Act I in the “Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen expresses the theme of gender roles through the use of the symbol of money and using diminutive diction to show the rift between man and woman during the Victorian Era. This is emphasized through Torvald and Nora, in the scene where they are discussing finances and Torvald’s new job. Helmer says, “Has my little spendthrift been out squandering money again?” (Ibsen 2) Torvald specifically mentions that she is his “little spendthrift”, which is a sign that he is degrading her of her status as a woman, and that she truly does not understand how to handle money. During this time, men were in charge of finances and woman were seen as people who couldn’t handle it. Ibsen uses the repetition of “little” in later lines to emphasize this diminutization of woman. Ibsen himself was a believer that the husband and wife of a marriage should be equal, and he wanted to show this theme in the play and show that marriage should have equality. Also, Torvald uses lots of animal diction to describe Nora, such as “my little singing bird” and “little squirrel”. This again shows that Torvald knows how insignificant woman should be at this time and their incompetence of handling money. This theme of gender roles also relates back to the title, as the idea of marriage is like a “doll’s house”. The wife is the doll, and the person who controls the doll is the husband, who will make the “doll” do whatever the person controlling wants.
In Act I, the development of the characters of Nora and Torvald and their relationship seem somewhat suspect. Torvald says to Nora, “My pretty little pet is very sweet, but it runs away with an awful lot of money. It’s incredible how expensive it is for a man to keep such a pet” (4) Here, his slightly mocking diction, which persists throughout all of his lines, serves to reduce Nora to being less than a person, calling her a pet and an “it.” Torvald also calls her his “sky-lark” and “squirrel”, and while he intends these to be nothing more than cute pet names, they compare her to small and rather helpless unintelligent animals – very much in line with what the society of that time thought of women, that they were weak and delicate and only suited for caring for their husbands – with talents in nothing more than singing and dancing and spending money. He constantly refers to Nora in the third person, as a she or it, giving a sense of superiority and detachment. Torvald’s diction thus reveals that he does not think much of Nora’s capabilities and believes her to be somewhat simple. As for Nora, it is unclear whether she is as airheaded as she appears or if she is only playing along. Either way, she sometimes calls herself the pet names her husband gives her and caters to his whims – aside from constantly asking him for money, which is a strange obsession for a woman at this time, as they often were not allowed to handle or manage money. The fact that Torvald continues to give her an allowance and says of her spending habits that “one must accept you as you are. It’s in the blood. Oh yes, it is, Nora. That sort of thing is hereditary” (5) reinforces that he doesn’t quite see her as a person, but a silly creature whose errors are not its fault simply because it is not intelligent enough to learn and change.
I agree with your argument made regarding both Torvald, and Nora's diction, and the fact that the Ibsen is trying to assume that Torvald is showing his supremacy and prestige, while reflecting the social context of the 1800's. However, I do want to point out how Nora is actually allowing her husband to treat her that way, which is supported by the quote you have set to evidence this idea, but I am uncertain of whether she is this way because of the social standards of the Victorian Era, or because she is willing to be succumbed and inferior just to be able to take advantage of his economic status?
In Act 1 in the play “A Doll’s house” by Henrik Ibsen, there are many themes being revealed. One of the themes being revealed is how marriages were more of a business rather than a traditional marriage built on love. It is being portrayed in this way in the conversations between Nora and Torvald. They don't address each other by husband and wife or other loving names that couples give to each other. If Helmer isn’t calling her by her name, he is calling her by rather insulting names such as “spindrift” and “sweet-tooth”. These are not flattering names in the sense that they are referring to her wasting the money that he earns. They’re conversations don’t involve anything other than how much money is spent and how much is being made. We see the distance in their relationship when Helmer says,”Nora, Nora! Just like a woman! Seriously thugh, Nora, you know what I think about these things. No debts! Never borrow! There’s always something inhibited, something unpleasant, about a home built on credit and borrowed money. We two have managed to stick it out so far, and that’s the way we’ll go on for the little time that remains” (Ibsen 3). In this quote,the theme of arranged marriage and also gender equality are revealed. It’s obvious how he asserts his authority over her and acts more like her boss, rather than her husband. He expresses how he feels as if he knows best of what to do with the money and he’s more responsible with it, unlike her. This marriage feels more of a transaction of money rather than love. It also represents how women were treated in the Victorian era and how they weren’t see as equal to men. The authority Helmer has over Nora is also seen when he says, “[wagging his finger at her]. My little sweet-tooth surely didn’t forget herself in town today?” (Ibsen 5). The way he wags his finger at her shows that he feels she is smaller than him. When someone wags there finger and someone else, it usually isn’t a complimenting thing. He is wagging his finger because he is disappointed in the fact that she wastes all the money with no regard to anything else. Men were definitely in control in the Victorian era.
In the play “A Doll’s House” Henrik Ibsen uses rhetoric to disguise Nora’s true intelligence and capabilities. Even when being forthright about her methods, Nora still manages to have people underestimate her, “Whenever Torvald gave me money for new clothes and such-like, I never spent more than half. And always I bought the simplest and cheapest things.” (Act 1, page 15). Even after admitting to Mrs. Linde one of the ways she made money, it is said in such a way that Nora is still perceived as shallow and materialistic. Her ability to hold onto money is always called into question, “Always on the lookout for money, whenever you can lay your hands on it; but as soon as you’ve got it, it just seems to slip through your fingers.” (Act 1, page 5). Nora though had secretly been squirreling away money and raising it doing odd jobs, letting others believe what they wished about her. This constant underestimation of Nora is due to her tone and choice of words. She uses nonsensical syllables like, “Pooh” and “Tra-la-la” along with constantly changing the topic, creating a fluttery tone, so that even when discussing heavy topics, her words have little value. It also has quite a bit to do with sexism, after all, Helmer believes his wife to be quite foolish and often refers to her in demeaning pet names, though she is the reason he is currently alive. He believes that since she is his wife, she is silly and not particularly bright, all the while being none the wiser to all of her lies and manipulations. Nora has everyone fooled about her true nature, and constantly operates under their noses, by simply putting on an act.
In the play “ A Doll’s House”, Henrik Ibsen uses diction to reveal a feeling of tension between certain characters throughout the plot. One conflict that can be seen is between Nora and Krogstad. This can be represented in the conversation between the two; Krogstad: “So the lady’s got courage.” Nora: “I’m not frightened of you anymore. After New Year I’ll soon be finished with the whole business.” Krogstad: “[controlling himself]. Listen to me, Mrs. Helmer. If necessary I shall fight for my little job in the Bank as if I were fighting for my life.” Nora: “So it seems” (Ibsen 25). Nora had gotten her friend Mrs. Linde a job at the bank due to the fact that her husband was well-respected at the bank. Krogstad believed if Nora had that much influence to persuade Helmer to get Mrs Linde a job, that perhaps she could persuade him to secure Krogstad’s job. Krogstad feared Mrs. Linde was out to take his job from him, when that’s all he has left. When Nora is hesitant to do it, Krogstad brings up the loan that she had once borrowed from him. Due to this, Krogstad threatens to tell her husband thus blackmailing her and causing an uneasy relationship between them. He tries and scare her and assert his authority over her throughout the phrases he uses such as, “That’s because you haven't the will to help me. But I have ways of making you” (Ibsen 26). As well as the one stated earlier, “...I shall fight for my little job in the Bank as if I were fighting for my life” (Ibsen 25). He uses these statements to intimidate her into doing what he needs from her. Saying that even if she doesn’t want to, he has ways of making her regardless. He also states the fact that even if she makes this difficult for him, he will not give up until he gets what he wants. He stresses the importance, relentlessness, and authority he will have towards her and his wishes. Thus carrying on a theme of gender inequality that is seen earlier in the play, due to the fact he is asserting himself over her. It looks as if gender equality will be a recurring issue throughout the rest of the play as well.
