Throughout the beginning of A Doll’s House, it is evident that there is a distinct difference in the roles of men and women. Henrik Ibsen uses the language of Nora and animal allusions through Helmer and Nora’s dialogue to help portray the gender inequality present during this era. When Nora arrives home and is talking to Helmer, she begs, “Oh, please, Torvald dear! Please! I beg you” (Ibsen 4). Nora is begging her husband for money; the fact that she has to beg for money reveals how men were much more powerful than women were during this era. Helmer is the man of the family, which means he is in charge; he allows Nora to have money when he feels that it is right. During this time, most women did not have jobs, or had jobs that did not pay well, so they relied on their husbands to make money and provide for them. Immediately after Nora pleads for money from her husband, Helmer says, “What do we call my pretty little pet when it runs away with all the money?” (4). Not only does Helmer refer to Nora as an animal, but specifically a domesticated animal: a pet. This displays how Helmer feels as if he owns Nora and can demand her to do as he says just like an owner would to his/her pet. Also, humans are usually seen as more superior to animals reflecting how society believed that men were the superior ones during the Victorian Era.
In the beginning of “A Doll’s House,” Henrik Ibsen characterizes Nora as a character trying to be as unselfish as possible with little luck. The first evidence of this is seen right at the beginning when she “takes a bag of macaroons out of her pocket and eats one or two; then she walks stealthily across and listens at her husband’s door.” She thinks about herself, as shown through her buying macaroons for herself. However, to seem well-mannered as is important to people in the Victorian Era, she tries to hide that selfishness. She is seen walking “stealthily" towards Torvald’s study to see if he is home. Then she hides the macaroons and wipes her mouth to hide this from him. Later, when Mrs. Linde comes for a visit, Nora, knowing she has already been selfish with the macaroons, says “No, you start. I won't be selfish today. I must think only about your affairs today.” Then, immediately after saying this, she begins to talk about herself again, about Torvald’s promotion. Living in the Victorian Era, Nora tries hard to be unselfish, but has very little success.
I agree with your analysis, though I had not quite thought about it to this extent. Nora does try to be kind and inclusive towards others, but her attention turns back to herself before she can even fully allow the chance to be unselfish fully come to pass. However, it seems this trait seems to be contained primarily to conversation, as her devotion to her husband and children is incredible, even at the cost of luxuries to herself
In the beginning of act 1, Henrik Ibsen presents the first conflict of money, while also revealing some characteristics of Nora and Torvald. The beginning of the play shows Nora overpaying for the porter’s services and later on she exclaims to Torvald about all the gifts she bought for the family. This shows the audience that Nora likes to spend money and allows the idea of buying presents to overshadow their financial problems. However, Torvald has a more practical view of money, by jokingly calling Nora a “spendthrift” and telling her that she is very foolish when it comes to finances. Torvald thinks that Nora’s lack of financial understanding is due to her gender, saying, “Nora, my Nora, that is just like a women”(Ibsen 4), this shows his prejudice views of gender roles. Torvald believes that a wife’s role is to keep up the image of the house, not only by cleaning but also through proper behavior and appearance. Another characteristic of Torvald’s personality is the way he refers to Nora by animal names. The only time he calls her by name is when Torvald is scolding her, however when he is trying to be affectionate he calls her by names like “my little skylark” and “my squirrel”. By using these nicknames, Torvald can assert his power over Nora as well as dehumanize her. The usage of animal imagery shows that Torvald is suggesting that Nora is too incompetent to deal with male jobs, like finances.
I love your analysis and agree completely with everything you said, however, I want to propose the question: Do the specific animals Torvald call Nora have any meaning? I thought they did. I agree completely with the idea that Torvald can assert his power over Nora as well as dehumanize her through the usage of animal imagery but when looking up the symbolism of a skylark I found that skylark's represent freedom, hope, joy, and inspiration which I thought completely contrasts with the idea of wife's being obedient to their husbands. I think this is Ibsen sneakily foreshadowing that Nora's character will change and she will become independent.
Although we didn’t get too deep into the story during our in-class reading, a theme is already quite visible to me. Based on what we’ve read so far, I’d say that the text plays to a theme of objectification and dehumanization of women, which was a prominent issue in the late nineteenth-century. Nora, married to Torvald, seems to fill less of a role of a wife, and more of that of a pet or child. In the part of Act One that we read, she is often called by the name of a small, weak animal, such as a “skylark” or “squirrel”. Nicknames such as these put Nora in a subhuman status, and almost make her character feel weak and dependent on her husband. Sadly, dependency on male partners was a real issue for women of this time period, as their gender often put them in a position of social and financial disadvantage. When referring to Nora as an animal, Torvald also includes the word “my”. The inclusion of this word is extremely significant, as it shows that Torvald is in a state of mind where he sees Nora as his. It is very likely that this will not be the last time that we see this possessive nature in Torvald, and I feel like it could be a major aspect of the story. Also, I believe that the title of the story, “A Doll’s House”, highlights the manipulation and control of Nora by Torvald, with Nora being the “doll”. A feeling of tension is building at this point in the story as well, as we see Nora lying to her husband and visibly rebelling against him (seen in her eating and lying about the macaroons). This could foreshadow conflict that has yet to come.
Interesting analysis...I agree with all you have written regarding the gender classes a see this as a large theme and having an influential role in the play, but we'll find out as we read more. The interesting thing I found in your post was the comment on the title in it's symbolism of control and manipulation within the story, and how it could foreshadow the future events under this theme further in the story, my group had very similar ideas regarding the title, but you articulated this idea very well.
In the first half of act one, Nora and Torvald’s relationship seems to be a happy and honest one. However, in the second part of the act, the reader sees that there's a lot of secrets in the house. One prime example of this deception is when Nora lies about the macaroons. The first mention of the macaroons comes when Torvald accuses Nora of eating/purchasing some, he asks, “didn’t go nibbling on a macaroon or two?” (Iben 5) and Nora then insists that she never did. The macaroons are mentioned again in the dialogue between Dr. Rank and Nora; NORA: Yes, it really is terribly amusing to think that we...that Torvald now has power over so many people. Dr. Rank, what about a little macaroon? RANK: Look at this, eh? Macaroons. I thought they were forbidden here. NORA: Yes, but these are some Kristine gave me. (Ibsen 19). Because Nora lies about this dessert twice, this tells the reader that the macaroons could symbolise Nora’s disobedience and deceit. When talking to Dr. Rank, she mentions the newfound power that Torvald has at his job and the macaroons in the same line. By doing this, Ibsen is implying that Nora is annoyed by men having so much power over women and that these macaroons are a way for her to defy the social norms. The macaroons could also be a symbol for Nora’s inner passions, that she must hide within her marriage. After Nora eats one of the macaroons, she mentions that she has always wanted to say the word “damn” in front Torvald (Ibsen 20). This outburst is a cause of her being able to express herself through this little dessert.
