mrs. Linde, “You weren’t to know that Torvald had forbidden them. He’s worried in case they ruin my teeth, you know” (I. 19-20). Since she came up with a lie so quickly, we can infer that she easily surrenders herself to temptation, and the only way to get out of these situations is to lie. By eating the macaroons, Nora is ruining her “beauty,” which in turn will ruin her appearance and thus her family’s reputation. Going way back to the beginning of the play in Act I, Helmer asked Nora whether or not she “Didn’t go nibbling a macaroon or two?) (I. 5), and she lies to him without a second thought, “I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to” (I. 5). This statement shows how Nora lies unhesistantly to Helmer. It can also be seen as how at ease she is with doing things that Torvald does not seem to agree on.
Kelly, This is really interesting! I like how you mention that she does it without hesitation. This i think also is foreshadowing of her contract with Krogstad. And how she does not seem to care about the consequences, but merely on the immediate response of happiness of the trip that they took. I also this that Ibsen is showing Nora a a bit flaky in these scenes with the macaroons. She is not firmly grounded in anything and really just goes out on a whim for these situations. When she first buys them, right after she asks Torvald for money that she can store away, probably for the repayment of her debt. We infer that the money she spent on the macarons was also supposed to go towards repaying the debt and that she wasted it on something so small as a bit of sugar. When Torvald see the macaroon he says that they will ruin her, that they are bad for her. But Nora only sees them as something exciting and delicious. Ibsen adds this contrast to show how women and men can be given the same situation and get something completely different out of it. Also that men in this time period are seen as more practical and forward looking, while women are merely stuck in the moment and waiting for their husband to supply them with basic needs.
The Tarantella was a wild southern Italian folk dance, generally danced by a couple. The dance was named after the tarantula spider, whose poisonous bite was mistakenly believed to cause 'tarantism,' an uncontrollable urge for wild dancing. The 'cure' prescribed by doctors was for the sufferer to dance to exhaustion. Just as the original dancers, Nora was trying to rid her marriage and her life of the outside poisons that had entered it. Torvald tells Nora to practice the Tarantella while he shuts himself away in his office. While Torvald is acting as he is being indulgent towards his wife, the image of her practicing this passionate dance alone and unheard emphasizes her isolation within her marriage. Ibsen writes, “NORA dances more and more wildly. HELMER stands by the stove giving her repeated directions as she dances; she does not seem to hear them. Her hair comes undone and falls about her shoulder; she pays no attention and goes on dancing” (ii. 59). This is a significant moment in the play because this is the beginning of Nora’s independence from Torvald's every command and symbolizes the last time that Nora is Torvald’s doll. Rather than taking care of the problems with her marriage right away, like the dance, Nora lets her life continue to accelerate and spin out of control. The dance also symbolizes the submissive nature of women during the 19th century. Nora’s dance is her final attempt to maintain her appearance as a proper wife until the letter is open. The Tarantella is a dance in which the dancer and the drummer constantly try to upstage each other by dancing longer or playing faster than the other, subsequently tiring one person out first. This relates to Nora and Torvald, Nora and Torvald’s personalities play off of each other. Torvald is always trying to be the proper husband by always upstaging Nora, while Nora continually tries to upstage other women. They eventually both get tired of each other and this might foreshadow to them ending their marriage later in the play. Lastly, It is considered unlucky to dance the Tarantella alone so it is often danced by couples or by two women. In this scene Nora begs Torvald to dance with her but he continues to deny her wish. This is foreshadowing to the bad luck in Nora’s future.
In the second act, the theme of gender roles and societal norms is seen once more when Torvald refuses to acknowledge Nora's request to not send Krogstad his notice. At this point in the play, it is obvious that the dynamic within each household, and within this time period, is one of a patriarchal home. Torvald constantly refers to Nora with degrading pet names such as "songbird" and "skylark", and she too, will use these names to address herself. However, she does not always assume domestic roles which are normally associated with a housewife, but instead has her maid do these duties, as Torvald also desires. This shows the complexity within Victorian era gender roles (if you have the means to afford household help, then the wife will become even more of an object). Additionally in this scene, the reader is able to see more of how manipulative Nora is, but also how she is driven to become manipulative due to her oppressive situation. When Dr. Rank expresses his affection for Nora, she immediately recoils from flirting with him, and instead chooses to avoid him. It's clear at this point that Nora is cunning and scheming, but this is no different than the machiavellian actions of both Torvald and Krogstad, who seem to stop at nothing to advance their bank careers. It's true that in this household and society that similar actions committed by men also committed by women will be seen in two very different lights.
In Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House,” relationships between characters intensify throughout the entirety of the play. One really noticeable and present tension between two characters are Nora and Krogstad, as their peaceful relationship from the beginning of the book evolve into their cold conflicting relationship further into the play. The general characterization of Krogstad is displayed as very furtive and sneaky just by his introduction into the play, as the stage directions say, “Meanwhile there has been a knock at the front door, which nobody has heard. The door half opens, and Krogstad can be seen. He waits a little” (I. 23), also interrupting Nora’s game of hide-and-seek with her children. The tone in this part of the stage directions also gives off an ominous feeling towards his character because of how the play goes from happy children playing to a creepy old guy. The dialogue between the two also indicate signs of uneasiness tension that reflects Nora’s uncomfortable feeling when talking to Krogstad again, which can also be seen as foreshadowing to their future conversations and conflicts. This is indeed present when Krogstad blackmails Nora when he says, “I just wanted to see how things stood, Mrs. Helmer. I’ve been thinking about you all day. Even a mere money-lender, a hack journalist, a-well, even somebody like me has a bit of what you might call feeling” (II. 52), while also remaining to still be insanely unpleasant towards Nora. At this point of the play, Krogstad knows that Nora is in debt from going to the trip mentioned earlier, and will lose his job because of Helmer’s distrust in him, so he uses this to blackmail and threaten Nora. He makes it clear that if he loses his job, he will tell Helmer everything. This is the main tension and conflict within the play and now finally gives the book a some-what clear antagonist. Krogstad’s introduction into the play and contribution in the conflicts that Nora already have gives his characters a clear part in the play and indicates the true plot point and conflicts within all the characters in the play.
Towards the end of Act III in A Doll’s House, it was like a roller coaster ride of emotions. After Helmer reads Krogstad’s letter about the truth, it was as if a state of pandemonium was unleashed in the Helmer’s household, “Oh, what a terrible awakening this is. All these eight years… this woman who was my pride and joy… a hypocrite, a liar, worse than that, a criminal! Oh, how utterly squalid it all is!” (I. 75). On the other hand, Nora tries to explain that what she did was done out of love, “It is true. I loved you more than anything else in the world” (I. 75). Helmer goes on berating his wife and how she ruined his life, and at one point in time, he decides that he’s done with her and their relationship. He tells Nora that she must continue living with him due to appearances, but other than that their relationship is over, “And as far as you and I are concerned, things must appear to go on exactly as before. But only in the eyes of the world, of course” (I. 76). A little later, a maid comes in with a letter from Krogstad. In the letter, which includes Nora’s forged IOU, he apologizes for trying to blackmail them and he feels ashamed. Torvald’s mood is completely changed. While I was reading this scene, I kept diagnosing Torvald Helmer with Bipolar Disorder. A few minutes ago, I thought he was going to explode, but now he tells Nora that he has fully forgiven her from the bottom of his heart and how much he loves her “Why this grim look on your face? Oh, poor little Nora, of course I understand. You can’t bring yourself to believe I’ve forgiven you. But I have, Nora, I swear it. I know you did what you did because you loved me” (I. 77).
