I believe the macaroons Nora buys symbolize a reward to herself for saving the money her husband gives her and not blowing it all on petty items. She is known for frivolous shopping, and even an old friend comments, “‘At school you used to be an awful spendthrift,’” (Isben 9). Nora is aware of her bad habit, and sees macaroons as a prize for being smart with her money.
I liked how you showed that the macaroons symbolized the freedom and treat that Nora rewards herself with for saving her money. It is true that she lives under oppressing conditions, so if the chance arose to treat herself, I'm not surprised she has. A question I would have to ask is if you think that Torvald is simply being a demanding husband, or he is trying to control how much Nora buys because she does buy excessively and they need to hold on their money?
I feel like Torvald comes off as demanding, but I think he honestly just wants to control Nora's money-handling problem since he finds it embarrassing to get a loan.
I found it interesting how Nora is characterized within the first act of A Doll's House. First, Nora is seen hiding a bag of macaroons she bought, from her husband Torvald, which initially suggested that he is very controlling of her. While he is, we also learned that Nora has a habit of spending a lot of money on "frivolous items." In fact, Torvald is well familiar with Nora's spending habits, and we see this when he questions her about why she appears guilty. As he questions her, he asks, "Didn't go nibbling a macaroon or two?" (Ibsen 5). Nora then goes on to lie, saying, "No Torvald! Honestly, you must believe me...!" (Pg. 5) Here, we are able to see that while Torvald wants to keep a control over his wife, which were in fact socionormal standards during the Victorian era, Nora seems to easily lie to her husband. Her spending habits are not sporadic, as Torvald knows exactly what she buys. Still, here we perceive Nora as innocent and we develop sympathy for her, especially when Torvald uses a condescending tone by calling Nora his "pretty little pet," "little songbird," and "little squirrel." This sympathy for Nora changes as the play goes on, and we see the true Nora come out during her conversation with Mrs.Linde. Nora first begins by saying she wants to hear about her guest's life, but then goes on to talk about hers. She then interjects and uses a condescending tone with Mrs.Linde, saying, " No, not just enough, but pots and pots of money." Nora then allows herself to let Mrs.Linde talk, but then asks her the question, "Tell me, is it really true that you didn't love your husband?" (Pg. 11) This is an incredibly rude and ignorant thing to say to a widow, who is still in the process of grieving. It also highlights Nora's family, who have three children, and "a lot of money." In actuality, the Helmer's do not have that much money, and are actually rather poor, but they throw their money around to disguise the fact that they are without much money. Nora goes from innocent and possibly likable, to petty and ignorant, along similar lines as Daisy from Great Gatsby.
I like how you point out the way that Nora rudely asks Kristine if she really didn't love her husband, especially since she has recently been widowed. In the text, however, Kristine says that it's true, that she didn't really love her husband, and that she only married him because he was rich enough to support her family when they needed it. Do you think that when Kristine said this, she was really only trying to hide her grief in front of Nora, or hide that she was offended by Nora asking her the question? And in Nora's case, what do you think of the possibility that she is only asking Kristine this question because she is unhappy within her own marriage and needs somebody to validate her own feelings of emptiness?
Regarding the idea that it is winter time at this time in the story, shows that there are many hardships. However it also represents a happy time due to Christmas and the holidays. Nora made a big deal about Ms. Linds making the trip during the winter, inferring that it is difficult to travel. Nora also made it clear that going south is what made her husband feel better. Going south usually means going into a warmer climate, so the warmer areas make people happier than the colder areas. On the other hand, they did make it sound like they had all the traditional things needed during christmas time such as a Christmas tree. This shows that they are happy and content with life at this given point. When analyzing the relationship between Nora and her husband, it all seems very superficial and sarcastic. Their relationship enhances the stereotype of the husband making all the money and then the wife spending it all. Nora seems very self absorbed and does not seem to care about what others think of her. It is unclear if she is deliberately being selfish or is just very naive and oblivious. She is not humble at all, especially when it comes to money. She did not restrain herself from telling Ms. Linds about her husband's new job and all the money they were going to get at all. It seemed as though she came off caring at first, asking Ms. Linds how she was doing, when really her main objective was just to talk about herself and how well her life is going. When telling her friend about the secret, it seemed that she had been waiting to tell someone for a long time and was proud of it, even though she most likely did something bad.
The first act of “A Doll’s House” gives the reader a first glance into Nora’s personality and relationship to introduce the oppressive lifestyle at the time. First of all, her husband, Torvald, sees her merely as a trophy or accessory in his life. He seems to believe that women exist to look pretty and manage the domestic life, which is seen in the way he constantly compares Nora to animals, saying things like “Is that my little squirrel frisking about?” (I.2) and “My pretty little pet is very sweet” (1.4). He demotes her to inhuman status to show how he views himself as the dominant role in the relationship and Nora shouldn’t have much say in anything. However, the audience also gets a glance into Nora’s character and finds that she may not be as innocent as her husband makes her seem. At one point, the audience sees Nora eating a bag of macaroons, and shortly after she lies to Torvald about them, promising she had never eaten any. Later in the play, when she is talking to Ms. Linde about her life, she reveals that she was the one who raised money to pay for her and her husband’s trip south that saved his life. Although she seems proud of getting the money on her own, she never actually says how she got the money in the first place, which foreshadows secrets leading to destruction later in the play. Right away Ibsen is able to portray a family that looks perfect and put together on the outside, but when examined closer may have many faults underneath.
While reading Henrik Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House, one detail that I thought was interesting about the dialogue is the way that Helmer continuously calls Nora by various animal names, such as “little sky-lark” and “little squirrel.” In most relationships today, such names would be perceived as strange or agitating, or perhaps both, but the way Helmer calls his wife by these names, and more importantly, the kinds of animals he calls his wife, shows that he is trying to show his authority as the man of the house. The first time he calls for Nora, he says, “Is that my little sky-lark chirruping out there?” (Act 1, Scene 1, Line 6). The second time he calls out to Nora is when he asks, “Is that my little squirrel frisking about?” (Act 1, Scene 1, Line 8). Ibsen uses metaphor to highlight what Helmer’s condescending names for his wife have to show about his personality because what both of these lines have in common is that Helmer emphasizes the use of the word “little,” showing that he feels that Nora is beneath him, and is merely in the marriage for his satisfaction. Another thing that these two animals have in common is that they both have qualities that are stereotypically associated with women, with the sky-lark being small and gentle, always singing its sweet song, or the squirrel, who is constantly running around and chatting. Both of these two qualities are offensive portrayals of women, emphasized even more when Helmer exclaims, after Nora claims that she doesn’t care what strangers think of her family, “Nora! Nora! Just like a woman! Seriously though, Nora, you know what I think about these things. No debts! Never borrow!” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act 1). By saying “just like a woman,” Helmer blames the parts of Nora’s personality that he dislikes on her gender because he believes that women are foolish and incapable of making good decisions. Following this comment, by saying “you know how I feel about such things,” he conveys the message that his opinion is superior to hers and that everything he says determines the way that their family runs their lifestyle.
In Act I we begin to see the different relationships Nora has with the people around her. From the beginning we can see she has a very unique relationship with Torvald. Mr. Helmer treats his wife as if she is a child and often compares her to animals. We also learn a lot about Nora during her conversation with Mrs. Linde. When away from her husband, Nora is a completely different character. Her controlling self acts as if Mrs. Linde needs her. Also, she is very rude and rubs it in the woman's face that she has no family. We can also see in this Act that Nora’s children are very important to her. I found the second half of the Act very interesting, specifically when we are introduced to Krogstad. I could tell from the beginning that Krogstad and Nora are very similar. They are both hiding something and we learn they are both guilty of forgery. Isben foreshadows that there will be some intense friction between this family when the truth of Nora’s secret comes out. We see this as Mr. Helmer discusses his hatred for Krogstad and his deceitful ways. Little does he know, his wife is no different than Krogstad. In addition I am very intrigued to find out what Nora is hiding. Clearly there is more to the story about why she must keep the money she raised a secret. There must be something more to be unveiled in the relationship between Nora and Krogstad. When, the reader and Mr. Helmer find out what it is, Krogstad, Nora, or the both of them are going to be in some deep trouble.
In Act I of A Doll’s House, Ibsen immediately thrusts the reader into a prime example of a relationship in the Victorian Era. His characterization of Nora, the way she is treated by her husband Torvald, and even some technical elements of the script itself are all used to accomplish this goal. In the first few pages, the marriage between Nora and Torvald becomes relatively clear-- a classic marriage where the man runs the household and provides for the family while the woman stays at home and does housework. This is apparent as Torvald works as a lawyer, a rather well-paying job. He treats Nora as if she were a pet, calling her his “skylark” and his “squirrel” (Act 1, pg 1-2). As she responds to Torvald, her speech often sounds like a child’s, making her seem naive. She even refers to her father as “Daddy,” as seen in the line “Oh, I only wish I’d inherited a few more of Daddy’s qualities” (Act 1, pg 5). The relationship between the two is also very evident during the exchange between the two on page 5, where Torvald seems to be toying with Nora over her trip to the confectioner’s for macaroons while Nora repeatedly denies these claims. Another interesting note about Ibsen’s work is the way he addresses the characters. In the script itself, he denotes Torvald’s lines by his last name, Helmer. He does the same to Mrs. Linde, but adds the title of mistress in front. This is due to her being a widow and not having a husband at that time. Nora, however, is not referred to by her last name-- she doesn’t even have the title of mistress. This shows how even though women did have more rights during the Victorian Era, they were still considered below men.
One thing I found interesting as we continued reading, was how Nora developed in terms of her characterization. As she continues to lie to those around her, people start to pick up on it. She is stuck in a very difficult position because she is the one who got the job for Ms. Linde but now she has to give the job back to Krogstad in order to prevent getting in trouble with the law. Gender roles during the Victorian Era is the main reason she would get in trouble with the law. It is illegal to take money without your husband's consent. This along with many other laws, demotes women's role in a relationship. This is why it seems that Nora is proud of what she did although it is clearly illegal. This was probably the first time she had felt independent, since she handled the relationship all on her own. I believe that most of her lying comes from her need to succumb into typical Victorian Era gender roles. Torvald does not want her teeth to rot, which is why he restrains her from eating macaroons. She has to lie about eating macaroons because her husband can not have an ugly wife. Also, in the pages I just read, she contradicted herself many times. Earlier in the act, she seemed overly grown up as she was trying to take care of every issue. However when her kids got home she seemed very childish as she just took off their clothes and threw it around. She also contradicted herself when talking to Krogstad. At first she was saying she couldn't help him because she had very little influence, but then later in that exact same conversation she was acting very dominant when threatening to kick him out of her house. Nora is a very complex character as she often contradicts herself.
I also have been intrigued by the symbol of macaroons Isben has used in this play so far. I agree that Torvald does not want his wife to eat macaroons because they could harm her teeth and he wants everyone to be impressed by his good looking wife. However, I also think the macaroons symbolize the dominance he has established over her. He often treats her like a child and when they are together she can not be herself. When away from her husband, Nora likes to be in charge by controlling the people around her.