Throughout Act I, the theme of the importance of money is very evident as seen through Nora’s language. Nora is constantly either begging for money from Torvald or talking about money with Mrs. Linde. Nora says, “Oh, please, Torvald dear! Please! I beg you. Then I’d wrap the money up in some pretty gilt paper and hang it on the Christmas tree. Wouldn’t that be fun?” (Ibsen 4). Because Nora is a woman, she does not have a job and therefore cannot earn her own money. This constant battle makes it so she always has to have money in the back of her head. Everyday she probably has thoughts going through her head like, “how am I going to ask Torvald for money today?” or “How will I be able to buy this item?” This theme is also displayed when Nora is talking to Mrs. Linde. She says, “Oh God, oh God, isn’t it marvelous to be alive, and to be happy, Kristine!” (Ibsen 10). During this conversation, Nora is telling Mrs. Linde how Torvald got a promotion so they do not need to worry about not having enough money anymore. Mrs. Linde lost her husband and does not have a job, so she is not in the happiest of states. Nora is so excited about having money that she completely disregards the hardships that Mrs. Linde is going through, bragging and jumping of joy. This reflects how money was often the most important aspect of life and that it can dictate how one lives.
hey Holly! I really like your analysis of this aspect of Nora. It also seems like there is a connection between having a husband and having a job. Because Mrs. Linde now does not have a husband, she is getting a job and will hopefully be earning her own money. She also even seems more attuned with the outside world and the society outside of the one room house. We see all three of the men and Mrs. Linde outside for a work aspect, however, we have only seen Nora outside whilst at the end of shopping. She is more of a woman of the house, and when she tried to deal with things of the business world she seems to not care about the consequences. When she is speaking later about the loan and the forged signature, she seems to not care and seemingly brush this off until Torvald has to inform her of the consequences. Even then, she does not seem to get the fact that the air is not actually poisoned, but it is a metaphor for having an influence over people.
I really enjoyed your analysis as mine was about the same topic. I also discussed how money along with it's importance in society, also creates social barriers between men and women. However I enjoy how you extended that to Mrs. Linde. The topic of money was also discussed between money characters and as readers we can guess that money was a possible topic of discussion in Helmer's secret meetings. Krogstad and Nora also discuss money due to the deal made between the two. I wonder if women and men, other than their husband, discussed money at all since women were so uninvolved with wealth and were, for the most part, unable to attain jobs.
Henrik Ibsen characterizes Nora as a childish person through Act 1. She does not understand the severity of things, impulsively makes decisions, and enjoys childish pleasures. One of the main focuses of Nora’s character is that she cannot handle money well. She spends whatever she can get her hands on. This can prove to be very problematic. The financial state of their household is in jeopardy due to this, and her decision to forge the signature for the money shows how she doesn't understand the repercussions and makes her decisions quickly. This act of forgery, as Torvald puts it, “poisons" her relations with her husband, her children, and others around her. It could also lead to her own imprisonment. Nora is shown to be very childish through these things as well as her childish pleasures. She first is seen with macaroons, a simple dessert she craves and is willing to spend money on, and to lie about. Later, she is seen playing with the children. They get along wonderfully, which continues to develop that childish side of Nora’s personality. She also refers to her father as “Daddy,” a name young children would use to address their father. Adding to her development, her choice of title shows how ignorant and childlike Nora really is. Nora is shown as a childish character as she does not understand the severity of things, makes impulsive decisions, and enjoys childish pleasures.
I completely understand your argument, however, I would have considered the fact that Torvald was seriously ill at that point, and Nora had no other option to falsify her father's signature in order to conceive the money and carry out the trip that would mejorate his health. Even though this seems a foolish act of Nora, childlike and immature, as you have mentioned, I think that, although those are aspects that characterize her, she truly had no other remedy and took the risk just for her husband's sake.
In act two, we see Helmer further characterized as the prideful, bashful man that he is. His arrogant nature can be viewed when he puts the opinions of his coworkers above the requests of his wife and even turns hostile towards her. In this act, Helmer also continues the verbal degradation that we saw take place slightly more subtly in the first act, as he aggressively calls Nora a “little woman” (pg 49) who is only happy once she “gets her own stubborn way” (pg 49). I feel that, as we move into each new act of the story, Helmer is consistently becoming and will become more and more possessive and controlling over Nora. Helmer’s character is likely being used by Henrik Ibsen as a commentary on the role of the common husband of the Victorian Era and as a depiction of the substantial rights gap between men and women of that time period. At first, it almost seemed like Helmer’s taunting was a mutual joke, as both of them playfully conversed and referred to Nora as a “squirrel” and other animal names in act one, but at this point, it is quite clear that Helmer truly believes that the names he is calling Nora have grounds as truth and are actually accurate representations of her character.
At the very beginning of Act II, the Narrator is setting the scene and says, “The same room. In the corner beside the piano stands the Christmas tree, stripped, bedraggled and with its candles burnt out. Nora’s outdoor things lie on the sofa. Nora, alone there, walks about restlessly; at last she stops by the sofa and picks up her coat” (Ibsen 35). I found this quote very interesting and important to the play because I noticed that there are many similarities between the Christmas tree and Nora. The Christmas tree seems to be symbol of Nora and her mental state. At this point in the play Nora is very nervous that Krogstad might expose her little secret and the Christmas tree’s position seems to parallel Nora’s psychological state. The Christmas tree is “stripped,” “bedraggled,” and has “burnt out” candles reflecting how Nora is exhausted and feeling uneasy about her fault. Not only is the Christmas tree not in a good condition, but it is also in the corner of the room, which symbolizes how Nora feels trapped and cornered by her secret. Another way the Christmas tree symbolizes Nora is that similar to how a Christmas tree is usually a very festive, joyful item that is known to make people smile, Nora is a vital part of her home’s cheerfulness and good looks. A Christmas tree is a very important and symbolic part of Christmas just like how a wife/mother is an important part of a family (especially during the Victorian Era).
I agree completely with your analysis. However I also interpreted the tree's state as a symbol of Nora's disintegrating web of lies. The pretty decorations that Nora used to cover up her deceit are falling away. Soon the bare, ugly truth will emerge. Also another example to support your idea of the christmas tree symbolizing Nora is seen when Nora instructs the maid that the children cannot see the tree until it has been decorated just like she tells Torvald that no one can see her in her dress until the evening of the dance
RANK: That I have loved you every bit as much as anybody? Is that horrid?
NORA: No, but that you had to go and tell me. When it was all so unnecessary…
….
RANK: Anyway, you know now that I’m at your service, body and soul. So you can speak out.
NORA: I can tell you nothing now.
RANK: You must. You can’t torment me like this. Give me a chance- I’ll do anything that’s humanly possible. (Ibsen 49) In this scene, Nora begins flirting with Dr. Rank by showing him her stockings and calling him “naughty” when he starts flirting back (Ibsen 47). By doing this, Nora seems to be manipulating Rank in order to entice him and persuade him to talk to Torvald about Krogstad keeping his job at the bank. However, after Dr. Rank professes his love for her, Nora suddenly panics and refuses to ask her favor. This shows the reader that Nora has developed a moral integrity, which means that despite her needs, she realizes that she can not take advantage of Dr. Rank by capitalizing on his love for her. This is an important part of Nora’s character development because in the beginning, Nora came off as very self centered. When talking to Ms. Linde, she says, “No, you start. I won’t be selfish today. I must only think about your affairs today...Have you heard about the great stroke of luck we’ve had” (Ibsen 8), Nora starts by wanting to hear about Ms. Linde but then continues to talk about herself. By the end of act two, Nora begins to change her selfish character. Another interesting part of act two, was while Nora and Dr. Rank were arguing, Nora asked for a lamp, but never did anything with it. This lamp could symbolize Nora’s state of awareness because at first when she is using her sexual attraction to manipulate him, the room is dark, meaning she is unaware of her actions. However, once Rank confesses his love for her, Nora is shocked and the lamp is brought in.
