Questions for Exploration
- What are your initial impressions of the characters? How does it change in Act II?
- How are the characters used as symbolic representations of society?
- How does Ibsen set us up for Act II?
- In Act II, what happens between Nora and Torvald when the subject of Krogstad is re-introduced?
- What do you notice about the interactions between Nora and Dr. Rank? Why does Nora get thrown off? How does it differ from the conversation with Torvald moments before?
- What about Krogstad? How do their conversations develop? How does Krogstad's role as "villain" become complicated? They both hint at thoughts of suicide. Why? How does that create a sense of suspense and foreshadowing?
- What is "the most wonderful thing?"
- What questions do you have for me or our class discussion?
Major Quotations
Act I- That is like a woman! But seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt. We two have kept bravely on the straight road so far, and we will go on the same way for the short time longer that there need be any struggle.
- No, indeed; I only feel my life unspeakably empty. No one to live for any more. (Gets up restlessly.) That is why I could not stand the life in my little backwater any longer. I hope it may be easier here to find something which will busy me and occupy my thoughts. If only I could have the good luck to get some regular work--office work of some kind—
- Do you still think I am of no use? I can tell you, too, that this affair has caused me a lot of worry. It has been by no means easy for me to meet my engagements punctually….. Well, then I have found other ways of earning money. Last winter I was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do; so I locked myself up and sat writing every evening until quite late at night. Many a time I was desperately tired; but all the same it was a tremendous pleasure to sit there working and earning money. It was like being a man.
- However wretched I may feel, I want to prolong the agony as long as possible. All my patients are like that. And so are those who are morally diseased; one of them, and a bad case, too, is at this very moment with Helmer—
- The matter never came into court; but every way seemed to be closed to me after that. So I took to the business that you know of. I had to do something; and, honestly, don't think I've been one of the worst. But now I must cut myself free from all that. My sons are growing up; for their sake I must try and win back as much respect as I can in the town. This post in the Bank was like the first step up for me--and now your husband is going to kick me downstairs again into the mud.
- Just think how a guilty man like that has to lie and play the hypocrite with everyone, how he has to wear a mask in the presence of those near and dear to him, even before his own wife and children. And about the children--that is the most terrible part of it all.
- Do you think so? Do you think they would forget their mother if she went away altogether?
- Come what will, you may be sure I shall have both courage and strength if they be needed. You will see I am man enough to take everything upon myself.
- Do you think he is the only one - who would gladly give his life for your sake?
- When I was at home….I always thought it tremendous fun if I could steal down into the maids' room, because they never moralized at all, and talked to each other about such entertaining things.
- Most of us think of (suicide) at first. I did, too - but I hadn't the courage.
- You should have let it alone; you must prevent nothing. After all, it is splendid to be waiting for a wonderful thing to happen.
The overarching dilemma that the play presents allows for the reader to think about whether or not it is fair to Nora to value of Torvald’s life over the consequences that she is bound to face. Nora is asked, “Do you think [Torvald] is the only one - who would gladly give his life for your sake?” where she would state a belief that would supposedly define her moral background. It was originally my prediction that the play will show why it is important to value another stubborn person’s life over the consequences that you would face for doing so, similar to Nora’s. But, it became clear that as a woman, it was made extremely difficult for her to pay her dues compared to a man. Nora had said to Mrs. Linde, “Many a time I was desperately tired; but all the same it was a tremendous pleasure to sit there working and earning money. It was like being a man.” While she admits that she takes pleasure in the secret work she does, it is implied that she has no way of paying off the debt without sneaking around. To work the day of the life of a man at her time would make her situation infinitely easier, but the prejudice of the times make it impossible for her to have it easy. Nora, in this case, represents the hardships for women while Torvald represents the entitlement, and the ignorance, of being superior and always right as a man. The dramatic irony that sets the stage for suspense also represents the ignorance of man. If Nora tells her husband of her doings, she defies what he believes to make a marriage and a family sacred, being “seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt. We two have kept bravely on the straight road so far, and we will go on the same way for the short time longer that there need be any struggle.” This form of irony represents the lack of true lust in their marriage for the plot as Ibsen often has in his plays, but the deeper meaning behind the struggle shows the vast societal differences between men and women. Torvald also says, “that is like a woman!” before the rest, seeming like a blatantly sexist statement. But, maybe it is women like to borrow because they have no other option.
ReplyDeleteNora things of her life as worlds decades ahead of her own, where the ability of women to think and do things for themselves was possible and expected. Instead, the reality we observe is of a woman trapped in the roles of a wife and mother, with no seeming mind of her own to dictate her life. It is in fulfilling these roles that she feeds off the happiness of others and builds a life reliant upon her husband and children, creating what Nora thinks of as a perfect world.
