Ghosts! When I heard Regina and Oswald in there, it was as though ghosts rose up before me. But I almost think we are all of us ghosts, Pastor Manders. It is not only what we have inherited from our father and mother that "walks" in us. It is all sorts of dead ideas, and lifeless old beliefs. They have no vitality, but they cling to us all the same, and we cannot shake them off. Whenever I take up a newspaper, I seem to see ghosts gliding between the lines. There must be ghosts all over the country, as thick as grains of sand. And we are so pitifully afraid of the light.
Overview and Directions: Please read Ghosts, ACT II by Henrik Ibsen. Next compose a 300-400 word blog response, using at least 2-3 direct quotations from the text. Think about the symbolic representation of the characters, as well as the concept of ghosts. Also, make connections to the seemingly unimportant information that Ibsen shared in ACT I to make a maximum impact on the audience in ACT II. For example, the insurance and the orphanage. Further, what commentary is being made with regard to A Doll House, given the events in this play so far? I look forward to your responses.
Quotations
1. Ghosts! When I heard Regina and Oswald in there, it was as though ghosts rose up before me. But I almost think we are all of us ghosts, Pastor Manders. It is not only what we have inherited from our father and mother that "walks" in us. It is all sorts of dead ideas, and lifeless old beliefs, and so forth. They have no vitality, but they cling to us all the same, and we cannot shake them off. Whenever I take up a newspaper, I seem to see ghosts gliding between the lines. There must be ghosts all the country
over, as thick as the sands of the sea. And then we are, one and all, so pitifully afraid of the light.
2. Yes--when you forced me under the yoke of what you called duty and obligation; when you lauded as right and proper what my whole soul rebelled against as something loathsome. It was then that I began to look into the seams of your doctrines. I wanted only to pick at a single knot; but when I had got that undone, the whole thing ravelled out. And then I understood that it was all machine-sewn.
3. Oh, wait a minute!--now I recollect. Johanna did have a trifle of money. But I would have nothing to do with that. "No," says I, "that's mammon; that's the wages of sin. This dirty gold--or notes, or whatever it was--we'll just flint, that back in the American's face," says I. But he was off and away, over the stormy sea, your Reverence.
4. It only shows how excessively careful one ought to be in judging one's fellow creatures. But what a heartfelt joy it is to ascertain that one has been mistaken! Don't you think so?
5. At last he said: "There has been something worm-eaten in you from your birth." He used that very word… He said, "The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children." No other explanation was possible, he said. That's the awful part of it. Incurably ruined for life--by my own heedlessness! All that I meant to have done in the world--I never dare think of it again--I'm not able to think of it. Oh! if I could only live over again, and undo all I have done! [He buries his face in the sofa.]
6. I only mean that here people are brought up to believe that work is a curse and a punishment for sin, and that life is something miserable, something; it would be best to have done with, the sooner the better…But in the great world people won't hear of such things. There, nobody really believes such doctrines any longer. There, you feel it a positive bliss and ecstasy merely to draw the breath of life. Mother, have you noticed that everything I have painted has turned upon the joy of life?--always, always upon the joy of life?--light and sunshine and glorious air-and faces radiant with happiness. That is why I'm afraid of remaining at home with you.