This is a great analysis, and I agree with you on this one! At first I thought that Nora was extremely selfish and self-obsessed, but this scene shows how much she has changed. Although she had a perfect opportunity right in front of her, instead of taking it and hurting Dr. Rank in the process, she drew the line and knew when to stop. I wonder what would have been the outcome if she enticed him a little more... Would he have helped her?
“NORA: … Do you think they would forget their Mummy if she went away for good? NURSEMAID: Good gracious - for good? NORA: Tell me, Anne Marie - I've often wondered - how on earth could you bear to hand your child over to strangers? NURSEMAID: Well, there was nothing else for it when I had to come and nurse my little Nora. NORA: Yes, but … how could you bring yourself to do it?” This quote shows the extent of trauma Nora is facing. She is so beside herself with fear from Torvald finding out, and what could happen to her that she is willing to go to the extremes. In this scene, Nora asks the nursemaid how she managed to leave her own daughter, indicating Nora’s intent to run away from her problems. She is in such a sorry state that she is willing to give up everything she cares about, her husband and her children. This quote is very important to Nora's story as it is the first instant that shows how Nora is planning to react to her predicament. It shows the desperation Nora deals with, and continues to portray a fearful, panicked mood.
I completely agree with your analysis. I understood it as Nora planning or even dreaming to run from her problems. This conversation shows she might be serious about it if there are no repercussions that will affect her family. It shows a different side to Nora. Henrik Ibsen portrays her as weak when around Torvald and strong and capable of standing up for herself around Krogstad. This dialogue shows that Nora has completely run out of hope. The audience can see that after all she has tried to do, talking to Torvald about keeping Krogstad or trying to convince Krogstad not to tell Torvald, and how all has failed she resorts to extreme solutions. She could also be thinking of a different form of escape. By this I mean suicide. Other parts of act II show Nora considers suicide as a way out of her problems without forcing her family to deal with the consequences of her fraud.
Nathan Maisonville (P7) Act Two, repetition of/symbolism in “macaroon”
“Nora: And some macaroons, Helene… Lots of them, for once in a while.” Hemler: Now, now, not so wild and excitable!” (Pg. 60)
At the start of the play, we see Nora sneaking macaroons, which we later find out are banned by Helmer. This sweet treat makes its return multiple times in the play, each time bringing with it significant symbolism. First of all, I’d like to clarify what a macaroon is. A macaroon, according to Google, is a light cookie that’s made with egg whites, sugar, and usually either ground almond or coconut (the whole time I thought it was like a nut or something). In the play, the macaroon is used to symbolize Nora’s naïve nature and desire for something that is out of reach. This desire has come up before in the Nora’s character however, so this is not the only time we see it. Another instance of Nora’s longing for something greater can be seen when she is talking with Mrs. Linde and states how she wishes she had a rich man to leave her money. This unrealistic dream can be used to further display her child-like personality too. The macaroon can also convey Nora’s temptation to rebel, as she eats them behind Helmer’s back despite his requests. Another noteworthy usage of the macaroon is when she offers one to Dr. Rank. I feel like her offer to Rank, who was aware that Helmer had banned them, was her attempt to almost flex a bit and show her rebellious side to someone.
Interesting analysis, I thought "macaroon" meant the nut, a delightful and rich tasting nut, but I must of been thinking of something else like you. I agree with what you say about the temptation Nora has, her rebellious nature and the macaroon is a perfect symbol for how Nora will give in to her temptations disregarding what she knows she should do, and what others want from her, even to the extremes of eating the nut behind Helmer's back.
In “A Doll’s House”, the reader has the chance to experience the Victorian era, through the values and beliefs of the characters. Over the course of the play, one of the central themes is the idea of appearances and how they prove to be very misleading. In the beginning, the audience views Nora as self-centered and childish, Torvald as strong, and Krogstad as the villain. However, in act three these misleading identities are resolved. When Torvald finds out about the loans, he says, “from now on, there can be no question of happiness. All we can do is save the bits and pieces from the wreck, preserve appearances…” (Ibsen 76). Torvald’s reaction confirms his characterization as a selfish man, whose main concern is appearances. In this quote, he is saying that the appearance of happiness is more important than happiness itself. However, once he learns that the scandal will remain private, which reveals Krogstad as actually sympathetic, Torvald exclaims, “I’m saved!” (Ibsen 77). He says nothing about Nora until she asks, “and me?”, in which he casually response, “you too, of course”. This is also important because rather than sacrificing his own reputation to save Nora’s, he decides to hide, which proves that Torvald is not the strong man that he shows in front of Nora and society. Due to this reaction, Nora becomes the strong-willed and brave women that she has always hidden away. She decides to go against the norms of society and proclaim that, “I am an individual, just as much as you are - or at least I’m going to try to be...But I’m not content any more with what most people say...I have to think things out for myself” (Ibsen 82). In this proclamation, Nora switches from thinking about suicide to deciding to leave Torvald, showing her increase in independence and self awareness.
Through the use of symbolism, Ibsen portrays the Victorian Era as a time of inequality among women. The symbol of a doll and a doll’s house is seen in the title and also appears in Act III. The title, A Doll’s House represents the Helmer’s household where Torvald is the owner of the dolls and Nora and her children are dolls being dictated and restrained from their own opinions. Nora uses this symbol to explain how she feels when talking to Torvald. She says, “He used to call me his baby doll, and he played with me as I used to play with my dolls” (Ibsen 80). Nora is explaining how she felt when she was young and lived with her father. Because dolls have no feelings and are controlled by their owner, Nora reveals that she felt like her father was controlling her. This also displays how she felt as if she did not have feelings and could not make decisions of her own. Everything was in the hands of her father, because he was a male and she is a female. Later in the conversation Nora says, “But our house has never been anything but a play-room. I have been your doll wife, just as I was Daddy’s doll child” (Ibsen 80). Nora feels that after she left her father’s home, she was just handed to another man to be controlled as if she would not be able to make her own decisions. This reflects how in the Victorian Era women often would do whatever their husbands told them, and they would agree with them even if they truly did not agree because that is what was a social norm. During this era, a man would control his wife, making her do whatever he pleased with little say from the woman just like a little girl would do to her doll.
“A Doll’s House" portrays the aesthetically oriented Victorian society increasingly through Act 3. The narration at the beginning sets the scene for a third time, showing how important appearances are to the times. In addition, Helmer brings Nora away from the party, and explains himself by stressing the importance of the visual effect. He says “The main thing is that she was a success, a tremendous success. Was I supposed to let her stay after that? Spoil the effect? No thank you! I took my lovely little Capri girl - my capricious little Capri girl, I might say - by the arm, whisked her once round the room, a curtsey all around, and then - as they say in novels -the beautiful vision vanished. An exit should always be effective, Mrs. Linde”(pg.67-68). Helmer justifies his leaving the party early by explaining the importance of exits to create an image. Ibsen has Helmer describe this in great detail to show not only the Victorian culture the play is set in, but also to show Helmer’s character as one to follow social norms. Since Nora does not care about this exit, her reluctance to leave being due to the letter in the mailbox, she is characterized as one who would forsake social norms to get what she wants. This was also seen in Nora’s decision to meet with Krogsdad about the money, because women were not supposed to deal with debt in these times. This instant of Nora not caring about her image foreshadows her decision to leave Torvald, as this is a deviation from the norms of society.