ReplyDeleteBut as with any seemingly perfect thing, it soon finds itself at the brink of ruin. In ruin not because of any mistake or malicious intent, but on the lies on which the perfect thing settles itself upon. In truth, nothing is ever truly perfect if you just look below the surface. There will always be flaws, always be deformations, always lacking perfection.
It is here we find Nora, at the brink of her ruin. She knows she’s come to her end, can do nothing but try to buy as much time to enjoy the life she lives. She can not stop Krogstad from revealing to her husband that she had ‘demolished’ the perfect little Doll House they had created, and so is resigned to enjoying one last final dance. Even as Mrs.Linde offers her help, Nora forbids her from interfering at the risk of her own safety, resigned “to be waiting for a wonderful thing to happen.”
A wonderful thing, the expectations of Nora’s life, the hope they might be a reality, but ultimately will see itself fall apart. Nothing built on a lie can sustain itself through life’s hardships. One lie leads to a crack, one false pretense to a hole, the playing of an act to a trench that swallows everything in its path. Nora’s family stands on the last patch of land in an endless trench, that approaches ever faster to swallow what has been long overdue.
It is as Nora finds her family faced with ruination, that she realises the ultimate test has come to see what it can withstand. That is the wonderful thing, that could lead to the joy of fulfilled dreams or the devastation of a life lived enshrouded in lies. Nora is sick, and as all sick patients, “however wretched [they] may feel, [they] want to prolong the agony as long as possible” in an effort to survive, according to Rank. But she is not sick in trying to preserve the lie her family is, but sick of having to live the lie for any longer. That is why she forbids Mrs. Linde in trying to help and finally lets whatever wonderful thing occur as it must, so that her life is no longer one of a lie.
When I was first introduced to the characters in Act I, it seemed as though Nora was just a naive housewife who had a bad habit of spending a lot of money. I did not think that she would develop so much as the play went on. Her and Torvald’s relationship is very interesting. He almost seems to look down on her, belittling her and calling her his “songbird” and “squirrel.” Nora views this as his form adoration, which is probably how people of the time would see it as well. As the story progresses however, we begin to see a new depth to Nora’s character. When it was revealed that she was responsible for saving Torvald’s life, and had taken out a loan to do so I was very surprised. I understand that this would have been even more shocking for the people during the time the play was made. This goes along with Henrik Ibsen’s habit of using his work to shock his audience and make a statement. This makes Nora and Torvald’s dynamic even more interesting considering Nora continues to let Torvald think that she is naive and not cunning and clever as she has proved to be. Nora is afraid that she will ruin her relationship with Torvald and her family, as Torvald says earlier, “I would not wish you to be anything but just what you are.” Torvald has a very one dimensional view of his wife. He values her beauty and her naiveté, not knowing that she is capable of taking care of herself. Nora even admits that she is afraid that he will become less “devoted” to her, and her “dancing and dressing-up and reciting” will pall on him. This quote reminded me a lot of how one would treat a doll. It seems as though Torvald views Nora as his doll or plaything, dressing her up and keeping her beautiful. He buys her dresses, bans her from eating sweets, and calls her his “little squirrel”. In this dynamic Nora can not be a real person. She must be at Torvald’s plaything. This is the nature of Henrik Ibsen’s writing. He wanted to point out the fact that society was not letting woman fulfill their full potential. By creating Torvald and Nora’s characters, Ibsen was commenting on the dynamics between men and women during the time. He wanted to show people that woman were not dolls, they were people and were just as complex as men.
ReplyDeleteI have really liked “The Doll’s House” so far. Although the title has not had any meaning to me so far, the characters really allow for the play to stay interesting throughout all of the Acts. In the beginning, I hadn’t loved Nora because I just thought she was an immature girl who didn’t know what she was doing, for example going to Italy when her father was sick because her husband needed a break and not getting the opportunity to say goodbye to her father because of this. On top of this, using another’s money instead of her fathers in order to pay for this trip. She also seemed quite interested in only herself, specifically in Act 1 bragging about how beautiful she is, “I have always bought the simplest and cheapest things. Thank Heaven, any clothes look well on me, and so Torvald has never noticed it. But it was often very hard on me, Christine--because it is delightful to be really well dressed, isn't it?”. But, her character has really developed and in Act 2, she seems much more stressed and confused on how to handle a situation such as the one she got herself in referring to Ms. Linde’s and Krogstad’s position in the Bank and keeping the secret of the Italy trip money between herself and Doctor Rank. These situations both let me see that maybe she isn’t as immature as I believed she was while reading Act 1.
ReplyDeleteIt was really surprising to me when Doctor Rank told his feelings for Nora especially considering their conversation had nothing to do with the sort. She was extremely taken aback and she seemed to want to leave the room as soon as she possibly could - which also showed me that she loves Torvald much more. Doctor Rank didn’t let her leave even though she wanted to, however they ended up having a pleasant conversation which confused me about Nora’s feelings, “Not a bit. But perhaps I had better go--for ever?