Ghosts is difficult to read, seeing all these characters cursed not by their own choices, but by the choices of the people before them. It just seems so unjust that Oswald is cursing himself "At last he said: "There has been something worm-eaten in you from your birth." He used that very word… He said, "The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children." No other explanation was possible, he said. That's the awful part of it. Incurably ruined for life--by my own heedlessness! All that I meant to have done in the world--I never dare think of it again--I'm not able to think of it. Oh! if I could only live over again, and undo all I have done! [He buries his face in the sofa.]" when in actuality, it was his father's sins who did this to him (realistically, that's not really possible but for the sake of the story as well as accounting for the science of inherited addiction risk, we take it as true). Why should children have to suffer for the mistakes of a parent? It reminds me of this post I was reading which clarified that Oedipus, yes that Oedipus, and his parents were cursed to their fate because Oedipus's father raped a neighboring prince. It's more of this patriarchal situation where the children and women suffer more than the actual person who messed up and did something horrible. The gods punished innocent people for the actions of another. Oswald and his mother are like this, punished for the mistakes of Captain Alving. It's ridiculous, but unfortunately that's the case. Oswald is so cursed by the family he is tied to that when he doesn't believe he can exist in the same space as his mother and the echoes of his father anymore, as "I only mean that here people are brought up to believe that work is a curse and a punishment for sin, and that life is something miserable, something; it would be best to have done with, the sooner the better…But in the great world people won't hear of such things. There, nobody really believes such doctrines any longer. There, you feel it a positive bliss and ecstasy merely to draw the breath of life. Mother, have you noticed that everything I have painted has turned upon the joy of life?--always, always upon the joy of life?--light and sunshine and glorious air-and faces radiant with happiness. That is why I'm afraid of remaining at home with you." He has something which brings him happiness and it is only without his mother that he can live like that. But this is due to the fact that he spent all that time separated from his mother since she wanted him to not turn out like his father, and ended up having to separate from her son for long periods of time for his sake. But once again, both are punished in this motherly act by someone else's horribleness. In conclusion, Captain Alving sucks and people shouldn't have to suffer for other's stupidity.
ReplyDeleteIn Act II, many of the ideas hinted at, and the events foreshadowed, begin to come to the forefront. Manders serves to represent the common man and their reaction to “A Doll’s House”. Mrs. Alving is set up as the opposing opinion. She represents the consequences of what happens if Nora had stayed. She lived in a broken household, and it ended up poisoning her. These values of caring for children above oneself and being loyal to your husband no matter what are called into question. Mrs. Alving cries “Oh—ideals, ideals! If only I were not such a coward!” - her regret for standing by Mr. Alving is quite clear. Furthemore, not only was it harmful to her, it was also harmful to Oswald. In her attempts to protect him from his fathers vicious lifestyle, she fabricates a lie through letters, creating this persona of Mr. Alving as a good man. Thus, when Oswald is told by a doctor that “There has been something worm-eaten in you from your birth...The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children”, Oswald denies this and produces the letters showing his father as a good man. Thus, the doctor instead blames it on Oswald’s carefree life, causing him to fall into a depressed state of regret and self blame. It is the ghosts of the past coming back to haunt all of them. Mrs. Alving’s attempts to hush up the truth end up not mattering, and the consequences return regardless. She describes these consequences as “Ghosts”, saying that “It is all sorts of dead ideas, and lifeless old beliefs, and so forth. They have no vitality, but they cling to us all the same, and we cannot shake them off. Whenever I take up a newspaper, I seem to see ghosts gliding between the lines. There must be ghosts all the country over, as thick as the sands of the sea. And then we are, one and all, so pitifully afraid of the light.” This is Ibsen telling us how the ideas of the past are plaguing us, how the consequences of our actions are inescapable, and that simply shutting the past and the truth out, will not turn out well. This is demonstrated further when the orphanage is lit on fire, as foreshadowed in act I. Their decision to not insure it has come back to haunt them. It is remarkable how Ibsen uses the original insurance discussion to first characterize Manders and Mrs Alving, and then as a way to drive the plot and his ideas forward later on.
ReplyDeleteLooking at each character’s symbolic representation we see how Ibsen organized the character to all challenge each other. Oswald is especially liberally minded and very progressive himself. However Pastor Manders is rather traditionally minded and stubborn in his mindset. So when Oswald and Pastor Manders were arguing about lifestyles we see how these mindsets clash. But another interesting point was how similar their arguments were and only differed about whether you needed an official marriage certificate to live together. Pastor Manders believed such free living as that of artists was very impure. However as Oswald pointed out much of the impurity was from people just like his father.
ReplyDeleteThe unimportant part from Act I would be Mrs. Alvings comment about how Engstrand is very careless with matches. While it was brushed off in Act I, the end of Act II the orphanage is burned down and with no insurance. That comment was actually foreshadowing what would happen to the orphanage.
When Mrs Alving says “It is not only what we have inherited from our father and mother that "walks" in us. It is all sorts of dead ideas, and lifeless old beliefs, and so forth.” we see how we all carry ghosts from our upbringing. With respect to the “Doll House” the future of the children will be very interesting. Since Nora is now out of the picture we can see how nature versus nurture will affect the children. Most likely the nurse will continue to look after the children but it would be interesting to see if the children end up taking after the nurse or their parents.
