Overview: We discussed Ibsen's play A Doll House and viewed the end of Act III. Nora leaving Torvald is famously called, "The door slam heard around the world." At the time, the powers that be forced Ibsen's hand, and he reluctantly changed the ending in order to avoid the outright ban on his play. He believed that we are haunted by ghosts of the past. He understood this idea needed to be addressed in his next play:
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.
Directions: Below, view the original ending and read the alternate ending of A Doll House. Next, please read Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen, Act I. You can find links to the complete play, audio, and film below. Next, compose a comprehensive blog response (300-400 words). In your blog response, first explore A Doll House: How does this new ending make you feel? How does it alter Ibsen's message and intent? Remember, Ibsen wrote Ghosts as rebuttal to this ending and the public's reaction. Next, what can we expect to see in Ghosts? Please use the questions below as a guide to your response. You may choose one quotation and explore it in depth, choose a combination of questions, or explore symbols listed in question 11. Please use at least 2-3 major quotations in your response. I provided a cross-section of quotations to help you begin.
Original Ending of A Doll House
Alternate Ending of A Doll House
NORA. ... Where we could make a real marriage out of our lives together. Goodbye. [Begins to go.]
HELMER. Go then! [Seizes her arm.] But first you shall see your children for the last time!
NORA. Let me go! I will not see them! I cannot!
HELMER [draws her over to the door, left]. You shall see them. [Opens the door and says softly.] Look, there they are asleep, peaceful and carefree. Tomorrow, when they wake up and call for their mother, they will be - motherless.
NORA [trembling]. Motherless...!
HELMER. As you once were.
NORA. Motherless! [Struggles with herself, lets her travelling bag fall, and says.] Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them. [Half sinks down by the door.]
HELMER [joyfully, but softly]. Nora!
[The curtain falls.]
- How do the stage directions for Ghosts set the mood for the play?
- Given the realistic setting of the garden room Ghosts, what other components of realism should the audience or reader expect?
- How is Regina representative of mobility between the classes?
- How does the behavior of Regina Engstrand and Engstrand toward each other in show that Henrik Ibsen is challenging conventional expectations?
- What role do Regina Engstrand and Engstrand fill in the development of the plot?
- How does Pastor Manders's treatment of Regina Engstrand change over the course of Act I?
- How do the two mysteries raised early in the conversation in Act I contribute to suspense in the plot?
- What do Mrs. Alving's comments about the books she is reading in Act I suggest about the society she lives in?
- How do Mrs. Alving's and Pastor Manders's responses to the books Mrs. Alving is reading define each character? Who would Ibsen side with in this case?
- How does Henrik Ibsen use Pastor Manders's ideas about insuring the orphanage to deepen his characterization of the pastor?
- How are the following used as symbols in the play: Orphanage, Ghosts, Artist, Priest, Sailors, Captains, Men. Woman, the characters themselves?
Quotations
- Regina: Yes, you may be sure we'll see about it! Me that have been brought up by a lady like Mrs. Alving! Me that am treated almost as a daughter here! Is it me you want to go home with you?--to a house like yours? For shame!
- Engstrand: Then never mind about marrying them. You can make it pay all the same. [More confidentially.] He--the Englishman--the man with the yacht--he came down with three hundred dollars, he did; and she wasn't a bit handsomer than you.
- Mrs. Alving: Well, I seem to find explanation and confirmation of all sorts of things I myself have been thinking. For that is the wonderful part of it, Pastor Minders--there is really nothing new in these books, nothing but what most people think and believe. Only most people either don't formulate it to themselves, or else keep quiet about it.
- Pastor Manders: Object to in them? You surely do not suppose that I have nothing better to do than to study such publications as these? … I have read enough about these writings to disapprove of them.
- Pastor Manders: When Oswald appeared there, in the doorway, with the pipe in his mouth, I could have sworn I saw his father, large as life.
- Mrs. Alving: Oh, how can you say so? Oswald takes after me.
- Pastor Manders: But how is it possible that a--a young man or young woman with any decency of feeling can endure to live in that way?--in the eyes of all the world!
- Oswald: Well, then, allow me to inform you. I have met with it when one or other of our pattern husbands and fathers has come to Paris to have a look round on his own account, and has done the artists the honour of visiting their humble haunts. They knew what was what. These gentlemen could tell us all about places and things we had never dreamt of.
- Mrs. Alving: Soon after, I heard Alving come in too. I heard him say something softly to her. And then I heard--[With a short laugh]--oh! it still sounds in my ears, so hateful and yet so ludicrous--I heard my own servant-maid whisper, "Let me go, Mr. Alving! Let me be!"….It was my purchase-money. I do not choose that that money should pass into Oswald's hands. My son shall have everything from me--everything.