Great analysis. I liked how you noticed how Helmer’s mood had changed so drastically during this scene. Do you think maybe the reason his mood changed so much is because he had nothing to hold on to her with? For example, when he had first read the letter, he exploded on her, and was very rude. After finding out that Krogstad wasn’t going to do anything about eh situation, his mood changed because they were no longer in trouble. I think the reason Helmer treats Nora so poorly is because he holds things over her head to a point that she thinks he needs him. Once they found out they were okay, Nora leaves because she feels there is no love in the marriage and he no longer has a grip on her?
In Ibsen’s play “A Doll’s House,” an orthodox family living during the Victorian Era encounters multiple conflicts and difficulties, while expressing themes such as the sacrificial role of women, false appearances, freedom, and etc. Throughout the book, the notion of bias and lack of women rights are constantly present and shown within Nora and Helmer’s relationship. In the beginning of the play, it was clear that Nora was oblivious to her surroundings and that Helmer was fully in control of her, to the point where he used her as an economic institution and cared little for her safety. However, as the book progresses into the third act, the tides change. After the plot reaches its climax and Nora is about to leave her house, husband, and kids, Helmer loses control over her and also his state of mind as he says, “Nora, can I never be anything more to you than a stranger?” (III. 86.) and he continues to beg her to stay and questions her sudden change in feelings. Now at this point in the book, Nora has broken the chains Helmer has tied her up to ever since they married, and gained the realization that she no longer requires dependence in Helmer. Their role as characters in the play reverses as Helmer cries and pities for her leaving, while Nora is confident, bold, and dauntless in her decision and that it is the best one for her and her family. The play finally ends with Nora constantly refusing and denying any of Helmer’s request and leaving him behind in an abrupted manner, finalizing the themes and motifs about women and their roles in society to the reader.
I really like your analysis and overall summary of the play. Its interesting to see how Helmer's personality begins to truly show how controlling he is and his disbelief of how Nora has completely changed. One thing I think you should have added was what ending you liked better and why. These motifs really expressed all of the problems which occurred during this era, so having an appropriate ending is imporatnt to finalized these themes and motifs.
Very good analysis of the the Helmer's relationship. However, I feel like instead of Nora being manipulated, she manipulated her husband in order to show him how careless he truly was towards her. During one of their conversations together she referred to herself as "his doll". The object HE could manipulate and take advantage of. This makes me question who the true "child behind the doll" really is
The two endings in A Doll’s House provides readers with a greater understanding of the sociocultural setting in the 1800’s. In the German ending that Ibsen was forced to write, Nora looks at her sleeping children and realizes that she cannot leave them. Instead of seeking her freedom and discovering her identity, she decides to remain in the marriage. In the original, Nora stands true to her beliefs and leaves Torvald and her children which sends a very strong feminist message to the audience. The two endings provide conflicting viewpoints based on the region in which they were published. The English Victorian Era was reaching a pivotal moment in the gaining of independence and rights for women. This is apparent in the original ending to A Doll’s House as well as other classical pieces of the time like The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilma. The German ending on the other hand in a complete change in tone, institutes a pathos argument to support the geopolitical state of Germany in 1879. At the time Germany had instituted a “Family Law” that made women inferior to males in marriage. Knowing this, it would be devastating for the German populace to have a revolutionary Victorian play such as A Doll’s House available to the public, so the ending was forcibly changed. Ibsen was exasperated by this ending and said himself that it was a “barbaric outrage”. Ibsen was shocked by the Germans and their unwillingness to even imagine a woman standing up for what she believed in. The implications of this translation made me aware of how the translations of works I read in class could be skewed potentially to my culture.
Great analysis! This makes me think about why societies today often expurgate certain content, because a society deems it to be disrespecting. Such as today's music and movies. I would say that this era really sparked the revolution to become more open minded about ideas that a society typically thought was not appropriate.
In the end of Ibsen’s play “A Doll’s House”, we can see the true meaning of the symbols present, like the Christmas tree. On one hand, the christmas tree can be seen as a reflection of Nora, and how the physical appearance changes with Nora’s character. It can also be seen as a clear demonstration of Nora’s chain of lies, which grow smaller and smaller as we read, and finally it parallels to Nora’s life in that house, being almost worthless and just as a decoration. At the beginning of Act 1, it is clear how the author tries to convey the tone of the play by the stage directions and settings, since he has described this mansion as rich, warm and almost luxurious. This is also when the Porter brings into the house the Christmas tree, symbolizing the introduction of Nora’s conflict. Furthermore, in Act 2, after Krogstad had already blackmailed Nora and jeopardizing the Helmer’s reputation, the same Christmas tree is described as “stripped, bedraggled and with its candles burnt out”. (II.35) The use of Ibsen’s diction in the stage directions helps the reader understand Nora’s situation and how the change her character is going through. For instance, the fact that the tree is “stripped” and “bedraggled” shows how the truth is slowly revealing, while she is deteriorating physically and emotionally. This can also be seen in “its candles burnt out”, which shows how Nora’s fun and playful character is gradually dying. The fact that the Christmas Tree, initially garnished and decorated, but later stripped and empty shows how Nora’s immature behavior slowly and steadily fades away, which, in a sort of way portrays the loss of Nora’s childish character and the introducing of her new, adult self.
Your analysis of the christmas tree was great, and I also had similar thoughts when reading this part of the play. I believe that the christmas tree is one of the most important symbols in this play, if not the most important one. As you said, the christmas tree can be seen as a reflection of Nora, or as a demonstration of her lies, and I believe Ibsen used this to foreshadow what is to come later on in the play. At this point in time Nora’s lies have not been revealed to Torvald, but the Christmas tree foreshadows that event occurring. Just like how the tree branches are supporting all the decorations wrapped around it, Nora is supporting her lies that seemed wrapped around her. But just like how that tree will eventually fail to support all the decorations it is carrying as it deteriorates more and more, Nora will eventually fail to support all her lies as well.
Upon finishing A Doll’s House, I was particularly interested in the symbolism of the christmas tree, and the general message of the play; whether it was to be regarded as a feminist manifesto or not. As for the christmas tree, it grows to represent Nora’s dishonesty and her deceitfulness among her family and her friends. With the play opening to Nora hastily telling her maid, Helene, to “hide the Christmas tree away carefully...The children mustn’t see it until this evening when it’s decorated,” (I. i. 1), the significance of the Christmas tree in this domestic setting becomes apparent to the reader immediately. As Nora is trying to keep the mystery of the Christmas tree hidden from her family, her children in particular, she is trying desperately to keep her crime and her misdoings hidden too. Additionally, the state of the Christmas tree bares a marked resemblance to Nora’s psychological state throughout the play. In the beginning of Act II, the stage notes describe the tree as “stripped, bedraggled, and with its candles burnt out,” and Nora similarly is seen “alone there, [walking] about restlessly,” (II. i. 35). In each Act, as the Christmas tree becomes more and more disheveled, Nora becomes increasingly anxious about the possibility of Helmer opening Krogstad’s letter, and her entire homelife unraveling. Helmer also objectifies and reduces Nora down to nothing but a chirruping skylark or squirrel, similar to how the Christmas tree is nothing but an inanimate, decorated object of family life. Considering the feminist qualities of the play, it’s difficult to deny that A Doll’s House has a feminist influence and provides a commentary on the lives of women during this era. However, There are aspects within the play that counter this, specifically, the alternate German ending. The ending, in contrast with the original, leaves Nora choosing to stay at home instead of following through on her initial desires to leave. This is problematic for two reasons: 1) It suggests that women (maybe just Nora) didn’t have the strength to leave everything that is expected of them, and pretty much just reinforces the ideals in Victorian society instead of challenging them. 2) The alternate ending creates a martyr out of Nora instead of empowering her as a fierce, resolute human being.