Henrik Ibsen wrote about the concept of ghosts as entities from the past that haunt people. Throughout the play, we see these ghosts take many forms that affect the lives and plot of the play. Mrs. Alving is haunted by the ghost of her husband, figuratively. She fears that Oswald will become like her husband was, and her fear seems to be coming true when Oswald reveals that he fears he is visited by "the sins of the father” which is causing him to be unable to work or be happy. Mrs. Alving tried to shield Oswald from the “sins” of his father by lying about him. However, this lie and many others haunt her, and Oswald comes to this conclusion outside of her protection. It is interesting to see this concept because usually when we think of children being influenced by their parents it is because of things that their parents have actually done to them. However, Mrs. Alving was able to shield Oswald from her husband, and Oswald still feels the consequences of Chamberlain Alving’s actions. “It is not only what we have inherited from our father and mother that ‘walks’ in us. It is all sorts of dead ideas, and lifeless old beliefs, and so forth. They have no vitality, but they cling to us all the same, and we cannot shake them off.” This quote was very interesting to me because it shows just how much the past affects us despite how we claim that they do not. We see Mrs. Alving who is desperately trying to preserve the reputation of her husband who has been dead for years. Despite him no longer being around, Mrs. Alving cannot “shake” the memory of her husband and the fears that her husband has placed in her. It was very interesting to see this interpretation of the idea of ghosts, not as actual people, but as the problems and fears they leave behind after their death.
ReplyDeleteAs I continue on with “Ghosts” by Henrik Ibsen, the more I realize how similar “Ghosts” is to “A Doll’s House.” In my blog response for Act 1, I talked about how something felt different about “Ghosts.” But as I read further, the more and more I realized how closely the two plays are related.
ReplyDeleteThe first instance I see this is with the protective natures of both Nora and Mrs. Alving. In “A Doll’s House,” it might seem that Nora just stays at home and does nothing, but in actuality, she wants to protect Torvald at all costs. She wants to keep him safe and provide the best life for him. She mainly does this by taking him down to Italy to improve his health. The same is true when regarding Mrs. Alving from “Ghosts.” Her husband, Mr. Alving was not the best person. Mrs. Alving did not want her son to resemble her husband at all. She wants there to be absolutely no connection between Oswald and Mr. Alving. Mrs. Alving like Nora wants to protect someone close. But unlike Nora taking a trip to Italy, Mrs. Alving does this by minimizing the time Oswald spends in the house by “sen[ding] Oswald away from home” (Ibsen “Ghosts” Act I). On top of that, Mrs. Alving “was determined that Oswald, my own boy, should inherit nothing whatever from his father” (Ibsen “Ghosts” Act I).
As of know, I feel that the tendencies of both Nora and Mrs. Alving is very similar. I wonder whether or not this will carry over, and if like Nora, Mrs. Alving goes through illegal measures to protect her son.
As I get farther into Ghosts, I dislike each character a little more, yet I am beginning to understand them more as well. This act gave me whiplash honestly. I especially liked when Mrs. Alving, after Manders eats up the lies Engstrand tells him, she calls Manders a baby and says she should kiss him. He gets flustered and leaves quickly. I think it is a funny little bit. In my mind, she is mocking him and the interest she once had in him. Anyways, when Oswald talks to his mother about how he is done painting, he can no longer physically do it, I thought he was pulling a cruel prank because he finally knew the truth (about how awful his father was, how his mother hid it, about Regina, etc.). But apparently, he was being truthful. The end of the act had me wanting to read straight into the third without writing this blog, such a cliffhanger. But, as I read Manders go "and no insurance!" I heard it in Mr. Pellerins voice and couldn't help but laugh. In all it's seriousness, this play is very funny at its core.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, the quote I was drawn most to was this:
OSWALD. [After a while, looks up and remains resting upon his elbow.] If it had only been something inherited—something one wasn't responsible for! But this! To have thrown away so shamefully, thoughtlessly, recklessly, one's own happiness, one's own health, everything in the world—one's future, one's very life—!"