- Mrs: Alving: Ghosts!
I did not like the new ending to A Doll House, and it made me quite frustrated that Henrik Ibsen was forced to change it. The entire point of A Doll House is to show the audience that sometimes, despite what society says, a marriage simply cannot work, and that is ok. Nora leaves her husband and children because she finally realizes that her life must be her own, not belonging to anyone else. This epiphany is what makes the entire play worth watching, and that it had to be changed is really a shame. When drama (and literature) is sensored, the entire purpose of it is defeated. Literature offers insight into the flaws and pains of humanity, so when we sensor these out, the entire experience becomes trivial. Having said this, I do like Ghosts so far. Regina is an interesting character, in that despite being a servant, she has elevated herself to a higher social class than her father. Her father is a carpenter, but he wants to open a tavern for sailors, and he wants Regina to go into the business with him, to which she replies, “Me that have been brought up by a lady like Mrs. Alving! Me that am treated almost as a daughter here! Is it me you want to go home with you?--to a house like yours? For shame!” Since Regina views moving back in with her father as shameful and a step “down” the social ladder, it is clear that, with Mrs. Alving’s help, she has risen above her birth class, which did not happen frequently in Ibsen’s time. Also, the conflict between Regina and her father demonstrate an uncommon occurrence for the time period the play was written. During this time period, daughters were supposed to respect their fathers and live with them until they were married, and then they had to respect their husbands. This conflict and separation of Regina and Engstrand is Ibsen’s way of giving the finger to social standards, as the audience likely would not have considered a father-daughter dynamic like this one prior to watching the show. It is interesting to consider what led to this separation, and parts of it can be inferred by their conversation. Engstrand implies that he is an alcoholic at a few points, and when Regina rejects his suggestion of marrying a sailor from the tavern he wants to open, he replies with, “Then never mind about marrying them. You can make it pay all the same. [More confidentially.] He--the Englishman--the man with the yacht--he came down with three hundred dollars, he did; and she wasn't a bit handsomer than you.” To even consider one’s daughter becoming a prostitute is disgusting, even in the modern day. In Ibsen’s time, it was simply unheard of, and I’m sure his audience did not like this line with the same passion that forced him to change the ending to A Doll’s House.
ReplyDeleteGhosts by Henrik Ibsen responds to the controversy over the ending of A Doll’s House by portraying a well off and greatly respected family that has been hiding scandalous secrets in order to maintain their reputation. Ibsen likely wanted to write a story that was even more scandalous than A Doll’s House in order to get his message about challenging expectations of family life across. In the very first scene, we see an interaction between Regina Engstrand and her father, who do not have a conventional relationship. Regina does not live with her father, and does not wish to, believing that she has “nothing whatever to do with” him. Regina feels more at home living with Mrs. Alving than she does with her own father. This was an unconventional idea, as a girl’s responsibility was primarily to her father and family at the time. Pastor Manders relays this message to Regina saying that it is “But a daughter's duty, my good girl” to live with her father and take care of him. However, Regina does not feel as though Engstrand is much of a father to her. Ibsen uses Regina and Engstrand’s relationship to challenge the idea that a woman’s primary duty in life is to the men in her life first and herself second, furthering the idea that was proposed in A Doll’s House when Nora left Torvald.
ReplyDeleteThe scene in which Mrs. Alving and Pastor Manders discuss books and literature was especially interesting to me because of how much it connected to the situation that Ibsen was in when he published A Doll’s House. While Pastor Manders is appalled by the ideas in the books that Mrs. Alving is reading, Mrs. Alving believes that there is “nothing new in these books, nothing but what most people think and believe. Only most people either don't formulate it to themselves, or else keep quiet about it.” After releasing A Doll’s House, Ibsen was forced to change the ending because the idea of a woman leaving her husband and children was too scandalous during that time. This scene seems to be Ibsen’s way of pointing out how people may act as though the ending of A Doll’s House was scandalous, but that he knows that it is not an uncommon or unrealistic.
In his play “A Doll’s House”, Ibsen initially sets out to create an elongated critique on society and the roles women are expected to take in it. Utilizing Nora as a cursor in the way the story develops, the author is capable of manufacturing a narrative that closely relates to those of women living in that time period, when their lives were extremely restricted. Although extremely insightful and undoubtedly necessary, Ibsen’s work was censored so to comply with the norms of those in power, thus altering the ending to a normative version where Nora gives up on her search for meaning and gives into her predetermined societal role. As a rebuttal to his previous censorship, “Ghost” is written in a sense to redeem the way in which “A Doll’s House” had its initial meaning refuted and disregarded, thus we can expect it to be a heavy critique on society and the way in which it dealt with his previous work. The clear example of that is the relationship between Regina and her father, like Nora, Regina refuses to comply with the male authority figure in her life, “Is it me you want to go home with you?--to a house like yours? For shame!” and Engstrand is not the only one she refuses to comply with, Pastor Manders who also plays an authority role in the play, attempts to control her decisions, which is received poorly by Regina.