In Act one of A Doll's House, Ibsen further characterizes the characters in the play, especially seen with Nora. She continues to talk down to Mrs.Linde, and also when she introduces her to Torvald, stating, "...she's come all this long way just to have a word with you." (Ibsen 20). This portrays Mrs.Linde as helpless, and also dependent on findings job. Nora is personified in this part because she is seen once again using condescending tone to fellow guests. It is clear that the image she wants of her family has to be perfect, so any way she can find to make sure that's the case, she will. Further along in the play, we begin to see a more sensitive part of Nora; though not necessarily good. Nora's interaction with her children showed a caring side to her, as she doesn't seem fazed by the clothes strewn on the floor as she plays hide and seek with them. However, after her meeting with Krogsrad, she appears to be impatient and no longer wants to play with her children. This shows that Nora finds joy in her children, but keeping her composure and image are equally if not more important to her. When Krogsrad visits, there is a certain tension in the air that is hard to place, but I began to feel as if Krogstad and Nora had had previous relations prior to the money problem. Krogstad's breakdown of Nora's fraud indicates that Nora has lied to several peopl, but she has been able to keep it a secret for some time. Nora begins to panic when Krogstad bribes her to help him keep his job in exchange for keeping her secret hidden fro Torvald. This shows that she is aware that she has messed up, and many things can go downhill for not only her, but the rest of her family if the secret was to be let out. Nora's attempts to calm herself are seen at the end of the play when she says to herself, "It's not true! It could never, never be true!" (34).
~I forgot to blog last time.. Sorry I don’t have good concrete thoughts, just lots of speculation.
Ibsen uses stage and acting directions to show Nora’s discomfort surrounding money. For example, when Torvald asks Nora what she would like for Christmas, she does not make eye contact and says it quickly when she asks for more money(p4). Furthermore, when Torvald questions Nora about macaroons, she moves away from him(p5). Later, the reader learns that Nora is uncomfortable because she secretly owes a sum to Krogstad, unknown to her husband. Beyond showing the possibility of strain in the Helmer marriage, Nora’s actions reveal some strength in the Helmer marriage. Each time Nora moves away or seems unsure, Torvald moves closer or directs more attention to her, showing that he cares and wants to support his wife despite his limited income and such.
When Nora is speaking with Dr. Rank, she says it is terribly amusing that Torvald has power over so many people and how so many are now dependent on Torvald(p19). Throughout the first act, the Helmers’ interactions with each other have hinted that the couple was not always as well off as they currently are, and they are still not comfortable with their income. It is almost as if Torvald was strictly controlled earlier in his life or used to have a personality that would have made this situation nearly impossible. Perhaps it is foreshadowing. It is also strange that Nora chuckles to herself about this, as that is an odd behavior and Victorians were particularly strict about such things. Before Nora laughs to herself, the stage directions note that she is lost in her thoughts. This could suggest she is not accustomed to entertaining because she has not been properly able to for much time.
While reading the play A Doll’s House, an aspect of the scene that caught my attention was the way Nora acted while she was playing with her children. When her children want to spend time with her, she immediately gives to them all of her attention, taking off their coats and throwing them around the room, offering to play hide-and-seek with them, and jumping out and scarring them once they reach her hiding spot, while getting the same thing done to her when she almost finds them. This heavily contrasts to the expectation in Victorian society that children were to keep away from their parents and be raised to act as little adults, becoming just as prude and prim as their parents. This shows even more that Nora defies the role expected of her, being a quiet, sweet-natured woman, who stays at home and does what she is told, because she has first been previously seen as a shrewd, cunning, manipulative business woman, who is more than willing to do some dirty work in order to achieve some personal gain, and now she is interacting with her children in such a manner that one could mistake her for being one of them. However, the bigger picture is that both of these moments of defying her established role is that she is able to control anybody who she comes into contact with, summed up in the interaction with her children when she calls them her “little dollies.” Despite being a seemingly harmless epithet for her children, this is actually very symbolic because Nora’s childlike behaviour and manipulation reveal that she is only a girl playing with her dolls, thus the name of the play “A doll’s house.” Ibsen metaphorically names the title of his play accordingly because the way Nora manipulates everybody to act exactly the way she wants them to is just like a girl playing with dolls, lifeless figures who act the way that their controller forces them to.
I also thought that the interaction between Nora and her children was interesting. Another thing I noticed was that the children never speak back to her, and instead Nora seems to have a conversation with them where she is the only one speaking. What do you think the significance of this is?
In the first act, I found it interesting that Nora would go through so much trouble, even break the law, in order to save her husband’s life. It is clear to the reader that Nora is one person when she is with Torvald, and another when away from him. When Torvald is out of the house, Nora finally gets the chance to be independent and take action in whatever she is doing. Torvald treats her like a child and their is a string of lies holding their relationship together. I believe the health of her husband was the last thing she was concerned about when she raised money to save him. It was necessary for her to save Torvald, in order to continue living with the wealth that comes with him. In regards to the kids, a death of their father at such a young age would be very difficult, and Nora would never have the same amount of time to spend with them. After we learn the truth about Nora’s secret, she immediately turns her attention to her kids. Isben exaggerates in showing her love for her kids as she excitedly asks them a series of questions about their days. I am intrigued to learn what will happen in the future to Torvald and Nora’s relationship. He has caught her lying to him twice. First when he saw her eating a macaroon and she insisted she did not, and second when he asked if she was was with Mr. Krogstad and she said she was not. Although, these are unimportant things she is lying about, he must realize that she would never tell him the truth about bigger issues. It will be interesting to see how he learns about her big secret and how it affects their relationship.
When Nora tells Mrs. Linde about how Torvald doesn’t like her to sew in the house, the recurring theme about gender roles resurfaces. Torvald doesn’t like her sewing because it represents work, and Torvald instead likes the idea of a beautiful, submissive woman who acts as a showpiece. When Mrs. Linde says that Nora is “her father’s daughter,” it suggests that Nora’s father regarded her similarly to the way Torvald does and instilled his beliefs upon here. Torvald’s beliefs about how his wife often imitate the way a child treats a doll; he is consistent thus far with his oppressive and harsh views. He continues to compare her to animals and use pet names such as “little bird,” “squirrel,” or “skylark,” and the reader can see that Nora also refers to herself as these animals. Although this can be seen as submissive and sad on Nora’s part, it actually is an act of manipulation. She almost seems like she wants Torvald to believe she is a perfect wife so that he doesn’t suspect anything else is going on. Nora’s interaction with Dr. Rank is another interesting part of the act. By flirting with him and showing him her stockings, it is as if she is just trying to persuade him to take her side in keeping Krogstad’s job at the bank. However, once Dr. Rank confesses his love for her, Nora’s motives change. She never asks her favor and instead shuts down and acts evasively. This shows that Nora’s character is more complex than the audience previously thought; she is manipulative but still feels remorse about taking advantage of people.
I totally agree with you about how Nora has become a more complex character with time. In the beginning, I thought she was just a gold digger. But after it was revealed that she used the money she saved to revive Torvald's health, my opinion on her drastically changed. Though, I still don’t completely trust Nora because of her manipulating ways, I like her a heck of a lot more than Torvald. I don’t know how Nora puts up with his constant controlling and dehumanizing.
There is a lot of symbolism buried in A Doll's House's stage directions, and some may miss it if they just treat it as simple description. Opening up to Act Two, the Christmas tree is described as "...stripped, bedraggled and with its candles burnt out," (Isben 35). Unlike nowadays, people back then only had their Christmas tree up for a couple days, so the tree's premature destruction must be a symbol. Leading into Act Two, we see Nora isn’t her usual chipper self, and is more distraught and anxious. The burnt out candles on the Christmas tree can relate to Nora’s mood change from bright and energetic to worn down. Another symbol hidden in the stage directions is when Dr. Rank comes over, and the mood shifts when the author explains, “During what follows it begins to grow dark,” (Isben 44). Darkness is a representation of evil or danger, and we all know bad things always happen in the dark. While Nora and Dr. Rank have an awkward flirt session, Nora shows off her stockings to him and even whips him with them. This is very scandalous for its time--think of it as waving your underwear or bra in your boyfriend or girlfriend’s face. As I read on, I expect to find more subtle symbols in the stage directions that foreshadow.
I really like your comment regarding symbols and stage directions. I definitely agree that the Christmas tree symbolizes Nora's emotional state throughout the play. I had not noticed the part where it says that the candles are burnt out. Light is also a recurring theme. For example when Dr. Frank tells Nora that he is in love with her, the nurse rushes in with light.
One interesting portion in Act 2 is when Ibsen writes: Oh yes, it was quite right what he said, Kristine. You see Torvald is so terribly in love with me that he says he wants me all to himself. When we were first married, it even used to make him sort of jealous if I only so much as mentioned any of my old friends from back home. So of course I stopped doing it. But I often talk to Dr. Rank about such things. He likes hearing about them. Nora speaks of Torvald's easily provoked jealousy proudly, as if she is the cause of harmless possessiveness. However, it seems as if Torvald and Nora are in an endless loop of trying to outsmart the other. For his part, Torvald acts possessive and it seems has trained Nora to act childlike if she expects to gain anything. In line with this, Nora acts the part of a simpleton who is madly in love with her husband. When the reader learns that Nora was able to illegally borrow such a large sum of money, the reader thinks that perhaps Nora is not as dumb as she plays. However, as the plot with Krogstad unfolds more, it seems clear that Nora has gone in over her head.
Another thought I had related to psychology with how if one acts happy, one will eventually become happy as a result of this. Though Nora longs so much to be considered more serious, she does not truly attempt to change her behavior, and is stuck with less maturity and being less capable of being considered an adult or functioning independently.
I really liked this quote too because it showed Nora and Torvald's relationship. Neither one seems to value the other as an equal, and their relationship does not seem to be the loving kind at all. On one hand is Torvald who uses condescending tone in reference to his own wife, while Nora only uses her husband to glorify her own life. A question I have for you is whether you think this relationship will change later on for the better?
I like how you pointed out that even though Nora is revealed to be more intelligent then when she is initially introduced, but that even though she knows what she is doing, she is still less mature than she should be, constantly acting like a child around the people around her. Why do you think Ibsen uses this juxtaposition when characterizing Nora? What effect do you think it has throughout the story?
I don't think that the relationship can just simply change for the better because that wouldn't pose the strongest message to the reader. I think Ibsen uses this juxtaposition to create internal conflict for Nora and make her more valued to the reader as a dynamic character who is not all she seems on the surface. This helps make the story more engaging and have more messages in it.
An interesting quote I found during act two was “When it comes to the point l, I've enough strength and enough courage, believe me, for whatever happens. You'll find I'm man to take everything on myself” (pg. 44). With in this quote, the pressure that husbands take upon themselves to be very manly is evident. He feels a lot of pressure from society to take care of everything on his own. A man's pride is something that is not to be shattered or taken advantage of during the Victorian era. When Nora discussed the issue of Krogstad getting his job back, Torvald gets very upset and starts to act childish. This is because in this era, a man would be looked at as a fool if his wife had any influence over him. Wives are more so property or in this instance “pets”. Torvald is so caught up in protecting his image that he begins to throw a childish fit when Nora tried to tell him to do something different. Men and women each had very distinct roles in this time period. Men were to take care of the workplace and money and women were to stay home and take care of household duties. It was frowned upon for either to try to make a decision or have an influence on a matter in the opposite subject. This quote presents irony as he states that he is man enough to take care of everything on his own. However, right before saying this he stomps his foot and acts ridiculously childish. This childish behavior comes from the fear of losing his dominant image in society.
I like how you talked about how men were almost forced into roles of dominance in the Victorian era. I think that even if Torvald isn't entirely sure what is going on with his wife, he isn't completely oblivious; he knows she tends to lie to him, but he still acts as though he were in charge. He seems to push everything "under the rug" rather than confront Nora about her lies, which also shows how he has a very childish nature.
A quote I found interesting in Act 2 came from Nora. Her and Torvald have just started talking, and Nora states, "Wonderful! But wasn't it also nice of me to let you have your way?" (Ibsen 40). Typically, the woman is supposed to be in constant submissiveness to their husband, as women were still seen as the lower power of a relationship. What Nora says contradicts just this, as she not only is standing up for herself, but also is calling Torvald's power into question. Not only is this brave, but it is extremely risky. In the Victorian era, going outside the norm is something that was strongly frowned upon. A woman needed to know her place, and things couldn't change because that would mean admitting that conservatism was being replaced by modernism. So, in this case, Nora is also using a condescending tone to her husband, which is extremely disrespectful during those times. Torvald might deserve this a little bit, considering how he calls her his little bird and squirrel. This quote helps establish Nora's character even further, but it also foreshadows to later events. Nora's lack of concern for others will come back to haunt her.