It is ironic in so many ways. Most obviously, Mrs. Alving is withering away hearing this, because she knows it is something he has inherited; his father's ghosts. More appropriately called, his negative traits. But it also makes one think about how easily and willingly we blame our shortcomings or mistakes on anything and everything. I do believe the things we inherit from our parents, both in our DNA and being raised by them (or, if you were raised by someone else, you inherit their traits) should be blamed in a lot of things. But whatever is going on with Oswald is not to quickly be blamed on genes. It should be blamed by how he was raised and how he was conducting his own life afterwards. Additionally, it is a tragic thing to learn that you have ruined your own life, that there is nothing else to blame. You want to be able to blame something, and Ibsen is showing us how you can blame a terrible family if that is the case, but if it is yourself... then what can you do about it?
Grrrrrr. It's very easy to be frustrated with Manders. He really does not understand Mrs. Alving’s dissatisfaction with life. He confirms her fears when he says, “Never—never in my most secret thoughts have I regarded you otherwise than as another's wife.” That is exactly the thing, she is not herself, she is simply an appendage of someone else. That's the other thing about leading your life solely by the followings of any of the three major religions: they are all pretty misogynous. Good thing Manders isn't only concerned with religion, he is also heavily concerned with himself. When Mrs. Alving reveals to Manders the reality-TV-show-like story of why Oswald and Regina can't be married, Manders exclaims, “And you have hidden the truth from me all these years? Hidden it from me, who have trusted you without reserve, in everything.” He is revealing that it is not the religion he feels has been disgraced, it is himself. He is not concerned for the teachings of the Bible, he is personally offended about this deception. I think this is something Ibsen is trying to point out: that people use “values” as justification for their own feelings. This can be seen when Mrs. Alving rebels against Manders’ advice:
ReplyDeleteMRS. ALVING: But what about the truth?
MANDERS. But what about the ideals?
MRS. ALVING. Oh—ideals, ideals! If only I were not such a coward!
These “Ideals” that Manders’ speaks of are “ghosts” of his own. He has been loyal to these ideas for so long, not only in his own life, but in the advice he has given to others. This advice has ruined lives, Mrs. Alving’s for starters. These “ideals” aren't rooted in any doctrine, they are rooted in his own pride. To admit to anything other than these ideals would be an admittal of guilt. I think everyone can learn from this predicament, where one's ideals have strayed so far from the truth. It should never be too late to reevaluate and maybe realize you can adjust your ideals, recalibrate them as they say. The people on the other side have to be forgiving though, they have to be appreciative that these people are being open minded, not spiteful. I think this is a very good lesson to learn right now, and hey, maybe this corona business will make a shift of focus easier. Maybe this will be revealing of societal issues which are only now being brought to light during this crisis. And maybe it will work like Mrs. Alving explained, “I wanted only to pick at a single knot; but when I had got that undone, the whole thing ravelled out. And then I understood that it was all machine-sewn.” I guess only time will tell! On that same note, this little interaction is how I feel as I am forced to interact with only my family:
MRS. ALVING. Afraid? What are you afraid of here, with me?
OSWALD. I'm afraid lest all my instincts should be warped into ugliness.
The idea of ghosts, as the play is named after, is an interesting concept that I don’t think a lot of pieces of literature truly explores in it’s depth, instead taking it for granted. But the ideas that we have lingering parts of our past that rise over and over and disrupt the general courses of our lives is something that demands attention and thought. If one was to really think about it and apply it to our lives, we see how ghosts affect everyday of our life with the decisions we make and don’t make and the consequences that follow. It is why when Mrs. Alving says:
ReplyDelete“Ghosts! When I heard Regina and Oswald in there, it was as though ghosts rose up before me. But I almost think we are all of us ghosts, Pastor Manders. It is not only what we have inherited from our father and mother that "walks" in us. It is all sorts of dead ideas, and lifeless old beliefs, and so forth. They have no vitality, but they cling to us all the same, and we cannot shake them off. Whenever I take up a newspaper, I seem to see ghosts gliding between the lines. There must be ghosts all the country over, as thick as the sands of the sea. And then we are, one and all, so pitifully afraid of the light.”
that the play seemingly transforms from something of an ironic and bizarre comedy, to a play with important and deep messages that the audience is forced to confront seriously. Because we aren’t just examining the twisted relations of Regina and Oswald anymore and their illicit love affair, but instead are looking upon our own lives in connection to our own ghosts. Our lives are dictated by the ghosts we create, from “dead ideas, and lifeless old beliefs,” as Mrs. Alving says. We make the decisions we do because of what we learned from our past. We learn from our failures and successes, the not-quite-right moments and the not-quite-wrong. Ghosts inform us, guide us, and pressure us into circumstances which others would try to avoid.