ReplyDeleteLike Nora, Mrs. Alving attempts to conceal her husbands wrongdoings, paying off the maid he had seduced, and sending their small son away so he would not be subject to his father’s ways. She goes to such extents as to build an orphanage in her husband's name as means to purge herself from his impurities, expending all of his money on it and remaining only with the money that belonged to her. And although these acts may appear to come from her selflessness and concern for her belated husband's reputation, it quickly becomes clear that it comes from a place of self concern, for she is aware that if his reputation was to be made public, she would certainly be blamed for their failed marriage.
Her displays of self-involvement peak at the final scene of act I, when screams are heard from Regina, who has just been harassed by Oswald, Mrs. Alving’s son. Instead of reprimanding him, she rather screams “Ghosts.” It is yet unclear the exact subtext by which Mrs. Alving is acting, however, her failure to recognize and act and faults of the men around her set up a societal critique in the way in which we protect men in our society and attempt to conceal the ways in which they fail.
The original ending Ibsen wrote for A Doll House does not sit well with me. I hate that she is forced into the role of a mother as if that is the only thing she is. “Tomorrow, when they wake up and call for their mother, they will be - motherless.” Torvald is just manipulating her into staying, which is awful because it won’t make their situation any better, though it is a valid consideration and brings Nora back to reality. She can’t just up and leave her whole family on a whim, but she knows that. Her decision to leave had been coming for a long time, and she needed to go. While her children are her main priority, she also has to care for herself as well, and if that’s not being done then something does have to change. It also is empowering to see her be able to leave her family. It shows that women can be independent and think for themselves. It shows that women can be more than just a house-wife and a mother. Women can be their own individual people who have thoughts and actions of their own. I understand why people may not have liked the original ending, but I also don’t like that he would change it. I think that author’s have a lot of power in their writing, and their ability to make people feel something is what makes them good. I especially think that if an author writes something that ends in a way other than what is expected or wanted then it makes then even better. When a story ends happily, it is satisfying, but when it ends horribly it sticks with you.
ReplyDelete“There are many occasions in life where one must rely on the judgement of others.” This is a quotation from Pastor Manders that caught my attention. I thought it was very applicable to the situation that Ibsen found himself in with his writing. While he most definitely wanted to just write things that he liked and hope for others to like them, he knew that their judgement mattered. Ibsen had to adjust his writing to appeal to others so that he could make money and gain popularity. He was not in a position where he could just write for himself, and that would also take away a lot of the appeal of writing. Often writing is enjoyable because you can see how others will react to it, most importantly if they like it. This quotation was right after Pastor saying that he has “read enough about these writings to disapprove of them.” I thought this was also interesting as it could be calling out people who disapproved of Ibsen’s writing without having read enough of it. Had they read more then they may have realized exactly what he was trying to do, but instead they made quick judgements about his writing and stuck with that. I think that this play will be a very interesting read, especially after having read A Doll House.
ReplyDeleteI hated the alternate ending to A Doll House. The whole point of the play was for Nora to feel trapped in this weird abusive relationship and her wanting to leave, and as a reader, I'm glad she left. Her husband is manipulative and power hungry, treating Nora like his play thing. Her leaving him, despite what society thinks, is her taking her power back. In this new ending, he continues to control her, stripping away her power with his manipulation. When they bring up the children and he tells her that they will be motherless, obviously she gets upset, but what makes me so upset and angry was the fact that he says, "As you once were." Hes using her past trauma and her feelings of not having a mother against her, making her feel like the evil one who wants to leave her children. She doesn't want to leave her children, she's leaving the relationship that her husband if forcing on her. The ending where Nora leaves makes so much more sense and wraps up her character very well. She takes the loan without his permission, not caring his opinions on the situation. Locks herself in her room to make up to makeup the money, again, not caring about his needs on wanting to see his wife. Why now does she want to please him? Thats just not in character for her. Yes, the new ending is a "happy" one, but when you look at their relationship and what its built on, its not a happy one. She is now stuck in this abusive relationship and unhappy.