I agree that Nora and Torvald's relationship must be far different from those of other couples in this time period. It looks like a healthier relationship for our time period because both sides are having a say in family decisions. However, I too believe Nora’s inability to stay quiet and submit to the men, like women did in the Victorian Age, will get her in trouble later in the play. We can see that Nora may have already got herself in trouble with her secret with Krogstad and her inappropriate relationship with Dr. Rank.
While reading the second act of A Doll’s House, one part that I found interesting was the use of irony that Ibsen uses in the conversation between Nora and Doctor Rank. At this point in the story, Nora is merely flirting with Doctor Rank in an effort to get enough money out of him so that she can pay Krogstad everything that she owes him for the money she took to go to Italy for Torvald’s operation. During this scene, Rank reveals to Nora that he has been in love with her for the longest time, despite her being married to his best friend. This begins when Nora is showing him her flesh-coloured stockings, saying that he may look all the way up at them if he pleases, to which he replies, “And what other delights am I allowed to see?” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act 2), something that Nora responds to by exclaiming, “Shame on you! Not another thing. You are too naughty. Take that!” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act 2). When Nora cries, “take that,” she used the stockings to hit Doctor Rank. This section is written with irony because Nora is trying to get act flirtatiously with Rank to get money, going so far as to show her stockings to a man who isn’t her husband. While in today’s society, this wouldn’t be perceived as a big deal, the Victorian era condemned this kind of behaviour, deeming it vulgar and crude. However, in a turn of events, when Rank admits his love for Nora, she immediately stops and chides him for his thoughts, even though he has not acted on them. Unlike Nora, Doctor Rank has genuine feelings for Nora, with no ulterior motive, and only made an inappropriate joke verbally. Nora, however, was behaving hypocritically because she was openly behaving salaciously to get money, while her husband was in the next room, but immediately chided Rank, shaming him for his feelings, when it was really her doing that was more in the wrong. This section also adds to the characterization of Nora, and her childish antics, because just like a child, she condemns other people’s behaviour that she deems unacceptable, even if her own isn’t at its best. This portrays Nora once again in a light of manipulation, because she once again plays with other people’s emotions for her personal gain.
This was a really great analysis! However, she might have shown a bit of maturity because when Dr. Rank expressed his true feelings for Nora, I thought that she felt bad for wanting to ask him for money. She never got the money so there was no personal gain for Nora. When she got mad at Dr Rank, she might have been conflicted because she desperately needed the money but didn't want to use Dr Rank because he loved her and she didn’t. She may have been in a moral dilemma, which can characterise her as lost or confused.
This was very well said, Sarvesh! I agree on a lot of what you said, except I do agree more with Sakina about how Nora felt pity for Dr. Rank after he expressed his love for her. Instead of using his feeling for her own gain, she suddenly changes her mind, and tells him he can't do anything for her now and she doesn't need help. I saw this as an act of guilt more so than manipulation.
One quote from Act two that interested me was when Nora said this: referring to Dr. Rank, “He’s got something seriously wrong with him, you know. Tuberculosis of the spine, poor fellow. His father was a horrible man, who used to have mistresses and things like that. That’s why the son was always ailing, right from being a child” (Isben 37). With scientific advancements, we have the knowledge to know Syphilis is not genetic. However, the people that lived in the Victorian Age may not have been aware of this. Based on what Nora says, we know they were aware that STD’s such as syphilis were sexually transmitted. We know this because Nora blames Rank’s father for sleeping around with mistresses. It is interesting that Nora does not even consider the possibility that Rank could have contracted the disease himself. In addition, it becomes clear in this Act that Nora and Rank have a strange relationship that is being held secret from Torvald. Perhaps, Nora has slept with Rank in the past and she is in denial because she realizes she may have the disease as well. Clearly in this quote, Nora is defending Rank. After noticing this early in the act, I was able to make predictions about their unique relationship that may come about at the end of the act. Isben is using foreshadowing in order to have the reader make these predictions and better understand the relationship between Nora and Dr. Rank.
I agree with what you said about Dr. Rank's syphilis. The fact that Nora believes Dr. Rank contradicted the STD from his father's own bad decisions shows how childish she can be. However, you could be right that they may not have known about that back then.
I like your speculation on Nora having an affair with Dr. Rank. Do you think this goes in line with her acting without considering consequences like with the bank loan or is it more mature that she be concerned of having it herself in this way?
In the middle of Act II, one interesting quote I found was: “When you are gone, you are soon forgotten” (Act II, pg 46). This quote stood out to me due to it’s striking nature and subject. Spoken by Dr. Rank as he discusses his ailment with Nora, it has some parallels with real life. The Victorian era society was pretty cutthroat in economic terms-- the poor were still incredibly poor and the rich still stayed rich. Even with the introduction of the middle class, there was still very little economic mobility within a generation. This meant that families would usually be more focused on the future than the past, letting old friends go faster. Literarily, this quote is also quite significant. Mourning was normally a very important part of Victorian society. In this quote, however, Dr. Rank suggests that he won’t be remembered for long. This generally goes against the cultural norm, tying into one of the play’s themes-- appearing to abide by the norms of the era without actually doing so. This quote also lies in the middle of Dr. Rank’s outburst about his “tuberculosis of the spine,” while Nora just plays along. A final note is how Nora reacts to Rank. Her stage directions say: “[looking at him anxiously]. Do you think so?” (Act II, pg 46). Her anxious reaction to Rank’s statement could be because of the loan she took from Krogstad. The story suggests that this incident happened long ago, yet Krogstad still remembers and is more than willing to take advantage of it. Nora, in her naivety, cannot understand why he’d do such a thing.
At the beginning of Act 2, the Christmas tree is mentioned again in the stage directions, and it emerges as an important symbol in the play. Not only does its raggedy appearance show that time has passed, but it also symbolizes the downward spiral of Nora’s life as the play progresses. Nora gives off a sense of panic and fear at this point in the play after just finding out that her lies are soon going to catch up to her. The worn out and droopy Christmas tree mirrors her internal emotions as Nora is starting to become increasingly irrational and angry. When the nurse tells her not to go outside in the cold, Nora replies with “Oh, worse things might happen,” (35) showing how the stress of keeping her secret has consumed her entirely. She won’t even play with her children anymore, and tells the nurse, “Yes, Anne Marie, from now on I can’t be with them as often as I was before” (36). Back in Act 1, Torvald stated that the reason for children growing up to be wild and unruly is because of their mothers. It seems in this act like Nora has taken this to heart and she truly believes that mothers can corrupt their children. Her distancing herself from her children foreshadows that she may leave them entirely in the future. Also during act 2, one thing I noticed is that Torvald and Nora’s relationship continues to appear more and more forced and appears to be unraveling. Torvald still speaks to her as if she were his pet, saying things like “If a little squirrel were to ask ever so nicely…?” (41) and “And the pretty little sky-lark would sing all day long…” (41). When Nora replies, she speaks in third person and talks about herself as if she were an animal as well, saying, “Please, and only if you would let it have its way, and do what it wants, it’d scamper about and do all sorts of marvelous tricks” (41). Nora seems to talk herself down in this way to try and persuade Torvald into doing what she wants. Giving him a false sense of power makes him feel like he is in control, when in reality Nora is trying to benefit from the situation most. This back-and-forth between the couple, with both of them trying to be in control of one, feels very unnatural and does not describe an ideal marriage; instead, it seems almost like a performance. Torvald’s refusal to listen to Nora about firing Korgstad only makes Nora more nervous as she is one step closer to her secret being revealed. She becomes trapped in more and more lies as the act progresses, and the audience can’t help but wonder when the whole thing is going to collapse beneath her.
This was really well said! I agree with a lot about what you said, especially the foreshadowing of Nora fleeing from her family and the false sense of power Nora gives Torvald. I feel like Nora likes to play an act of being a submissive child, but she's actually quite tricky and knows more than we think.
A quote which I found interesting in Act 2, was when Helmer says, “Doesn’t make any difference!…You call my motives petty; so I must be petty too. Petty! Indeed! Well, we’ll put a stop to that, once and for all. [He opens the hall door and calls.] Helene!” (Act 2.43) in response to Nora expressing her opinion. This paints Torvald to be very egoistical and hypocritical. Torvald repeatedly calls or thinks of Nora as simple minded and foolish, as evident when he calls her a spendthrift or repeatedly uses animal or bird imagery to address her. When Nora thought his actual motif for firing Krogstad was petty, Torvald took it very personally. Torvald is also hypocritical because until he revealed his true motif for wanting to fire Krogstad (Krogstad didn't respect him enough), he blamed it on Krogstad’s morals. Until this point, I thought of Torvald to be a person of high morals, but he is just pretending. This does fit in with the behaviour of the Victorian society where appearance means everything. This quote also shows how little Torvald actually cares about Nora and their lack of communication. In the quote, Torvald seems to be more annoyed at being called petty and wants to teach Nora a lesson, rather than genuinely wanting to fire Krogstad. It seems like a hasty decision due to anger at his pride being hurt. He disregards Nora’s pleas and he never questions why Nora may be acting in such an extreme manner.
In Act 3 of his play “A Doll’s House”, Henrik Ibsen extensively answers the question of if a character can be saved.
In the second act, Krogstad told Nora of how he would tell her husband that she owed him money to blackmail Helmer into giving Krogstad a career. Nora threatens to kill herself, and Krogstad responds, “You can’t frighten me, either. People don’t do that sort of thing, Mrs. Helmer. There wouldn’t be any point to it, anyway, I’d still have him in my pocket”(54). Nora asks if this would still work if she died, and Krogstad’s response is so vengeful and cold, it seems Krogstad could never be changed and is on a trajectory of manipulating people for personal gain. Krogstad responds, “Aren’t you forgetting that your reputation would then be entirely in my hands? Well, I’ve warned you. Don’t do anything silly. When Helmer gets my letter, I expect to hear from him. And don’t forget: it’s him who is forcing me off the straight and narrow again, your own husband! That’s something I’ll never forgive him for. Goodbye, Mrs. Helmer”(54). Ibsen uses foreboding diction, such as “warned”, “don’t forget”, “forcing”, and “never forgive”, to show the black and white mindset Krogstad is in out of desperation. Krogstad desperately wants to be something, and he will even go off “the straight and narrow”. It seems he is as desperate as Nora. Krogstad sees the Helmers as the sole cause of his trouble and will stop at nothing to reciprocate what he sees as treatment meant for someone expendable. Furthermore, when Krogstad and Nora talk, Krogstad’s lines are equal in length or greater than Nora’s. This reflects the imbalance in their relationship. Of course, it is not romantic, but their relationship is filled with mistrust. In the third act, Mrs. Linde convinces Krogstad to join her. Ibsen writes their lines to be similar length. The difference in line length represents the change in Krogstad to becoming more relatable as a character striving for improvement. Previously, Krogstad was more imbalance. When Krogstad and Mrs. Linde are talking about the future they could have together, Krogstad says, “Oh, if only I could undo what I’ve done!”(65). In admitting wrongdoing, Krogstad demonstrates how he has changed and will dedicate his life to becoming respectable, yet not at any price. It also shows how he will improve not just his respectability but also his character, as in that line he uses only first person pronouns rather than focusing on the errors or choices of others.
