Overview and Directions: Please finish reading Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen. Taking into account the plot points, please comment on the significance of these events in the play, as well as Ibsen's purpose in addressing the audience's reactions to Nora's exit in A Doll House. Think about the following plot points as you compose your response: Who really burned down the orphanage? How does the insurance come into play? What do we learn about Engstrand? Can you see a modern day equivalent to him? Why is he so dangerous? What is the name for the sailor's home? What is Regina's reaction to learning her parentage? What is Oswald's true reason for wanting to be with Regina? Why did Oswald really return? What does Ibsen mean by the line "softening of the brain" and "Mother? Give me the sun." How is the final moment an indictment on the audience who felt that Nora has a duty to her family? I look forward to your responses.
Quotations
1. And the refuge for wandering mariners shall be called "Chamberlain Alving's Home,” that it shall! And if so be as I'm spared to carry on that house in my own way, I make so bold as to promise that it shall be worthy of the Chamberlain's memory.
2. Well then, child of joy as he was--for he was like a child in those days--he had to live at home here in a half-grown town, which had no joys to offer him--only dissipation. He had no object in life--only an official position. He had no work into which he could throw himself heart and soul; he had only business. He had not a single comrade that could realize what the joy of life meant--only loungers and boon companions - Your poor father found no outlet for the overpowering joy of life that was in him. And I brought no brightness into his home.
3. Yes, but she was one of that sort, all the same. Oh, I've often suspected it; but--And now, if you please, ma'am, may I be allowed to go away at once? A poor girl must make the best of her young days, or she'll be left out in the cold before she knows where she is. And I, too, have the joy of life in me, Mrs. Alving!
4. Everything you point to you shall have, just as when you were a little child.--There now. The crisis
is over. You see how easily it passed! Oh, I was sure it would.--And do you see, Oswald, what a lovely day we are going to have? Brilliant sunshine! Now you can really see your home. [She goes to the table and puts out the lamp. Sunrise. The glacier and the snow-peaks in the background glow in the morning light.]
5. [Sits motionless as before and says.] The sun.--The sun.
This act really struck me and hit me with a hard ending. I didn’t love it and I think all of the moments from Mrs. Alving’s life led up to this very moment with Oswald. Her feelings had been so bottled up even from her marriage and what she had been keeping from Oswald, but none of it mattered because at the end, she couldn’t have been helped and the “ghosts” were stronger. It was sad for me to see the ending because I really did like Mrs. Alving and she never got her justice in a way or her happiness the way she deserved. Ibsen works in tragedy here but also humor and I think that was his goal throughout this entire play as well as a lot of his other works. I was hoping for a better ending for Mrs. Alving or for her to at least get some sort of happy ending for her, but I wasn’t able to. I didn’t love this play as much as “A Doll’s House” but I think Ibsen definitely did his work as an author of creating a work so similar to his past but changing things up. Nora got her ending in “A Doll’s House” that we were all looking for and she left, getting her justice and showing her power, but Mrs. Alving didn’t which could be the result of her repressed emotions and silence after several years. I liked to see these characters throughout the play and how they ended up in this act and I wish I got a better ending for me but some may have loved it. I’m very excited to read An Enemy of the People and hope it is what I have been looking for, or something better!
ReplyDeleteThe demise of the family structure and the unbreakable belief in it that society praises was awing to watch in how it unfolded in Ibsen's play. From my own beliefs and current day standards, the play wasn't perhaps as shocking as it had been at the time of it being written, but throughout the play I tried to keep a mindset that related more with the people of Ibsen's day rather than view it through my own lense. Therefore, when Ibsen completely broke the family core and proved the faults within such a belief, it was quite a shock and therefore I can more readily understand Oswald's eventual descent into madness. Oswald was a character who had just learned his father who he thought the world of, was a man of no aspirations and desires, that the girl he loved simply was trying to climb the power latter and rise beyond her current social rank, and that the family concept that he so believed in was now beyond saving or justifying. It is no wonder, then, that as we examine all his beliefs shatter before his eyes in a single night, that he falls into madness and despair so great that he would rather die than continue living.