In Ghosts, I thought that the stage directions were very interesting. At first, I didn't think anything about stage directions, and sometimes skip over them, but when I saw that that was a question, thats all I seemed to notice while reading. Im used to the stage directions telling me where the actor is walking or what tone of voice they had, but these seemed different. They were kind of vague and often, mostly about small movements that were specifically added in to bring more meaning to what the character was saying. It left a lot of room for creativity in the person preforming. The scene opens up, and to me, they sound angry with each other. Regina talks bout how Engstrand is dripping in Devils rain, and how he should leave. As the scene goes on, they keep poking fun at each other. "Then never mind about marrying them. You can make it pay all the same. [More confidentially.] He—the Englishman—the man with the yacht—he came down with three hundred dollars, he did; and she wasn't a bit handsomer than you." because of the way they talk to each other, its hard to read the tone, but the stage directions help me to further understand the tone of the character and scene. I like how they are spastic and vague, but when the scene opens up, it goes into further detail about the way they are standing and positioned, to help the actors and readers to get an idea about what it looks like, then they can do what they want later on.
A Doll's House:
ReplyDeleteThe alternate ending for A Doll’s House goes against the whole idea of the play. As Nora grows out from under Torvald’s thumb, she is well on her way to taking the reins of her own life. She begins to rebel, to become her own woman, and to leave. Then, out of nowhere, she gives in and decides to stay. This is pretty much the same outcome as it always has been - Torvald gets what he wants, and Nora doesn't. The new ending is nowhere near as satisfying or impactful, and it is honestly very disappointing and frustrating comparatively.
Ghosts:
Ibsen does a good job of characterising each character fairly quickly, through the use of their dialogue and differing actions and reactions. A good example is with Pastor Manders. When he notices the books and comments on them, saying “I have read enough about these writings to disapprove of them...there are many occasions in life when one must rely upon others. Things are so ordered in this world; and it is well that they are. Otherwise, what would become of society”. The value he places on the opinion of the public is revealed in this simple line. He does not know what is in the books, yet disapproves of them simply because he thinks it is the most acceptable thing to do. Similarly, he declines getting insurance on the orphanage, despite saying that “I should certainly not see the smallest impropriety in guarding against all contingencies—”. He himself agrees that it should be insured, yet he decides that simply because a few people may question his faith in God if they insure the orphanage, it is better not to. The other character that Ibsen establishes so strongly throughout his first few dialogues is Jacob Engstrand. During a conversation between him and Regina, she says “What are you going to fool Pastor Manders into doing, this time?”, establishing him as a shady character, who is willing to manipulate a pastor. Of course, he adamantly denies this, but it is clear that he is not to be believed by the audience. His greedy and immoral nature continues to be established as he tells Regina, “If you knew how to play your cards, such a fine figure of a girl as you've grown in the last year or two—You'd soon get hold of some mate—or maybe even a captain”, caring not a bit for her desires, for love, or for any other sort of ethical or moral reason. All he cares for is the money, using his “daughter” as a pawn for gain.
This new ending makes sense with respect to how it matched society at that time. In the previous/original play Nora realizes that she has the ability to be independent and doesn’t need to rely on Helmer. This didn’t sit well with society at that time which viewed women as needy and would not be able to live on their own. It emphasized how one of women’s main purpose at that time was to take care of children - “Motherless! [Struggles with herself, lets her traveling bag fall, and says.] Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them.”.The ending kinda made me uncomfortable because it made me consider how there might be things occurring in our society that we have been conditioned to believe is right - like how society at that time believed women needed a male counterpart and could not live on their own. The new ending alters Ibsins message in the sense that women are not self suffice and have no need to find their mission and purpose - the exact opposite of what Ibsen intended. The stage directions for Ghosts set the mood for the play. The description of the outside environment, "Somber fjord landscape can be glimpsed, half-hidden by steady rain," creates a somber depressing mood.