I really like how you brought in a major theme of the play into this blog post, because I feel like this theme especially was evident in act 3. Krogstad changed completely within a matter of hours, and even though it's hard to tell if this was due to Mrs.Linde or just events altogether, Krogstad changed as a character in that he went from cold and vengeful, to sensitive and guilty of his past. His desire to erase his mistakes shows that he has grown as a character in the play.
I like how you connected the maxim to the play and Krogstad's very dynamic character. My group also thought that the fact that his character change occurred so quickly was strange. At first we believed he might just be putting on an act, like so many other characters in the play do. However, I agree with you that he truly does undergo a character change. Do you think that by the end of the play he will stick to his word or go against this?
I think that Mrs. Linde will keep Krogstad on track. From the start, readers know she is determined and worked hard to get her brothers up in the world. She is willing to work together with Krogstad but I don't think she would be an enabler to him doing bad or immoral things by supporting him financially.
In Act 3 of A Doll's House, my group discussed the characterization and plot twist of Mrs.Linde and Krogstad. Previously, there were hints that the two characters had had a past history, but we as readers were unsure what that history entailed. Now, we know that they were romantically involved, but they drifted apart over the years. Mrs.Linde and Krogstad both agree to come back together as a couple, both equally excited. I liked how this showed the independence that Mrs.Linde has, that Nora failed to recognize. Previously she came across as feeble and dependent, but now she is seen making her own decisions for her own benefit, without having to worry about others. Krogstad was seen also in the beginning to be a cast-off character. He was initially seen as bad, but now we see him as a sensitive man who is overjoyed at reuniting with the love of his life. These two characters balance eachother out, and bring out the better qualities in both. Also something to mention, is the fact that Mrs.Linde appears to be done with trying to help Nora and Helmed, saying, "When you've sold yourself once for other people's sake, you don't do it again." (Ibsen 65). Not only does this show that Mrs.Linde is standing up for herself, but it also foreshadows that in the future, there might be a situation in which Nora will need Mrs.Linde's help, but Mrs.Linde will not offer this up.
Our group predicted a relationship between Krogstad and Ms. Linde as well. I like how you said that she is acting much more independent now. I was very happy for her when I found out that her and Krogstad were getting back together. Ms. Linde always seemed like a depressed character, ever since she talked about her husband taking her kids away. Dr. Rank also asked her if she was sick since she was acting so down. I think getting in this relationship with Krogstad will be a turning point in her relationship, in a positive way.
I like how you pointed out that the interaction between Kristine and Krogstad shows that the latter is actually a deeply sensitive man, who was only showed off cruelty because of his broken heart. You have already stated that Krogstad's true personality helps to balance out Kristine, but how do you think this new revelation of his Krogstad's personality affects the other characters in the play, or do you think that it does so at all? Do you think that this scene is the best characterization development that the reader has seen of Krogstad?
Very well said. I think the comparison of Linde and Krogstad versus Helmer and Nora is a prime example of Ibsen's goal of shining a light on something and allowing his audience to take it how they will.
At the beginning of act 3 we are able to see how these characters deal with difficult situations. When we find out that Krogstad and Ms. Linde had a relationship, the whole situation can relate to romantic relationships in modern day. Ms. Linde stated that she loved Krogstad but marrying Mr. Linde would be better for her children and family. However she regrets marrying Mr. Linde because she was truly in love with Krogstad, and wishes she would have followed her heart instead. There are often love triangles like this in modern day. Women marry the man that they think will be better for them or the man their parents and friends think is better for them. In reality, they should marry the man they have a bigger connection with, and ignore their outside influences in order to not regret their decision in the future. In this act, we also see another side of Torvald. He always seemed to be a dictator but in this act we see that he just loves her very much. He shows his love by giving her money her money after she returns gifts. However after the party he returns to the possessive person we saw earlier in the play by treating her like property when attempting to seduce her.
So far the development of Mrs. Linde’s character has caught my attention in Act 3. Although I am only about half way through the act, it is clear that Ibsen is trying to tell the reader something about Mrs. Linde. With all the bad people surrounding her doing bad things, she is a great person. In fact, she is focused on fixing everyone else's problems rather than worrying about herself. We see this when it looks as if Nora is giving up on her life and Kristine urges her to come clean to her husband. Nora is hesitant at first, but then understands this is the best thing to do. The trust Nora has in Kristine’s recommendations shows that Kristine is well trusted with her friends. Also, her friends understand they are important to her and she wants to help them. I predict Kristine will play a big role in the resolution of this plot, because so far she seems like the lone character that understands how to fix a problem. In addition, she is the only character unselfish enough to care about the well being of others before herself. It may seem that Torvald is unselfish when he tells Nora not to eat macaroons, but he is still putting himself before her. Yes, he prioritizes her physical appearance, but only so that she is attractive to him and she can make him look good in public.
In Act 3 of the play, I started to notice Nora’s definition of freedom changing. At the beginning, she emphasized that to her, freedom meant getting rid of her debt and living the same life she currently was. However, in act 3, her view is very different. As the play progresses, we see Nora’s role evolving; she starts out as a meek, submissive wife looking to keep her husband out of trouble and gradually becomes a strong-willed, independent woman. At the beginning of the play, Nora says, “ Oh yes, Torvald, surely we can afford to be just a little bit extravagant now, can’t we? Just a teeny-weeny bit. You are getting quite a good salary now, and you are going to earn lots and lots of money” (I.2). Nora’s language at the beginning of the play and the way she acts around her husband gives the reader the sense that she is obedient and almost childish. The way she compares herself to an animal when talking to her husband makes her seem unintelligent and submissive. However, as the play progresses, it becomes clear that Nora is actually very intelligent; she isn’t so much letting her husband walk all over her as she is giving him a false sense of power to gain something for herself. At the end of act 3, Nora says to Torvald, “When you had gotten over your fright—and you weren’t concerned about me but only about what might happen to you—and when all danger was past, you acted as though nothing had happened. I was your little sky-lark again, your little doll, exactly as before; except you would have to protect it twice as carefully as before, now that it had shown itself to be so weak and fragile” (III.85). Nora again uses animal imagery, but she is no longer talking about herself. Instead, she is criticizing Torvald for the first time by finally standing up to him and the way he had treated her. As the play comes to a close, the audience finally sees Nora’s new definition of freedom emerge. She no longer wants to merely please Torvald or keep their family name intact. Instead, she longs for a life where she feels in control and independent. And in the end, she finally gets what she wanted all along—the chance to be a strong woman in a time when women were supposed to be weak.
During a group reading of Henry Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, one interesting aspect of the story that was discussed by our group was the interaction between Kristine and Krogstad. In this meeting, the romantic past between these two characters is revealed, after being hinted at throughout the play, and the reader finally gets a deeper insight into these two characters. Despite the obvious love that still exists between these two characters, our group discussed the possibility that Kristine finds an added benefit in her meeting Krogstad because it allows her to get revenge on Nora. The beginning of this theory begins when Kristine assures Nora that she will speak to Krogstad to take the letter back, but following this, she encourages Nora to tell Torvald about her borrowing the money for his operation. Of course Nora refuses, and Kristine advises against any further lying. However, after her interaction with her former love, who tells her that he will demand the letter back, Kristine immediately replies, “No, Nils, don’t ask for it back…Helmer must know everything. This unhappy secret must come out. Those two have the whole thing between them. All the secrecy and deception, it just can’t go on” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act 3). This quote shows a direct defiance on Kristine’s part of Nora’s orders, and yet she still carries it out. Our group believed that although Kristine was just trying to look out for Nora and try to help, she was also getting revenge because she was angry with the way Nora flaunted her marriage and family upon their first meeting, immediately after Kristine was widowed, in addition to Kristine’s marriage having been an unhappy one. This is reason enough to believe that Kristine was jealous of Nora, seeing her have everything that she strove for, but never got, and even still seeing Nora manipulate everyone around her for her own benefit while having everything, makes Kristine angry because her friend is continuously taking advantage of the things she has, while she is reduced to nothing. Therefore, in her envy, she wants Nora’s secret to be spilled to make Nora finally appreciate what she has and also wants to get back at her for emphasizing her own loss by immediately boasting about her (seemingly) ideal life. In this scene alone, Ibsen gives the most depth to the characterization of Kristine than in any other part of the play.
In the end of Act 2 and the beginning of Act 3, the Tarantella dance acts as a symbol for Nora’s frantic and wild state of being, and her freedom. Nora uses the dance as an outlet for the overwhelming amount of emotion and frustration she if feeling towards the debt situation with Krogstad. The tarantella is a dance which is supposed to be danced at a fast tempo. It is a frenzied dance with quick light steps. When Torvald tries to control Nora’s dancing by saying, “Not so wild,Nora!” (Act 2.58) and when he orders Rank to stop playing by saying, “Stop,Rank! This is sheer madness. Stop,I say.”(Act 2.54). Torvald treats Nora like a puppet who he is the master of and has the right to control however he wishes. It characterises their relation to be of a teacher and student or father and daughter, rather than partners. It is interesting when Mrs.Linde says, “Hush! The tarantella! You must go!” (Act 3.65), it is almost as though she refers to an actual spider, creating a secretive and scary mood. By saying “the tarantella”, it can also be a person she considers to be quick or virulent. She might think of Nora this way because she is small therefore faster, and she doesn't approve of Nora’s secret from Torvald, making her virulent. Torvald completely objectifies Nora in the line, [removing Nora’s shawl]. “Well take a good look at her. I think I can say she’s worth looking at. Isn’t she lovely, Mrs Linde?” (Act 3.67). He treats her a like a play doll he dressed up and is proud of his work. Nora does not belong to him, neither is she his creation but Torvald thinks differently. Before talking about her skills, he focuses on her physical attractiveness which shows what Torvald appreciated most in Nora. Lastly when Torvald said, “She dances her tarantella, there’s wild applause-which was well deserved, although the performance itself was rather realistic…I mean, rather more so than was strictly necessary from the artistic point of view.” (Act 3.67) stood out most to me. This is because he compliments Nora but ended with making it all about himself. He didn't like her performance all too much because he thought it was “rather realistic” meaning that she was too wild, he wanted more order and control in the dance. When he said “more so than was strictly necessary from the artistic point of view”, it was hypocritical coming from him because he calls himself an artist but he didn't perform the dance when its a dance done with two partners. He critiqued all the points he didn't like in Nora’s performance even though he had no right to as he wasn't the one performing. It characterises him as cowardly because he can only remove faults in others but not find enough courage to do something himself.
It is interesting that throughout the entire ordeal at the close of act three, Helmer maintains that he took perfect care of Nora. Furthermore, he continues his bird comparisons throughout.
After Helmer read Krogstad's letter, he is furious with Nora. Helmer says that, “… it's all the fault of a feather-brained woman!”(76). Helmer uses this comparison to express that Nora is dumb in nature, and although it is in her nature, it is very peeving to have to deal with someone that naive. Later, Helmer says that he has Nora, “… to thank for this… and when I've taken such good care of you, all our married life. Now do you understand what you have done to me?”(76). Helmer is extremely condescending in his fury because he is blind to Nora's intelligence. As he has trained her to act silly for him, he has convinced himself that she is truly silly and nothing more. Thus, Helmer speaks to her as if she is an ungrateful child who doesn't know the extent of their damage. Helmer's image of Nora is in clear contrast to her simple, comprehending answers. Her responses here, compared to the first act, show how she is a dynamic character.