Your analysis has made me think more deeply about the character of Nora, and realize how the author has juxtaposed her character. On one hand, she is described as a childish, immature person, who is always pleasing her husband by letting him treat her like a child. However, as you have pointed out, she actually does not obey many of the Victorian era social norms, as she tries to control business by herself, going against the laws. This shows how Nora is actually strong and independent, and how her final action was, in a way, expected.
I really enjoyed reading your analysis. All throughout the play, I also noticed that Helmer is one to follow and conform to society's standards. But he's also somewhat obsessed with how other people around him sees him, as well as their opinions on him.
Nathan Maisonville (P7) Characterization of Helmer in Act 3
“…you have ruined my entire happiness, jeopardized my whole future” (Pg 76) As I’ve stated in a previous blog post of mine, I think Helmer is shown to value his reputation and pride more than his own wife. Building off of that statement, I believe that this trait of being selfishly ambitious is further developed in act three. In this act, Helmer learns of the conflict that has fueled Nora’s stress. When learning of this strife, Helmer immediately turns hostile towards her, panicking and stating “…you have ruined my entire happiness, jeopardized my whole future…” (Pg 76). Helmer’s usage of the word “my” when speaking about the future and not “our” also demonstrates his selfish nature and lack of consideration for Nora.
“…people might even suspect me of being an accomplice…” (Pg 76) This quote assists in showing Helmer’s true colors too, as it exemplifies his selfish behavior. Hearing about the illegal action his wife as committed, Helmer is immediately concerned over his own well-being and seems unable to care less about Nora. Also, I found it extremely ironic that Helmer is worried about being an accomplice when Nora only did what she did to save his life.
I really enjoyed your post as it aided my general knowledge of Helmer. Your clear and thoughtful details of how Ibsen used diction and creative imagery to show Helmer's personal attributes and traits really helped me further understand his character as a whole and how Ibsen characterized him. What I also thought was interesting was how he interacted with Nora and how their relationship throughout the book progressed from very simple to complex and dramatic real fast. His contribution to the plot and interaction with other minor characters like Dr. Rank and Krogstad showed his true personality and how him as a person and husband during the era treated everyone.
I agree with your analysis of Helmer, he comes off being selfish caring primary for his job either than Nora. While we do see Helmer sometimes being very caring and loving to Nora, making it seem that she is his number one priority such as when he speaks to her about how he views her when they go out, and how he doesn't talk to her pretending they are new lovers, this sort of shows Helmer's flip flop attitude and how he acts differently than he is perceived.
In A Doll’s House, I thought one of the most interesting concepts was the symbolism of the lamp. This symbol can be seen throughout the play through dialogue and stage directions. The Helmer’s household is filled with lies and secrets; after one of these secrets is revealed Nora says, “Helene, bring the lamp in, please” (Ibsen 49). Dr. Rank has just told Nora that he loves her, so the lamp is a symbol of the truth. The lamp is being brought in to the room that was dark with secrets but is now filled with light (the truth). Unlike sunlight, a lamp can be controlled; moved from place to place and switched on and off at any moment. Similarly, the truth can be controlled, being kept a secret and revealed only when one pleases to reveal it. Later during their conversation, Nora says, “Don’t you feel ashamed of yourself, now that the lamp’s been brought in?” (Ibsen 49). Nora is saying that she believes that because Dr. Rank told the truth, he should be ashamed of himself. This belief comes from the belief that one must look and act appropriate for his/her gender. This mirrors how the Victorian Era was a time filled with secrets due to the importance of outward appearance. At the end of the play Torvald discovers Nora’s secret and then he opens a letter saying that everything is going to be just fine. The stage directions suggest that as he is talking, he is standing by the lamp. This reveals that Torvald is not only discovering the truth, but that Nora is realizing the truth about herself: that she needs to leave Torvald and her children to be happy.
I enjoyed your analysis and agree! I also believe the lamp is used to "illuminate" the truth from the dark secrets that swirl around this play. I also believe the symbolism and dialogue of Nora diplays her belief that secrets are better kept secret. She asks Rank if he feels ashamed when telling the truth. And she believes someone should feel ashamed when sharing the truth, displaying her desire to keep secrets a secret especially hers. Also it makes me question if she used her forgery as an out to a marriage she has been unhappy in for a long time.
A Doll’s House involves the revealing of many character’s secrets. We see Dr. Rank’s love for Nora metaphorically brought to light and fatal illness revealed to Helmer, Kristine and Krogstad’s true feelings uncovered, Nora’s debt to Krogstad unveiled, and Helmer’s true nature shown. I think a major theme of the play is the impact of secrets on relationships. Secrets and lies can both improve and hinder a relationship. In the story, both outcomes are shown. The negative effects of deception are prominently shown in the crumbling of Helmer and Nora’s relationship, as their lies led to the eventual downfall of their marriage. When I say “lies”, I’m not only referring to the whole issue about the IOU, but also the fakeness of their personalities. Nora’s entire character is based off of not being true to herself, so this correlates with the theme I stated as well. However, the positive aspects of lies are also demonstrated. When Krogstad and Kristine make their desire to be together known, they destroy a secret they had once hid while also bettering their lives. I believe this theme is consistently shown throughout the book and is the main message that the story conveys.
I'm so sorry this is late! I thought the hw was only to prepare for the fishbowl. It won't happen again.
Throughout “A Doll’s House”, there are few references towards dolls, however this symbolism is very significant to the play. In the beginning of act one, Nora shows Torvald the dolls she bought for her and says, “they are not very grand but she’ll have them all broken before long anyway” (Ibsen 3). This is interesting because it tells the reader that Nora is raising her daughter for a life similar to her own, while also foreshadowing Nora breaking up her family by leaving Torvald. Also when Nora plays with her children she refers to them as her “little dollies” (Ibsen 80). However, it is not till the end that the metaphor becomes clear. Nora tells Torvald that, “I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Daddy’s doll child. And the children in turn have been my dolls” (Ibsen 80-81), she basically cites this as one of the reasons why she has become unsatisfied with her life and marriage. Nora realizes that if she continues to instill her patterns on her children than they will be subjected to the same doll life as her. When Nora gave her daughter the doll, she was starting her off on the path of dollhood at an early age because she is teaching her daughter that she is fragile and has to be manipulated by someone else in order to have a decent life. The title is also an example of using doll symbolism because it uses possession to show that the doll owns the house or that only a doll may live there. By formating this possessively, it puts the emphasis on “house”, which shows that it is a make believe house. The home belongs to Nora because she is the doll. However, Nora is also smarter than Torvald because she was able to secure loans and was able to sneak macaroons all without Torvald knowing. In the end, Nora has to leave because she is a real women and can not live in a house that is meant for a doll.