Nora. No, indeed, you shall not. Of course you must come here just as before. You know very well Torvald can't do without you.
Rank. Yes, but you?
Nora. Oh, I am always tremendously pleased when you come.
It did not tell me she has the same feelings for Doctor Rank but it did help me to understand more about her character and how kind she truly is. She even tried to make him feel better when he believed that he took the maid’s place showing me she just wants to please those around her. More importantly, I can see her main focus is pleasing Torvald and making sure he doesn’t find out about the money from the trip to Italy. She is trying her best to prevent this from happening, but in the end I believe it will it is just a matter of time as to how long it takes for the secret to come out - which could be worse than Nora preventing it now.
At first, I didn’t really like Nora’s character because she seemed too materialistic and focused on money. And the way that Torvald interacted with her also kind of bothered me because he would be mean and hurt her feelings but then just give her money, and suddenly everything was back to normal. It seemed like Nora was way too dependent and relied on her husband for too many things. And the names that he calls her, like “squirrel” and “skylark”, only assert his power over her, because the only time that he called her by her real name is when he was mad at her. Right in the opening scene, both characters immediately took on their stereotypical gender roles and I disliked the play because of that. But then later in act one we learn that Nora is just pretending to be that dependent on Torvald. Mrs. Linde also accused Nora that she is a spendthrift and very immature. This is when she tells Mrs. Linde that she saved her husband’s life by paying to get him to a warmer climate to cure his sickness. She mysteriously got enough money to pay for a trip to Italy and tells Torvald that her father paid for it. She also made it seem like she was the one who wanted to go so Torvald didn’t feel like he was making a big deal out of this sickness. Learning this transformed my view of Nora, she is not as selfish as I thought she was and she is clearly willing to go to extreme measures to protect who she loves. The interaction between Nora and Krogstad also changed my view of Nora. She is a lot more brave and mature than she lets on.
ReplyDeleteThe opening scene of A Doll’s House made me very uncomfortable, a feat I believe Ibsen would feel proud to have accomplished. Through her interactions with Torvald, Nora is portrayed as a sheltered and almost ditzy child. Rereading the section, I believe this is not because of the way she acts, but rather because of the condescending way her husband answers her. For example, Nora tells her husband to come look at what she’s bought, and instead of saying “Sure thing honey” or something to that extent, he says “Has my little spendthrift been wasting money again?” The tone here shows that he looks down on her for spending so much, when Nora knows they can spend at least a bit more than usual. The issue here is not anything Nora has said, but rather what Torvald has, and the way the reader views Nora as a result. When Nora (somewhat unreasonably) suggests they live off loans for a while to live extravagantly, Torvald responds “That is like a woman! … No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt.” In his outburst, Torvald makes a reasonable point, but does so in a condescending manner, blaming Nora’s gender for her ignorance. This upsets her, and to make up for it, he bribes her with more money, much like a parent bribing their child to play nice again. I suppose it is that which makes me so uncomfortable- the way this husband and wife interact like father and daughter, and it is only worsened by Nora’s later comparison “that being with Torvald is a little like being with papa.”
ReplyDeleteAct II improves my view of Nora and Torvald’s relationship by a lot. We learn that Nora is in debt to Krogstad, and is trying to prevent her husband from finding out. She acts ditzy at times because she is not a very good liar, and needs to distract him from things that may blow her cover, such as the letter Krogstad left. Underneath this performance which Torvald plays into, she is smart and creative, finding ways to make her monthly payment without raising suspicion. Unfortunately, in her day, women could not take out loans without permission from a husband or father, and Nora forged a signature to achieve this. Her husband later states that he cannot stand people who commit forgery, and “how [they] have to wear a mask in the presence of those near and dear to [them]” which sends Nora into a panicked spiral. She feels like she is a bad influence on her children (though we can see this is not true) because she has committed a crime in the past, and even asks later on if her children would “forget their mother if she went away altogether.” This foreshadows something Nora has considered, though we do not know what yet. I think it likely that she will leave her family or commit suicide based on other comments Nora makes throughout the rest of Act II.
When reading “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, I was often surprised.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of Act 1, I did not notice it much when I was reading, but when I saw the scenes from the movie, I observed how greatly Nora is objectified by her husband, Torvald. For example, in the opening scenes, she does not even have a say of what she eats. When she comes home, Nora has to “put the bag of macaroons into her pocket” (Act 1 Ibsen). Obviously, too much of anything is bad, but the effect one macaroon will have is negligible. I wonder if Nora will stand up to her husband as the play progresses?