I agree that gender roles will be a recurring issue throughout the book. I'd add that the diction in conversations between Torvald and Nora seem to be closer to "master to pet" than "husband to wife". The way they converse clearly shows the rank in the household that Torvald has over Nora, thus adding to the many other examples of uneven gender roles in the story.
In my blog post, I talked about the scene where Krogstad threatens Nora as well. I find it somewhat hilarious that Krogstad is blackmailing Nora with forgery, but he did the exact same thing, many times... When I was reading this, I did not notice how this scene is carrying on a theme of gender inequality. I'm so impressed with this post! Good job Alicia!
In Act Two, Dr. Rank is characterized as a rather tragic character. When he talks to Nora about the progression his illness – syphilis, which is his father’s fault – he says, “No point in deceiving oneself. I am the most wretched of all my patients, Mrs. Helmer. These last few days I’ve made a careful analysis of my internal economy. Bankrupt! Within a month I shall probably be lying rotting up there in the churchyard.” (45) This has an awful sense of finality to it, in that though he is a doctor, he cannot save himself. His metaphorical comparison of his health to bankruptcy further indicates that he really has lost everything and has no way of going on in life any longer. Predicting that his death will arrive within a month adds another layer of hopelessness to his tone – though, by his justification, it would be difficult not to be depressed when death is imminent. He later says that he would shut himself away when he is on his deathbed so that others (particularly Torvald) would not have to see his ghastly death; this is only the beginning of his strange, self-deprecating dark humour towards his own end. He continues with “You wouldn’t miss me for long. When you are gone, you are soon forgotten” (46) as he is convinced that though he already misses being a part of Nora and Torvald’s lives, he tells himself that no one will miss him, perhaps to make it a little easier to let go. Nora then says, “Surely you aren’t jealous of poor Kristine?” to which Rank says “Yes, I am. She’ll be my successor in this house. When I’m done for, I can see this woman…” (47) He talks about not liking being replaced without hesitation, and again later about how he is unable to leave anything at all behind for the Helmers, giving his words a sardonic air, as much of his other dialogue is. This tone could be used because speaking plainly of his own death would enmire him and his company in depression, and he tries to be selfless even in his last weeks, asking Nora if there is anything at all that he can do for her. She begins to confide in him: “…You know how deeply, how passionately Torvald is in love with me. He would never hesitate for a moment to sacrifice his life for my sake.” Rank: “Nora…do you think he’s the only one who…?” Nora: “Who…?” Rank: “Who wouldn’t gladly give his life for your sake.” (48) Here it almost seems as if Rank was about to say that he loved Nora – which he did later say, but in a wider sense – and although he said something else, it felt implied that this was the case. Nora’s response to him was that she felt it complicated things – that perhaps to know about this deepened their regret for both of them that Rank would soon have to go.
At the end of Act I, Nora is being blackmailed by Krogstad to get his job secured and have Nora’s husband (Torvald) not fire him. This causes Nora to panic, and feel a sense of guilt from the decision she made to be involved with Krogstad. To save her father, she forges his signature on a bank transaction which is illegal. Coincidentally, Krogstad was in trouble with the bank for forgery. This use of dramatic irony shows the implications of this illegal action, as he is hated at the bank for his immoral act. Then, Torvald ironically says, “A fog of lies like that in a household, and it spreads disease and infection to every part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking with evil germs” (Ibsen 33). Nora’s children are in the opposite room, as she was paranoid earlier about their upbringing. At the end of the Act 1, she says, “Corrupt my children...Poison my home? It’s not true! It could never, never be true!” (Ibsen 34) Nora goes into denial as the problem of forgery has no escalated beyond legal issues, but to family problems as well. This whole scene expresses the motif of lie and deceit, as the author wanted to convey how bad the implications of lying are. Also, during this time, marriage between the husband and wife was very tedious, as the man had more power than the woman. This idea could cause an excuse for the untrustworthiness in these relationships during the Victorian Era, and how this inequality of the genders cause strife between both people.
Adding on to your post, where you denote the importance of money in this play, as well as the power inequity displayed within the relationship of Helmer and Nora, I believe the macaroons play an important part into this dilemma. I believe this could be a symbol of indulgence, one that women is not necessarily usually privy to, hence the secrecy displayed by Nora when consuming these. The banning of these in the household, as Dr. Rank stated when witnessing Nora's consumption of these, defines the oppressive nature of the Victorian Era against women, often times barring them from doing anything in society without their husbands, due to their lack of possession of basic rights. This lack of independence, and lack of ability to self indulge could also be another mark of dramatic irony, for even though Helmer believes Nora is a little spendthrift, or ridicules her when giving her money, even going so far as to question where she spends is (if she spent them at a bakery or not), the true reveal of where Nora is paying this money is made. Her responsibility over the wellbeing of her husband is apparent, and would be openly displayed, as can be seen with her gloats toward Mrs. Linde, were it not for the inequality between women and men in society.
In the play “A Doll’s House” Henrik Ibsen uses dialog to display the relationship between Nora and Rank. The banter between the two reveals familiarity between the two, and the comfort Nora receives from his presence. Rank’s sudden confession of love however, completely destroys this dynamic. The comfort Nora received is completely shattered as she now must take into account how her every action could jeopardize the life she created. She can no longer seek help from Rand as such a display of trust would surely be taken the wrong way. Nora still however manages to manipulate him into helping her, though not quite in the way she first planned on enlisting his help. Rather than the solution to all her problems, Rand instead becomes a distraction for Helmer, though she does still let Rank know she cares for him, simply not in the way he wants. It is clear that there is trust between the two characters as shown by Nora’s many admissions, and the feelings the two of them have for each other are revealed. While Rand’s love was one-sided, Nora still manages to reassure him that she would continue to keep his company by telling him of the strength of her, albeit platonic, feelings.
Yeah totally. I was also kind of taken aback by him being so forward in his confession of love for her. I think Ibsen did this to show that, although this behavior is not acceptable for the 'outside world,' it is perfectly fine behind closed doors. Even though Torvald is just in the other room, their interaction is not know by anti there than themselves. This interaction also may forshadow trust in the future between these two, or possibly the lack of it. By the end, Dr. Rank is still kind of a mystery however, is still not really knowing how he got connected to the Helmers and what his main purpose for this play is. Rank also brought up a good point about being replaced, how once he died Kristine would just take his place, and already was. This almost shows jealousy and conflict and how Rank's words show how hurt he is because of what his father did. It shows how much he is affected by this and can never really have solid friends, but ultimately knows he will be disposable.
In Act 2 of “A Doll's House” Henrik Ibsen uses the characterization of Nora to develop certain conflicts throughout the play. Nora is portrayed as a strong, caring, and courageous which weren’t common characteristics of a woman in the Victorian Era. Women were supposed to be elegant, peaceful, and obedient to their husbands. They were supposed to let their husbands take care of everything and be obedient to their superior males. By characterizing her in this way, it makes the conflicts in the play more interesting and difficult for those against her. Nora’s courage is shown in the the conversation between her and Krogstad when Nora says, “ [quickly]. He must never read that letter. Tear it up. I’ll find the money somehow.” Krogstad: “Excuse me, Mrs. Helmer, but I’ve just told you…” Nora: “I’m not talking about the money I owe you. I want to know how much you are demanding from my husband, and I’ll get the money” (Ibsen 53). Krogstad is informing Nora of the letter he has written up to send word about Helmer of what she has done as well as the money he is owed. Nora knows that this is to no fault of her own and is trying to prevent Krogstad from giving her husband the letter. Her courage is shown when she tells him to rip the letter up because she will find the money. She doesn’t want her mistakes to fall onto the shoulders of her children and husband and decides to take care of this with no help but her own. This shows the courage she has built in this situation as well as the level of care and protectiveness she has over her family. However, she knows that she cannot keep this burden away from her husband with that letter in the mail. Nora’s strong personality can be shown in the conversation between her and Helmer when he says, “ [walks to her]. Are you really so nervous, Nora dear?” Nora: “ Terribly nervous. Let me run through it now. There’s still time before supper. Come and sit here and play for me, Torvald dear. Tell me what to do, keep me right-as you always do” (Ibsen 58). She has come clean to her husband about the letter and he now knows of the situation. In this conversation, she is showing that she is strong enough to still try and fix the subject by going and getting the letter. Nora also shows that she is strong enough to ask for help from Helmer so she doesn’t make the situation worse for them. She admits that he always knows what to do and keep her on track which is a strong confession of anyone to say that someone else always knows what's best for them rather than themselves. The way Ibsen develops Nora as this character adds a different and more interesting effect on conflict because she is not a typical woman for the Victorian Era. If she fit the characteristics of an average Victorian woman, this conflict would have never unfolded because she wouldn't have signed those papers without her husband's consent. She also would have backed down to Krogstad when he was trying to intimidate her into helping him keep his job as well as doing anything to find the money. Nora is a critical character in development of conflicts in the play.