ReplyDeleteFrom today's stand point, it would appear that his descent into madness seems a little dramatic, but that's only because the emphasis on family and the strength and value it holds in society is not nearly as strong as it once was. Especially in a more progressive town like Andover, where people are accepting of others race, religions, sexuality, nationality, etc. (at least among the younger people), this concept of the home breaking apart isn't quite as much of a shock. In our society, we have almost come to expect such breaks, as divorce rates in the USA continue to grow, and we ourselves see the new lives that have to be constructed between split parents whether through first hand experience or through the eyes of a friend. Family is no longer an unbreakable bond. Only in its ideal is it unbreakable, but many can see that such an ideal is extremely difficult to fulfill. Today, women no longer have to go by whatever a husband has them do, but they instead can use their own mind to determine how they wish to proceed in family, work, and general life. It is perhaps the reason family no longer functions in its 'perfection' anymore. Two people with two different minds are bound to argue and create animosity, where as if the household follows one mind, it is bound to run smooth and peacefully. But Ibsen gave his female leads powerful roles in which they broke from the standards of society to become who they really, truly wished to be. The major difference between Ghosts and A Doll's House is the presence or absence of a man. In Ghosts, it is hard to escape seeing Mrs. Alving as a strong, female role, because as a widow she was expected to continue to lead the household and had the freedom of a married woman, combined with the responsibilities of a man. No one can argue that she needed to fulfill these roles, or criticize her for stepping into them. In A Doll's House, because there was a man present, because Nora's husband existed, the belief was still that the family ideal should have still persisted through, and it was only Nora's own actions that broke it. But because a traditional family couldn't exist in Ghosts, it was easier for the audience to come to understand the decisions of Mrs. Alving, and finally see the cracks of the family unit as Ibsen originally tried to show in A Doll's House.
The ending of Ghosts was very interesting because Ibsen challenges the idea that a mother is the best caretaker for her children. Oswald knows that his mother will not be able to are for him the way that he wants to, since he wants her to use the morphia on him. He knew that Regina would, however, since she did not care for him as his mother did. It was interesting to see tis dynamic. I did not expect Oswald to be so aware of how Regina felt and even be okay with it. In A Doll’s House, Ibsen was forced to change the ending because the idea of a mother leaving her children and not taking them was very controversial. Ibsen wanted to show the readers what would happen if she had stayed. Mrs. Alving represents the ideals of the people at the time, thinking that it is her duty to take care of her son and that she is the best person to do so. Oswald, however, represents how Ibsen thinks, knowing that there are circumstances such as this one that make that belief incorrect. Oswald does not believe that his mother is the best person to take care of him. It was difficult to see how devastated Mrs. Alving was over her son. She had spent most of her life working tirelessly to protect him and in the end she could not even save him. Mrs. Alving lived with the belief of what a mother’s duty was and it was heartbreaking to see Oswald challenge that. “I never asked you for life. And what sort of a life have you given me? I will not have it! You shall take it back again!” Ibsen wanted to show how matters can be complicated and that the ideals that were held at the time should not stand for everyone. I enjoyed reading this play and seeing how Ibsen built off of the reaction of A Doll’s House.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter I finished reading "Ghosts" by Henrik Ibsen, I started to notice something about Ibsen’s work. In "A Doll’s House" and "Ghosts", Ibsen was able to create a play in such a short time frame. This is not just any play. It is a play with a plot, and it has a moral to it. That is what amazes me about Ibsen’s work. In such a short period, he is fully able to establish a plot and provide his readers with a meaningful message.
ReplyDeleteNow going back to "Ghosts" and Act III. I was very surprised by Oswald’s behavior. Even though he was able to confess his feelings to his mom, I felt that he gave up too easily. What was affecting him was only something in his mind. I feel that with the right help, Oswald might have been able to overcome his issue with the mind. He should not have succumbed to what the doctors told him.
Also, I felt that in "Ghosts", there were too many times where the characters stuck to pointless ideals. In Act 1, Pastor Manders stuck to his ideals and did not want to insure the orphanage. This sticking onto of meaningless ideals caused the downfall for many characters.