We start to understand Nora’s character in greater detail, when she is conversing with Mrs. Linde. With how much she was objectified in the beginning of the play, I thought that she would be quiet and would not share much with Mrs. Linde. But was I wrong. Off the bat, she immediately starts bragging to a widow, who has just lost her mother and looking for a job, how wealthy she and her husband will become. I did not expect such an arrogant attitude coming from someone who lied about sneakily eating some macaroons. Moreover, I was surprised to see her defend her dignity when Mrs. Linde says “it is doubly kind in you, for you know so little of the burdens and troubles of life” and “calls her a child” (Act 1 Ibsen). If I were Nora, I would defend herself. I would take the hit than reveal my greatest secret. A secret that would likely tear apart her family. But yet she does so, to a friend she has not seen in a decade, who is about to be working for her husband, who does not know of the secret.
Finally, the character of Krogstad reminded me very much of Jerry Cruncher from “A Tale of Two Cities.” Both men have the best interest of their children. To fulfill the interest, both men take on illegal roles. But where, ultimately Jerry Cruncher was on the good side in “A Tale of Two Cities,” my gut feeling is that Krogstad will be on the bad sad, likely telling Torvald the truth.
Overall, in Acts 1 and 2 I was never bored, as an event would occur that would surprise me. I hope the same in true for Act 3.
In the background information on Ibsen, it was mentioned that he is known as a “Freud of the theater.” Coincidentally, I read about something else that was referred to as “Freudian” recently and asked my mom what that meant. She said Frued’s view of human behavior focused on the subconscious, the factors beyond our control which influence our actions, therefore our relationships, therefore our lives. With all the complexities of human behavior which are on display in a Doll’s House, I undoubtedly understand how it is valid to ask the question: how did these people get like this? I think we even see Ibsen tango with this question himself in the play when Torvald makes the bold assumption, “Almost everyone who has gone to the bad early in life has had a deceitful mother.” This serves two roles in the play. The first is a continuation of one of the most profound, and I imagine controversial, aspects of the play: his critique of the treatment of women. I found the most powerful way he does this is by examining the self-worth that can be gained from working for one's own money. The quote that impacted me the most, both about the subject of women’s equality, but also just in the entire first act was, “Last winter I was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do; so I locked myself up and sat writing every evening until quite late at night. Many a time I was desperately tired; but all the same it was a tremendous pleasure to sit there working and earning money. It was like being a man.” When we first watched this in class, I think we all found it very funny, witty, and clever. However, for me and I think a lot of a class, a sad, contemplative pause followed that because of the bluntness and the truth. Torvald’s comment is another revelation of the sexism: women’s main contribution to society is not even theirs, it is their children’s. The next thing that I think Torvalds comment forces Nora, and in turn the audience, to reckon with is her moral obligation, whether it be a just one or not. One of the most touching lines of the play was a few lines after when Nora is alone and she ponders, “[pale with terror]. Deprave my little children? Poison my home? [A short pause. Then she tosses her head.] It's not true. It can't possibly be true.” This is one of the first glimpses of Nora’s emotional vulnerability. It is true that we learn prior that she has selfless qualities, but this is the first time alone where she is worrying about her impact on those who she loves, not for her own safety from judgement, but just for the sake of others. She does care about where she stands on the more spectrum from right to wrong, not just the spectrum of popularity. Because Act I ends on these first previews of pondering morality, it makes her decision not to use Dr. Rank for her own personal advancement more believable. After, he confesses his love to her, she knows she cannot ask him the favor of saving Krogstad’s job because it would be taking advantage of his love. This leaves us with a clearer view of Nora’s conscience, and also brings us back to the question that arises out of Torvald’s blaming of mothers for all immoral actions by their sons: How and who (if anyone) forms our moral compasses? It is a question I hope we continue to ponder as we read the rest of the play.
ReplyDeleteIn “A Doll House” by Henrik Ibsen the characters originally present as very shallow. The relationship between the wife and husband is very strange as the husband, Helmer is very controlling in his wife’s eating habits and the wife, Nora is obsessed with money. They are quite well off as well and can afford a nurse to look after the children We also meet Mrs. Linde or Christine, a widow who has had many troubles in her past but now is looking for a job with Mr. Helmer. Dr. Rank and Krogstad make an appearance as well but neither originally seemed to have much significance. However by Act II we see how much more there is to there story. Nora who seemed shallow is actually very deep in a mess with a debt with Krogstad which she did to save her husband’s life. But the fact she forged his name is a major point of advantage in regards to Krogstad’s position in manipulating her into asking her husband to keep his position at the Bank. Christine is a major critic of Nora by calling her naive and offering advice to fix her position.