I believe the first part, rather than showing courage, more shows fear that Nora has. It is true that she has a deep love and care for her children and husband, but she is begging Krogstad not to say anything rather standing up for herself and demanding what she wants. She stoops down to his level and might as well be on her hands and knees as she pleads for him to not put the letter in the mail. For the second part though, I do believe that it shows some courage from Nora as she has to stand up to her husband and admit to him of her wrongdoings. Although do you possibly think that she could be faking what she says about how much she commends her husband in a degrading way to herself and women rather showing courage?
In Act II of the play, Ibsen begins to finish forming the types of characters in the story. Most of the characters are dynamic and change their personalities throughout the play, but one character remains static up to this point: Torvald. I think this is true because he is the only character in the story who doesn’t have any external or internal conflicts that affect the plot or other characters in the story. He could be almost classified as a bystander, and is not included in many of the situations, especially the lying and deceiving by Nora, his wife. However, he is indirectly involved in most of the problems, such as Dr. Rank’s love for Nora (she is his wife!) and Krogstad’s blackmail of Nora to keep his job at the bank. Most of the other characters are dynamic, such as Nora, Dr. Rank, and Krogstad. Nora begins to change especially in the first act when Krogstad threatens her. Before this, she was a typical housewife who lived in the Victorian Era. But now because of the situation, she has to act more independently and behind her husband’s back, which was unheard of during this time. Krogstad was probably a normal person who worked at the bank and wanted to keep his job until he began to blackmail Nora into paying him back. This is a very stark difference from when the reader is first introduced to him and now in Act II. Even Dr. Rank, who isn’t mentioned as much, has began to change his qualities in the story. He finally confesses his love to Nora, who is married and with children. This again, shows that because of his disease in the spine (syphilis) he is now thinking he must admit to what he never has said before he passes away. All of these changes of these characters will undoubtedly have an impact on what occurs in Act III, and maybe Torvald will become dynamic too.
I enjoyed reading your analysis Casey. I did also notice how Torvald remained static as a character so far in the play, and how the rest of the main characters have changed. I find this ironic, because he is supposed to be the man of the house as the husband, but yet Nora his wife seems to be running things behind his back, such as the loan from Krogstad and the flirting with Dr. Rank. It shows how oblivious he is to what’s around him, and how he has no real idea on what is going on in his household. If he did ever find out about all these things, I really wonder how he is going to react. I myself can’t imagine being in his shoes when and if that occurs.
Casey I def agree with what youre talking about and all these characters unveiling different traits and that and wanted to ask what do you think TORVALD will do when he finds out about Ranks love for his wife and will Nora even do anything with finding out Ranks love her or just try to push it under the rug as everything is hush hush in this society and unsavory things are unmentioned?
Nora [dancing]: See what fun we are having, Kristine. Mrs. Linde [standing as though spellbound in the doorway]: Ah…! Helmer: But my dear darling Nora, you are dancing as though your life depended on it. Nora: It does. Helmer: Stop, Rank! This is sheer madness. Stop, I say. [Rank stops playing and Nora comes to a sudden halt.] Helmer [crosses to her]: I would never have believed it. You have forgotten everything I ever taught you. (Act II, page 59)
This quote stood out as interesting to me because of the introduction of the symbolism of the tarantella that Nora dances. When Torvald says that Nora danced as though her life depended on it, and she agreed, in the literal sense it meant that she was using her dance as a means to distract Torvald to keep him from going to read the letters, particularly the one from Krogstad that would reveal Nora’s secret. The myth behind the tarantella dance is that people who were bitten by a tarantula would do this frenzied dance to sweat the venom out of their bodies. It could also be a dance of courtship, or a dance where the participants try to upstage each other. In these ways the tarantella could be symbolic of Nora’s life – she dances wildly in the hopes that it will buy her time to fix her debt and be done with Krogstad, who has been hounding her; or that her way of living is a sort of dance in which she has no choice but to play-act and weave truth and lies to hide from Torvald the debt and the fact that she committed a crime by forging a signature. Torvald’s saying that Nora’s dancing is “sheer madness” could indicate that that is what he would think of her subterfuge (as is proven later in the play), and that he “would never have believed it” and she has “forgotten everything I ever taught you” as a reference to how her independence and her actions make her radically different from other women of her era – that she “forgot” what society and her husband told her, and went out on her own to find herself.
I really enjoyed your analysis. However, I might add that the dance mirrors the plotline and conflict within the play thus far. The tarantela is a wild, uncontrolled dance, and this is reflective upon the wild, uncontrolled, unprecedented actions of Nora. Judging by the dance, the reader can foreshadow that A Dolls House will most likely end similarly to the dance; Nora becoming overcome with conflict will cause her life as she knows it to stop and change completely.
In the final act, Ibsen uses Nora to reveal the significance of the title of the play, “ A Doll’s House”. Nora served as the doll throughout the entire play, being controlled by other characters, such as Krogstad and Helmer. Krogstad tried to intimidate Nora into influencing her husband to let him keep/promote his position at the Bank. This can be seen when he says, “That’s because you haven’t the will to help me. But I have ways of making you” (Ibsen 26). When Krogstad says he has ways of making her, it shows that he feels he can make her do whatever he wishes. This portrays her as the doll because he thinks that he can manipulate her. She is also manipulated by her husband Helmer. Nora comes to a realization that there is no love in her marriage with Helmer and that she is more of a property to him. This can be seen in the phrases that Helmer uses to speak to her such as when he says, “... I’m done for, a miserable failure, and it’s all the fault of a feather-brained woman!” (Ibsen 76). “... I’ve taken such good care of you, all our married life” (Ibsen 76). “... I have forgiven you, Nora, I swear it! I have forgiven you!” (Ibsen 79). All of these quotes represent his feelings towards Nora. How he insults her intelligence by calling her a feather-brained woman as well as how he only has regard for the situation because of his own reputation. He exclaims how he has taken such good care of her, implying without him that she wouldn’t be where she is right now. It can be inferred that he wants nothing to do with her because of the shame that she is bringing to him with the situation that she has causes. However, when he realizes that Krogstad has sent the IOU back along with his apologies about the entire situation and is now accepting of her. She realizes the relationship between the two was superficial with no real connection between them. Nora is tired of being controlled and treated second to him and realizes that it is time for her to leave. This can be seen when Helmer says, Helmer: “I still have it in me to change.” Nora: “Perhaps… if you have your doll taken away” (Ibsen 85). In this quote, the significance of the title of the play is shown as well as concrete evidence that Nora was seen as the doll. When Nora decides to leave Helmer, the play ends because the doll is now gone.
I agree with your post, and I applaud Nora for finally saying that there needs to be a change in their relationship. I find it quite infuriating how quickly Helmer's mood changes such as when he found out about what Nora did and when Krogstad apologizes and returns Nora's forged note. When Nora does something that can potentially jeopardize his whole life, he drops her instantly, wants nothing to do with her, and berates her for her stupidity. What I inferred from Helmer's mood swings is that he's very egoistic and only wants what is best for himself.