Act I
ReplyDeleteThroughout the beginning of A Doll’s House, it is evident that there is a distinct difference in the roles of men and women. Henrik Ibsen uses the language of Nora and animal allusions through Helmer and Nora’s dialogue to help portray the gender inequality present during this era. When Nora arrives home and is talking to Helmer, she begs, “Oh, please, Torvald dear! Please! I beg you” (Ibsen 4). Nora is begging her husband for money; the fact that she has to beg for money reveals how men were much more powerful than women were during this era. Helmer is the man of the family, which means he is in charge; he allows Nora to have money when he feels that it is right. During this time, most women did not have jobs, or had jobs that did not pay well, so they relied on their husbands to make money and provide for them. Immediately after Nora pleads for money from her husband, Helmer says, “What do we call my pretty little pet when it runs away with all the money?” (4). Not only does Helmer refer to Nora as an animal, but specifically a domesticated animal: a pet. This displays how Helmer feels as if he owns Nora and can demand her to do as he says just like an owner would to his/her pet. Also, humans are usually seen as more superior to animals reflecting how society believed that men were the superior ones during the Victorian Era.
Act 1
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of “A Doll’s House,” Henrik Ibsen characterizes Nora as a character trying to be as unselfish as possible with little luck. The first evidence of this is seen right at the beginning when she “takes a bag of macaroons out of her pocket and eats one or two; then she walks stealthily across and listens at her husband’s door.” She thinks about herself, as shown through her buying macaroons for herself. However, to seem well-mannered as is important to people in the Victorian Era, she tries to hide that selfishness. She is seen walking “stealthily" towards Torvald’s study to see if he is home. Then she hides the macaroons and wipes her mouth to hide this from him. Later, when Mrs. Linde comes for a visit, Nora, knowing she has already been selfish with the macaroons, says “No, you start. I won't be selfish today. I must think only about your affairs today.” Then, immediately after saying this, she begins to talk about herself again, about Torvald’s promotion. Living in the Victorian Era, Nora tries hard to be unselfish, but has very little success.
I agree with your analysis, though I had not quite thought about it to this extent. Nora does try to be kind and inclusive towards others, but her attention turns back to herself before she can even fully allow the chance to be unselfish fully come to pass. However, it seems this trait seems to be contained primarily to conversation, as her devotion to her husband and children is incredible, even at the cost of luxuries to herself
DeleteIn the beginning of act 1, Henrik Ibsen presents the first conflict of money, while also revealing some characteristics of Nora and Torvald. The beginning of the play shows Nora overpaying for the porter’s services and later on she exclaims to Torvald about all the gifts she bought for the family. This shows the audience that Nora likes to spend money and allows the idea of buying presents to overshadow their financial problems. However, Torvald has a more practical view of money, by jokingly calling Nora a “spendthrift” and telling her that she is very foolish when it comes to finances. Torvald thinks that Nora’s lack of financial understanding is due to her gender, saying, “Nora, my Nora, that is just like a women”(Ibsen 4), this shows his prejudice views of gender roles. Torvald believes that a wife’s role is to keep up the image of the house, not only by cleaning but also through proper behavior and appearance. Another characteristic of Torvald’s personality is the way he refers to Nora by animal names. The only time he calls her by name is when Torvald is scolding her, however when he is trying to be affectionate he calls her by names like “my little skylark” and “my squirrel”. By using these nicknames, Torvald can assert his power over Nora as well as dehumanize her. The usage of animal imagery shows that Torvald is suggesting that Nora is too incompetent to deal with male jobs, like finances.
ReplyDeleteI love your analysis and agree completely with everything you said, however, I want to propose the question: Do the specific animals Torvald call Nora have any meaning? I thought they did. I agree completely with the idea that Torvald can assert his power over Nora as well as dehumanize her through the usage of animal imagery but when looking up the symbolism of a skylark I found that skylark's represent freedom, hope, joy, and inspiration which I thought completely contrasts with the idea of wife's being obedient to their husbands. I think this is Ibsen sneakily foreshadowing that Nora's character will change and she will become independent.
DeleteAlthough we didn’t get too deep into the story during our in-class reading, a theme is already quite visible to me. Based on what we’ve read so far, I’d say that the text plays to a theme of objectification and dehumanization of women, which was a prominent issue in the late nineteenth-century. Nora, married to Torvald, seems to fill less of a role of a wife, and more of that of a pet or child. In the part of Act One that we read, she is often called by the name of a small, weak animal, such as a “skylark” or “squirrel”. Nicknames such as these put Nora in a subhuman status, and almost make her character feel weak and dependent on her husband. Sadly, dependency on male partners was a real issue for women of this time period, as their gender often put them in a position of social and financial disadvantage. When referring to Nora as an animal, Torvald also includes the word “my”. The inclusion of this word is extremely significant, as it shows that Torvald is in a state of mind where he sees Nora as his. It is very likely that this will not be the last time that we see this possessive nature in Torvald, and I feel like it could be a major aspect of the story. Also, I believe that the title of the story, “A Doll’s House”, highlights the manipulation and control of Nora by Torvald, with Nora being the “doll”. A feeling of tension is building at this point in the story as well, as we see Nora lying to her husband and visibly rebelling against him (seen in her eating and lying about the macaroons). This could foreshadow conflict that has yet to come.
ReplyDeleteInteresting analysis...I agree with all you have written regarding the gender classes a see this as a large theme and having an influential role in the play, but we'll find out as we read more. The interesting thing I found in your post was the comment on the title in it's symbolism of control and manipulation within the story, and how it could foreshadow the future events under this theme further in the story, my group had very similar ideas regarding the title, but you articulated this idea very well.
DeleteIn the first half of act one, Nora and Torvald’s relationship seems to be a happy and honest one. However, in the second part of the act, the reader sees that there's a lot of secrets in the house. One prime example of this deception is when Nora lies about the macaroons. The first mention of the macaroons comes when Torvald accuses Nora of eating/purchasing some, he asks, “didn’t go nibbling on a macaroon or two?” (Iben 5) and Nora then insists that she never did. The macaroons are mentioned again in the dialogue between Dr. Rank and Nora;
ReplyDeleteNORA: Yes, it really is terribly amusing to think that we...that Torvald now has power over so many people. Dr. Rank, what about a little macaroon?
RANK: Look at this, eh? Macaroons. I thought they were forbidden here.
NORA: Yes, but these are some Kristine gave me. (Ibsen 19).
Because Nora lies about this dessert twice, this tells the reader that the macaroons could symbolise Nora’s disobedience and deceit. When talking to Dr. Rank, she mentions the newfound power that Torvald has at his job and the macaroons in the same line. By doing this, Ibsen is implying that Nora is annoyed by men having so much power over women and that these macaroons are a way for her to defy the social norms. The macaroons could also be a symbol for Nora’s inner passions, that she must hide within her marriage. After Nora eats one of the macaroons, she mentions that she has always wanted to say the word “damn” in front Torvald (Ibsen 20). This outburst is a cause of her being able to express herself through this little dessert.