ReplyDeleteIn Act I Mr. Helmer tells Nora “That is like a woman! But seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt.” We then learn that Helmer’s life is actually indebted to Krogstad’s loan to Nora. Nora was confident in her decision to keep her loan secret save her husband’s life and to spare her dying father of any worry. But this was until Helmer says “Because such an atmosphere of lies infects and poisons the whole life of a home. Each breath the children take in such a house is full of the germs of evil.” She soon becomes worried for her children’s sake and leads her to consider measures to save her family from herself. In a conversation with the Nurse, Nora asks “Do you think they would forget their mother if she went away altogether?”. This is foreshadowing to later conversation she has with Krogstad where she admits to complating suicide or running away from home. However, she also admits she never had the courage to do so. This part of the story where Nora hints at disappearing is foreshadowing to the tragic ending.
"That is like a woman! But seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt. We two have kept bravely on the straight road so far, and we will go on the same way for the short time longer that there need be any struggle."
ReplyDeleteThis quote reveals much about the relationship between Nora and Torvald. As we have seen in the movie, Torvald is the sole decision maker in the relationship. He guides everything Nora is supposed to do, like what she eats (no sweets) to what she does (displeasure with sewing). He treats her like a doll that he can dress up to be perfect to look at for him. But this sort of relationship is stressful for Nora. She, after all, based their entire relationship on debt/borrowing. They have thrived because of this relationship built upon borrowing money without Torvald’s knowledge. It is actually quite illuminating of Torvald’s values when he says “no freedom or beauty” because it’s something he limits for his own wife. He limits her freedom to do what she wishes, except for shopping, so that she will remain beautiful to him. He constantly insults Nora for the things that have kept him alive and well. Nora took care of him when he needed help the most, and continues to bear that burden. While Torvald is ignorant of this, his treatment of her still is egotistical and arrogant. Nora is a lot more clever than we first believe. She is first portrayed as a someone ditzy beauty that flourishes in the wealth her husband provides her. But she actually is a clever woman who was determined enough to save her husband that she made drastic and illegal moves so she could help him. Then, she makes herself the scapegoat so she protects that gigantic ego of Torvald’s all the way to the Italian sun. She’s an extremely resourceful wife. It’s a shame that she is stuck in this position as a wife when, had they been born in a later time period, she might become something much bigger than what she was limited to with this marriage. It’s especially apparent in the movie how abnormal and bizarre their relationship is to us. The pet names of “squirrel” and “lark” might seem cute at first, but then you realize that is something a father calls to a daughter more often than a husband to a wife. Not only that, but the cheering up process, where Nora almost stands in a “time out” in the corner and Torvald attempts to “flap her wings” to get her to laugh. Overall, their relationship is one filled with lies, and that is the foundation of their relationship rather than debt and borrowing.
That is like a woman! But seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt. We two have kept bravely on the straight road so far, and we will go on the same way for the short time longer that there need be any struggle.
ReplyDeleteThis quote really struck me mostly because of how ironic it is. He tells Nora that you can’t have a functional and happy home with loans or debt. It’s ironic because loans and debt are EXACTLY why their home functions. She literally took out a loan to save his life and is working pretty hard (in my opinion) to cover it up. At the beginning of the play she comes off as a gold digger who doesn’t really seem to care about anything important. Then when we find out about her “secret life”perspectives tend to change. I, for one, felt kind of guilty for judging her right off the bat. It made me question my implicit bias a little bit, but then I realized that Ibsen did this intentionally. His style was revolutionary for the time and he makes a lot of astounding point about societal roles at the time. Nora still definitely annoys me (oops) but I have a lot more respect for her. I also find it kind of funny how he says “We two have kept bravely on the straight road so far, and we will go on the same way for the short time longer that there need be any struggle” - like he really thinks that they have done everything his way when in reality she’s been sneaking around FOR HIS BENEFIT. But now I’m thinking that it wasn’t really all for his benefit, she gets something out of it too- when she is older and not as beautiful as he needs her to be, she will have this up her sleeve. Like ohhh I’m sorry I’m not young and hot anymore buttttt I did save your life so technically you have to still love me. It is kind of twisted but also really interesting and raw.
How are the characters used as symbolic representations of society?
ReplyDeleteThe characters used in the play are used extremely symbolically based on their interaction with other characters and the way they conduct themselves when certain elements or themes start to emerge during the play. These symbolic representations of elements of our society is exactly what Ibsen intended , and is frankly what probably what caused most of the discomfort his audience felt - it was actual problems that many people were ignoring yet saw blatantly in his plays.