Just as it seems Helmer has finished excoriating Nora, Krogstad returns the IOU. Helmer speaks extensively on how he will protect Nora in the future. Ibsen writes, “Here I shall hold you like a hunted dove I have rescued unscathed from the cruel talons of the hawk, and calm your poor beating heart. And that will come, gradually, believe me… …That is how you will seem to me after today, helpless perplexed little thing you are. Don't worry your pretty little head about anything, Nora”(78). Ibsen uses bird imagery and vulnerable diction to emphasize Helmer's lack of change in comparison to Nora. It is ironic that Helmer describes Nora as hunted and saved by him, as he thought of himself before her when he learned of the IOU. It is also ironic given how he treated Nora. Ibsen's use of bird imagery emphasizes how Helmer is unchanged because throughout the play, he has referred to Nora as a little bird. However, the metaphor strikes true when Nora decides to leave him because birds, for the most part, fly, and flight is freedom. The use of vulnerable diction is iconic given the Victorian era, as Helmer was supposed to be the strong head of the house, and Nora a weak woman. However, the opposite is true, as Nora undertakes the difficult burden of a large loan, and Helmer is left begging for her to stay with him at the end of the play.
Great analysis, Simone! I agree with all the points you bring up. The bird imagery being used throughout the play can also serve as a foreshadow to hint at the maxim and the ending. A question I had while reading was that what is reflected about Torvald's personality by the lack of his change? Do you think Ibsen portraying Torvald as a flat character is to enhance Nora’s change or is there any other motif behind it?
In Act 3 of A Doll’s house, a quote which I found interesting during Nora and Torvald’s argument was when he said:
Helmer. There is some truth in what you say, exaggerated and hysterical thought it is. But from now on it will be different. Play-time is over; now comes time for lessons.
This quote creates dramatic irony because Torvald clearly disregards Nora again, so it cannot be any different in the future because he hasn't changed. He continues to treat her like a child when he says that “play-time is over; now comes time for lessons.”, Torvald doesn't seem to understand that a relationship is built on partnership where both the individuals are equal rather than one being superior. Even though this wasn't the norm back then, Torvald calls Nora his child because he forgave her and how helpless she is, this is unhealthy because Nora is also an adult. When Nora states her opinion about the whole situation, Helmer calls it “exaggerated and hysterical” rather than just accepting her viewpoint too. This characterises him as childish and narrow-minded. However, by saying that play-time is over, Torvald does accept that he did indeed treat Nora like his toy. He is aware but he doesn't understand what the problem is. As Nora said, Torvald and her simply cannot understand each other and Torvald proves her right in this quote. I also think that Torvald cannot teach Nora anything because he, himself has a lot to learn.
I like how you pointed out that despite everything they've been through, Torvald is still treating Nora like a child, and that he even admits that he treated her like nothing more than a doll. Considering that the way Nora also manipulated everyone else around her throughout the play, even calling her children her "little dollies," do you think that this made Nora and Torvald's marriage a failure from the start? Do you think that both of them acting like this isn't good because they both act the same way, and have nobody else to balance each other out? Do you think that if Nora had stayed in the marriage, even after expressing her desire to leave and Torvald begging her not to, do you think that their marriage could have been better now that all of their secrets were out in the open?
Yes I really like this quote. Helmer has always been very sarcastic and has exaggerated on many things. He often doesn't take her seriously which relates back to calling her a songbird and squirrel. Especially towards the end of the play, there is a lot of drmatic irony evident as Helmer gets mad at Nora for acting in a way that he acts all the time.
While reading Act III of Henry Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, something interesting that caught my attention was the stage directions for Nora, after Torvald discovers Krogstad’s letter in the mail. When he first reads the letter, he storms out of his office and grabs Nora, as she struggles to get free. Torvald follows this with a speech, where he continuously demeans Nora, demanding an explanation for her actions, crying, “Do you understand what you have done? Answer me! Do you understand?” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act III). Despite the numerous times Torvald demeans Nora throughout the play, this is the first time that the audience sees him doing so out of pure anger, explaining why his previous condescending epithets for her were things usually considered pleasant, like songbirds, but here the reader sees him calling her a “miserable woman.” Until this point, Nora still continues to act the way she is expected, claiming that she only forged the signature for the money out of love for him, but when Torvald locks the door and demands that she explain herself immediately, a change is seen in Nora’s character, which is expressed through her stage directions, as described when Ibsen writes that Nora, “Looks fixedly at him, her face hardening” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act III). This is the first time in the play that Nora actually does something that shows some disdain towards her husband, despite all of his wrongdoings towards her. As Helmer continues to complain about how his reputation will be ruined, the directions continue to say, “Nora remains silent and looks fixedly at him” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act III). This sudden negativity that Nora has towards her husband foreshadows that something very bad is soon to impact their marriage, which is expressed after Torvald calls her a “feather-brained woman”, in which Nora replies, “When I’ve left this world behind, you will be free” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act III), followed by Torvald asking her again if she understands what she has done to him, which Nora responds “coldly and calmly” to. Despite being seemingly small gestures, when the doorbell rings, Torvald immediately demands that Nora run and hide herself away, but as he goes to answer the door, Nora remains standing in her place. This direct act of defiance symbolizes that she no longer is willing to be treated badly by her husband and that she is beginning to openly stand up for herself. This foreshadowing is all accounted for by the end of the play, when Nora decides to leave Torvald forever, despite his protests, saying that she needs to find herself. The ending shows that Nora can no longer take all of the lies that have occurred in their marriage, and that now she is no longer going to take any abuse from Torvald or anybody else ever again.
In act three, Nora became very scandalous. It was very scandalous for a woman in the victorian era to show such strong emotion. It is also very unlike women to take such a stand and fight for what they want, especially against their husband. A major turning point for Nora was when she stated “Never have I felt so calm and collected as I do tonight” (Ibsen, 83). This shows that Nora has officially changed and has made her decision that she no longer loves Torvald. Regarding her decision to leave Torvald and her children, there are many different opinions on whether this was the right decision. Some think this was very selfish of her while others think that this was a very good move for her as she is now independent of her husband. In my opinion, leaving her children is like adoption. It is a very difficult thing to do, but if she knows that she is not suited to be a mother, than it is for her children's’ own good to be without her. In some way, she is sacrificing herself for her children’s happiness but also for Torvald. She may have left because she knows that if Torvald found about the scandal, then everyone would be in a lot of trouble. One more thing I found interesting, was the shall that she was wearing. While Nora and Helmer are talking on page 76, he tells her to take her shall off. Later on page 85 she puts her shall back on as she is finally leaving. The shall represents her independence as she finally gains complete control of her independence when putting the shall on and saying her final goodbye to Helmer.
Something I found interesting in Act 3 was the overall event that led to Nora leaving Torvald. Initially, Torvald appeared to show off his wife, claiming that she is "extraordinarily lovely..." (67). He led her around the room at the dance so that more applause would follow. However, once Torvald later opens the letter from Krogstad, he turns on his wife completely. It is almost like the eight years of marriage they had before them no longer exists to him. He calls her a "miserable woman," and dramatically claims that she has ruined his life. This part of Torvald is slightly surprising to see, because we thought Torvald would have been more defending of Nora, considering how much Nora claims he loves her. We soon learn that that is false. Torvald might care about Nora, but he treasures his appearance more. (This is in line with societal norms of the Victorian era.) Torvald then changes when he sees another letter saying their IOU has been sent back to them. He "forgives her" and advises her to ignore what he had said about her previously. Torvald's actions support Nora's decision in leaving. Not only was her husband confusing her with these mood swings, his actions clearly showed that he didn't love her as much as she thought.
In Act Three, Nora’s character does a complete one-eighty. In the past acts, Nora was seen as naive, childish, and submissive to most of Torvald’s commands. Her only known act of defiance was eating macaroons behind Torvald’s back. Nora grew up lacking her own opinions and admits to Torvald, “At home, Daddy used to tell me what he thought, then I thought the same. And if I thought differently, I kept quiet about it, because he wouldn’t have liked it,” (Isben 80). In this time, women were thought to be only good for baring children and looking pretty, so for one to have her own opinion was outrageous. However, Nora disagrees with this social norm, and tells Torvald, “I believe that first and foremost I am an individual, just as much as you are—or at least I’m going to try to be,” (Isben 82). Nora ends up leaving Torvald and her children to find herself and “discover who is right, society or me,” (Isben 83). The ending of this play makes the reader ponder about their own morals whether they stand with with Nora, or Torvald and the children.
I believe the macaroons Nora buys symbolize a reward to herself for saving the money her husband gives her and not blowing it all on petty items. She is known for frivolous shopping, and even an old friend comments, “‘At school you used to be an awful spendthrift,’” (Isben 9). Nora is aware of her bad habit, and sees macaroons as a prize for being smart with her money.
ReplyDeleteI liked how you showed that the macaroons symbolized the freedom and treat that Nora rewards herself with for saving her money. It is true that she lives under oppressing conditions, so if the chance arose to treat herself, I'm not surprised she has. A question I would have to ask is if you think that Torvald is simply being a demanding husband, or he is trying to control how much Nora buys because she does buy excessively and they need to hold on their money?
DeleteI feel like Torvald comes off as demanding, but I think he honestly just wants to control Nora's money-handling problem since he finds it embarrassing to get a loan.
DeleteI found it interesting how Nora is characterized within the first act of A Doll's House. First, Nora is seen hiding a bag of macaroons she bought, from her husband Torvald, which initially suggested that he is very controlling of her. While he is, we also learned that Nora has a habit of spending a lot of money on "frivolous items." In fact, Torvald is well familiar with Nora's spending habits, and we see this when he questions her about why she appears guilty. As he questions her, he asks, "Didn't go nibbling a macaroon or two?" (Ibsen 5). Nora then goes on to lie, saying, "No Torvald! Honestly, you must believe me...!" (Pg. 5) Here, we are able to see that while Torvald wants to keep a control over his wife, which were in fact socionormal standards during the Victorian era, Nora seems to easily lie to her husband. Her spending habits are not sporadic, as Torvald knows exactly what she buys. Still, here we perceive Nora as innocent and we develop sympathy for her, especially when Torvald uses a condescending tone by calling Nora his "pretty little pet," "little songbird," and "little squirrel." This sympathy for Nora changes as the play goes on, and we see the true Nora come out during her conversation with Mrs.Linde. Nora first begins by saying she wants to hear about her guest's life, but then goes on to talk about hers. She then interjects and uses a condescending tone with Mrs.Linde, saying, " No, not just enough, but pots and pots of money." Nora then allows herself to let Mrs.Linde talk, but then asks her the question, "Tell me, is it really true that you didn't love your husband?" (Pg. 11) This is an incredibly rude and ignorant thing to say to a widow, who is still in the process of grieving. It also highlights Nora's family, who have three children, and "a lot of money." In actuality, the Helmer's do not have that much money, and are actually rather poor, but they throw their money around to disguise the fact that they are without much money. Nora goes from innocent and possibly likable, to petty and ignorant, along similar lines as Daisy from Great Gatsby.
ReplyDeleteI like how you point out the way that Nora rudely asks Kristine if she really didn't love her husband, especially since she has recently been widowed. In the text, however, Kristine says that it's true, that she didn't really love her husband, and that she only married him because he was rich enough to support her family when they needed it. Do you think that when Kristine said this, she was really only trying to hide her grief in front of Nora, or hide that she was offended by Nora asking her the question? And in Nora's case, what do you think of the possibility that she is only asking Kristine this question because she is unhappy within her own marriage and needs somebody to validate her own feelings of emptiness?
DeleteRegarding the idea that it is winter time at this time in the story, shows that there are many hardships. However it also represents a happy time due to Christmas and the holidays. Nora made a big deal about Ms. Linds making the trip during the winter, inferring that it is difficult to travel. Nora also made it clear that going south is what made her husband feel better. Going south usually means going into a warmer climate, so the warmer areas make people happier than the colder areas. On the other hand, they did make it sound like they had all the traditional things needed during christmas time such as a Christmas tree. This shows that they are happy and content with life at this given point. When analyzing the relationship between Nora and her husband, it all seems very superficial and sarcastic. Their relationship enhances the stereotype of the husband making all the money and then the wife spending it all. Nora seems very self absorbed and does not seem to care about what others think of her. It is unclear if she is deliberately being selfish or is just very naive and oblivious. She is not humble at all, especially when it comes to money. She did not restrain herself from telling Ms. Linds about her husband's new job and all the money they were going to get at all. It seemed as though she came off caring at first, asking Ms. Linds how she was doing, when really her main objective was just to talk about herself and how well her life is going. When telling her friend about the secret, it seemed that she had been waiting to tell someone for a long time and was proud of it, even though she most likely did something bad.