Throughout Act I, the theme of the importance of money is very evident as seen through Nora’s language. Nora is constantly either begging for money from Torvald or talking about money with Mrs. Linde. Nora says, “Oh, please, Torvald dear! Please! I beg you. Then I’d wrap the money up in some pretty gilt paper and hang it on the Christmas tree. Wouldn’t that be fun?” (Ibsen 4). Because Nora is a woman, she does not have a job and therefore cannot earn her own money. This constant battle makes it so she always has to have money in the back of her head. Everyday she probably has thoughts going through her head like, “how am I going to ask Torvald for money today?” or “How will I be able to buy this item?” This theme is also displayed when Nora is talking to Mrs. Linde. She says, “Oh God, oh God, isn’t it marvelous to be alive, and to be happy, Kristine!” (Ibsen 10). During this conversation, Nora is telling Mrs. Linde how Torvald got a promotion so they do not need to worry about not having enough money anymore. Mrs. Linde lost her husband and does not have a job, so she is not in the happiest of states. Nora is so excited about having money that she completely disregards the hardships that Mrs. Linde is going through, bragging and jumping of joy. This reflects how money was often the most important aspect of life and that it can dictate how one lives.
ReplyDeletehey Holly! I really like your analysis of this aspect of Nora. It also seems like there is a connection between having a husband and having a job. Because Mrs. Linde now does not have a husband, she is getting a job and will hopefully be earning her own money. She also even seems more attuned with the outside world and the society outside of the one room house. We see all three of the men and Mrs. Linde outside for a work aspect, however, we have only seen Nora outside whilst at the end of shopping. She is more of a woman of the house, and when she tried to deal with things of the business world she seems to not care about the consequences. When she is speaking later about the loan and the forged signature, she seems to not care and seemingly brush this off until Torvald has to inform her of the consequences. Even then, she does not seem to get the fact that the air is not actually poisoned, but it is a metaphor for having an influence over people.
DeleteI really enjoyed your analysis as mine was about the same topic. I also discussed how money along with it's importance in society, also creates social barriers between men and women. However I enjoy how you extended that to Mrs. Linde. The topic of money was also discussed between money characters and as readers we can guess that money was a possible topic of discussion in Helmer's secret meetings. Krogstad and Nora also discuss money due to the deal made between the two. I wonder if women and men, other than their husband, discussed money at all since women were so uninvolved with wealth and were, for the most part, unable to attain jobs.
DeleteHenrik Ibsen characterizes Nora as a childish person through Act 1. She does not understand the severity of things, impulsively makes decisions, and enjoys childish pleasures. One of the main focuses of Nora’s character is that she cannot handle money well. She spends whatever she can get her hands on. This can prove to be very problematic. The financial state of their household is in jeopardy due to this, and her decision to forge the signature for the money shows how she doesn't understand the repercussions and makes her decisions quickly. This act of forgery, as Torvald puts it, “poisons" her relations with her husband, her children, and others around her. It could also lead to her own imprisonment. Nora is shown to be very childish through these things as well as her childish pleasures. She first is seen with macaroons, a simple dessert she craves and is willing to spend money on, and to lie about. Later, she is seen playing with the children. They get along wonderfully, which continues to develop that childish side of Nora’s personality. She also refers to her father as “Daddy,” a name young children would use to address their father. Adding to her development, her choice of title shows how ignorant and childlike Nora really is. Nora is shown as a childish character as she does not understand the severity of things, makes impulsive decisions, and enjoys childish pleasures.
ReplyDeleteI completely understand your argument, however, I would have considered the fact that Torvald was seriously ill at that point, and Nora had no other option to falsify her father's signature in order to conceive the money and carry out the trip that would mejorate his health. Even though this seems a foolish act of Nora, childlike and immature, as you have mentioned, I think that, although those are aspects that characterize her, she truly had no other remedy and took the risk just for her husband's sake.
DeleteIn act two, we see Helmer further characterized as the prideful, bashful man that he is. His arrogant nature can be viewed when he puts the opinions of his coworkers above the requests of his wife and even turns hostile towards her. In this act, Helmer also continues the verbal degradation that we saw take place slightly more subtly in the first act, as he aggressively calls Nora a “little woman” (pg 49) who is only happy once she “gets her own stubborn way” (pg 49). I feel that, as we move into each new act of the story, Helmer is consistently becoming and will become more and more possessive and controlling over Nora. Helmer’s character is likely being used by Henrik Ibsen as a commentary on the role of the common husband of the Victorian Era and as a depiction of the substantial rights gap between men and women of that time period. At first, it almost seemed like Helmer’s taunting was a mutual joke, as both of them playfully conversed and referred to Nora as a “squirrel” and other animal names in act one, but at this point, it is quite clear that Helmer truly believes that the names he is calling Nora have grounds as truth and are actually accurate representations of her character.
ReplyDeleteAt the very beginning of Act II, the Narrator is setting the scene and says, “The same room. In the corner beside the piano stands the Christmas tree, stripped, bedraggled and with its candles burnt out. Nora’s outdoor things lie on the sofa. Nora, alone there, walks about restlessly; at last she stops by the sofa and picks up her coat” (Ibsen 35). I found this quote very interesting and important to the play because I noticed that there are many similarities between the Christmas tree and Nora. The Christmas tree seems to be symbol of Nora and her mental state. At this point in the play Nora is very nervous that Krogstad might expose her little secret and the Christmas tree’s position seems to parallel Nora’s psychological state. The Christmas tree is “stripped,” “bedraggled,” and has “burnt out” candles reflecting how Nora is exhausted and feeling uneasy about her fault. Not only is the Christmas tree not in a good condition, but it is also in the corner of the room, which symbolizes how Nora feels trapped and cornered by her secret. Another way the Christmas tree symbolizes Nora is that similar to how a Christmas tree is usually a very festive, joyful item that is known to make people smile, Nora is a vital part of her home’s cheerfulness and good looks. A Christmas tree is a very important and symbolic part of Christmas just like how a wife/mother is an important part of a family (especially during the Victorian Era).
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with your analysis. However I also interpreted the tree's state as a symbol of Nora's disintegrating web of lies. The pretty decorations that Nora used to cover up her deceit are falling away. Soon the bare, ugly truth will emerge. Also another example to support your idea of the christmas tree symbolizing Nora is seen when Nora instructs the maid that the children cannot see the tree until it has been decorated just like she tells Torvald that no one can see her in her dress until the evening of the dance
DeleteRANK: That I have loved you every bit as much as anybody? Is that horrid?
ReplyDeleteNORA: No, but that you had to go and tell me. When it was all so unnecessary…
….
RANK: Anyway, you know now that I’m at your service, body and soul. So you can speak out.
NORA: I can tell you nothing now.
RANK: You must. You can’t torment me like this. Give me a chance- I’ll do anything that’s humanly possible. (Ibsen 49)
In this scene, Nora begins flirting with Dr. Rank by showing him her stockings and calling him “naughty” when he starts flirting back (Ibsen 47). By doing this, Nora seems to be manipulating Rank in order to entice him and persuade him to talk to Torvald about Krogstad keeping his job at the bank. However, after Dr. Rank professes his love for her, Nora suddenly panics and refuses to ask her favor. This shows the reader that Nora has developed a moral integrity, which means that despite her needs, she realizes that she can not take advantage of Dr. Rank by capitalizing on his love for her. This is an important part of Nora’s character development because in the beginning, Nora came off as very self centered. When talking to Ms. Linde, she says, “No, you start. I won’t be selfish today. I must only think about your affairs today...Have you heard about the great stroke of luck we’ve had” (Ibsen 8), Nora starts by wanting to hear about Ms. Linde but then continues to talk about herself. By the end of act two, Nora begins to change her selfish character. Another interesting part of act two, was while Nora and Dr. Rank were arguing, Nora asked for a lamp, but never did anything with it. This lamp could symbolize Nora’s state of awareness because at first when she is using her sexual attraction to manipulate him, the room is dark, meaning she is unaware of her actions. However, once Rank confesses his love for her, Nora is shocked and the lamp is brought in.