The relationship between Nora and Torvald highlights many of the misogynistic ideals present in society at that time. This looking down of women is greatly emphasized during conversation between Torvald and Nora. Torvald talks to Nora almost as she is a baby that at times which in turn increases his masculinity and dominance. An example of how he enforces that he is superior and she is yet a baby is when Nora asks for money to spend but is actually keeping it to pay of a debt “That is like a woman! But seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt.”. This demonstrates how he believes that women like Nora only care about spending money and don't have awareness of debt and finances. However, little does Torvald know that she is secretly paying off a debt that he himself has incurred. This irony should make the audience feel a little uneasy because it pokes fun at how society underestimates the knowledge and power of a woman due to arrogance. We get another perspective of their relationship through the eyes of Nora. Nora in her head believes that if Torvald was to ever find out about the debt that she took upon herself to pay, his manhood and self esteem would completely plumeet. This once again emphasizes how society at that time believed that it was the duty of the woman to ensure that the husband was kept happy at all times. Nora even states “And besides – he’s so proud of being a man – it’d be so painful and humiliating for him to know that he owed anything to me. It's completely wreck our relationship.” As if the secret of her helping him came out it would ruin their marriage.
Throughout the play, Ibsen alters the way readers perceive his characters in major ways, mainly with Nora and Torvald. In act 1, he sets up Nora and Torvald very quickly, through brief interactions. Then, as more is revealed about their true motivations and nature, the readers views of each character change. Ibsen starts with Nora. Instead of asking for a traditional Christmas gift, she says “You might give me money, Torvald. Only just as much as you can afford; and then one of these days I will buy something with it”(Ibsen). Then, Torvald reinforces this notion of her love for money when he says “You always find some new way of wheedling money out of me, and, as soon as you have got it, it seems to melt in your hands. You never know where it has gone”(Ibsen). She seems to be a shallow girl who cares only for money and items. However, by the time the second act rolls around, it has been revealed that the whole time her desire for money is all a way to pay off the debt accrued from attempting to save her husband. She explains that, “Whenever Torvald has given me money for new dresses and such things, I have never spent more than half of it”. The money was never for her, and she always meant well.
ReplyDeleteTorvald is the exact opposite. As a character, we are led to believe that he is a mature and caring husband. When confronted with Nora’s supposed excessive spending, when he says quite reasonably, “Still, you know, we can't spend money recklessly”(Ibsen). He is the calm and rational side to her carefree one. His irrationality and immaturity are quite visible in act two however. When explaining why he must fire Krogstad, he says that “But I knew him when we were boys...he thinks it gives him the right to adopt a familiar tone with me, I assure you it is extremely painful for me”(Ibsen). He cannot stand this perceived attack on his authority, and thus he cannot keep Krogstad around. Furthermore, It is easy to mistake his ways of describing Nora as “His skylarK” and “squirrel” as terms of endearment, instead of the possessional controlling terms that they actually are. At the end of Act two, it is quite clear that Torvald is not the good husband that he is initially portrayed as, and Nora is not simply some shallow “spendthrift” as she first seems.
As I first started reading “The Dollhouse” the characters came off as a bit superficial. I did enjoy reading but the conversations between Nora and Torvald were a bit odd and kind of funny ngl. I can see how Henrik Ibsen shows that men thought and tried to be more superior to women in the 19th century European society through Nora and Torvald’s relationship. Helmer always seems to have so much control over her and talks to her in the most condescending way. For example the macaroons in this play represent Torvald’s efforts to treat Nora as a child. Eating the macaroons is her way of disobeying her husband and her acts of deception, but when Torvald comes in the room she hides the macaroons as quickly as possible. This conveys that it’s harder for her to be defiant in front of her husband because of how authoritative he is.
ReplyDelete“That is like a woman! But seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt. We two have kept bravely on the straight road so far, and we will go on the same way for the short time longer that there need be any struggle.” This quote illustrates how Helmer presents his dominance over Nora as much as he can. It makes me uncomfortable because not only is he very condescending towards her but objectifies her and calls her his little “lark” or “squirrel.” Like uh okay weird. I did in fact misjudge Nora at first. She was so bubbly in carefree in the beginning of the play, but I soon started to realize that she isn’t as giddy as I thought she was. As the story progresses you see that Nora’s disobedience consists of more than her eating the macaroons. We find out that she secretly borrowed money from Krogstad and forged her father’s signature to save her husband’s life. When Torvald finds out about this he is so angered by this and says that he could never forgive Nora. This makes me dislike him even more. She saved your life and you’re complaining? Pft okay. I’m glad that Nora started to see clearly and realized that her husband and marriage was just completely wrong and in order to be happy she has to live a life that she wants and not be pushed around and controlled by someone.