ReplyDeleteI really like the beginning of this story. The characters seem very realistic and honest, yet they represent entire philosophies. For example, Manders, the priest, is very idealist in his sense of christianity. He believes anything but a traditional lifestyle with total fate in God is disgraceful. This is evident when he examines the books Mrs. Alving is reading and retorts, “Do you read this sort of literature?” He then goes on to refer to something none of them will speak of explicitly. Of this thing he exclaims, “Great heavens! Do you really believe that most people—?” I assume these books are about philosophy and different ideas, maybe that question or don't run parallel to the beliefs of Christianity. Given that Manders has devoted his entire life to maintaining the traditional, strict teachings of God, it is understandable why he finds this so upsetting. And I also understand why he would not want to read those books himself. It is scary to have your entrenched beliefs questioned, there is always a chance they will shatter completely. Mrs. Alving finds comfort in these books because they provide words for the sentiments she has already felt. She explains, “I feel, so to speak, more secure.” There is great security in realizing there is a party of people who have not only named your thoughts, but who subscribe to them as well. I found this with groups that shared ideas, “feminism”, and “anti-racism” to name a few of the very radical ones. My friend and I were talking about how these different systems or philosophies like “capitalism” or “socialism” or “communism” were made to spark conversations on these issues not be a blanket statement like “oh capitalism sucks.” We run into dangerous territory when we label an idea and then move on to avoid thinking about their nuances. These words are classifications of thought but they aren’t all-encompassing. Each of these ideas has many sub-ideas within it that we must examine. For example, the socialism Bernie proposes can't be written off as the same socialism as North Korea. Well, anyways, bringing it back to the book: each of these characters offer a look at a larger status marker, such as what wife and motherhood look like, but are also individuals with their own issues which can’t be ignored. I’m excited to keep reading.
ReplyDeleteThe alternate ending of A Doll House is so incredibly terrible that I don’t even see how it could be taken ironically. The whole point of the play is to explore the inevitable fault in Nora and Torvald’s relationship as well as Nora’s struggles as a woman, which is completely ruined when Nora’s awakening is suddenly looked over by Torvald implying that a child is unable to be happy without its mother. It has nothing to do with the play, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it took him three minutes to write.
ReplyDeleteNow, this seems very clear to a young, liberated teen of this generation, but I suppose back then it helped strengthen the importance of family tradition which made it much more tolerable compared to the family splitting apart. When looking at Ghosts, It is much more clear to an audience today that the conservative beliefs of those times affected people’s lives, particularly women. This idea was clear to many, as Mrs. Alving put it when she said “For that is the wonderful part of it, Pastor Minders--there is really nothing new in these books, nothing but what most people think and believe. Only most people either don't formulate it to themselves, or else keep quiet about it.” The most important thing she brings up is that many people have come to believe and understand the existential ideas in her books, but they do not share it or they willfully deny it because it goes against teachings and ideas that have been present for so long.
These are the types of ideas that Ibsen is portraying in his plays, and in A Doll House when Nora realizes she does not live in a society in which she will ever be able to live freely. When she leaves the house, she leaves the traditional way of thinking that Ibsen writes against, and the audience apparently could not handle the change. There is a natural tendency to like things the way they are because change is hard, and it involves people making sacrifices where they can’t always see the benefit. Nowday’s, the revised ending is terrible because we’ve changed as a society in how we think, but back then, these ideas were still under the covers.
The redone ending of A Doll’s House defeats the purpose of the whole play. The play empowers Nora, despite her being a woman, and shows the capabilities of women to do what they want. The play is meant to challenge viewers on the social norms of treatment of women and show them how women aren’t simply machines, but have feelings and needs that need to be honored just as any need or feeling men may have. The outrage is simply a sign of people not fully listening and thinking over the message the whole play is meant to communicate.
ReplyDeleteAs result, Henrik Ibsen produced Ghosts. In act 1 of Ghost, we follow the drama of Mrs. Alving unfolding as she tells the tale of her life to Pastor Mendes, who is horrified at both the events and the deception the house has been enshrouded in for the past 20 years. The whole play is meant to show the audience a reflection of their reactions, and highlight in an exaggerated manner the flaws in society they fight for. Ibsen does such through the character of Pastor Mendes, who is a reflection of the old ways. Like the audience’s negative reaction to A Doll’s House, Pastor Mendes has negative reactions to what society expects him to have negative reactions to, while not fully taking the time to learn about the matter and form an opinion of his own. Pastor Mendes, for example, is appalled of Mrs. Alvings choice in literature which propagates such ideas as existentialism. Yet he admits “that [he] ha[s] nothing better to do than to study such publications as these?” further saying that he has “read enough about these writings to disapprove of them.” The absurdity of his claim is apparent, admitting to never fully reading the text himself, but disapproving of them from the tidbits of information he has learned from others. He follows societies norms because it is the path of least resistance, and never takes a moment for himself to question the principals he follows.
He continues on to criticize Oswald’s view of poor men and women artists starting families without getting married first. Oswald points out the obvious objections to marriage- the fact that to “A poor young artist—a poor girl—marriage costs a great deal,” and that there are other necessities in life to be addressed with the little money they have before worrying over the ceremony and certificate of their marriage. He further argues that the prospect of a family shouldn’t be limited to those who can afford it, but to any who truly wish for it. In the end, it is Oswald who has had experience with these families, and not Pastor Mendes who only has heard of them. Despite this, Pastor Mandes remains rooted in his belief that family is meant for married individuals only, and ignores the logical arguments Oswald presents.