This is a great analysis, and I agree with you on this one! At first I thought that Nora was extremely selfish and self-obsessed, but this scene shows how much she has changed. Although she had a perfect opportunity right in front of her, instead of taking it and hurting Dr. Rank in the process, she drew the line and knew when to stop. I wonder what would have been the outcome if she enticed him a little more... Would he have helped her?
Delete“NORA: … Do you think they would forget their Mummy if she went away for good?
ReplyDeleteNURSEMAID: Good gracious - for good?
NORA: Tell me, Anne Marie - I've often wondered - how on earth could you bear to hand your child over to strangers?
NURSEMAID: Well, there was nothing else for it when I had to come and nurse my little Nora.
NORA: Yes, but … how could you bring yourself to do it?”
This quote shows the extent of trauma Nora is facing. She is so beside herself with fear from Torvald finding out, and what could happen to her that she is willing to go to the extremes. In this scene, Nora asks the nursemaid how she managed to leave her own daughter, indicating Nora’s intent to run away from her problems. She is in such a sorry state that she is willing to give up everything she cares about, her husband and her children. This quote is very important to Nora's story as it is the first instant that shows how Nora is planning to react to her predicament. It shows the desperation Nora deals with, and continues to portray a fearful, panicked mood.
I completely agree with your analysis. I understood it as Nora planning or even dreaming to run from her problems. This conversation shows she might be serious about it if there are no repercussions that will affect her family. It shows a different side to Nora. Henrik Ibsen portrays her as weak when around Torvald and strong and capable of standing up for herself around Krogstad. This dialogue shows that Nora has completely run out of hope. The audience can see that after all she has tried to do, talking to Torvald about keeping Krogstad or trying to convince Krogstad not to tell Torvald, and how all has failed she resorts to extreme solutions. She could also be thinking of a different form of escape. By this I mean suicide. Other parts of act II show Nora considers suicide as a way out of her problems without forcing her family to deal with the consequences of her fraud.
DeleteNathan Maisonville (P7)
ReplyDeleteAct Two, repetition of/symbolism in “macaroon”
“Nora: And some macaroons, Helene… Lots of them, for once in a while.”
Hemler: Now, now, not so wild and excitable!” (Pg. 60)
At the start of the play, we see Nora sneaking macaroons, which we later find out are banned by Helmer. This sweet treat makes its return multiple times in the play, each time bringing with it significant symbolism. First of all, I’d like to clarify what a macaroon is. A macaroon, according to Google, is a light cookie that’s made with egg whites, sugar, and usually either ground almond or coconut (the whole time I thought it was like a nut or something). In the play, the macaroon is used to symbolize Nora’s naïve nature and desire for something that is out of reach. This desire has come up before in the Nora’s character however, so this is not the only time we see it. Another instance of Nora’s longing for something greater can be seen when she is talking with Mrs. Linde and states how she wishes she had a rich man to leave her money. This unrealistic dream can be used to further display her child-like personality too. The macaroon can also convey Nora’s temptation to rebel, as she eats them behind Helmer’s back despite his requests. Another noteworthy usage of the macaroon is when she offers one to Dr. Rank. I feel like her offer to Rank, who was aware that Helmer had banned them, was her attempt to almost flex a bit and show her rebellious side to someone.
Interesting analysis, I thought "macaroon" meant the nut, a delightful and rich tasting nut, but I must of been thinking of something else like you. I agree with what you say about the temptation Nora has, her rebellious nature and the macaroon is a perfect symbol for how Nora will give in to her temptations disregarding what she knows she should do, and what others want from her, even to the extremes of eating the nut behind Helmer's back.
DeleteIn “A Doll’s House”, the reader has the chance to experience the Victorian era, through the values and beliefs of the characters. Over the course of the play, one of the central themes is the idea of appearances and how they prove to be very misleading. In the beginning, the audience views Nora as self-centered and childish, Torvald as strong, and Krogstad as the villain. However, in act three these misleading identities are resolved. When Torvald finds out about the loans, he says, “from now on, there can be no question of happiness. All we can do is save the bits and pieces from the wreck, preserve appearances…” (Ibsen 76). Torvald’s reaction confirms his characterization as a selfish man, whose main concern is appearances. In this quote, he is saying that the appearance of happiness is more important than happiness itself. However, once he learns that the scandal will remain private, which reveals Krogstad as actually sympathetic, Torvald exclaims, “I’m saved!” (Ibsen 77). He says nothing about Nora until she asks, “and me?”, in which he casually response, “you too, of course”. This is also important because rather than sacrificing his own reputation to save Nora’s, he decides to hide, which proves that Torvald is not the strong man that he shows in front of Nora and society. Due to this reaction, Nora becomes the strong-willed and brave women that she has always hidden away. She decides to go against the norms of society and proclaim that, “I am an individual, just as much as you are - or at least I’m going to try to be...But I’m not content any more with what most people say...I have to think things out for myself” (Ibsen 82). In this proclamation, Nora switches from thinking about suicide to deciding to leave Torvald, showing her increase in independence and self awareness.
ReplyDeleteThrough the use of symbolism, Ibsen portrays the Victorian Era as a time of inequality among women. The symbol of a doll and a doll’s house is seen in the title and also appears in Act III. The title, A Doll’s House represents the Helmer’s household where Torvald is the owner of the dolls and Nora and her children are dolls being dictated and restrained from their own opinions. Nora uses this symbol to explain how she feels when talking to Torvald. She says, “He used to call me his baby doll, and he played with me as I used to play with my dolls” (Ibsen 80). Nora is explaining how she felt when she was young and lived with her father. Because dolls have no feelings and are controlled by their owner, Nora reveals that she felt like her father was controlling her. This also displays how she felt as if she did not have feelings and could not make decisions of her own. Everything was in the hands of her father, because he was a male and she is a female. Later in the conversation Nora says, “But our house has never been anything but a play-room. I have been your doll wife, just as I was Daddy’s doll child” (Ibsen 80). Nora feels that after she left her father’s home, she was just handed to another man to be controlled as if she would not be able to make her own decisions. This reflects how in the Victorian Era women often would do whatever their husbands told them, and they would agree with them even if they truly did not agree because that is what was a social norm. During this era, a man would control his wife, making her do whatever he pleased with little say from the woman just like a little girl would do to her doll.