I agree with your analysis, especially about the play having feminist qualities. The alternative ending was written for the premiere in Germany in 1879, a time when women's rights were not of the greatest importance or standing, and therefore the original play was deemed too 'scandalous' for audience members. For a female to make her own decisions, have a brain, and be overall empowered did not agree with the views of this era that consisted of submissive, demure, and aloof women. Although Nora may seem to fit the descriptions above for the majority of the play, and she seems very self-absorbed in some instances, she achieves redemption in the end when she confronts her husband. Once she views the reality that her husband does not care about anything but himself and his reputation, Nora is resolute about leaving and finally realizes the amount of 'love' he holds for her, which is virtually non-existent. The arrival of the initial letter by Krogstad prompts an outburst from Torvald, blaming his wife for all the unhappiness he suffered "Now you have ruined my entire happiness, jeopardized my whole future. It’s terrible to think of. Here I am, at the mercy of a thoroughly unscrupulous person; he can do whatever he likes with me, demand anything he wants, order me about just as he chooses...and I daren’t even whimper. I’m done for, a miserable failure, and it’s all the fault of a feather-brained woman!" (76). This emotionally abusive relationship is evident, and it is a triumph for Nora, and may have even been empowering to women in the audience, to watch another female leave the frivolity and comfort of her home in order to seek out a better life, and a purpose for oneself, which makes the writing of the alternative ending a crime, and frankly, a mistake.
A topic that I want to touch base on would be how a woman’s “sacred duty,” back in the days, would to be a great fruitful wife and a caring/ loving mother. Although it is not an entirely bad thing, there are still some flaws to it. When Nora reveals to Helmer that she has made the decision to leave him and stay with Mrs. Linde for the time being, Torvald replies with “You are out of your mind! I won’t let you! I forbid you!” (I. 81). Nora then explains that she plans on leaving because she yearns to experience things and want to understand more about herself. When Torvald asks “Don’t you care what people will say?,” it shows to prove that despite his wife leaving him in order to better herself, he still finds it necessary to bring in other people’s perspectives and opinions on things. But being herself, Nora has no interest and could honestly care less about what other people have to say about her. I find it so infuriating that Helmer told Nora that she has no right to leave because she is “betraying her most sacred duty” (I. 82), which is a duty to her husband and her children. Nora states that “I have another duty equally sacred. My duty to myself” (I. 82). I applaud Nora for putting herself as her number one priority and taking the initiative to reevaluate herself. I wonder what it was like to be a woman during the Victorian Era… I can’t imagine someone, having all of these knowledge and not being able to use it because she was born to take care of her husband and children.
I agree; Nora's decision was a brave one, and I am glad she took it. You reminded me that although Nora is transcending society's rules, Torvald still fails to see past his precious reputation and traditional marriage roles. This is interestingly ironic that although this play is commenting on inferiority, it's the woman in the end who undergoes major characterization and who "wins", in a sense.
In the third act of the play, the reader could notice Nora’s definition of freedom changing. At the beginning, she emphasized that to her, freedom meant getting rid of her debt and living the same life she currently was. However, in the third act, her view is very different. As the play progresses, we see Nora’s role evolving; she starts out as a submissive wife looking to keep her husband out of trouble, and gradually becomes a strong-willed, independent woman. At the beginning of the play, Nora says, “ Oh yes, Torvald, surely we can afford to be just a little bit extravagant now, can’t we? Just a teeny-weeny bit. You are getting quite a good salary now, and you are going to earn lots and lots of money” (I.2). Nora’s diction at the beginning of the play and the way she acts around her husband gives the reader the sense that she is obedient and almost childish. The way she compares herself to an animal when talking to her husband makes her seem unintelligent and compliant. However, as the play progresses, it becomes clear that Nora is actually very intelligent; she isn’t so much letting her husband walk all over her as she is giving him a false sense of power to gain something for herself. At the end of act 3, Nora says to Torvald, “When you had gotten over your fright—and you weren’t concerned about me but only about what might happen to you—and when all danger was past, you acted as though nothing had happened. I was your little sky-lark again, your little doll, exactly as before; except you would have to protect it twice as carefully as before, now that it had shown itself to be so weak and fragile” (III.85). Nora again uses animal diction, but she is no longer talking about herself. Instead, she is criticizing Torvald for the first time by finally standing up to him and the way he had treated her. As the play comes to a close, the audience finally sees Nora’s new definition of freedom emerge. She no longer wants to merely please Torvald or keep their family name intact. Instead, she longs for a life where she feels in control and independent. And in the end, she finally gets what she wanted all along—the chance to be a strong woman in a time when women were supposed to be weak.
I agree with your analysis. Also, a lot of criticism is shown to Nora. Torvald and Kristine criticizes Nora.s intelligence and her lack of experience. Torvald also uses the animal names to criticizes her helpless appearance. Nora starts as the typical Victorian house wife, but a the play moves forward Nora changes because of her secret and others reaction to this secret. When Torvald found out, his reaction was the turning point for Nora’s internal change. She was unsure what to do and whether to stay. When Torvald did what she knew he would and did not react the way she had hoped she made her final unchangeable decision to leave. Nora changes from weak to self reliant.
Having finished the play, I think that it is arguable that the most significant technique that Ibsen uses to convey the different themes in his play is the use of symbolism. The one that was hidden but resonated with me the most is the symbol of light. It is well known how light is used in literature, for instance, in differing the good from the bad, to signify god and glory and to express the overwhelming power of love. In ‘A Doll’s House’, it is evident how light plays a prominent role when portraying the meaning and significance of the theme of lie and deceit. For instance, we can see how the light accompanies Nora’s lie, getting brighter as the truth is slowly being revealed. An example of this can be seen after Krogstad’s second visit to the Helmer’s house, in which he blackmails and threatens to ruin her family’s reputation, which is shown in the stage direction at the beginning of Act 3, where the “lamp is burning on the table”. (III. 63) As we know, Nora’s lie is coming close to an end, and the fact that the lamp on the table is “burning” shows the extent of the upcoming revelation. Another example of the portrayal of the light as a symbol is seen when “the maid comes in with the lamp, puts it on the table” (II.49), after Dr. Rank had expressed his deep love towards Nora, in her attempt to seduce him to borrow money in order to pay off Krogstad. We can see how, at first, Nora was playing out her game, in which she would try to flirt with Rank to take advantage of his wealth and money. However, we can see how she actually fails, since Rank has actually fallen in love with her, ruining the entire masquerade in which Nora had pretended to have feelings for him. Therefore, when the maid brings back the lamp, it shows how Nora’s disguise actually fails, and how this contributes to the fact that her big lie is soon to reveal.
In the first act of Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House,” the first two main characters are introduced; a couple named Nora and Torvald Helmer. Helmer is referenced as a lawyer, while Nora just remains as his obedient wife. Right off the gate, assumptions between the two characters can be easily made by their diction in regular conversation, tone in voice, and action as they discuss for the majority of the first few pages of the play. Nora is characterized as a clueless, money-hungered child who knows little about the outside world. She repeatedly asks Helmer questions and ideas as if she were very young and seems as though she rely fully on him. Ibsen writes this way because during the time period of when the play is set, The Victorian Era, this was highly common and viewed as the norm for wives to fully depend on their husbands. Helmer also shows this as he says, “You can’t deny it, Nora, dear. My pretty little pet is very sweet, but it runs away with an awful a lot of money. It’s incredible how expensive it is for a man to keep such a pet” (I. 4), because of his usage of vulgarity diction. He doesn’t identify Nora as a human being, but rather refers to her as a pet, an animal. This shows his overall total control over her and how much she depends on him as a person. In the following lines after the quote, Helmer also makes it clear that he places a value on her and mocks her child-like features, further supporting the idea and motif within the play that males have a much upper hand towards all females during that time. This can also be seen as foreshadowing because it lets the reader question if Nora will ever change and eventually realize her lack of independence in her life.