Pastor Mendes is a reflection of the audience who objected to A Doll’s House, and through the character of Mendes, Ibsen tries to show the audience the absurdity behind their reactions. That their reactions aren’t based in any logic or fact, but on old social beliefs that day-by-day are becoming outdated with the force of innovation. Ibsen tries to encourage his audience to think for themselves, research and learn the facts for themselves before passing judgement. The play is a challenge to his audience, 'think,' he’s saying, 'dare to be an individual. Don’t fall back on what society has to offer, for who’s to say it’s right to begin with. '
It's hard to see what is the right thing to do when you're cornered into a bad situation. Nora from A Doll's House faced what could be one of the hardest questions a human being can face in their lifetime: you or your children? That is what it is in the nitty gritty bottom line. But with context and making the situation more human, because we are humans and everything is complicated, it's a lot more gray than black or white. Nora was choosing to better herself to help herself and her children in the future. It's hard to judge people in these situations because most of us have never been in this situation. But who would turn out better? Nora's children raised without a mother would likely be a repeat of The Hours, with Laura Brown's son Richard resentful and obsessed with this lost image of a mother that never mothered. But staying results in an Oswald situation, completely bitter and cynical as your example of a happy, loving life and family is completely warped. Most people would probably argue that staying is the selfless thing to do, and I would probably stay if I were in the situation. But most people also want more for themselves than serving someone else's agenda, and that is why leaving might be the best sometimes. After all, leaving doesn't mean it's a never ever situation. And you have to hope those bridges can be mended. Especially when they realize that their father kept their mother from them because she wanted her own independence. But that's speculation, and a more modern ideal anyways since at this point in time everything is patriarchal and stupid.
ReplyDeleteAs for Ghosts in its concept, it's somewhat upsetting. The nurture vs. nature debate people have argued for years comes to mind. When someone comes from a not so wonderful background, or hope to disconnect from people of blood, it's hard when they might hear about similarities between their family and them. Especially in Oswald's case, I'm sure his mother would say it's cursed blood that he inherits from his father. You can see how distressing it is to Mrs. Alving, as when Pastor Manders mentions the similarity between father and son "MRS. ALVING. Oh, how can you say so? Oswald takes after me.
MANDERS. Yes, but there is an expression about the corners of the mouth—something about the lips—that reminds one exactly of Alving: at any rate, now that he is smoking." It makes your roots, your blood seem inescapable. This case for nature of nurture continues when you examine the relationship between Regina and Engstrand. They most definitely are not a normal father daughter pairing, and when it is reiterated that they are not actually related, it means that the nurture Engstrand had on Regina (how ever little worth it was) was practically nothing. She's nothing like him, "REGINA. I know what sailors are, I tell you. They're not the sort of people to marry.
ENGSTRAND. Then never mind about marrying them. You can make it pay all the same. [More confidentially.] He—the Englishman—the man with the yacht—he came down with three hundred dollars, he did; and she wasn't a bit handsomer than you.
REGINA. [Making for him.] Out you go!" as she refuses to be part of any of his schemes. Overall, in Ghosts at least, it is increasingly a nature that one can't escape, and blood seems to be thicker than water.
The new ending of A Doll’s House is awful. I don’t see how people could have seen the first ending, demanded it to be changed, and then been satisfied with the second ending. They know it is not supposed to end that way, that it wasn’t written that way, yet they feel all good and centered when the false ending comes out.
ReplyDeleteThe first act of Ghosts radiates the real ending of A Doll’s House, as it was meant to. Mrs. Alving attempted to leave her worthless husband, but the pastor convinced her to stay. Personally, I hate the pastor. I have very little patience with traditionalist people, which is why pastor Manders really rubs me the wrong way. He only cares about what other people think of him, which I find often corresponds with traditionalist people. Mrs.Alving, however, is a delight. I think she’s trying her best with her situation. She is really independent, which I admire. She knows she’s doing things that would displease the pastor, yet she tells him about it, like how she’s reading philosophical books and such. Although she seems to let the pastor do whatever he pleases, she doesn’t really fight him on things like the insurance and all, it’s because those things are trivial and she doesn’t care. She has run her life by pushing her dead husband as far as possible, by spending all his money on the orphanage, and making a life for herself. Hopefully, her son will see this. But having his father, even though he didn’t live with him his whole childhood, would definitely affect him in more than one way. Especially since, at the end of the act, we hear him try to grab the servant, just as his father did. But, Mrs. Alving, just hushes the pastor and walks in. That was awful. But she’s dealt with so much and is in a society where she can’t make any real change. I’m wondering if that’s all she really can do.