ReplyDeleteThe first act of “A Doll’s House” gives the reader a first glance into Nora’s personality and relationship to introduce the oppressive lifestyle at the time. First of all, her husband, Torvald, sees her merely as a trophy or accessory in his life. He seems to believe that women exist to look pretty and manage the domestic life, which is seen in the way he constantly compares Nora to animals, saying things like “Is that my little squirrel frisking about?” (I.2) and “My pretty little pet is very sweet” (1.4). He demotes her to inhuman status to show how he views himself as the dominant role in the relationship and Nora shouldn’t have much say in anything. However, the audience also gets a glance into Nora’s character and finds that she may not be as innocent as her husband makes her seem. At one point, the audience sees Nora eating a bag of macaroons, and shortly after she lies to Torvald about them, promising she had never eaten any. Later in the play, when she is talking to Ms. Linde about her life, she reveals that she was the one who raised money to pay for her and her husband’s trip south that saved his life. Although she seems proud of getting the money on her own, she never actually says how she got the money in the first place, which foreshadows secrets leading to destruction later in the play. Right away Ibsen is able to portray a family that looks perfect and put together on the outside, but when examined closer may have many faults underneath.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Henrik Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House, one detail that I thought was interesting about the dialogue is the way that Helmer continuously calls Nora by various animal names, such as “little sky-lark” and “little squirrel.” In most relationships today, such names would be perceived as strange or agitating, or perhaps both, but the way Helmer calls his wife by these names, and more importantly, the kinds of animals he calls his wife, shows that he is trying to show his authority as the man of the house. The first time he calls for Nora, he says, “Is that my little sky-lark chirruping out there?” (Act 1, Scene 1, Line 6). The second time he calls out to Nora is when he asks, “Is that my little squirrel frisking about?” (Act 1, Scene 1, Line 8). Ibsen uses metaphor to highlight what Helmer’s condescending names for his wife have to show about his personality because what both of these lines have in common is that Helmer emphasizes the use of the word “little,” showing that he feels that Nora is beneath him, and is merely in the marriage for his satisfaction. Another thing that these two animals have in common is that they both have qualities that are stereotypically associated with women, with the sky-lark being small and gentle, always singing its sweet song, or the squirrel, who is constantly running around and chatting. Both of these two qualities are offensive portrayals of women, emphasized even more when Helmer exclaims, after Nora claims that she doesn’t care what strangers think of her family, “Nora! Nora! Just like a woman! Seriously though, Nora, you know what I think about these things. No debts! Never borrow!” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act 1). By saying “just like a woman,” Helmer blames the parts of Nora’s personality that he dislikes on her gender because he believes that women are foolish and incapable of making good decisions. Following this comment, by saying “you know how I feel about such things,” he conveys the message that his opinion is superior to hers and that everything he says determines the way that their family runs their lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteIn Act I we begin to see the different relationships Nora has with the people around her. From the beginning we can see she has a very unique relationship with Torvald. Mr. Helmer treats his wife as if she is a child and often compares her to animals. We also learn a lot about Nora during her conversation with Mrs. Linde. When away from her husband, Nora is a completely different character. Her controlling self acts as if Mrs. Linde needs her. Also, she is very rude and rubs it in the woman's face that she has no family. We can also see in this Act that Nora’s children are very important to her. I found the second half of the Act very interesting, specifically when we are introduced to Krogstad. I could tell from the beginning that Krogstad and Nora are very similar. They are both hiding something and we learn they are both guilty of forgery. Isben foreshadows that there will be some intense friction between this family when the truth of Nora’s secret comes out. We see this as Mr. Helmer discusses his hatred for Krogstad and his deceitful ways. Little does he know, his wife is no different than Krogstad. In addition I am very intrigued to find out what Nora is hiding. Clearly there is more to the story about why she must keep the money she raised a secret. There must be something more to be unveiled in the relationship between Nora and Krogstad. When, the reader and Mr. Helmer find out what it is, Krogstad, Nora, or the both of them are going to be in some deep trouble.
ReplyDeleteIn Act I of A Doll’s House, Ibsen immediately thrusts the reader into a prime example of a relationship in the Victorian Era. His characterization of Nora, the way she is treated by her husband Torvald, and even some technical elements of the script itself are all used to accomplish this goal. In the first few pages, the marriage between Nora and Torvald becomes relatively clear-- a classic marriage where the man runs the household and provides for the family while the woman stays at home and does housework. This is apparent as Torvald works as a lawyer, a rather well-paying job. He treats Nora as if she were a pet, calling her his “skylark” and his “squirrel” (Act 1, pg 1-2). As she responds to Torvald, her speech often sounds like a child’s, making her seem naive. She even refers to her father as “Daddy,” as seen in the line “Oh, I only wish I’d inherited a few more of Daddy’s qualities” (Act 1, pg 5). The relationship between the two is also very evident during the exchange between the two on page 5, where Torvald seems to be toying with Nora over her trip to the confectioner’s for macaroons while Nora repeatedly denies these claims. Another interesting note about Ibsen’s work is the way he addresses the characters. In the script itself, he denotes Torvald’s lines by his last name, Helmer. He does the same to Mrs. Linde, but adds the title of mistress in front. This is due to her being a widow and not having a husband at that time. Nora, however, is not referred to by her last name-- she doesn’t even have the title of mistress. This shows how even though women did have more rights during the Victorian Era, they were still considered below men.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found interesting as we continued reading, was how Nora developed in terms of her characterization. As she continues to lie to those around her, people start to pick up on it. She is stuck in a very difficult position because she is the one who got the job for Ms. Linde but now she has to give the job back to Krogstad in order to prevent getting in trouble with the law. Gender roles during the Victorian Era is the main reason she would get in trouble with the law. It is illegal to take money without your husband's consent. This along with many other laws, demotes women's role in a relationship. This is why it seems that Nora is proud of what she did although it is clearly illegal. This was probably the first time she had felt independent, since she handled the relationship all on her own. I believe that most of her lying comes from her need to succumb into typical Victorian Era gender roles. Torvald does not want her teeth to rot, which is why he restrains her from eating macaroons. She has to lie about eating macaroons because her husband can not have an ugly wife. Also, in the pages I just read, she contradicted herself many times. Earlier in the act, she seemed overly grown up as she was trying to take care of every issue. However when her kids got home she seemed very childish as she just took off their clothes and threw it around. She also contradicted herself when talking to Krogstad. At first she was saying she couldn't help him because she had very little influence, but then later in that exact same conversation she was acting very dominant when threatening to kick him out of her house. Nora is a very complex character as she often contradicts herself.
ReplyDeleteI also have been intrigued by the symbol of macaroons Isben has used in this play so far. I agree that Torvald does not want his wife to eat macaroons because they could harm her teeth and he wants everyone to be impressed by his good looking wife. However, I also think the macaroons symbolize the dominance he has established over her. He often treats her like a child and when they are together she can not be herself. When away from her husband, Nora likes to be in charge by controlling the people around her.
DeleteIn Act one of A Doll's House, Ibsen further characterizes the characters in the play, especially seen with Nora. She continues to talk down to Mrs.Linde, and also when she introduces her to Torvald, stating, "...she's come all this long way just to have a word with you." (Ibsen 20). This portrays Mrs.Linde as helpless, and also dependent on findings job. Nora is personified in this part because she is seen once again using condescending tone to fellow guests. It is clear that the image she wants of her family has to be perfect, so any way she can find to make sure that's the case, she will. Further along in the play, we begin to see a more sensitive part of Nora; though not necessarily good. Nora's interaction with her children showed a caring side to her, as she doesn't seem fazed by the clothes strewn on the floor as she plays hide and seek with them. However, after her meeting with Krogsrad, she appears to be impatient and no longer wants to play with her children. This shows that Nora finds joy in her children, but keeping her composure and image are equally if not more important to her. When Krogsrad visits, there is a certain tension in the air that is hard to place, but I began to feel as if Krogstad and Nora had had previous relations prior to the money problem. Krogstad's breakdown of Nora's fraud indicates that Nora has lied to several peopl, but she has been able to keep it a secret for some time. Nora begins to panic when Krogstad bribes her to help him keep his job in exchange for keeping her secret hidden fro Torvald. This shows that she is aware that she has messed up, and many things can go downhill for not only her, but the rest of her family if the secret was to be let out. Nora's attempts to calm herself are seen at the end of the play when she says to herself, "It's not true! It could never, never be true!" (34).
ReplyDelete~I forgot to blog last time.. Sorry I don’t have good concrete thoughts, just lots of speculation.
ReplyDeleteIbsen uses stage and acting directions to show Nora’s discomfort surrounding money. For example, when Torvald asks Nora what she would like for Christmas, she does not make eye contact and says it quickly when she asks for more money(p4). Furthermore, when Torvald questions Nora about macaroons, she moves away from him(p5). Later, the reader learns that Nora is uncomfortable because she secretly owes a sum to Krogstad, unknown to her husband. Beyond showing the possibility of strain in the Helmer marriage, Nora’s actions reveal some strength in the Helmer marriage. Each time Nora moves away or seems unsure, Torvald moves closer or directs more attention to her, showing that he cares and wants to support his wife despite his limited income and such.
When Nora is speaking with Dr. Rank, she says it is terribly amusing that Torvald has power over so many people and how so many are now dependent on Torvald(p19). Throughout the first act, the Helmers’ interactions with each other have hinted that the couple was not always as well off as they currently are, and they are still not comfortable with their income. It is almost as if Torvald was strictly controlled earlier in his life or used to have a personality that would have made this situation nearly impossible. Perhaps it is foreshadowing. It is also strange that Nora chuckles to herself about this, as that is an odd behavior and Victorians were particularly strict about such things. Before Nora laughs to herself, the stage directions note that she is lost in her thoughts. This could suggest she is not accustomed to entertaining because she has not been properly able to for much time.
While reading the play A Doll’s House, an aspect of the scene that caught my attention was the way Nora acted while she was playing with her children. When her children want to spend time with her, she immediately gives to them all of her attention, taking off their coats and throwing them around the room, offering to play hide-and-seek with them, and jumping out and scarring them once they reach her hiding spot, while getting the same thing done to her when she almost finds them. This heavily contrasts to the expectation in Victorian society that children were to keep away from their parents and be raised to act as little adults, becoming just as prude and prim as their parents. This shows even more that Nora defies the role expected of her, being a quiet, sweet-natured woman, who stays at home and does what she is told, because she has first been previously seen as a shrewd, cunning, manipulative business woman, who is more than willing to do some dirty work in order to achieve some personal gain, and now she is interacting with her children in such a manner that one could mistake her for being one of them. However, the bigger picture is that both of these moments of defying her established role is that she is able to control anybody who she comes into contact with, summed up in the interaction with her children when she calls them her “little dollies.” Despite being a seemingly harmless epithet for her children, this is actually very symbolic because Nora’s childlike behaviour and manipulation reveal that she is only a girl playing with her dolls, thus the name of the play “A doll’s house.” Ibsen metaphorically names the title of his play accordingly because the way Nora manipulates everybody to act exactly the way she wants them to is just like a girl playing with dolls, lifeless figures who act the way that their controller forces them to.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that the interaction between Nora and her children was interesting. Another thing I noticed was that the children never speak back to her, and instead Nora seems to have a conversation with them where she is the only one speaking. What do you think the significance of this is?