In Act III, Rank’s dialogue when he visits Nora and Torvald after the tarantella is interesting and rather metaphorical. When they talk about how much alcohol they drank, Rank mentions that his laboratory tests were successful, and he had achieved certainty; after Nora’s questioning glance, he states, “Absolute certainty. So why shouldn’t I allow myself a jolly evening after that?” to which Torvald replies, “I quite agree. As long as you don’t suffer from it in the morning” (71). As is evident from Torvald’s response, he believes that everything is still normal, that Rank was just out celebrating after a hard day of work – not the reality that was confided to Nora, and that he drank so much because he was certain of his death looming on the horizon, and it was the last chance he would ever get to enjoy himself. In addition, contrary to what Torvald says about a hangover, it doesn’t really matter because Rank is going to die soon and he’s already suffering anyway. After that, Nora brings up masquerades – interestingly enough, because of the theme of deceit and disguise of her hiding her secret about the loan and forged signature, and Rank hiding his illness from society. Rank then mentions that “At the next masquerade, I shall be invisible” (72), because he would be dead then – he would disappear from the lives of everyone around him, as he had previously said to Nora. As he leaves, Nora tells him, “Sleep well, Dr. Rank.” and asks him to “Wish me the same” (72-73) This could be because Nora bids him farewell knowing that he is close to dying and she will never see him again, and she asks him to say the same back to her because she is planning to kill herself to prevent Torvald from taking the blame of the forgery all upon himself – the miracle of miracles. Thus, here, sleep is almost a euphemism for death.
At the end of the final Act of the Doll’s House, Ibsen was forced to write a second ending to satisfy owners of some theatres in Germany. He has expressed his opinion on the change in several letters to the editors of the owners of the theatres. Ibsen said in one of the letters that this change to the ending would be “‘barbaric violence’ done to the play”. In the original ending, Nora finally announces that she no longer loves Torvald anymore, and that he will be leaving him. This shows that Nora has now become an individualist and now wants to differ away from a stereotypical wife during the Victorian Era. This ending really sums up all of the problems and conflicts which ultimately changed Nora’s outlook on the society. However in the alternate ending, Nora never leaves Torvald. He tells her that she would be abandoning the children. Nora responds by saying, “Motherless! Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them” (88). Then the curtain falls on a cliffhanger, with no particular theme or point to the play. In my opinion, the original leaves the resolution to the main motif of the play which is the idea of individualism in a person. The alternate ending just shows that Nora (or women in general) should remain at home and not have their own opinions, and let their husbands control their everyday life. Overall, I am happy that Ibsen recognized that his original writing was better than the German ending.
I completely agree with your opinion that the original ending was the best ending as not only is the alternate ending rather depressing in its predictable conformity to society’s rules, but it also completely undermines then entire message that Ibsen was trying to convey in his play. Rather than portraying Nora as an independent and proud woman, the alternate ending shows her relenting to the pressures of society and also shows how it is futile to go against the current of society. Although I would agree that this might be a more realistic presentation of the scene in how a mother probably wouldn’t just abandon her own children regardless of how badly her husband treats her, which is tragic as she seems to be paying for the attitude of her dislikable husband.
I also agree with your opinion and analysis of the alternate German ending to A Doll's House. I might add that in addition to the ending completely undercutting the message of empowerment among social norms of this era, the ending also creates an unrelatable martyr out of Nora; reducing her from a boundary breaking woman, to just another player in a cat and mouse game. This message reinforces the prevailing idea of the nuclear family and the idealization of the home making woman.
In the play, “A Doll’s House,” Henrik Ibsen displays the strength of Nora’s character through the original ending of the play. Nora reevaluates her life, and what it has led to, and discovers that she has suffered injustice, “When I look back on it, it seems to me as if I had been living here like a beggar--just from hand to mouth. I have existed merely to perform tricks for you, Torvald. But you would have it so. You and Daddy have committed a great sin against me. It is your fault that I have made nothing of my life.” (Act three, Page 80) After this epiphany, Nora decides to leave. She feels as though she must now go and obtain the skills that have been denied to her all these years. She refuses any help from Torvald, and leaves ready to the face the world as it may come, no matter how unfair she views it. The entire ending was about Nora finding her courage after being disillusioned about her husband. The German ending however, completely destroys all character development, “NORA. Where we could make a real marriage out of our lives together. Goodbye. HELMER. Go then! But first you shall see your children for the last time! NORA. Let me go! I will not see them! I cannot! HELMER. You shall see them. Look, there they are asleep, peaceful and carefree. Tomorrow, when they wake up and call for their mother, they will be - motherless. NORA. Motherless...! HELMER. As you once were. NORA. Motherless! Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them. HELMER. Nora!” (Page 88) Nora, who had just preached the merits of becoming her own person, who had previously made arrangements with her former caretaker to protect her children after her suicide, who had been set to leave, is convinced to stay by the mere thought that her children would be motherless. This destroys the entire message of the play, and strips Nora’s monologues of their power. The original ending of the play was what made Nora’s character strong and radical in a time where women could be neither, and all of that is shattered by the alternate ending.
In Act III, at the end of the play, Nora’s decision to leave Torvald is the climactic culmination of the development of her character and plot, and is what brought so much controversy to the work in the Victorian Era. When Torvald tries to argue with her by telling her that she has a sacred duty to her husband and children: Nora. “I have another duty equally sacred.” Helmer. “You have not. What duty might that be?” Nora. “My duty to myself.” Helmer. “First and foremost, you are a wife and mother.” Nora. “That I don’t believe anymore. I believe that first and foremost I am an individual, just as much as you are” (82) Here, Torvald’s views reflect those of the society they live in: women should be devoted to their families and nothing else, so much so that it is considered sacred. The fact that Nora is a wife and mother before being a person is indicative of the things imposed upon women. Her refusal to bow to Torvald’s will and assertion that she needs to leave and learn of the world shows her strength in going against what society made of women. Later in the conversation, Torvald continues to try to convince Nora to stay: Helmer. “I still have it in me to change.” Nora. “Perhaps… if you have your doll taken away.” Helmer. “And be separated from you! No, no, Nora, the very thought of it is inconceivable.” (85) Nora mentioning having the doll taken away is in reference to earlier, when she explains to Torvald that she was controlled her whole life, first by her father, then by her husband. She uses the metaphor here to tell Torvald that their unhappy state of affairs will not change unless she leaves. Torvald’s reaction, ironically, is similar to that of a child’s when its toy is taken away – at this moment, he is the childish one in the relationship, despite his thinking that Nora is “like a stupid child” (84).
I completely agree with your argument, and how Nora was submitted under the unjust treatment of her husband. The fact that she leaves, however, shows how she undermines this stereotype and goes against the social norms of the Victoria Era. However, as we have noticed, the fact that Ibsen wrote a second ending to his play shows how strict and intangible the social standards were.
In the play A Doll’s House, Ibsen uses several symbols to represent many of the main motifs and themes that are present throughout the plot. One major symbol is the mentioning of the New Year as the play is centered around the holidays. Usually during New Year’s Eve, people create resolutions to start new or to change something about their lifestyle which could use some improving. In the story, Torvald just received a new job at the bank, which seems really good because it will provide more money for their family. This could be representative of the idea of “new year, new me”, as their family can start fresh, without recollection of any of their past mistakes or problems. This is very ironic because Nora begins to start more issues in their family with forging and the constant lying that she does. She disrupts the stereotypical Victorian family idea, and ruins the idea of New Years. This holiday helps foreshadow what is about to happen to the Helmer family, as most New Year’s resolutions go uncompleted. Torvald’s new job at the bank looks fortuitous for them, but helps cause the problem with Krogstad because he is now the new bank manager who can control who is fired or hired. Krogstad takes advantage of this by blackmailing Nora into making her husband not fired him so that he can “stay on his feet”.