ReplyDeleteWow, what a post! Your analysis of the characterization of the two main characters is spot-on and went well with what I already had in mind about them! At this point in the story, Helmer is subtly exerting his control over Nora by using dehumanizing terminology and nicknames. The quote you chose demonstrates this quite well and further backs up my point. Your points about the possible foreshadowing were also very solid!
DeleteIn act 1 Ibsen introduces many characters, the most essential being the married couple Nora and Helmer. The opening scene to A Doll’s House shows the transaction between Nora and the porter. This scene instantly puts the spotlight on money and Nora’s views on how to spend it. Though Nora owes the porter fifty øre, a Norwegian unit of currency, she gives him twice that amount. This presents the idea that either Nora is very wealthy but also very generous or the idea that Nora throws away money and does not understand the hard earned dollar, which was very common for a girl in this era. After this transaction occurs Helmer comes into the play with his opening line “Is that my little sky-lark chirping out there?” (i. 1). Then follows this sentence with the line “is that my little squirrel frisking about?” (i. 2). Both times he is referring to Nora as an animal. This name calling indicates that Helmer thinks of Nora as a pet, which he later calls her in this act. Pets are not equal to humans, though they are loved unconditionally by many, they are meant to be obedient to their owners. Helmer calling his wife a “squirrel”, “skylark”, and “pet” reflects how all men treated women in this time period, as obedient, fragile animals. The skylark, however, is an ironic name for Nora because skylarks are a powerful representative of freedom, inspiration, hope, and joy which so far contrasts Nora’s character and how women were treated during this time period. Bird songs are among the most complex sounds produced by animals and the skylark sings one of the most complex songs of all. This may be foreshadowing to Nora proposing that she is a complex character who eventually will hold the same traits of freedom, inspiration, hope, and joy just like these birds.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your analysis! We both see that these animal allusions are used to dehumanize Nora, however I also found it interesting how Torvald only calls Nora by these names when he is greeting or adoring her. For example, he says, "is that my little squirrel frisking about?" (Ibsen 2). I think that by doing this he is further showing how he thinks that Nora is helpless and needs him.
DeleteIn the beginning of Act I in A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen, the readers are introduced to two main characters, Torvald Helmer and his wife Nora. Right away, it is evident, through the Helmer’s relationship, that there is a prominent distinction of gender inequality. An example of gender inequality is seen on page four when Nora begs her husband for money “Oh, please, Torvald dear! Please! I beg you” (Ibsen 4). This scene proves the point that during the Victorian Era, men had much more power than women. During this era, when a woman married, all of her property, money, any inheritance that she received automatically transferred/ belonged to her husband. Also the cringey names that Helmer gives to Nora is a way for him to charmingly assert power and reminds her who is in charge, “Is that my little sky-lark chirruping out there? / Yes, it is. / Is that my little squirrel frisking about? / Yes! / When did my little squirrel come home?” (Ibsen 1-2). By referring Nora to animals such as a bird and squirrel, he puts it into perspective that Nora is his possession and he’s more of her owner than as her husband. When Helmer hands Nora money, Nora says “Ten, twenty, thirty, forty. Oh thank you, thank you Torvald! This will see me quite a long way” (Ibsen 3). This scene shows the lack of equality between Helmer and Nora, and how much control he has over money and most probably other things as well. The way that she repeatedly says “thank you, thank you” displays how dependent she is of her husband.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis Kelly, really well thought out! I like how you mentioned the fact that there is a gender equality between Helmer and Nora. That he thinks he is her superior and that this can be represented through the diction that Ibsen gives to Nora. The way the she begs him and has to ask permission to spend money. Usually in a marriage, it’s a combined income and spouses don’t have to ask for permission to spend money. Yes, they talk about what they will chose to spend their money on, but that is for large scale purchases/investments. In this conversation. Helmer was mad at Nora because she bought a few more christmas presents than she would have last year. Later in the play, we will see that gender equality carries on throughout many other characters. Thanks for posting!
DeleteIn the first few pages of Act I, the author introduces the character of Nora using diction to portray her childlike and unwary character. This can first be seen throughout her conversation with her husband, Helmer, in which he uses words such as “little singing bird”, “little squirrel”, and “pretty little pet” (I. 4) when referring to her. As we know, the Victorian Era was a time where women had little to no saying in things, had few rights and lack of dignity, since they were succumbed to their husbands needs and desires. Even though the relationship between Nora and Helmer seem vital and caring, it is clear how Nora seems guileless and ingenious regarding this situation, as she accepts the fact that she is called under names of animals, or treated like a child. However, the contextual situation of Nora and Helmer are not the only circumstances that create these distinct and odd characteristics of Nora’s character; she is treated as she is because of the way she is. In other words, Nora seems like a mindless, and empty-headed women, as it is evident she seems to lack a sense of adulthood. This is seen in the conversation between Nora and Mrs. Linde, in which Mrs. Linde is not surprised by Nora’s attitude, and asks if she “haven’t learned any sense yet?” (I.9). Nora’s attitude towards money makes the reader expect the plot, or conflict of the play will regard Nora entangled in a financial problem, considering her childish and immature behaviour.
ReplyDelete“NORA: I don’t believe it. Isn’t a daughter entitled to try and save her father from worry and anxiety on his deathbed? Isn’t a wife entitled to save her husband’s life? I might not know very much about the law, but I feel sure of one thing: it must say somewhere that things like this are allowed”. (I.i.29).
ReplyDeleteThis quote says a lot about the context of the play, the character of Nora, and is introducing the plot of Ibsen’s book. To begin with, regarding the social and cultural contexts of the play, we can see how there are fair similarities with today’s social standards and the legal systems, and how they go against people’s morals. For instance, the fact that Nora committed a crime (falsifying her father’s signature when dealing with financial situations) to save her husband’s life and for the sake of her own father’s life creates the whole controversial ideas concerning law and order. Did Nora do wrong by faking her father’s signature just to save her husband’s life? Did she really have to go through all the legal process even though it would take weeks and Helmer’s health was at risk? We can see how these questions rise up and can be argued from both sides, but is a clear indice of how social standards are similar, or even the same as today’s. Furthermore, this is also shows us how mere aspects of Nora’s character, and how she seems foolish and ingenious towards these issues; not only does it seem that she does not respect her (women’s) position at this time period, but she also seems irresponsible and careless towards important matters like these. Though it may seem that she is childish in all aspects, and lacks certain adult traits, it is clear how devoted and caring she is for her husband which, at the end, is the most important feature to consider. Lastly, the fact that Nora is undergoing the same situation as Krogstad had gone through a few years prior, which had deteriorated him and ruined his professional reputations, creates the tension in the play. The reader now seems to relate and connect the conflict of Nora and of Krogstad, and how Nora not only is getting caught in an entanglement while being blackmailed, but also can relate to Krogstad’s problem since he was portrayed as fouly and a criminal.
Amber Mao
DeleteI agree with your analysis, especially with what you said about the controversy of society's rules with Nora's actions. The question here could be "do the ends justify the means?" in that to Nora, it is worth the risk to break the law to save her husband's life and let her father die peacefully. Although it is foolish of her to believe that laws would allow for being broken in extenuating circumstances, it shows how determined she is to help those she cares for, and to finish her business with Krogstad without Torvald finding out.