Going back to “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibnsen, the more I thought about the alternate ending, the more angry it made me feel. If I am an author writing for a publisher, I should have a say in how my books are written. It is fine for a publisher to offer advice and slight suggestions, but changing the whole meaning of a work is going too far. This is what happens in the end of “A Doll’s House.” Henrik Ibsen goes through constructing a plot, that would make his ending make sense. But because it goes against social norms, Ibsen has to switch it up. Are not the best books, the ones that challenge and question social norms?
ReplyDeleteI commend Ibsen for writing “Ghosts.” Ibsen had a message he wanted to convey in “A Doll’s House,” but that did not go through. But the message Ibsen had was so important to him, that he decided to write another play, just to get his point across.
As we shift to “Ghosts” by Henrik Ibsen, all I was trying to do was to see the similarities and differences between this and “A Doll’s House.” From the beginning, something seemed a little different. I am not sure, but something about “Ghosts” feels different when compared to “A Doll’s House.” Maybe Ibsen’s views changed as he got older.
Seeing the original ending you can see why so many people rejected it. Logically it would make a happy ending if the family stayed together. However seeing the circumstances in which Nora would be forced to stay in the family changes the situation. In the ending in which Nora leaves, it ends up being positive for Nora because she is able to look for a life she would be happy in. It still has the same ending where Nora has to choose between herself or her family but her decision is different. However seeing how Mrs. Alving is like in Ghosts it makes more sense that Nora left because we see how unhappy she would’ve been if she did.
ReplyDeletePastor Manders: When Oswald appeared there, in the doorway, with the pipe in his mouth, I could have sworn I saw his father, large as life.
When Pastor Manders says this when he sees Oswald is hints at the fact that Mr. Alving and Oswald may be more similar than not and not only by physical appearance. Of course, Mrs. Alving objects to this saying he takes after her but we see later by the way he acts with Regina, he is much like his father. In this way little “ghosts” through nature versus nurture are seen. Because despite Mrs. Alving’s best efforts to send her son away to boarding school to prevent him from becoming like his father, he still is very much like him.
The alternative ending to A Doll’s House is really horrible. The previous ending was much better and meant so much more to the audience. It showed a big theme of power for women and what it means to take control of yourself and your life. This alternative proves the complete opposite. Nora continues to stay in this relationship, basically forced to act like a mother even when her happiness is compromised for it. I feel it ruins the entire play altogether and I’m not sure how one could really like this ending. It defeats the purpose for this theme of the power of a woman and taking control into her own hands and I don’t like it very much at all.
ReplyDeleteAs for Ghosts, I feel the same while reading this play as I did reading “A Doll’s House”. Of course this is because Ibsen wrote both, but the characters represent the same things as well as show similar characteristics to each other in my opinion. I thought “A Doll’s House” was really serious, whereas I find Ghosts to be a little brighter - Mrs. Alving helps this and brings a lot of happiness into the play in my opinion. There wasn’t really a happy side to “A Doll’s House” except for the sarcastic lines that Torvald has - despite his seriousness. I think Mrs. Alving is a very flexible character and in this sort of play, I find it will help bring other characters out as well as her own. In this society I think she is trying her best to stay neutral and not have an effect on too many things, but maybe we will see that change. I am excited to keep reading Ghosts to hopefully learn more about the characters and its relations to “A Doll’s House” as well.
A Dolls House:
ReplyDeleteI really don’t like the other ending of A Doll’s House. I feel like the paly is about independence and breaking free from societal norms and away from an unhappy marriage. But this ending fails to see this break though, Nora is just about to break free from this life but with this alternate ending its a hit and a miss. The relationship between Nora and Torvald was very demanding on her part and it was laid on the basis of greed and temporary satisfaction. It never feels like there was true love between them. The alternate ending feels very disappointing.
Ghosts:
What do Mrs. Alving's comments about the books she is reading in Act I suggest about the society she lives in?
Mrs. Alving: Well, I seem to find an explanation and confirmation of all sorts of things I myself have been thinking. For that is the wonderful part of it, Pastor Minders--there is really nothing new in these books, nothing but what most people think and believe. Only most people either don't formulate it to themselves or else keep quiet about it.
Based on the quote above, Mrs. Alving feels that she lives in a suppressed society where specifically women are not to think for themselves. With Pastor Mander’s surprise at the quality of literature she is reading I think he feels a bit threaten. The ideal of the masculine power being in control is very heavy in this time period and so for Mrs. Alving to be educating her self and have the possibility of being smarter and more capable of him threatens him. Women paired with intelligence can remove any power a man once thought he had. And therefore when Mrs. ALving asks why can’t one come to form their own opinions rather than let others dictate how they should think, we can already see how she is pushing against the boundaries of thinking and expanding general thought.