That fact that Ibsen was able to draw us in in his first act to enjoy what one might have thought of as a funny little comedy that quickly turns to an assessment of our own lives is brilliant. It is the ultimate come-back to the response of society from Ibsen’s A Doll House, making them judge their previous reactions in light of this situation that causes a rift in our common sense and what society pressures us to believe and what led to the negative reaction of A Doll’s House. As Mrs. Alving said, “It only shows how excessively careful one ought to be in judging one's fellow creatures … what a heartfelt joy it is to ascertain that one has been mistaken!”
To me, Ghosts read like a drama-filled soap opera. First, you’ve got the two progressive young adults who aren’t supposed to be together because of different social classes, but the real reason is far worse and of course, they don’t know the truth. The girl’s skeezy father who begs for financial help and is helpless and a terrible father. The son’s feminist mother who suffered through a bad marriage and is now doing charity work in the name of her late husband, even though she does express thoughts of freewill. The misogynistic and traditionalist pastor who can think no ill of the dead husband. And the husband who cheated all through his marriage and fathered the young girl with the maid, the same girl who is now the maid and in love with his son. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mrs. Alving actually killed her husband, nothing messy, but probably poisoned. In act II, Mrs. Alving is quoted as saying “MRS. ALVING: It seemed to me the child must be poisoned by merely breathing the air of this polluted home. (1.411)” We understand this has to do with Captain Alving being a cheater and how his morals have “poisoned” the air, and she doesn’t want Oswald to be brought up by those morals. Understandingly so, she sends away to boarding school, but she can’t say why because of her husband’s reputation, and therefore she is ridiculed by others (Pastor Manders) about how she is a terrible mother for breaking up the family. This seems quite clear but then Oswald in the second act says that he is ill and that the doctors diagnosed as “The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children." But he convinces the doctors it can’t be true from the saintly reputation of his father. Then on, the doctor suggests it has to do with his artist lifestyle that has caused his illness. This plays on the idea of the “poisoned” air, as now Oswald seems to be haunted by the ghost of his father. The ghost of Captain Alving is present in Oswald.
ReplyDeleteGhosts is a really good and interesting read for me. It entertains me in a way but in other ways it frustrates me. I can feel for Mrs. Alving and her relationship with Pastor Manders because it is showing me what kind of characters they both are. I don’t like Pastor Manders because I feel as if he belittles Mrs. Alving. She and Oswald have a conversation in this act about the “joy of life” proving she doesn’t really have any idea as to what this means or how she’s supposed to feel. Manders also tells Mrs. Alving that ideals are lies which gives her the wrong idea when all she wants to do is tell Oswald the truth. I think she is afraid to live her life and tell the honest truth because she believes they are all “ghosts” and that something is holding her back. I hope to see in Act III that she overcomes her own fear and becomes her own person which I think is limiting her to becoming who she is. Manders isn’t allowing Mrs. Alving’s growth either, I find it frustrating that his character is kind of setting her back in a way. He doesn’t see her perspective and therefore cannot empathize for her or help in any way. I hope Mrs. Alving finds a way out of her idea that they are all Ghosts and that she can find her own way of happiness without Pastor Manders or anyone disturbing her.
ReplyDeleteThere are two relationships that come out in this act that add to the drama and make the story much more interesting. The first is the budding relationship between Regina and Oswald. However, they are destined not to be together because of ghosts from their pasts. The two don't know about the real reason they cannot be together.