Towards the end of Act I in A Doll’s House, Ibsen characterizes Krogstad as a bully and the antagonist in the play. Since Krogstad’s position in the bank might be jeopardized in the near future, he goes to talk to Nora in the hope that the influence she has over her husband, Torvald Helmer, will allow him to keep his job. He begins by giving Nora a subtle threat, “That’s because you haven’t the will to help me. But I have ways of making you” (I. 26). Nora, half choking with tears, replies by saying “You would make things horrible unpleasant for me….” (I. 26). Later on, the audience learns that Krogstad figured out how Nora had forged her father’s signature in order to get a loan, and because of that, Krogstad is using this against her “The curious thing is, Mrs. Helmer, that you father signed this document three days after his death” (I. 28). The reason why Krogstad might lose his job is because in the past he forged signatures. Consequently, this bad mistake that he committed ruined his reputation and his career. Krogstad is desperate to keep his position at the bank because he doesn’t want his bad reputation to affect his children, and he wishes to fix his bad reputation. I find it kind of funny that he’s threatening Nora with forging her father’s signature, but did he not commit the same crime as well?
ReplyDeleteThe first rising action we see in this play is Nora’s first conversation with Mrs. Linde. This conversation plays a key role in establishing Nora’s selfish, insensitive, and child-like character. During this conversation we see that Nora always finds a way to revert the conversation back to her life and her problems, showing no care for Mrs. Linde’s stories. Not only this, Nora also realizes that she never sent a letter to Mrs. Linde after her husband has passed away and it is now, three years later, that she decides to finally show the slightest bit of sympathy. Like a child Nora does not seem to have any sort of filter, she just speaks her mind without question to what is and is not appropriate. This trait was especially bad and not accepted in this era because one of the biggest rules of this era was to always be prim, proper, and respectful to others. Nora shows no sort of respect to Mrs. Linde when she says
ReplyDelete“NORA ...But you are a bit paler Kristine… and perhaps even a bit thinner!
MRS LINDE. And much, much older, Nora
NORA. Yes, perhaps a little older… very, very little, not really very much’ (i. 7).
Here Nora tactlessly comments that Mrs. Linde’s looks have declined over the years which is a big deal in this era when appearance was so important to woman. She also acts very insensitive to her friend when she talks about how much money Torvald and her were going to make even though she recognizes that Mrs. Linde is poor. Nora is again insensitive when she asks Mrs. Linde if she has any children. When Mrs. Linde replies back saying no, Nora then says to her, “so utterly alone. How terribly sad that must be for you. I have three lovely children” (i. 8). Nora addresses her sympathy for Mrs. Linde but then right after goes on to talk about her “three lovely children” being very insensitive to Mrs. Linde and also seeming as though she is trying to one up her.
In Ibsen’s play “A Doll’s House,” symbolism is used repeatedly to enhance the themes and motifs Ibsen presents of the Victorian Era. The first two main ones are located at the very beginning of the play in Act 1; the Christmas tree and the bag of macaroons. At the beginning of the Act, Nora and Helmer have a feud about a Christmas tree and the decorations around the house for the celebration of Christmas and continually discuss their plans and problems that arise. As the Christmas tree was delivered by the jocund wife of Helmer, Nora showed a flurry of excitement and joy for Christmas. This represents the family's happiness and unity due to Nora’s great desire to make her home pleasant and attractive for her husband and family who will experience it. However, at the beginning of Act 2, the stage directions say, “In the corner stands the Christmas tree, stripped, bedraggled, and with its candles burnt out” (II. 35), which gives an indication of how this symbol all fell down. This conveys Nora’s lost of innocence and also indicates foreshadowing. It foreshadows the possibility of Nora’s family being disintegrated and perished as she and other possible characters might realize how poorly their situation is being treated. Besides that, the other present symbol in the play is the bag of macaroons. For the making of a macaron, the chef must first creates layers of the macaron, and then place the layers on top of each other. This is shown in the book because it represent Nora’s numerous amount of layers in her personality and character. Helmer bans Nora from eating macaroons, and she keeps insisting that she never disobeys, however, this is proved false as she repeatedly digests numbers of macaroons by herself in the living room. This shows Nora’s disobedience and deceit.
ReplyDeleteI found your analysis to be intriguing, especially the comparison between Nora and the macaroons that she loves to eat. I believe that what you said about Helmer and Nora was correct in how Helmer likes to control Nora, especially when Nora asked Helmer for help choosing and outfit for a party, he seemed excited. Helmer seems to be the type of person who enjoys always being in control as shown by how he restricts her allowance, prohibits her from eating macaroons, and makes time to choose her outfit which also shows how he enjoys being the “provider” or the “breadwinner” in the relationship, which is ironic seeing as how it was thanks to Nora’s hard work that allowed them to raise the money in order to take the trip South, saving Helmer’s life.
DeleteI find your analysis very interesting and I completely agree. My analysis is very similar to yours; I talked about the symbol of the Christmas by analyzing the beginning of Act II where it talks about the stage directions. Something I think that you could add to your analysis could be to discuss more specifically how the Christmas tree is in the corner of the room much like how Nora feels trapped or cornered by her secret. Also the Christmas tree parallels Nora’s psychological state (you mentioned this a little) throughout the play. When the tree first came home, she was excited and jubilant about her husband’s promotion similar to how the tree was looking fresh, but in the beginning of the second Act, the tree is droopy with burnt out candles reflecting how Nora is flustered and nervous. Also, I would like to point out that in the beginning of the play, Nora orders the maid to hide the Christmas tree from her children just like how she is hiding and secret from Torvald.
Delete“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 people the idea that I am susceptible to any kind of outside pressure?” (Ibsen, II.42)
ReplyDeleteAt this point of the novel, almost halfway through act 2, Nora has been blackmailed by Krogstad to keep his position, and even promote it, at the bank. However, by now, we all know how Torvald feels about Krogstad, since he has committed a crime unforgiving at that period (the same one Nora has committed). However, in this quote, we do realize certain aspects of Helmer’s character, and how Ibsen, in a way, is slowly briefly revealing the reader how the whole ‘Nora situation’ will turn out in the future if Torvald finds out about it. On one hand, we can see through the quote how the author has empowered the character of Torvald, and how he is making him seem more superior and condescending towards Nora. This, once again, reflects the contextual aspect of the play, since women were undermined and regarded as less than men, as they lacked political and social rights. We can also see this aspect in the fact that Torvald is afraid that she would “make [himself] a laughing stock in the office[?]... Give people the idea that [he is] susceptible to any kind of outside pressure [?]” (Ibsen, II.42) if he let’s Krogstad maintain his job at the bank because of Nora. Not only does this show how disdainful and supercilious Helmer is, but it also shows he in fact deeply cares about what people might think of him, and it helps the reader know and think about him finding out what Nora had done. Not only would he be upset due to the fact the Nora lied to him, but he will be infuriated because it will humiliate him, and destroy his reputation, as it did to Krogstad.
Wow, great analysis! I like the point that you brought up about how Helmer feels he is superior to Nora and this can be seen in the way he speaks to her. I also like the point that you brought up about how he really in truly does care about what people think about him. I had never thought of this idea and inferred that gender roles may not be the only reason he speaks to Nora in the manner he does. Perhaps he speaks down to her due to lack of self-esteem rather than just the problem of gender roles. Thanks for posting!
Delete“Nora: With champagne flowing until dawn. And some macaroons, Helene… lots of them, for once in awhile.