“No, indeed; I only feel my life unspeakably empty. No one to live for any more. (Gets up restlessly.) That is why I could not stand the life in my little backwater any longer. I hope it may be easier here to find something which will busy me and occupy my thoughts. If only I could have the good luck to get some regular work--office work of some kind—”
ReplyDeleteReading this quote out of context was surprising to me, because, at first, I thought it was Nora’s line. Quickly, I realized it was Mrs. Linde, because she is looking for a job. It’s entirely ironic, this quote, for endless reasons. She is speaking about the emptiness in her life, which Nora also feels, just differently. Even though Nora is living a life which seems, on the surface, easy and superficial. Mrs. Linde does not yet understand the depths of misery within Nora’s private life. So, Mrs. Linde speaks easily at first about her own suffering. She wants something to busy herself with, she wants some task, some meaning, something to make her life a tad more interesting. Nora is kind, telling her that Torvald might be able to give her a position. At this point in the play, the audience is still apprehensive about Nora. Nora seems like a selfish gold digger who doesn’t do anything for herself, or at least that is how she seemed to me. The real irony sets in when we find out about Nora’s secret - paying illegally for her husbands sick trip to Italy. She has had to pay for it by saving money Torvald gives her and working odd jobs, which she has been doing for years now. Nora’s constant stress and biggest secret has led to her having to do these things. Which is basically what Mrs. Linde is asking for, a little job to keep her busy because she feels empty. Nora has been drowning in little jobs just to keep the debt away. And the worst part is that Nora still feels empty. Well, not empty, unhappy. She is married to a man who does not understand her and is entirely controlling and feels she has done nothing with her life. So, as I read over the above quote for the seventh or eighth time, I feel my sadness is directed towards Nora, as she has had to keep up this joyful persona during the past fifteen or more years. Mrs. Linde has the ability to come clean about her sadness as soon as she walks in the door because her husband has died and has left her with nothing, but she is not too upset about all that. Nora is unable to share what is going on with her. You can see it in the way she talks - overly prideful, wanting a nice picture of her perfect family to be front and center. It seems like Torvald’s influence to me. Well, he is the thing that was making her most miserable.
The characters in A Doll’s House primarily appear to be shallow and narrow minded, caring only for themselves and their endeavors, Nora in special. Although typical of women in high society at the time, her borderlines obsession with money beguiles the reader into believing her to be nothing more than a damsel with a first world distress, in Torvald’s own words, “like a woman!” It comes with great surprise that the play later reveals previously concealed information, conveying Nora’s motives to be noble and her character three-dimensional. Nora did not accumulate money, but rather use everything she could get, including jobs she performed on the side, to pay off a debt she had made in order to save her husband’s life. Torvald however, suffers the exact opposite reaction. Formerly being seen as a stoic figure and a strong head of household, he quickly comes to displays his childlike behaviors and nefarious demeanor. Representing the ignorant dominant parcel of a distasteful society, Ibsen shines light in the characters need to appear like the perfect man, using a “mask in the presence of those near and dear to him, even before his own wife and children.” Torvald is but a tool to represent those who conceal their true selves, showing their unpolished side to those they deem to be unworthy of their facade.
ReplyDeleteNora has been for so long treated as a doll, it seems like she has forgotten how to be anything else. When confronted with someone as kind as Dr. Rank, someone willing to do something as extreme as treating her as a real person, she is left bewildered, not knowing how to behave as anything other than the thing she has been trained to be. The way she communicates with him is entirely different from Torvald, she is not flirtatious, but rather truthful, realizing that she does not need to utilize of her beauty in order to attain his compassion and friendship, Dr. Rank, although an acquaintance of Torvald, is the only friend Nora has.
Nora has been so blinded by Torvald, and society’s idea of a woman’s place, that she comes to believe that after her secret comes out to the public, that Torvald would go as far as to turn himself in instead of her, willing to die to save her life, this “wonderful thing” she so frequently mentions, would be his display of love towards her, condemning himself to protect her. She believes in her husband's character so vehemently, that she was willing to take her own life in order to avoid his embarrassment and humiliation, thinking he would do the same in her position. The irony lays in the fact that the reader, impartially judging Torvald’s action, is easily capable to discern his moral compass, and realize his selfishness is far to extensive for him to ever even consider doing such a thing.
“Do you still think I am of no use? I can tell you, too, that this affair has caused me a lot of worry. It has been by no means easy for me to meet my engagements punctually….. Well, then I have found other ways of earning money. Last winter I was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do; so I locked myself up and sat writing every evening until quite late at night. Many a time I was desperately tired; but all the same it was a tremendous pleasure to sit there working and earning money. It was like being a man.”