Act I in the “Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen expresses the theme of gender roles through the use of the symbol of money and using diminutive diction to show the rift between man and woman during the Victorian Era. This is emphasized through Torvald and Nora, in the scene where they are discussing finances and Torvald’s new job. Helmer says, “Has my little spendthrift been out squandering money again?” (Ibsen 2) Torvald specifically mentions that she is his “little spendthrift”, which is a sign that he is degrading her of her status as a woman, and that she truly does not understand how to handle money. During this time, men were in charge of finances and woman were seen as people who couldn’t handle it. Ibsen uses the repetition of “little” in later lines to emphasize this diminutization of woman. Ibsen himself was a believer that the husband and wife of a marriage should be equal, and he wanted to show this theme in the play and show that marriage should have equality. Also, Torvald uses lots of animal diction to describe Nora, such as “my little singing bird” and “little squirrel”. This again shows that Torvald knows how insignificant woman should be at this time and their incompetence of handling money. This theme of gender roles also relates back to the title, as the idea of marriage is like a “doll’s house”. The wife is the doll, and the person who controls the doll is the husband, who will make the “doll” do whatever the person controlling wants.
ReplyDeleteAmber Mao
ReplyDeleteIn Act I, the development of the characters of Nora and Torvald and their relationship seem somewhat suspect. Torvald says to Nora, “My pretty little pet is very sweet, but it runs away with an awful lot of money. It’s incredible how expensive it is for a man to keep such a pet” (4) Here, his slightly mocking diction, which persists throughout all of his lines, serves to reduce Nora to being less than a person, calling her a pet and an “it.” Torvald also calls her his “sky-lark” and “squirrel”, and while he intends these to be nothing more than cute pet names, they compare her to small and rather helpless unintelligent animals – very much in line with what the society of that time thought of women, that they were weak and delicate and only suited for caring for their husbands – with talents in nothing more than singing and dancing and spending money. He constantly refers to Nora in the third person, as a she or it, giving a sense of superiority and detachment. Torvald’s diction thus reveals that he does not think much of Nora’s capabilities and believes her to be somewhat simple. As for Nora, it is unclear whether she is as airheaded as she appears or if she is only playing along. Either way, she sometimes calls herself the pet names her husband gives her and caters to his whims – aside from constantly asking him for money, which is a strange obsession for a woman at this time, as they often were not allowed to handle or manage money. The fact that Torvald continues to give her an allowance and says of her spending habits that “one must accept you as you are. It’s in the blood. Oh yes, it is, Nora. That sort of thing is hereditary” (5) reinforces that he doesn’t quite see her as a person, but a silly creature whose errors are not its fault simply because it is not intelligent enough to learn and change.
I agree with your argument made regarding both Torvald, and Nora's diction, and the fact that the Ibsen is trying to assume that Torvald is showing his supremacy and prestige, while reflecting the social context of the 1800's. However, I do want to point out how Nora is actually allowing her husband to treat her that way, which is supported by the quote you have set to evidence this idea, but I am uncertain of whether she is this way because of the social standards of the Victorian Era, or because she is willing to be succumbed and inferior just to be able to take advantage of his economic status?
DeleteIn Act 1 in the play “A Doll’s house” by Henrik Ibsen, there are many themes being revealed. One of the themes being revealed is how marriages were more of a business rather than a traditional marriage built on love. It is being portrayed in this way in the conversations between Nora and Torvald. They don't address each other by husband and wife or other loving names that couples give to each other. If Helmer isn’t calling her by her name, he is calling her by rather insulting names such as “spindrift” and “sweet-tooth”. These are not flattering names in the sense that they are referring to her wasting the money that he earns. They’re conversations don’t involve anything other than how much money is spent and how much is being made. We see the distance in their relationship when Helmer says,”Nora, Nora! Just like a woman! Seriously thugh, Nora, you know what I think about these things. No debts! Never borrow! There’s always something inhibited, something unpleasant, about a home built on credit and borrowed money. We two have managed to stick it out so far, and that’s the way we’ll go on for the little time that remains” (Ibsen 3). In this quote,the theme of arranged marriage and also gender equality are revealed. It’s obvious how he asserts his authority over her and acts more like her boss, rather than her husband. He expresses how he feels as if he knows best of what to do with the money and he’s more responsible with it, unlike her. This marriage feels more of a transaction of money rather than love. It also represents how women were treated in the Victorian era and how they weren’t see as equal to men. The authority Helmer has over Nora is also seen when he says, “[wagging his finger at her]. My little sweet-tooth surely didn’t forget herself in town today?” (Ibsen 5). The way he wags his finger at her shows that he feels she is smaller than him. When someone wags there finger and someone else, it usually isn’t a complimenting thing. He is wagging his finger because he is disappointed in the fact that she wastes all the money with no regard to anything else. Men were definitely in control in the Victorian era.
ReplyDeleteIn the play “A Doll’s House” Henrik Ibsen uses rhetoric to disguise Nora’s true intelligence and capabilities. Even when being forthright about her methods, Nora still manages to have people underestimate her, “Whenever Torvald gave me money for new clothes and such-like, I never spent more than half. And always I bought the simplest and cheapest things.” (Act 1, page 15). Even after admitting to Mrs. Linde one of the ways she made money, it is said in such a way that Nora is still perceived as shallow and materialistic. Her ability to hold onto money is always called into question, “Always on the lookout for money, whenever you can lay your hands on it; but as soon as you’ve got it, it just seems to slip through your fingers.” (Act 1, page 5). Nora though had secretly been squirreling away money and raising it doing odd jobs, letting others believe what they wished about her. This constant underestimation of Nora is due to her tone and choice of words. She uses nonsensical syllables like, “Pooh” and “Tra-la-la” along with constantly changing the topic, creating a fluttery tone, so that even when discussing heavy topics, her words have little value. It also has quite a bit to do with sexism, after all, Helmer believes his wife to be quite foolish and often refers to her in demeaning pet names, though she is the reason he is currently alive. He believes that since she is his wife, she is silly and not particularly bright, all the while being none the wiser to all of her lies and manipulations. Nora has everyone fooled about her true nature, and constantly operates under their noses, by simply putting on an act.
ReplyDeleteIn the play “ A Doll’s House”, Henrik Ibsen uses diction to reveal a feeling of tension between certain characters throughout the plot. One conflict that can be seen is between Nora and Krogstad. This can be represented in the conversation between the two; Krogstad: “So the lady’s got courage.” Nora: “I’m not frightened of you anymore. After New Year I’ll soon be finished with the whole business.” Krogstad: “[controlling himself]. Listen to me, Mrs. Helmer. If necessary I shall fight for my little job in the Bank as if I were fighting for my life.” Nora: “So it seems” (Ibsen 25). Nora had gotten her friend Mrs. Linde a job at the bank due to the fact that her husband was well-respected at the bank. Krogstad believed if Nora had that much influence to persuade Helmer to get Mrs Linde a job, that perhaps she could persuade him to secure Krogstad’s job. Krogstad feared Mrs. Linde was out to take his job from him, when that’s all he has left. When Nora is hesitant to do it, Krogstad brings up the loan that she had once borrowed from him. Due to this, Krogstad threatens to tell her husband thus blackmailing her and causing an uneasy relationship between them. He tries and scare her and assert his authority over her throughout the phrases he uses such as, “That’s because you haven't the will to help me. But I have ways of making you” (Ibsen 26). As well as the one stated earlier, “...I shall fight for my little job in the Bank as if I were fighting for my life” (Ibsen 25). He uses these statements to intimidate her into doing what he needs from her. Saying that even if she doesn’t want to, he has ways of making her regardless. He also states the fact that even if she makes this difficult for him, he will not give up until he gets what he wants. He stresses the importance, relentlessness, and authority he will have towards her and his wishes. Thus carrying on a theme of gender inequality that is seen earlier in the play, due to the fact he is asserting himself over her. It looks as if gender equality will be a recurring issue throughout the rest of the play as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree that gender roles will be a recurring issue throughout the book. I'd add that the diction in conversations between Torvald and Nora seem to be closer to "master to pet" than "husband to wife". The way they converse clearly shows the rank in the household that Torvald has over Nora, thus adding to the many other examples of uneven gender roles in the story.