ReplyDeleteHelmer: Now, now, not so wild and excitable! Let me see you being my own little singing bird again.” (Ibsen, 60)
One of the key symbols that I noticed while reading this play is the popular almond meringue-based dessert, macaroons. Throughout the play, the forbidden macaroons serve as temptation and deception. In Act I, thanks to Dr. Rank, we learn that Helmer had forbidden Nora from eating macaroons, “Look at this, eh? Macaroons. I thought they were forbidden here” (I. 19). Nora quickly comes up with a lie: she tells Dr. Rank that Mrs. Linde gave them to her and said to Mrs. Linde, “You weren’t to know that Torvald had forbidden them. He’s worried in case they ruin my teeth, you know” (I. 19-20). Since she came up with a lie so quickly, we can infer that she easily surrenders herself to temptation, and the only way to get out of these situations is to lie. By eating the macaroons, Nora is ruining her “beauty,” which in turn will ruin her appearance and thus her family’s reputation. Going way back to the beginning of the play in Act I, Helmer asked Nora whether or not she “Didn’t go nibbling a macaroon or two?) (I. 5), and she lies to him without a second thought, “I would never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to” (I. 5). This statement shows how Nora lies unhesistantly to Helmer. It can also be seen as how at ease she is with doing things that Torvald does not seem to agree on.
Kelly, This is really interesting! I like how you mention that she does it without hesitation. This i think also is foreshadowing of her contract with Krogstad. And how she does not seem to care about the consequences, but merely on the immediate response of happiness of the trip that they took. I also this that Ibsen is showing Nora a a bit flaky in these scenes with the macaroons. She is not firmly grounded in anything and really just goes out on a whim for these situations. When she first buys them, right after she asks Torvald for money that she can store away, probably for the repayment of her debt. We infer that the money she spent on the macarons was also supposed to go towards repaying the debt and that she wasted it on something so small as a bit of sugar. When Torvald see the macaroon he says that they will ruin her, that they are bad for her. But Nora only sees them as something exciting and delicious. Ibsen adds this contrast to show how women and men can be given the same situation and get something completely different out of it. Also that men in this time period are seen as more practical and forward looking, while women are merely stuck in the moment and waiting for their husband to supply them with basic needs.
DeleteThe Tarantella was a wild southern Italian folk dance, generally danced by a couple. The dance was named after the tarantula spider, whose poisonous bite was mistakenly believed to cause 'tarantism,' an uncontrollable urge for wild dancing. The 'cure' prescribed by doctors was for the sufferer to dance to exhaustion. Just as the original dancers, Nora was trying to rid her marriage and her life of the outside poisons that had entered it. Torvald tells Nora to practice the Tarantella while he shuts himself away in his office. While Torvald is acting as he is being indulgent towards his wife, the image of her practicing this passionate dance alone and unheard emphasizes her isolation within her marriage. Ibsen writes, “NORA dances more and more wildly. HELMER stands by the stove giving her repeated directions as she dances; she does not seem to hear them. Her hair comes undone and falls about her shoulder; she pays no attention and goes on dancing” (ii. 59). This is a significant moment in the play because this is the beginning of Nora’s independence from Torvald's every command and symbolizes the last time that Nora is Torvald’s doll. Rather than taking care of the problems with her marriage right away, like the dance, Nora lets her life continue to accelerate and spin out of control. The dance also symbolizes the submissive nature of women during the 19th century. Nora’s dance is her final attempt to maintain her appearance as a proper wife until the letter is open. The Tarantella is a dance in which the dancer and the drummer constantly try to upstage each other by dancing longer or playing faster than the other, subsequently tiring one person out first. This relates to Nora and Torvald, Nora and Torvald’s personalities play off of each other. Torvald is always trying to be the proper husband by always upstaging Nora, while Nora continually tries to upstage other women. They eventually both get tired of each other and this might foreshadow to them ending their marriage later in the play. Lastly, It is considered unlucky to dance the Tarantella alone so it is often danced by couples or by two women. In this scene Nora begs Torvald to dance with her but he continues to deny her wish. This is foreshadowing to the bad luck in Nora’s future.
ReplyDeleteIn the second act, the theme of gender roles and societal norms is seen once more when Torvald refuses to acknowledge Nora's request to not send Krogstad his notice. At this point in the play, it is obvious that the dynamic within each household, and within this time period, is one of a patriarchal home. Torvald constantly refers to Nora with degrading pet names such as "songbird" and "skylark", and she too, will use these names to address herself. However, she does not always assume domestic roles which are normally associated with a housewife, but instead has her maid do these duties, as Torvald also desires. This shows the complexity within Victorian era gender roles (if you have the means to afford household help, then the wife will become even more of an object). Additionally in this scene, the reader is able to see more of how manipulative Nora is, but also how she is driven to become manipulative due to her oppressive situation. When Dr. Rank expresses his affection for Nora, she immediately recoils from flirting with him, and instead chooses to avoid him. It's clear at this point that Nora is cunning and scheming, but this is no different than the machiavellian actions of both Torvald and Krogstad, who seem to stop at nothing to advance their bank careers. It's true that in this household and society that similar actions committed by men also committed by women will be seen in two very different lights.
ReplyDeleteIn Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House,” relationships between characters intensify throughout the entirety of the play. One really noticeable and present tension between two characters are Nora and Krogstad, as their peaceful relationship from the beginning of the book evolve into their cold conflicting relationship further into the play. The general characterization of Krogstad is displayed as very furtive and sneaky just by his introduction into the play, as the stage directions say, “Meanwhile there has been a knock at the front door, which nobody has heard. The door half opens, and Krogstad can be seen. He waits a little” (I. 23), also interrupting Nora’s game of hide-and-seek with her children. The tone in this part of the stage directions also gives off an ominous feeling towards his character because of how the play goes from happy children playing to a creepy old guy. The dialogue between the two also indicate signs of uneasiness tension that reflects Nora’s uncomfortable feeling when talking to Krogstad again, which can also be seen as foreshadowing to their future conversations and conflicts. This is indeed present when Krogstad blackmails Nora when he says, “I just wanted to see how things stood, Mrs. Helmer. I’ve been thinking about you all day. Even a mere money-lender, a hack journalist, a-well, even somebody like me has a bit of what you might call feeling” (II. 52), while also remaining to still be insanely unpleasant towards Nora. At this point of the play, Krogstad knows that Nora is in debt from going to the trip mentioned earlier, and will lose his job because of Helmer’s distrust in him, so he uses this to blackmail and threaten Nora. He makes it clear that if he loses his job, he will tell Helmer everything. This is the main tension and conflict within the play and now finally gives the book a some-what clear antagonist. Krogstad’s introduction into the play and contribution in the conflicts that Nora already have gives his characters a clear part in the play and indicates the true plot point and conflicts within all the characters in the play.
ReplyDeleteTowards the end of Act III in A Doll’s House, it was like a roller coaster ride of emotions. After Helmer reads Krogstad’s letter about the truth, it was as if a state of pandemonium was unleashed in the Helmer’s household, “Oh, what a terrible awakening this is. All these eight years… this woman who was my pride and joy… a hypocrite, a liar, worse than that, a criminal! Oh, how utterly squalid it all is!” (I. 75). On the other hand, Nora tries to explain that what she did was done out of love, “It is true. I loved you more than anything else in the world” (I. 75). Helmer goes on berating his wife and how she ruined his life, and at one point in time, he decides that he’s done with her and their relationship. He tells Nora that she must continue living with him due to appearances, but other than that their relationship is over, “And as far as you and I are concerned, things must appear to go on exactly as before. But only in the eyes of the world, of course” (I. 76). A little later, a maid comes in with a letter from Krogstad. In the letter, which includes Nora’s forged IOU, he apologizes for trying to blackmail them and he feels ashamed. Torvald’s mood is completely changed. While I was reading this scene, I kept diagnosing Torvald Helmer with Bipolar Disorder. A few minutes ago, I thought he was going to explode, but now he tells Nora that he has fully forgiven her from the bottom of his heart and how much he loves her “Why this grim look on your face? Oh, poor little Nora, of course I understand. You can’t bring yourself to believe I’ve forgiven you. But I have, Nora, I swear it. I know you did what you did because you loved me” (I. 77).