ReplyDeleteThe characters in “A Doll House” are clearly representative of gender roles in society. Ibsen uses Nora, in particular, to defy the notion at the time that women were simplistic. Though initially he uses her character to enforce these stereotypes making her appear naive and glitzy, as the play continues, we see the truth behind this mask. It was thought that women lived to raise the children and aid the men in their success. It is, and was, a false generalization that women had only one purpose and were only capable of such purpose. The quote above particularly stuck out to me when thinking about this topic. Nora was essentially “handed off” from her father to Torvald like an object. She has no sense of who she is as she has only ever been told what to think, what to say, and what to believe. Her relationship with Torvald is like that of a father and daughter. This highlights the toxic masculinity that plagued, and continues to plague society today. By belittling Nora, Torvald makes himself feel superior and dominant. To think that Nora has a mind of her own or is any more complex than a housewife would be to admit that she is equal to him. He controls what she eats and is allowed to do not in efforts to protect her for her well being but to preserve her beauty to keep for himself in the future. While Torvald maintains his confidence in his masculinity by treating Nora like a doll, Nora worries about Torvald’s masculinity after secretly taking out a loan that would ultimately save his life. This illustrates the misogyny that controlled society. These concepts have not diminished from society. Toxic masculinity does harm to society and all of its members and provides roots to allow other problems in society to grow. This is not to continue the misconceptions that the term “toxic masculinity” does not describe masculinity itself, rather a form of gendered behavior.
-“That is like a woman! But seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt. We two have kept bravely on the straight road so far, and we will go on the same way for the short time longer that there need be any struggle.”
ReplyDelete-“Do you still think I am of no use? I can tell you, too, that this affair has caused me a lot of worry. It has been by no means easy for me to meet my engagements punctually….. Well, then I have found other ways of earning money. Last winter I was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do; so I locked myself up and sat writing every evening until quite late at night. Many a time I was desperately tired; but all the same it was a tremendous pleasure to sit there working and earning money. It was like being a man.”
Initially, when we were introduced to the characters, I found Nora to be interesting. I felt bad for her having to deal with her husband who put her in such a restricted position. Torvald, I thought, from the beginning was problematic. He never gave her a chance to be her own person, and forced her into this role of being the “perfect wife.” He had the need to show her off in front of everyone, and did not seem to have much respect for her as a person. She was a very intelligent woman who could do anything she wanted on her own, yet was treated as a woman who is reliant on a man to survive. At first, Nora appears to be someone to just go with the flow, and allow her husband to push her around in the way he does. She does not seem like she would argue with him much over anything significant. Nora appears to be a person who would revolve their life around their family, and lose any sense of self that she had. This depiction of her changes as soon as we find out about her debt she has to pay off. Taking out a loan for such a large sum of money like she did is making a huge statement. Even though she kept it quiet at first, the act of her doing it says a lot. It almost appeared to be a small act of rebellion against Torvald, saying that she can, in fact, control things in their lives. It was also showing the audience that she is an independent woman who would be perfectly fine on her own, without a man to support her in any way. The first quote I have above shows the way that Torvald was represented in the play, and why it would seem natural for Nora to just go along with that. The tone of that passage appears intimidating, and for Nora to stand against that would take a lot of courage. It also makes her debt even more significant as he specifically said he does not want to have that. The second quote above shows how driven and independent Nora really is as a person. She craves independence and being a strong capable woman. She loved the feeling of being able to do something on her own, which is defining of her true character.
The characters in Henrik Ibsen's A Doll House initially seemed superficial. The relationship between the wife and the husband is very strange because the husband Helmer has a lot of control over his wife's eating habits and Nora is obsessed with money. They are also rich and can afford nurses to take care of their children. We also met Ms. Linde or Christine. As widow she is left with nothing after her husband’s passing but is now looking for work for Mr. Helmer at the bank. Dr. Rank and Krogstad also appeared, but at first, it didn't seem to make much sense. However, according to Act II, we see that there are more stories there. Nora may seem superficial, but she is actually deeply in debt with Krogstad, who borrows money to save her husband's life. In relation to Krogstad's manipulation of her husband to require her husband to continue working at the bank, falsifying her name was a great advantage. Christine, Nora's main critic, called herself naive and made suggestions to secure her place.
ReplyDeleteIn the first act, Mr. Helmer said to Nora: “That is like a woman! But seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt. We two have kept bravely on the straight road so far, and we will go on the same way for the short time longer that there need be any struggle.” Then we find out Helmer’s life was actually in debt to that of the money Krogstad had lent to Nora. Enslaved for family life, Nora kept her decision a secret and decided to keep the loan secret to save her husband's life. Until later Helmer said, “Because such an atmosphere of lies infects and poisons the whole life of a home. Each breath the children take in such a house is full of the germs of evil.” Every breath in the house is filled with uneasy tension and deceit. Nora began to question her own purpose in the house and in a conversation with the nurse, Nora asked, “Do you think they would forget their mother if she went away altogether?”. Nora later brings the idea of death in her conversation with Krogstad. There was admission to commit suicide or to run away from home, however, she also admitted that she never had the courage. This part of hints at Nora’s eventual departure from her old life and into a new life in which she is free to discover her true self and not that of a housewife.