DeleteIn my blog post, I talked about the scene where Krogstad threatens Nora as well. I find it somewhat hilarious that Krogstad is blackmailing Nora with forgery, but he did the exact same thing, many times... When I was reading this, I did not notice how this scene is carrying on a theme of gender inequality. I'm so impressed with this post! Good job Alicia!
DeleteAmber mao
ReplyDeleteIn Act Two, Dr. Rank is characterized as a rather tragic character. When he talks to Nora about the progression his illness – syphilis, which is his father’s fault – he says, “No point in deceiving oneself. I am the most wretched of all my patients, Mrs. Helmer. These last few days I’ve made a careful analysis of my internal economy. Bankrupt! Within a month I shall probably be lying rotting up there in the churchyard.” (45) This has an awful sense of finality to it, in that though he is a doctor, he cannot save himself. His metaphorical comparison of his health to bankruptcy further indicates that he really has lost everything and has no way of going on in life any longer. Predicting that his death will arrive within a month adds another layer of hopelessness to his tone – though, by his justification, it would be difficult not to be depressed when death is imminent. He later says that he would shut himself away when he is on his deathbed so that others (particularly Torvald) would not have to see his ghastly death; this is only the beginning of his strange, self-deprecating dark humour towards his own end. He continues with “You wouldn’t miss me for long. When you are gone, you are soon forgotten” (46) as he is convinced that though he already misses being a part of Nora and Torvald’s lives, he tells himself that no one will miss him, perhaps to make it a little easier to let go. Nora then says, “Surely you aren’t jealous of poor Kristine?” to which Rank says “Yes, I am. She’ll be my successor in this house. When I’m done for, I can see this woman…” (47) He talks about not liking being replaced without hesitation, and again later about how he is unable to leave anything at all behind for the Helmers, giving his words a sardonic air, as much of his other dialogue is. This tone could be used because speaking plainly of his own death would enmire him and his company in depression, and he tries to be selfless even in his last weeks, asking Nora if there is anything at all that he can do for her. She begins to confide in him: “…You know how deeply, how passionately Torvald is in love with me. He would never hesitate for a moment to sacrifice his life for my sake.” Rank: “Nora…do you think he’s the only one who…?” Nora: “Who…?” Rank: “Who wouldn’t gladly give his life for your sake.” (48) Here it almost seems as if Rank was about to say that he loved Nora – which he did later say, but in a wider sense – and although he said something else, it felt implied that this was the case. Nora’s response to him was that she felt it complicated things – that perhaps to know about this deepened their regret for both of them that Rank would soon have to go.
At the end of Act I, Nora is being blackmailed by Krogstad to get his job secured and have Nora’s husband (Torvald) not fire him. This causes Nora to panic, and feel a sense of guilt from the decision she made to be involved with Krogstad. To save her father, she forges his signature on a bank transaction which is illegal. Coincidentally, Krogstad was in trouble with the bank for forgery. This use of dramatic irony shows the implications of this illegal action, as he is hated at the bank for his immoral act. Then, Torvald ironically says, “A fog of lies like that in a household, and it spreads disease and infection to every part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking with evil germs” (Ibsen 33). Nora’s children are in the opposite room, as she was paranoid earlier about their upbringing. At the end of the Act 1, she says, “Corrupt my children...Poison my home? It’s not true! It could never, never be true!” (Ibsen 34) Nora goes into denial as the problem of forgery has no escalated beyond legal issues, but to family problems as well. This whole scene expresses the motif of lie and deceit, as the author wanted to convey how bad the implications of lying are. Also, during this time, marriage between the husband and wife was very tedious, as the man had more power than the woman. This idea could cause an excuse for the untrustworthiness in these relationships during the Victorian Era, and how this inequality of the genders cause strife between both people.
ReplyDeleteAdding on to your post, where you denote the importance of money in this play, as well as the power inequity displayed within the relationship of Helmer and Nora, I believe the macaroons play an important part into this dilemma. I believe this could be a symbol of indulgence, one that women is not necessarily usually privy to, hence the secrecy displayed by Nora when consuming these. The banning of these in the household, as Dr. Rank stated when witnessing Nora's consumption of these, defines the oppressive nature of the Victorian Era against women, often times barring them from doing anything in society without their husbands, due to their lack of possession of basic rights. This lack of independence, and lack of ability to self indulge could also be another mark of dramatic irony, for even though Helmer believes Nora is a little spendthrift, or ridicules her when giving her money, even going so far as to question where she spends is (if she spent them at a bakery or not), the true reveal of where Nora is paying this money is made. Her responsibility over the wellbeing of her husband is apparent, and would be openly displayed, as can be seen with her gloats toward Mrs. Linde, were it not for the inequality between women and men in society.
DeleteIn the play “A Doll’s House” Henrik Ibsen uses dialog to display the relationship between Nora and Rank. The banter between the two reveals familiarity between the two, and the comfort Nora receives from his presence. Rank’s sudden confession of love however, completely destroys this dynamic. The comfort Nora received is completely shattered as she now must take into account how her every action could jeopardize the life she created. She can no longer seek help from Rand as such a display of trust would surely be taken the wrong way. Nora still however manages to manipulate him into helping her, though not quite in the way she first planned on enlisting his help. Rather than the solution to all her problems, Rand instead becomes a distraction for Helmer, though she does still let Rank know she cares for him, simply not in the way he wants. It is clear that there is trust between the two characters as shown by Nora’s many admissions, and the feelings the two of them have for each other are revealed. While Rand’s love was one-sided, Nora still manages to reassure him that she would continue to keep his company by telling him of the strength of her, albeit platonic, feelings.
ReplyDeleteYeah totally. I was also kind of taken aback by him being so forward in his confession of love for her. I think Ibsen did this to show that, although this behavior is not acceptable for the 'outside world,' it is perfectly fine behind closed doors. Even though Torvald is just in the other room, their interaction is not know by anti there than themselves. This interaction also may forshadow trust in the future between these two, or possibly the lack of it. By the end, Dr. Rank is still kind of a mystery however, is still not really knowing how he got connected to the Helmers and what his main purpose for this play is. Rank also brought up a good point about being replaced, how once he died Kristine would just take his place, and already was. This almost shows jealousy and conflict and how Rank's words show how hurt he is because of what his father did. It shows how much he is affected by this and can never really have solid friends, but ultimately knows he will be disposable.
DeleteIn Act 2 of “A Doll's House” Henrik Ibsen uses the characterization of Nora to develop certain conflicts throughout the play. Nora is portrayed as a strong, caring, and courageous which weren’t common characteristics of a woman in the Victorian Era. Women were supposed to be elegant, peaceful, and obedient to their husbands. They were supposed to let their husbands take care of everything and be obedient to their superior males. By characterizing her in this way, it makes the conflicts in the play more interesting and difficult for those against her. Nora’s courage is shown in the the conversation between her and Krogstad when Nora says, “ [quickly]. He must never read that letter. Tear it up. I’ll find the money somehow.” Krogstad: “Excuse me, Mrs. Helmer, but I’ve just told you…” Nora: “I’m not talking about the money I owe you. I want to know how much you are demanding from my husband, and I’ll get the money” (Ibsen 53). Krogstad is informing Nora of the letter he has written up to send word about Helmer of what she has done as well as the money he is owed. Nora knows that this is to no fault of her own and is trying to prevent Krogstad from giving her husband the letter. Her courage is shown when she tells him to rip the letter up because she will find the money. She doesn’t want her mistakes to fall onto the shoulders of her children and husband and decides to take care of this with no help but her own. This shows the courage she has built in this situation as well as the level of care and protectiveness she has over her family. However, she knows that she cannot keep this burden away from her husband with that letter in the mail. Nora’s strong personality can be shown in the conversation between her and Helmer when he says, “ [walks to her]. Are you really so nervous, Nora dear?” Nora: “ Terribly nervous. Let me run through it now. There’s still time before supper. Come and sit here and play for me, Torvald dear. Tell me what to do, keep me right-as you always do” (Ibsen 58). She has come clean to her husband about the letter and he now knows of the situation. In this conversation, she is showing that she is strong enough to still try and fix the subject by going and getting the letter. Nora also shows that she is strong enough to ask for help from Helmer so she doesn’t make the situation worse for them. She admits that he always knows what to do and keep her on track which is a strong confession of anyone to say that someone else always knows what's best for them rather than themselves. The way Ibsen develops Nora as this character adds a different and more interesting effect on conflict because she is not a typical woman for the Victorian Era. If she fit the characteristics of an average Victorian woman, this conflict would have never unfolded because she wouldn't have signed those papers without her husband's consent. She also would have backed down to Krogstad when he was trying to intimidate her into helping him keep his job as well as doing anything to find the money. Nora is a critical character in development of conflicts in the play.