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis. I liked how you noticed how Helmer’s mood had changed so drastically during this scene. Do you think maybe the reason his mood changed so much is because he had nothing to hold on to her with? For example, when he had first read the letter, he exploded on her, and was very rude. After finding out that Krogstad wasn’t going to do anything about eh situation, his mood changed because they were no longer in trouble. I think the reason Helmer treats Nora so poorly is because he holds things over her head to a point that she thinks he needs him. Once they found out they were okay, Nora leaves because she feels there is no love in the marriage and he no longer has a grip on her?
DeleteIn Ibsen’s play “A Doll’s House,” an orthodox family living during the Victorian Era encounters multiple conflicts and difficulties, while expressing themes such as the sacrificial role of women, false appearances, freedom, and etc. Throughout the book, the notion of bias and lack of women rights are constantly present and shown within Nora and Helmer’s relationship. In the beginning of the play, it was clear that Nora was oblivious to her surroundings and that Helmer was fully in control of her, to the point where he used her as an economic institution and cared little for her safety. However, as the book progresses into the third act, the tides change. After the plot reaches its climax and Nora is about to leave her house, husband, and kids, Helmer loses control over her and also his state of mind as he says, “Nora, can I never be anything more to you than a stranger?” (III. 86.) and he continues to beg her to stay and questions her sudden change in feelings. Now at this point in the book, Nora has broken the chains Helmer has tied her up to ever since they married, and gained the realization that she no longer requires dependence in Helmer. Their role as characters in the play reverses as Helmer cries and pities for her leaving, while Nora is confident, bold, and dauntless in her decision and that it is the best one for her and her family. The play finally ends with Nora constantly refusing and denying any of Helmer’s request and leaving him behind in an abrupted manner, finalizing the themes and motifs about women and their roles in society to the reader.
ReplyDeleteI really like your analysis and overall summary of the play. Its interesting to see how Helmer's personality begins to truly show how controlling he is and his disbelief of how Nora has completely changed. One thing I think you should have added was what ending you liked better and why. These motifs really expressed all of the problems which occurred during this era, so having an appropriate ending is imporatnt to finalized these themes and motifs.
DeleteVery good analysis of the the Helmer's relationship. However, I feel like instead of Nora being manipulated, she manipulated her husband in order to show him how careless he truly was towards her. During one of their conversations together she referred to herself as "his doll". The object HE could manipulate and take advantage of. This makes me question who the true "child behind the doll" really is
DeleteThe two endings in A Doll’s House provides readers with a greater understanding of the sociocultural setting in the 1800’s. In the German ending that Ibsen was forced to write, Nora looks at her sleeping children and realizes that she cannot leave them. Instead of seeking her freedom and discovering her identity, she decides to remain in the marriage. In the original, Nora stands true to her beliefs and leaves Torvald and her children which sends a very strong feminist message to the audience. The two endings provide conflicting viewpoints based on the region in which they were published. The English Victorian Era was reaching a pivotal moment in the gaining of independence and rights for women. This is apparent in the original ending to A Doll’s House as well as other classical pieces of the time like The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilma. The German ending on the other hand in a complete change in tone, institutes a pathos argument to support the geopolitical state of Germany in 1879. At the time Germany had instituted a “Family Law” that made women inferior to males in marriage. Knowing this, it would be devastating for the German populace to have a revolutionary Victorian play such as A Doll’s House available to the public, so the ending was forcibly changed. Ibsen was exasperated by this ending and said himself that it was a “barbaric outrage”. Ibsen was shocked by the Germans and their unwillingness to even imagine a woman standing up for what she believed in. The implications of this translation made me aware of how the translations of works I read in class could be skewed potentially to my culture.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis! This makes me think about why societies today often expurgate certain content, because a society deems it to be disrespecting. Such as today's music and movies. I would say that this era really sparked the revolution to become more open minded about ideas that a society typically thought was not appropriate.
DeleteIn the end of Ibsen’s play “A Doll’s House”, we can see the true meaning of the symbols present, like the Christmas tree. On one hand, the christmas tree can be seen as a reflection of Nora, and how the physical appearance changes with Nora’s character. It can also be seen as a clear demonstration of Nora’s chain of lies, which grow smaller and smaller as we read, and finally it parallels to Nora’s life in that house, being almost worthless and just as a decoration. At the beginning of Act 1, it is clear how the author tries to convey the tone of the play by the stage directions and settings, since he has described this mansion as rich, warm and almost luxurious. This is also when the Porter brings into the house the Christmas tree, symbolizing the introduction of Nora’s conflict. Furthermore, in Act 2, after Krogstad had already blackmailed Nora and jeopardizing the Helmer’s reputation, the same Christmas tree is described as “stripped, bedraggled and with its candles burnt out”. (II.35) The use of Ibsen’s diction in the stage directions helps the reader understand Nora’s situation and how the change her character is going through. For instance, the fact that the tree is “stripped” and “bedraggled” shows how the truth is slowly revealing, while she is deteriorating physically and emotionally. This can also be seen in “its candles burnt out”, which shows how Nora’s fun and playful character is gradually dying. The fact that the Christmas Tree, initially garnished and decorated, but later stripped and empty shows how Nora’s immature behavior slowly and steadily fades away, which, in a sort of way portrays the loss of Nora’s childish character and the introducing of her new, adult self.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of the christmas tree was great, and I also had similar thoughts when reading this part of the play. I believe that the christmas tree is one of the most important symbols in this play, if not the most important one. As you said, the christmas tree can be seen as a reflection of Nora, or as a demonstration of her lies, and I believe Ibsen used this to foreshadow what is to come later on in the play. At this point in time Nora’s lies have not been revealed to Torvald, but the Christmas tree foreshadows that event occurring. Just like how the tree branches are supporting all the decorations wrapped around it, Nora is supporting her lies that seemed wrapped around her. But just like how that tree will eventually fail to support all the decorations it is carrying as it deteriorates more and more, Nora will eventually fail to support all her lies as well.
DeleteUpon finishing A Doll’s House, I was particularly interested in the symbolism of the christmas tree, and the general message of the play; whether it was to be regarded as a feminist manifesto or not. As for the christmas tree, it grows to represent Nora’s dishonesty and her deceitfulness among her family and her friends. With the play opening to Nora hastily telling her maid, Helene, to “hide the Christmas tree away carefully...The children mustn’t see it until this evening when it’s decorated,” (I. i. 1), the significance of the Christmas tree in this domestic setting becomes apparent to the reader immediately. As Nora is trying to keep the mystery of the Christmas tree hidden from her family, her children in particular, she is trying desperately to keep her crime and her misdoings hidden too. Additionally, the state of the Christmas tree bares a marked resemblance to Nora’s psychological state throughout the play. In the beginning of Act II, the stage notes describe the tree as “stripped, bedraggled, and with its candles burnt out,” and Nora similarly is seen “alone there, [walking] about restlessly,” (II. i. 35). In each Act, as the Christmas tree becomes more and more disheveled, Nora becomes increasingly anxious about the possibility of Helmer opening Krogstad’s letter, and her entire homelife unraveling. Helmer also objectifies and reduces Nora down to nothing but a chirruping skylark or squirrel, similar to how the Christmas tree is nothing but an inanimate, decorated object of family life.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the feminist qualities of the play, it’s difficult to deny that A Doll’s House has a feminist influence and provides a commentary on the lives of women during this era. However, There are aspects within the play that counter this, specifically, the alternate German ending. The ending, in contrast with the original, leaves Nora choosing to stay at home instead of following through on her initial desires to leave. This is problematic for two reasons: 1) It suggests that women (maybe just Nora) didn’t have the strength to leave everything that is expected of them, and pretty much just reinforces the ideals in Victorian society instead of challenging them. 2) The alternate ending creates a martyr out of Nora instead of empowering her as a fierce, resolute human being.