DeleteIn the first act, I found it interesting that Nora would go through so much trouble, even break the law, in order to save her husband’s life. It is clear to the reader that Nora is one person when she is with Torvald, and another when away from him. When Torvald is out of the house, Nora finally gets the chance to be independent and take action in whatever she is doing. Torvald treats her like a child and their is a string of lies holding their relationship together. I believe the health of her husband was the last thing she was concerned about when she raised money to save him. It was necessary for her to save Torvald, in order to continue living with the wealth that comes with him. In regards to the kids, a death of their father at such a young age would be very difficult, and Nora would never have the same amount of time to spend with them. After we learn the truth about Nora’s secret, she immediately turns her attention to her kids. Isben exaggerates in showing her love for her kids as she excitedly asks them a series of questions about their days. I am intrigued to learn what will happen in the future to Torvald and Nora’s relationship. He has caught her lying to him twice. First when he saw her eating a macaroon and she insisted she did not, and second when he asked if she was was with Mr. Krogstad and she said she was not. Although, these are unimportant things she is lying about, he must realize that she would never tell him the truth about bigger issues. It will be interesting to see how he learns about her big secret and how it affects their relationship.
ReplyDeleteWhen Nora tells Mrs. Linde about how Torvald doesn’t like her to sew in the house, the recurring theme about gender roles resurfaces. Torvald doesn’t like her sewing because it represents work, and Torvald instead likes the idea of a beautiful, submissive woman who acts as a showpiece. When Mrs. Linde says that Nora is “her father’s daughter,” it suggests that Nora’s father regarded her similarly to the way Torvald does and instilled his beliefs upon here. Torvald’s beliefs about how his wife often imitate the way a child treats a doll; he is consistent thus far with his oppressive and harsh views. He continues to compare her to animals and use pet names such as “little bird,” “squirrel,” or “skylark,” and the reader can see that Nora also refers to herself as these animals. Although this can be seen as submissive and sad on Nora’s part, it actually is an act of manipulation. She almost seems like she wants Torvald to believe she is a perfect wife so that he doesn’t suspect anything else is going on.
ReplyDeleteNora’s interaction with Dr. Rank is another interesting part of the act. By flirting with him and showing him her stockings, it is as if she is just trying to persuade him to take her side in keeping Krogstad’s job at the bank. However, once Dr. Rank confesses his love for her, Nora’s motives change. She never asks her favor and instead shuts down and acts evasively. This shows that Nora’s character is more complex than the audience previously thought; she is manipulative but still feels remorse about taking advantage of people.
I totally agree with you about how Nora has become a more complex character with time. In the beginning, I thought she was just a gold digger. But after it was revealed that she used the money she saved to revive Torvald's health, my opinion on her drastically changed. Though, I still don’t completely trust Nora because of her manipulating ways, I like her a heck of a lot more than Torvald. I don’t know how Nora puts up with his constant controlling and dehumanizing.
DeleteThere is a lot of symbolism buried in A Doll's House's stage directions, and some may miss it if they just treat it as simple description. Opening up to Act Two, the Christmas tree is described as "...stripped, bedraggled and with its candles burnt out," (Isben 35). Unlike nowadays, people back then only had their Christmas tree up for a couple days, so the tree's premature destruction must be a symbol. Leading into Act Two, we see Nora isn’t her usual chipper self, and is more distraught and anxious. The burnt out candles on the Christmas tree can relate to Nora’s mood change from bright and energetic to worn down.
ReplyDeleteAnother symbol hidden in the stage directions is when Dr. Rank comes over, and the mood shifts when the author explains, “During what follows it begins to grow dark,” (Isben 44). Darkness is a representation of evil or danger, and we all know bad things always happen in the dark. While Nora and Dr. Rank have an awkward flirt session, Nora shows off her stockings to him and even whips him with them. This is very scandalous for its time--think of it as waving your underwear or bra in your boyfriend or girlfriend’s face.
As I read on, I expect to find more subtle symbols in the stage directions that foreshadow.
DeleteI really like your comment regarding symbols and stage directions. I definitely agree that the Christmas tree symbolizes Nora's emotional state throughout the play. I had not noticed the part where it says that the candles are burnt out. Light is also a recurring theme. For example when Dr. Frank tells Nora that he is in love with her, the nurse rushes in with light.
One interesting portion in Act 2 is when Ibsen writes:
ReplyDeleteOh yes, it was quite right what he said, Kristine. You see Torvald is so terribly in love with me that he says he wants me all to himself. When we were first married, it even used to make him sort of jealous if I only so much as mentioned any of my old friends from back home. So of course I stopped doing it. But I often talk to Dr. Rank about such things. He likes hearing about them.
Nora speaks of Torvald's easily provoked jealousy proudly, as if she is the cause of harmless possessiveness. However, it seems as if Torvald and Nora are in an endless loop of trying to outsmart the other. For his part, Torvald acts possessive and it seems has trained Nora to act childlike if she expects to gain anything. In line with this, Nora acts the part of a simpleton who is madly in love with her husband. When the reader learns that Nora was able to illegally borrow such a large sum of money, the reader thinks that perhaps Nora is not as dumb as she plays. However, as the plot with Krogstad unfolds more, it seems clear that Nora has gone in over her head.
Another thought I had related to psychology with how if one acts happy, one will eventually become happy as a result of this. Though Nora longs so much to be considered more serious, she does not truly attempt to change her behavior, and is stuck with less maturity and being less capable of being considered an adult or functioning independently.
I really liked this quote too because it showed Nora and Torvald's relationship. Neither one seems to value the other as an equal, and their relationship does not seem to be the loving kind at all. On one hand is Torvald who uses condescending tone in reference to his own wife, while Nora only uses her husband to glorify her own life.
DeleteA question I have for you is whether you think this relationship will change later on for the better?
I like how you pointed out that even though Nora is revealed to be more intelligent then when she is initially introduced, but that even though she knows what she is doing, she is still less mature than she should be, constantly acting like a child around the people around her. Why do you think Ibsen uses this juxtaposition when characterizing Nora? What effect do you think it has throughout the story?
DeleteI don't think that the relationship can just simply change for the better because that wouldn't pose the strongest message to the reader.
DeleteI think Ibsen uses this juxtaposition to create internal conflict for Nora and make her more valued to the reader as a dynamic character who is not all she seems on the surface. This helps make the story more engaging and have more messages in it.
forgot to note p38.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAn interesting quote I found during act two was “When it comes to the point l, I've enough strength and enough courage, believe me, for whatever happens. You'll find I'm man to take everything on myself” (pg. 44). With in this quote, the pressure that husbands take upon themselves to be very manly is evident. He feels a lot of pressure from society to take care of everything on his own. A man's pride is something that is not to be shattered or taken advantage of during the Victorian era. When Nora discussed the issue of Krogstad getting his job back, Torvald gets very upset and starts to act childish. This is because in this era, a man would be looked at as a fool if his wife had any influence over him. Wives are more so property or in this instance “pets”. Torvald is so caught up in protecting his image that he begins to throw a childish fit when Nora tried to tell him to do something different. Men and women each had very distinct roles in this time period. Men were to take care of the workplace and money and women were to stay home and take care of household duties. It was frowned upon for either to try to make a decision or have an influence on a matter in the opposite subject. This quote presents irony as he states that he is man enough to take care of everything on his own. However, right before saying this he stomps his foot and acts ridiculously childish. This childish behavior comes from the fear of losing his dominant image in society.
I like how you talked about how men were almost forced into roles of dominance in the Victorian era. I think that even if Torvald isn't entirely sure what is going on with his wife, he isn't completely oblivious; he knows she tends to lie to him, but he still acts as though he were in charge. He seems to push everything "under the rug" rather than confront Nora about her lies, which also shows how he has a very childish nature.
DeleteA quote I found interesting in Act 2 came from Nora. Her and Torvald have just started talking, and Nora states, "Wonderful! But wasn't it also nice of me to let you have your way?" (Ibsen 40). Typically, the woman is supposed to be in constant submissiveness to their husband, as women were still seen as the lower power of a relationship. What Nora says contradicts just this, as she not only is standing up for herself, but also is calling Torvald's power into question. Not only is this brave, but it is extremely risky. In the Victorian era, going outside the norm is something that was strongly frowned upon. A woman needed to know her place, and things couldn't change because that would mean admitting that conservatism was being replaced by modernism. So, in this case, Nora is also using a condescending tone to her husband, which is extremely disrespectful during those times. Torvald might deserve this a little bit, considering how he calls her his little bird and squirrel. This quote helps establish Nora's character even further, but it also foreshadows to later events. Nora's lack of concern for others will come back to haunt her.
ReplyDelete
DeleteI agree that Nora and Torvald's relationship must be far different from those of other couples in this time period. It looks like a healthier relationship for our time period because both sides are having a say in family decisions. However, I too believe Nora’s inability to stay quiet and submit to the men, like women did in the Victorian Age, will get her in trouble later in the play. We can see that Nora may have already got herself in trouble with her secret with Krogstad and her inappropriate relationship with Dr. Rank.
While reading the second act of A Doll’s House, one part that I found interesting was the use of irony that Ibsen uses in the conversation between Nora and Doctor Rank. At this point in the story, Nora is merely flirting with Doctor Rank in an effort to get enough money out of him so that she can pay Krogstad everything that she owes him for the money she took to go to Italy for Torvald’s operation. During this scene, Rank reveals to Nora that he has been in love with her for the longest time, despite her being married to his best friend. This begins when Nora is showing him her flesh-coloured stockings, saying that he may look all the way up at them if he pleases, to which he replies, “And what other delights am I allowed to see?” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act 2), something that Nora responds to by exclaiming, “Shame on you! Not another thing. You are too naughty. Take that!” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act 2). When Nora cries, “take that,” she used the stockings to hit Doctor Rank. This section is written with irony because Nora is trying to get act flirtatiously with Rank to get money, going so far as to show her stockings to a man who isn’t her husband. While in today’s society, this wouldn’t be perceived as a big deal, the Victorian era condemned this kind of behaviour, deeming it vulgar and crude. However, in a turn of events, when Rank admits his love for Nora, she immediately stops and chides him for his thoughts, even though he has not acted on them. Unlike Nora, Doctor Rank has genuine feelings for Nora, with no ulterior motive, and only made an inappropriate joke verbally. Nora, however, was behaving hypocritically because she was openly behaving salaciously to get money, while her husband was in the next room, but immediately chided Rank, shaming him for his feelings, when it was really her doing that was more in the wrong. This section also adds to the characterization of Nora, and her childish antics, because just like a child, she condemns other people’s behaviour that she deems unacceptable, even if her own isn’t at its best. This portrays Nora once again in a light of manipulation, because she once again plays with other people’s emotions for her personal gain.
ReplyDeleteThis was a really great analysis! However, she might have shown a bit of maturity because when Dr. Rank expressed his true feelings for Nora, I thought that she felt bad for wanting to ask him for money. She never got the money so there was no personal gain for Nora. When she got mad at Dr Rank, she might have been conflicted because she desperately needed the money but didn't want to use Dr Rank because he loved her and she didn’t. She may have been in a moral dilemma, which can characterise her as lost or confused.
DeleteThis was very well said, Sarvesh! I agree on a lot of what you said, except I do agree more with Sakina about how Nora felt pity for Dr. Rank after he expressed his love for her. Instead of using his feeling for her own gain, she suddenly changes her mind, and tells him he can't do anything for her now and she doesn't need help. I saw this as an act of guilt more so than manipulation.