ReplyDelete“A Doll’s House" portrays the aesthetically oriented Victorian society increasingly through Act 3. The narration at the beginning sets the scene for a third time, showing how important appearances are to the times. In addition, Helmer brings Nora away from the party, and explains himself by stressing the importance of the visual effect. He says “The main thing is that she was a success, a tremendous success. Was I supposed to let her stay after that? Spoil the effect? No thank you! I took my lovely little Capri girl - my capricious little Capri girl, I might say - by the arm, whisked her once round the room, a curtsey all around, and then - as they say in novels -the beautiful vision vanished. An exit should always be effective, Mrs. Linde”(pg.67-68). Helmer justifies his leaving the party early by explaining the importance of exits to create an image. Ibsen has Helmer describe this in great detail to show not only the Victorian culture the play is set in, but also to show Helmer’s character as one to follow social norms. Since Nora does not care about this exit, her reluctance to leave being due to the letter in the mailbox, she is characterized as one who would forsake social norms to get what she wants. This was also seen in Nora’s decision to meet with Krogsdad about the money, because women were not supposed to deal with debt in these times. This instant of Nora not caring about her image foreshadows her decision to leave Torvald, as this is a deviation from the norms of society.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis has made me think more deeply about the character of Nora, and realize how the author has juxtaposed her character. On one hand, she is described as a childish, immature person, who is always pleasing her husband by letting him treat her like a child. However, as you have pointed out, she actually does not obey many of the Victorian era social norms, as she tries to control business by herself, going against the laws. This shows how Nora is actually strong and independent, and how her final action was, in a way, expected.
DeleteI really enjoyed reading your analysis. All throughout the play, I also noticed that Helmer is one to follow and conform to society's standards. But he's also somewhat obsessed with how other people around him sees him, as well as their opinions on him.
DeleteNathan Maisonville (P7)
ReplyDeleteCharacterization of Helmer in Act 3
“…you have ruined my entire happiness, jeopardized my whole future” (Pg 76)
As I’ve stated in a previous blog post of mine, I think Helmer is shown to value his reputation and pride more than his own wife. Building off of that statement, I believe that this trait of being selfishly ambitious is further developed in act three. In this act, Helmer learns of the conflict that has fueled Nora’s stress. When learning of this strife, Helmer immediately turns hostile towards her, panicking and stating “…you have ruined my entire happiness, jeopardized my whole future…” (Pg 76). Helmer’s usage of the word “my” when speaking about the future and not “our” also demonstrates his selfish nature and lack of consideration for Nora.
“…people might even suspect me of being an accomplice…” (Pg 76)
This quote assists in showing Helmer’s true colors too, as it exemplifies his selfish behavior. Hearing about the illegal action his wife as committed, Helmer is immediately concerned over his own well-being and seems unable to care less about Nora. Also, I found it extremely ironic that Helmer is worried about being an accomplice when Nora only did what she did to save his life.
I really enjoyed your post as it aided my general knowledge of Helmer. Your clear and thoughtful details of how Ibsen used diction and creative imagery to show Helmer's personal attributes and traits really helped me further understand his character as a whole and how Ibsen characterized him. What I also thought was interesting was how he interacted with Nora and how their relationship throughout the book progressed from very simple to complex and dramatic real fast. His contribution to the plot and interaction with other minor characters like Dr. Rank and Krogstad showed his true personality and how him as a person and husband during the era treated everyone.
DeleteI agree with your analysis of Helmer, he comes off being selfish caring primary for his job either than Nora. While we do see Helmer sometimes being very caring and loving to Nora, making it seem that she is his number one priority such as when he speaks to her about how he views her when they go out, and how he doesn't talk to her pretending they are new lovers, this sort of shows Helmer's flip flop attitude and how he acts differently than he is perceived.
DeleteIn A Doll’s House, I thought one of the most interesting concepts was the symbolism of the lamp. This symbol can be seen throughout the play through dialogue and stage directions. The Helmer’s household is filled with lies and secrets; after one of these secrets is revealed Nora says, “Helene, bring the lamp in, please” (Ibsen 49). Dr. Rank has just told Nora that he loves her, so the lamp is a symbol of the truth. The lamp is being brought in to the room that was dark with secrets but is now filled with light (the truth). Unlike sunlight, a lamp can be controlled; moved from place to place and switched on and off at any moment. Similarly, the truth can be controlled, being kept a secret and revealed only when one pleases to reveal it. Later during their conversation, Nora says, “Don’t you feel ashamed of yourself, now that the lamp’s been brought in?” (Ibsen 49). Nora is saying that she believes that because Dr. Rank told the truth, he should be ashamed of himself. This belief comes from the belief that one must look and act appropriate for his/her gender. This mirrors how the Victorian Era was a time filled with secrets due to the importance of outward appearance. At the end of the play Torvald discovers Nora’s secret and then he opens a letter saying that everything is going to be just fine. The stage directions suggest that as he is talking, he is standing by the lamp. This reveals that Torvald is not only discovering the truth, but that Nora is realizing the truth about herself: that she needs to leave Torvald and her children to be happy.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your analysis and agree! I also believe the lamp is used to "illuminate" the truth from the dark secrets that swirl around this play. I also believe the symbolism and dialogue of Nora diplays her belief that secrets are better kept secret. She asks Rank if he feels ashamed when telling the truth. And she believes someone should feel ashamed when sharing the truth, displaying her desire to keep secrets a secret especially hers. Also it makes me question if she used her forgery as an out to a marriage she has been unhappy in for a long time.
DeleteNathan Maisonville (P7)
ReplyDeleteThemes of A Doll's House
A Doll’s House involves the revealing of many character’s secrets. We see Dr. Rank’s love for Nora metaphorically brought to light and fatal illness revealed to Helmer, Kristine and Krogstad’s true feelings uncovered, Nora’s debt to Krogstad unveiled, and Helmer’s true nature shown. I think a major theme of the play is the impact of secrets on relationships. Secrets and lies can both improve and hinder a relationship. In the story, both outcomes are shown. The negative effects of deception are prominently shown in the crumbling of Helmer and Nora’s relationship, as their lies led to the eventual downfall of their marriage. When I say “lies”, I’m not only referring to the whole issue about the IOU, but also the fakeness of their personalities. Nora’s entire character is based off of not being true to herself, so this correlates with the theme I stated as well. However, the positive aspects of lies are also demonstrated. When Krogstad and Kristine make their desire to be together known, they destroy a secret they had once hid while also bettering their lives. I believe this theme is consistently shown throughout the book and is the main message that the story conveys.
I'm so sorry this is late! I thought the hw was only to prepare for the fishbowl. It won't happen again.
ReplyDeleteThroughout “A Doll’s House”, there are few references towards dolls, however this symbolism is very significant to the play. In the beginning of act one, Nora shows Torvald the dolls she bought for her and says, “they are not very grand but she’ll have them all broken before long anyway” (Ibsen 3). This is interesting because it tells the reader that Nora is raising her daughter for a life similar to her own, while also foreshadowing Nora breaking up her family by leaving Torvald. Also when Nora plays with her children she refers to them as her “little dollies” (Ibsen 80). However, it is not till the end that the metaphor becomes clear. Nora tells Torvald that, “I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Daddy’s doll child. And the children in turn have been my dolls” (Ibsen 80-81), she basically cites this as one of the reasons why she has become unsatisfied with her life and marriage. Nora realizes that if she continues to instill her patterns on her children than they will be subjected to the same doll life as her. When Nora gave her daughter the doll, she was starting her off on the path of dollhood at an early age because she is teaching her daughter that she is fragile and has to be manipulated by someone else in order to have a decent life. The title is also an example of using doll symbolism because it uses possession to show that the doll owns the house or that only a doll may live there. By formating this possessively, it puts the emphasis on “house”, which shows that it is a make believe house. The home belongs to Nora because she is the doll. However, Nora is also smarter than Torvald because she was able to secure loans and was able to sneak macaroons all without Torvald knowing. In the end, Nora has to leave because she is a real women and can not live in a house that is meant for a doll.