I agree with your analysis, especially about the play having feminist qualities. The alternative ending was written for the premiere in Germany in 1879, a time when women's rights were not of the greatest importance or standing, and therefore the original play was deemed too 'scandalous' for audience members. For a female to make her own decisions, have a brain, and be overall empowered did not agree with the views of this era that consisted of submissive, demure, and aloof women. Although Nora may seem to fit the descriptions above for the majority of the play, and she seems very self-absorbed in some instances, she achieves redemption in the end when she confronts her husband. Once she views the reality that her husband does not care about anything but himself and his reputation, Nora is resolute about leaving and finally realizes the amount of 'love' he holds for her, which is virtually non-existent. The arrival of the initial letter by Krogstad prompts an outburst from Torvald, blaming his wife for all the unhappiness he suffered "Now you have ruined my entire happiness, jeopardized my whole future. It’s terrible to think of. Here I am, at the mercy of a thoroughly unscrupulous person; he can do whatever he likes with me, demand anything he wants, order me about just as he chooses...and I daren’t even whimper. I’m done for, a miserable failure, and it’s all the fault of a feather-brained woman!" (76). This emotionally abusive relationship is evident, and it is a triumph for Nora, and may have even been empowering to women in the audience, to watch another female leave the frivolity and comfort of her home in order to seek out a better life, and a purpose for oneself, which makes the writing of the alternative ending a crime, and frankly, a mistake.
DeleteA topic that I want to touch base on would be how a woman’s “sacred duty,” back in the days, would to be a great fruitful wife and a caring/ loving mother. Although it is not an entirely bad thing, there are still some flaws to it. When Nora reveals to Helmer that she has made the decision to leave him and stay with Mrs. Linde for the time being, Torvald replies with “You are out of your mind! I won’t let you! I forbid you!” (I. 81). Nora then explains that she plans on leaving because she yearns to experience things and want to understand more about herself. When Torvald asks “Don’t you care what people will say?,” it shows to prove that despite his wife leaving him in order to better herself, he still finds it necessary to bring in other people’s perspectives and opinions on things. But being herself, Nora has no interest and could honestly care less about what other people have to say about her. I find it so infuriating that Helmer told Nora that she has no right to leave because she is “betraying her most sacred duty” (I. 82), which is a duty to her husband and her children. Nora states that “I have another duty equally sacred. My duty to myself” (I. 82). I applaud Nora for putting herself as her number one priority and taking the initiative to reevaluate herself. I wonder what it was like to be a woman during the Victorian Era… I can’t imagine someone, having all of these knowledge and not being able to use it because she was born to take care of her husband and children.
ReplyDeleteI agree; Nora's decision was a brave one, and I am glad she took it. You reminded me that although Nora is transcending society's rules, Torvald still fails to see past his precious reputation and traditional marriage roles. This is interestingly ironic that although this play is commenting on inferiority, it's the woman in the end who undergoes major characterization and who "wins", in a sense.
DeleteIn the third act of the play, the reader could notice Nora’s definition of freedom changing. At the beginning, she emphasized that to her, freedom meant getting rid of her debt and living the same life she currently was. However, in the third act, her view is very different. As the play progresses, we see Nora’s role evolving; she starts out as a submissive wife looking to keep her husband out of trouble, and gradually becomes a strong-willed, independent woman. At the beginning of the play, Nora says, “ Oh yes, Torvald, surely we can afford to be just a little bit extravagant now, can’t we? Just a teeny-weeny bit. You are getting quite a good salary now, and you are going to earn lots and lots of money” (I.2). Nora’s diction at the beginning of the play and the way she acts around her husband gives the reader the sense that she is obedient and almost childish. The way she compares herself to an animal when talking to her husband makes her seem unintelligent and compliant. However, as the play progresses, it becomes clear that Nora is actually very intelligent; she isn’t so much letting her husband walk all over her as she is giving him a false sense of power to gain something for herself. At the end of act 3, Nora says to Torvald, “When you had gotten over your fright—and you weren’t concerned about me but only about what might happen to you—and when all danger was past, you acted as though nothing had happened. I was your little sky-lark again, your little doll, exactly as before; except you would have to protect it twice as carefully as before, now that it had shown itself to be so weak and fragile” (III.85). Nora again uses animal diction, but she is no longer talking about herself. Instead, she is criticizing Torvald for the first time by finally standing up to him and the way he had treated her. As the play comes to a close, the audience finally sees Nora’s new definition of freedom emerge. She no longer wants to merely please Torvald or keep their family name intact. Instead, she longs for a life where she feels in control and independent. And in the end, she finally gets what she wanted all along—the chance to be a strong woman in a time when women were supposed to be weak.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis. Also, a lot of criticism is shown to Nora. Torvald and Kristine criticizes Nora.s intelligence and her lack of experience. Torvald also uses the animal names to criticizes her helpless appearance. Nora starts as the typical Victorian house wife, but a the play moves forward Nora changes because of her secret and others reaction to this secret. When Torvald found out, his reaction was the turning point for Nora’s internal change. She was unsure what to do and whether to stay. When Torvald did what she knew he would and did not react the way she had hoped she made her final unchangeable decision to leave. Nora changes from weak to self reliant.
DeleteHaving finished the play, I think that it is arguable that the most significant technique that Ibsen uses to convey the different themes in his play is the use of symbolism. The one that was hidden but resonated with me the most is the symbol of light. It is well known how light is used in literature, for instance, in differing the good from the bad, to signify god and glory and to express the overwhelming power of love. In ‘A Doll’s House’, it is evident how light plays a prominent role when portraying the meaning and significance of the theme of lie and deceit. For instance, we can see how the light accompanies Nora’s lie, getting brighter as the truth is slowly being revealed. An example of this can be seen after Krogstad’s second visit to the Helmer’s house, in which he blackmails and threatens to ruin her family’s reputation, which is shown in the stage direction at the beginning of Act 3, where the “lamp is burning on the table”. (III. 63) As we know, Nora’s lie is coming close to an end, and the fact that the lamp on the table is “burning” shows the extent of the upcoming revelation. Another example of the portrayal of the light as a symbol is seen when “the maid comes in with the lamp, puts it on the table” (II.49), after Dr. Rank had expressed his deep love towards Nora, in her attempt to seduce him to borrow money in order to pay off Krogstad. We can see how, at first, Nora was playing out her game, in which she would try to flirt with Rank to take advantage of his wealth and money. However, we can see how she actually fails, since Rank has actually fallen in love with her, ruining the entire masquerade in which Nora had pretended to have feelings for him. Therefore, when the maid brings back the lamp, it shows how Nora’s disguise actually fails, and how this contributes to the fact that her big lie is soon to reveal.
ReplyDelete