ReplyDeleteI believe the first part, rather than showing courage, more shows fear that Nora has. It is true that she has a deep love and care for her children and husband, but she is begging Krogstad not to say anything rather standing up for herself and demanding what she wants. She stoops down to his level and might as well be on her hands and knees as she pleads for him to not put the letter in the mail. For the second part though, I do believe that it shows some courage from Nora as she has to stand up to her husband and admit to him of her wrongdoings. Although do you possibly think that she could be faking what she says about how much she commends her husband in a degrading way to herself and women rather showing courage?
DeleteIn Act II of the play, Ibsen begins to finish forming the types of characters in the story. Most of the characters are dynamic and change their personalities throughout the play, but one character remains static up to this point: Torvald. I think this is true because he is the only character in the story who doesn’t have any external or internal conflicts that affect the plot or other characters in the story. He could be almost classified as a bystander, and is not included in many of the situations, especially the lying and deceiving by Nora, his wife. However, he is indirectly involved in most of the problems, such as Dr. Rank’s love for Nora (she is his wife!) and Krogstad’s blackmail of Nora to keep his job at the bank. Most of the other characters are dynamic, such as Nora, Dr. Rank, and Krogstad. Nora begins to change especially in the first act when Krogstad threatens her. Before this, she was a typical housewife who lived in the Victorian Era. But now because of the situation, she has to act more independently and behind her husband’s back, which was unheard of during this time. Krogstad was probably a normal person who worked at the bank and wanted to keep his job until he began to blackmail Nora into paying him back. This is a very stark difference from when the reader is first introduced to him and now in Act II. Even Dr. Rank, who isn’t mentioned as much, has began to change his qualities in the story. He finally confesses his love to Nora, who is married and with children. This again, shows that because of his disease in the spine (syphilis) he is now thinking he must admit to what he never has said before he passes away. All of these changes of these characters will undoubtedly have an impact on what occurs in Act III, and maybe Torvald will become dynamic too.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your analysis Casey. I did also notice how Torvald remained static as a character so far in the play, and how the rest of the main characters have changed. I find this ironic, because he is supposed to be the man of the house as the husband, but yet Nora his wife seems to be running things behind his back, such as the loan from Krogstad and the flirting with Dr. Rank. It shows how oblivious he is to what’s around him, and how he has no real idea on what is going on in his household. If he did ever find out about all these things, I really wonder how he is going to react. I myself can’t imagine being in his shoes when and if that occurs.
DeleteCasey I def agree with what youre talking about and all these characters unveiling different traits and that and wanted to ask what do you think TORVALD will do when he finds out about Ranks love for his wife and will Nora even do anything with finding out Ranks love her or just try to push it under the rug as everything is hush hush in this society and unsavory things are unmentioned?
Deleteamber mao
ReplyDeleteNora [dancing]: See what fun we are having, Kristine.
Mrs. Linde [standing as though spellbound in the doorway]: Ah…!
Helmer: But my dear darling Nora, you are dancing as though your life depended on it.
Nora: It does.
Helmer: Stop, Rank! This is sheer madness. Stop, I say.
[Rank stops playing and Nora comes to a sudden halt.]
Helmer [crosses to her]: I would never have believed it. You have forgotten everything I ever taught you.
(Act II, page 59)
This quote stood out as interesting to me because of the introduction of the symbolism of the tarantella that Nora dances. When Torvald says that Nora danced as though her life depended on it, and she agreed, in the literal sense it meant that she was using her dance as a means to distract Torvald to keep him from going to read the letters, particularly the one from Krogstad that would reveal Nora’s secret. The myth behind the tarantella dance is that people who were bitten by a tarantula would do this frenzied dance to sweat the venom out of their bodies. It could also be a dance of courtship, or a dance where the participants try to upstage each other. In these ways the tarantella could be symbolic of Nora’s life – she dances wildly in the hopes that it will buy her time to fix her debt and be done with Krogstad, who has been hounding her; or that her way of living is a sort of dance in which she has no choice but to play-act and weave truth and lies to hide from Torvald the debt and the fact that she committed a crime by forging a signature. Torvald’s saying that Nora’s dancing is “sheer madness” could indicate that that is what he would think of her subterfuge (as is proven later in the play), and that he “would never have believed it” and she has “forgotten everything I ever taught you” as a reference to how her independence and her actions make her radically different from other women of her era – that she “forgot” what society and her husband told her, and went out on her own to find herself.
I really enjoyed your analysis. However, I might add that the dance mirrors the plotline and conflict within the play thus far. The tarantela is a wild, uncontrolled dance, and this is reflective upon the wild, uncontrolled, unprecedented actions of Nora. Judging by the dance, the reader can foreshadow that A Dolls House will most likely end similarly to the dance; Nora becoming overcome with conflict will cause her life as she knows it to stop and change completely.
DeleteIn the final act, Ibsen uses Nora to reveal the significance of the title of the play, “ A Doll’s House”. Nora served as the doll throughout the entire play, being controlled by other characters, such as Krogstad and Helmer. Krogstad tried to intimidate Nora into influencing her husband to let him keep/promote his position at the Bank. This can be seen when he says, “That’s because you haven’t the will to help me. But I have ways of making you” (Ibsen 26). When Krogstad says he has ways of making her, it shows that he feels he can make her do whatever he wishes. This portrays her as the doll because he thinks that he can manipulate her. She is also manipulated by her husband Helmer. Nora comes to a realization that there is no love in her marriage with Helmer and that she is more of a property to him. This can be seen in the phrases that Helmer uses to speak to her such as when he says, “... I’m done for, a miserable failure, and it’s all the fault of a feather-brained woman!” (Ibsen 76). “... I’ve taken such good care of you, all our married life” (Ibsen 76). “... I have forgiven you, Nora, I swear it! I have forgiven you!” (Ibsen 79). All of these quotes represent his feelings towards Nora. How he insults her intelligence by calling her a feather-brained woman as well as how he only has regard for the situation because of his own reputation. He exclaims how he has taken such good care of her, implying without him that she wouldn’t be where she is right now. It can be inferred that he wants nothing to do with her because of the shame that she is bringing to him with the situation that she has causes. However, when he realizes that Krogstad has sent the IOU back along with his apologies about the entire situation and is now accepting of her. She realizes the relationship between the two was superficial with no real connection between them. Nora is tired of being controlled and treated second to him and realizes that it is time for her to leave. This can be seen when Helmer says, Helmer: “I still have it in me to change.” Nora: “Perhaps… if you have your doll taken away” (Ibsen 85). In this quote, the significance of the title of the play is shown as well as concrete evidence that Nora was seen as the doll. When Nora decides to leave Helmer, the play ends because the doll is now gone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post, and I applaud Nora for finally saying that there needs to be a change in their relationship. I find it quite infuriating how quickly Helmer's mood changes such as when he found out about what Nora did and when Krogstad apologizes and returns Nora's forged note. When Nora does something that can potentially jeopardize his whole life, he drops her instantly, wants nothing to do with her, and berates her for her stupidity. What I inferred from Helmer's mood swings is that he's very egoistic and only wants what is best for himself.