The original ending of the play, “Dollhouse” shows Nora leaving her family because of the poor treatment she got from her husband. Henrik Ibsen was forced to write and alternative ending because his audience in his society didn’t accept a revolutionary ending. I personally did not like the alternate ending of the Dollhouse because I feel like it defeats the whole purpose of what Henrik Ibsen was trying to convey.
ReplyDeleteHow does the behavior of Regina Engstrand and Engstrand toward each other in act one show that Henrik Ibsen is challenging conventional expectations?
Regina and Engstrand are shown as father and daughter figures in act one yet they treat each other so poorly. They both disrespect each other and Engstrand continues to curse at her and only wants her to see or talk to her when she is serving his business needs and thats it. Engstrand also sometimes shows some affection not because he loves her but because he wants to use her for his needs and wants her to do what she was told.
How does Pastor Manders's treatment of Regina Engstrand change over the course of Act I?
At first Pastor notices Regina and acknowledges and appreciates her because she is respectful towards him. He becomes attracted to her and notices her appearance, but then later he realizes that she is only being nice because she wants something from him. Once he sees this he dismisses everything she keeps suggesting about the employment of the city and becomes very dismissive. He starts to speak to her as if she is his servant and he is her superior.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe alternate ending of A Doll's House seems forced and I prefer the original ending that Ibsen wrote. Even though it isn't the happy ending for the family that so many people would have wanted,it is a happy ending for Nora because she is finally doing something for herself without worrying about what her husband has to say about it. When Ibsen rewrote the story and made Nora stay with her family, it ruined the purpose of the whole story and sets a bad example for girls and women reading the book.
ReplyDeleteI think that Ghosts does a good job addressing the issues that came up in A Doll's House. For example, Nora and her father didn't have a great relationship, and we see right in the first scene that Regina doesn't have a good relationship with her father either. She is disrespectful of him because he mistreats her. Yet she has so much respect for the Pastor because she needs him and hopes to earn his respect. And, at first, the Pastor returns the respect and he appreciates Regina and her actions. But then he starts to realize that Regina is only nice to him because she wants something from him. This is when the pastor stops treating her with respect and treats her just like her father treats her. Another similarity I noticed between Ghosts and A doll's house is when Mrs. Alving admits to the pastor that she wants to leave her husband. But the pastor convinced her to stay. I thought this was interesting because the pastor has very traditionalist views, much like the people of Ibsen's time who were unsatisfied with the first ending of A Doll's house. And the pastor persuaded Mrs Alving into staying with her husband just like the people who persuaded Ibsen to rewrite the ending of A doll's house.
The parallels between “Ghosts” and “A Doll’s House” are clear right from the start of Act I. The original ending of “A Doll’s House” broke boundaries with Nora’s bold escape from her home in starting a new life for herself. This angered many as it defied traditional gender roles and challenged the status quo. In pleasing the masses, Ibsen released an alternative ending. Personally, I was not pleased by this ending. It feels like Ibsen settled to please others which seems contrary to the purpose of his work. It sends a message to society that it is okay to remain static and refuse discomfort in making change.
ReplyDelete“Ghosts” does the complete opposite from the secondary ending to “A Doll’s House.” Regina rejects her fathers begs to move to the city to help him, attempting to guilt her into his requests by using typical gender and age hierarchy. Despite his pleading, she stands strong in her allegiance to Mrs. Alving, maintaining her priorities in spite of what society says. Like Torvald, Mrs. Alving’s husband desperately begged her to stay when she wanted to seek freedom outside of her traditional gender role. When talking about this, I found it very striking to hear Pastor Manders speak about her right to happiness as if it was selfish of her to seek saying, “that is a sign of a rebellious spirit. To demand happiness from this earthy life. What right have we to happiness?” Like Regina’s father did to her, Pastor Manders guilts Mrs. Alving into her gender role using religion saying, “it was your duty to bear that cross which a higher power had seen fit to assign to you” (I think these quotes are from Act I but I’m not positive because I wrote them down when watching “Ghosts” (Judi Dench) Part 1 of 4 and Part 2 or 4. Either way I found them very striking). The bulk of the action in Act I seems unimportant but is an important introduction to the characters. We see Pastor Mander’s arrogance, Regina’s strength, Mrs. Alving’s fragile yet resilient manner, etc. Looking at the bigger picture, the overlaps between “Ghosts” and “A Dolls House” are quite clear and are critical in understanding Ibsen’s social commentary.