ReplyDeleteThe other relationship that develops in act 2 is the one between Mrs Alving and Pastor Manders. the Pastor has very traditionalist views and holds Mrs. Alving to unrealistic standards. Manders is also very self centered and hypocritical and he limits mrs Alving's development significantly. When mrs Alving finds out about the relationship developing between Regina and Oswald, she knows that she has to tell them the truth about their father. A quote from her that stood out to me was "It is not only what we have inherited from our father and mother that "walks" in us. It is all sorts of dead ideas, and lifeless old beliefs, and so forth." She knows about the past of Regina and Oswald and knows that she has to be the one to tell them the truth. And right as she does so, the orphanage that was dedicated to their father goes up in flames.
“It was no longer convenient for you to be a wife, so you left your husband. You found it tiresome to be a mother so you put your son out to live with strangers.” This quote is very revealing as it exposes Regina for running from her problems. While in the first act it may not have been extreme, that statement there made it clear that she prefers to avoid her problems altogether. This, of course, is not actually a way to solve any issue, as the issue still remains when not confronted. Trying to avoid problems is simply a way of procrastinating, and pushing off any sort of encounter. Regina’s response to Pastor was that “All of this is something to which you have no knowledge except your own observations,” which was a very good point for her to make. While it is valid that he may be basing an opinion off of his own observations, they may not be entirely accurate. When an observation is made from strictly one side, it may be missing some key details. The same goes for observations from outside a situation. One person will never know exactly what is going on inside another’s mind, so to make assumptions of the sort are often pointless and wrong. For a truly rounded opinion, it must be based on all information that is possible to obtain, including the opinions of the people involved. Pastor should listen to and understand Regina’s side before jumping to conclusions and making harmful accusations, no matter how revealing or true. I find this interesting to read after A Doll’s House as it goes into detail of the expectations society puts on a family, in particular the mothers. Regina is similar to Nora in the sense that they are both mothers struggling to make peace in their families. They are both held to expectations that they don’t want to fit, and this becomes more clear as the play continues.
ReplyDeleteThe extreme misogyny Pastor Manders displays in this act angers me a lot. I know things were different at the time of the release of the play but I can’t help but wonder what women at the time thought about Pastor Manders. Were they just as angered and disgusted? Or were they so plagued by societal ideals that Mrs. Alving and Oswald were more of a disturbance to them? Tradition is usually thought of as a positive thing that connects generations through the years. It is often difficult to move on from the past and let go to live in the present and imagine the future. Having traditions is different from traditions in my mind. Meaning, one of my family’s traditions is getting our Christmas tree the day after Thanksgiving, whereas it is tradition to respect elders. This can come as a danger. The other day, my Dad showed me a clip from Trevor Noah’s show where Jordan Klepper talks to people at a Trump Rally about their ideologies. It was very comical but one comment particularly scared me among the other ridiciously ignorant ones. A man said something along the lines of “well he’s the President and you’re supposed to support the President.” This blind patriotism is the same as accepting tradition and life without asking questions.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about Mrs. Alving’s quote, “whenever I take up a newspaper, I seem to see ghosts gliding between the lines,” I couldn’t help but think back to Virigna Woolf and our discussions about life and death. My mind first went to the idea of actual ghosts then with deeper thinking about the larger message and the context, I realized Ibsen was talking about tradition and societal norms. But in thinking about life and death, I amusingly thought of a quote from a Mackelmore song, “Glorious,” which says, “I heard you die twice, once when they bury you in the grave and the second time is the last time that somebody mentions your name.” I was tempted to use that quote in an essay I wrote about Elie Wiesel’s “Night” and the importance of remembrance. Mrs. Alving is haunted by the lingering of her husband’s name as he maintains his grip on her freedom from the grave under society’s rules. When Pastor Manders says that he mistaked Oswald for Oswald’s father, I was reminded of my relationship with my parents. I am extremely close with them and we have more of a friend relationship than parental. Jokingly, I always ask if they purposefully influenced me to have similar interests and the same sense of humor as them. It is scary how much power a parent has in creating a person. Yet, like Regina, children still have their own individuality no matter how they are raised. Much psychology is linked to our childhood but beyond that, freedom is not rationed by parents. This is why it angers me so much to think that people are born into certain roles and duties. This is highlighted when Mrs. Alving says, “Yes—when you forced me under the yoke of what you called duty and obligation; when you lauded as right and proper what my whole soul rebelled against as something loathsome.” Tradition restricts freedom and determines many aspects of one’s life before they get a chance to do so.