Deleteamber mao
ReplyDeleteIn Act III, Rank’s dialogue when he visits Nora and Torvald after the tarantella is interesting and rather metaphorical. When they talk about how much alcohol they drank, Rank mentions that his laboratory tests were successful, and he had achieved certainty; after Nora’s questioning glance, he states, “Absolute certainty. So why shouldn’t I allow myself a jolly evening after that?” to which Torvald replies, “I quite agree. As long as you don’t suffer from it in the morning” (71). As is evident from Torvald’s response, he believes that everything is still normal, that Rank was just out celebrating after a hard day of work – not the reality that was confided to Nora, and that he drank so much because he was certain of his death looming on the horizon, and it was the last chance he would ever get to enjoy himself. In addition, contrary to what Torvald says about a hangover, it doesn’t really matter because Rank is going to die soon and he’s already suffering anyway. After that, Nora brings up masquerades – interestingly enough, because of the theme of deceit and disguise of her hiding her secret about the loan and forged signature, and Rank hiding his illness from society. Rank then mentions that “At the next masquerade, I shall be invisible” (72), because he would be dead then – he would disappear from the lives of everyone around him, as he had previously said to Nora. As he leaves, Nora tells him, “Sleep well, Dr. Rank.” and asks him to “Wish me the same” (72-73) This could be because Nora bids him farewell knowing that he is close to dying and she will never see him again, and she asks him to say the same back to her because she is planning to kill herself to prevent Torvald from taking the blame of the forgery all upon himself – the miracle of miracles. Thus, here, sleep is almost a euphemism for death.
At the end of the final Act of the Doll’s House, Ibsen was forced to write a second ending to satisfy owners of some theatres in Germany. He has expressed his opinion on the change in several letters to the editors of the owners of the theatres. Ibsen said in one of the letters that this change to the ending would be “‘barbaric violence’ done to the play”. In the original ending, Nora finally announces that she no longer loves Torvald anymore, and that he will be leaving him. This shows that Nora has now become an individualist and now wants to differ away from a stereotypical wife during the Victorian Era. This ending really sums up all of the problems and conflicts which ultimately changed Nora’s outlook on the society. However in the alternate ending, Nora never leaves Torvald. He tells her that she would be abandoning the children. Nora responds by saying, “Motherless! Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them” (88). Then the curtain falls on a cliffhanger, with no particular theme or point to the play. In my opinion, the original leaves the resolution to the main motif of the play which is the idea of individualism in a person. The alternate ending just shows that Nora (or women in general) should remain at home and not have their own opinions, and let their husbands control their everyday life. Overall, I am happy that Ibsen recognized that his original writing was better than the German ending.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your opinion that the original ending was the best ending as not only is the alternate ending rather depressing in its predictable conformity to society’s rules, but it also completely undermines then entire message that Ibsen was trying to convey in his play. Rather than portraying Nora as an independent and proud woman, the alternate ending shows her relenting to the pressures of society and also shows how it is futile to go against the current of society. Although I would agree that this might be a more realistic presentation of the scene in how a mother probably wouldn’t just abandon her own children regardless of how badly her husband treats her, which is tragic as she seems to be paying for the attitude of her dislikable husband.
DeleteI also agree with your opinion and analysis of the alternate German ending to A Doll's House. I might add that in addition to the ending completely undercutting the message of empowerment among social norms of this era, the ending also creates an unrelatable martyr out of Nora; reducing her from a boundary breaking woman, to just another player in a cat and mouse game. This message reinforces the prevailing idea of the nuclear family and the idealization of the home making woman.
DeleteIn the play, “A Doll’s House,” Henrik Ibsen displays the strength of Nora’s character through the original ending of the play. Nora reevaluates her life, and what it has led to, and discovers that she has suffered injustice, “When I look back on it, it seems to me as if I had been living here like a beggar--just from hand to mouth. I have existed merely to perform tricks for you, Torvald. But you would have it so. You and Daddy have committed a great sin against me. It is your fault that I have made nothing of my life.” (Act three, Page 80) After this epiphany, Nora decides to leave. She feels as though she must now go and obtain the skills that have been denied to her all these years. She refuses any help from Torvald, and leaves ready to the face the world as it may come, no matter how unfair she views it. The entire ending was about Nora finding her courage after being disillusioned about her husband. The German ending however, completely destroys all character development, “NORA. Where we could make a real marriage out of our lives together. Goodbye.
ReplyDeleteHELMER. Go then! But first you shall see your children for the last time!
NORA. Let me go! I will not see them! I cannot!
HELMER. You shall see them. Look, there they are asleep, peaceful and carefree. Tomorrow, when they wake up and call for their mother, they will be - motherless.
NORA. Motherless...!
HELMER. As you once were.
NORA. Motherless! Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them.
HELMER. Nora!” (Page 88) Nora, who had just preached the merits of becoming her own person, who had previously made arrangements with her former caretaker to protect her children after her suicide, who had been set to leave, is convinced to stay by the mere thought that her children would be motherless. This destroys the entire message of the play, and strips Nora’s monologues of their power. The original ending of the play was what made Nora’s character strong and radical in a time where women could be neither, and all of that is shattered by the alternate ending.
Amber mao
ReplyDeleteIn Act III, at the end of the play, Nora’s decision to leave Torvald is the climactic culmination of the development of her character and plot, and is what brought so much controversy to the work in the Victorian Era. When Torvald tries to argue with her by telling her that she has a sacred duty to her husband and children:
Nora. “I have another duty equally sacred.”
Helmer. “You have not. What duty might that be?”
Nora. “My duty to myself.”
Helmer. “First and foremost, you are a wife and mother.”
Nora. “That I don’t believe anymore. I believe that first and foremost I am an individual, just as much as you are” (82)
Here, Torvald’s views reflect those of the society they live in: women should be devoted to their families and nothing else, so much so that it is considered sacred. The fact that Nora is a wife and mother before being a person is indicative of the things imposed upon women. Her refusal to bow to Torvald’s will and assertion that she needs to leave and learn of the world shows her strength in going against what society made of women.
Later in the conversation, Torvald continues to try to convince Nora to stay:
Helmer. “I still have it in me to change.”
Nora. “Perhaps… if you have your doll taken away.”
Helmer. “And be separated from you! No, no, Nora, the very thought of it is inconceivable.” (85)
Nora mentioning having the doll taken away is in reference to earlier, when she explains to Torvald that she was controlled her whole life, first by her father, then by her husband. She uses the metaphor here to tell Torvald that their unhappy state of affairs will not change unless she leaves. Torvald’s reaction, ironically, is similar to that of a child’s when its toy is taken away – at this moment, he is the childish one in the relationship, despite his thinking that Nora is “like a stupid child” (84).
I completely agree with your argument, and how Nora was submitted under the unjust treatment of her husband. The fact that she leaves, however, shows how she undermines this stereotype and goes against the social norms of the Victoria Era. However, as we have noticed, the fact that Ibsen wrote a second ending to his play shows how strict and intangible the social standards were.
DeleteIn the play A Doll’s House, Ibsen uses several symbols to represent many of the main motifs and themes that are present throughout the plot. One major symbol is the mentioning of the New Year as the play is centered around the holidays. Usually during New Year’s Eve, people create resolutions to start new or to change something about their lifestyle which could use some improving. In the story, Torvald just received a new job at the bank, which seems really good because it will provide more money for their family. This could be representative of the idea of “new year, new me”, as their family can start fresh, without recollection of any of their past mistakes or problems. This is very ironic because Nora begins to start more issues in their family with forging and the constant lying that she does. She disrupts the stereotypical Victorian family idea, and ruins the idea of New Years. This holiday helps foreshadow what is about to happen to the Helmer family, as most New Year’s resolutions go uncompleted. Torvald’s new job at the bank looks fortuitous for them, but helps cause the problem with Krogstad because he is now the new bank manager who can control who is fired or hired. Krogstad takes advantage of this by blackmailing Nora into making her husband not fired him so that he can “stay on his feet”.
ReplyDelete