DeleteOne quote from Act two that interested me was when Nora said this: referring to Dr. Rank, “He’s got something seriously wrong with him, you know. Tuberculosis of the spine, poor fellow. His father was a horrible man, who used to have mistresses and things like that. That’s why the son was always ailing, right from being a child” (Isben 37). With scientific advancements, we have the knowledge to know Syphilis is not genetic. However, the people that lived in the Victorian Age may not have been aware of this. Based on what Nora says, we know they were aware that STD’s such as syphilis were sexually transmitted. We know this because Nora blames Rank’s father for sleeping around with mistresses. It is interesting that Nora does not even consider the possibility that Rank could have contracted the disease himself. In addition, it becomes clear in this Act that Nora and Rank have a strange relationship that is being held secret from Torvald. Perhaps, Nora has slept with Rank in the past and she is in denial because she realizes she may have the disease as well. Clearly in this quote, Nora is defending Rank. After noticing this early in the act, I was able to make predictions about their unique relationship that may come about at the end of the act. Isben is using foreshadowing in order to have the reader make these predictions and better understand the relationship between Nora and Dr. Rank.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about Dr. Rank's syphilis. The fact that Nora believes Dr. Rank contradicted the STD from his father's own bad decisions shows how childish she can be. However, you could be right that they may not have known about that back then.
DeleteI like your speculation on Nora having an affair with Dr. Rank. Do you think this goes in line with her acting without considering consequences like with the bank loan or is it more mature that she be concerned of having it herself in this way?
DeleteIn the middle of Act II, one interesting quote I found was: “When you are gone, you are soon forgotten” (Act II, pg 46). This quote stood out to me due to it’s striking nature and subject. Spoken by Dr. Rank as he discusses his ailment with Nora, it has some parallels with real life. The Victorian era society was pretty cutthroat in economic terms-- the poor were still incredibly poor and the rich still stayed rich. Even with the introduction of the middle class, there was still very little economic mobility within a generation. This meant that families would usually be more focused on the future than the past, letting old friends go faster. Literarily, this quote is also quite significant. Mourning was normally a very important part of Victorian society. In this quote, however, Dr. Rank suggests that he won’t be remembered for long. This generally goes against the cultural norm, tying into one of the play’s themes-- appearing to abide by the norms of the era without actually doing so. This quote also lies in the middle of Dr. Rank’s outburst about his “tuberculosis of the spine,” while Nora just plays along. A final note is how Nora reacts to Rank. Her stage directions say: “[looking at him anxiously]. Do you think so?” (Act II, pg 46). Her anxious reaction to Rank’s statement could be because of the loan she took from Krogstad. The story suggests that this incident happened long ago, yet Krogstad still remembers and is more than willing to take advantage of it. Nora, in her naivety, cannot understand why he’d do such a thing.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of Act 2, the Christmas tree is mentioned again in the stage directions, and it emerges as an important symbol in the play. Not only does its raggedy appearance show that time has passed, but it also symbolizes the downward spiral of Nora’s life as the play progresses. Nora gives off a sense of panic and fear at this point in the play after just finding out that her lies are soon going to catch up to her. The worn out and droopy Christmas tree mirrors her internal emotions as Nora is starting to become increasingly irrational and angry. When the nurse tells her not to go outside in the cold, Nora replies with “Oh, worse things might happen,” (35) showing how the stress of keeping her secret has consumed her entirely. She won’t even play with her children anymore, and tells the nurse, “Yes, Anne Marie, from now on I can’t be with them as often as I was before” (36). Back in Act 1, Torvald stated that the reason for children growing up to be wild and unruly is because of their mothers. It seems in this act like Nora has taken this to heart and she truly believes that mothers can corrupt their children. Her distancing herself from her children foreshadows that she may leave them entirely in the future.
ReplyDeleteAlso during act 2, one thing I noticed is that Torvald and Nora’s relationship continues to appear more and more forced and appears to be unraveling. Torvald still speaks to her as if she were his pet, saying things like “If a little squirrel were to ask ever so nicely…?” (41) and “And the pretty little sky-lark would sing all day long…” (41). When Nora replies, she speaks in third person and talks about herself as if she were an animal as well, saying, “Please, and only if you would let it have its way, and do what it wants, it’d scamper about and do all sorts of marvelous tricks” (41). Nora seems to talk herself down in this way to try and persuade Torvald into doing what she wants. Giving him a false sense of power makes him feel like he is in control, when in reality Nora is trying to benefit from the situation most. This back-and-forth between the couple, with both of them trying to be in control of one, feels very unnatural and does not describe an ideal marriage; instead, it seems almost like a performance. Torvald’s refusal to listen to Nora about firing Korgstad only makes Nora more nervous as she is one step closer to her secret being revealed. She becomes trapped in more and more lies as the act progresses, and the audience can’t help but wonder when the whole thing is going to collapse beneath her.
This was really well said! I agree with a lot about what you said, especially the foreshadowing of Nora fleeing from her family and the false sense of power Nora gives Torvald. I feel like Nora likes to play an act of being a submissive child, but she's actually quite tricky and knows more than we think.
DeleteA quote which I found interesting in Act 2, was when Helmer says, “Doesn’t make any difference!…You call my motives petty; so I must be petty too. Petty! Indeed! Well, we’ll put a stop to that, once and for all. [He opens the hall door and calls.] Helene!” (Act 2.43) in response to Nora expressing her opinion. This paints Torvald to be very egoistical and hypocritical. Torvald repeatedly calls or thinks of Nora as simple minded and foolish, as evident when he calls her a spendthrift or repeatedly uses animal or bird imagery to address her. When Nora thought his actual motif for firing Krogstad was petty, Torvald took it very personally. Torvald is also hypocritical because until he revealed his true motif for wanting to fire Krogstad (Krogstad didn't respect him enough), he blamed it on Krogstad’s morals. Until this point, I thought of Torvald to be a person of high morals, but he is just pretending. This does fit in with the behaviour of the Victorian society where appearance means everything.
ReplyDeleteThis quote also shows how little Torvald actually cares about Nora and their lack of communication. In the quote, Torvald seems to be more annoyed at being called petty and wants to teach Nora a lesson, rather than genuinely wanting to fire Krogstad. It seems like a hasty decision due to anger at his pride being hurt. He disregards Nora’s pleas and he never questions why Nora may be acting in such an extreme manner.
In Act 3 of his play “A Doll’s House”, Henrik Ibsen extensively answers the question of if a character can be saved.
ReplyDeleteIn the second act, Krogstad told Nora of how he would tell her husband that she owed him money to blackmail Helmer into giving Krogstad a career. Nora threatens to kill herself, and Krogstad responds, “You can’t frighten me, either. People don’t do that sort of thing, Mrs. Helmer. There wouldn’t be any point to it, anyway, I’d still have him in my pocket”(54). Nora asks if this would still work if she died, and Krogstad’s response is so vengeful and cold, it seems Krogstad could never be changed and is on a trajectory of manipulating people for personal gain. Krogstad responds, “Aren’t you forgetting that your reputation would then be entirely in my hands? Well, I’ve warned you. Don’t do anything silly. When Helmer gets my letter, I expect to hear from him. And don’t forget: it’s him who is forcing me off the straight and narrow again, your own husband! That’s something I’ll never forgive him for. Goodbye, Mrs. Helmer”(54). Ibsen uses foreboding diction, such as “warned”, “don’t forget”, “forcing”, and “never forgive”, to show the black and white mindset Krogstad is in out of desperation. Krogstad desperately wants to be something, and he will even go off “the straight and narrow”. It seems he is as desperate as Nora. Krogstad sees the Helmers as the sole cause of his trouble and will stop at nothing to reciprocate what he sees as treatment meant for someone expendable. Furthermore, when Krogstad and Nora talk, Krogstad’s lines are equal in length or greater than Nora’s. This reflects the imbalance in their relationship. Of course, it is not romantic, but their relationship is filled with mistrust. In the third act, Mrs. Linde convinces Krogstad to join her. Ibsen writes their lines to be similar length. The difference in line length represents the change in Krogstad to becoming more relatable as a character striving for improvement. Previously, Krogstad was more imbalance. When Krogstad and Mrs. Linde are talking about the future they could have together, Krogstad says, “Oh, if only I could undo what I’ve done!”(65). In admitting wrongdoing, Krogstad demonstrates how he has changed and will dedicate his life to becoming respectable, yet not at any price. It also shows how he will improve not just his respectability but also his character, as in that line he uses only first person pronouns rather than focusing on the errors or choices of others.
I really like how you brought in a major theme of the play into this blog post, because I feel like this theme especially was evident in act 3. Krogstad changed completely within a matter of hours, and even though it's hard to tell if this was due to Mrs.Linde or just events altogether, Krogstad changed as a character in that he went from cold and vengeful, to sensitive and guilty of his past. His desire to erase his mistakes shows that he has grown as a character in the play.
DeleteI like how you connected the maxim to the play and Krogstad's very dynamic character. My group also thought that the fact that his character change occurred so quickly was strange. At first we believed he might just be putting on an act, like so many other characters in the play do. However, I agree with you that he truly does undergo a character change. Do you think that by the end of the play he will stick to his word or go against this?
DeleteI think that Mrs. Linde will keep Krogstad on track. From the start, readers know she is determined and worked hard to get her brothers up in the world. She is willing to work together with Krogstad but I don't think she would be an enabler to him doing bad or immoral things by supporting him financially.
DeleteIn Act 3 of A Doll's House, my group discussed the characterization and plot twist of Mrs.Linde and Krogstad. Previously, there were hints that the two characters had had a past history, but we as readers were unsure what that history entailed. Now, we know that they were romantically involved, but they drifted apart over the years. Mrs.Linde and Krogstad both agree to come back together as a couple, both equally excited. I liked how this showed the independence that Mrs.Linde has, that Nora failed to recognize. Previously she came across as feeble and dependent, but now she is seen making her own decisions for her own benefit, without having to worry about others. Krogstad was seen also in the beginning to be a cast-off character. He was initially seen as bad, but now we see him as a sensitive man who is overjoyed at reuniting with the love of his life. These two characters balance eachother out, and bring out the better qualities in both. Also something to mention, is the fact that Mrs.Linde appears to be done with trying to help Nora and Helmed, saying, "When you've sold yourself once for other people's sake, you don't do it again." (Ibsen 65). Not only does this show that Mrs.Linde is standing up for herself, but it also foreshadows that in the future, there might be a situation in which Nora will need Mrs.Linde's help, but Mrs.Linde will not offer this up.
ReplyDelete
DeleteOur group predicted a relationship between Krogstad and Ms. Linde as well. I like how you said that she is acting much more independent now. I was very happy for her when I found out that her and Krogstad were getting back together. Ms. Linde always seemed like a depressed character, ever since she talked about her husband taking her kids away. Dr. Rank also asked her if she was sick since she was acting so down. I think getting in this relationship with Krogstad will be a turning point in her relationship, in a positive way.
I like how you pointed out that the interaction between Kristine and Krogstad shows that the latter is actually a deeply sensitive man, who was only showed off cruelty because of his broken heart. You have already stated that Krogstad's true personality helps to balance out Kristine, but how do you think this new revelation of his Krogstad's personality affects the other characters in the play, or do you think that it does so at all? Do you think that this scene is the best characterization development that the reader has seen of Krogstad?
DeleteVery well said. I think the comparison of Linde and Krogstad versus Helmer and Nora is a prime example of Ibsen's goal of shining a light on something and allowing his audience to take it how they will.
Delete
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of act 3 we are able to see how these characters deal with difficult situations. When we find out that Krogstad and Ms. Linde had a relationship, the whole situation can relate to romantic relationships in modern day. Ms. Linde stated that she loved Krogstad but marrying Mr. Linde would be better for her children and family. However she regrets marrying Mr. Linde because she was truly in love with Krogstad, and wishes she would have followed her heart instead. There are often love triangles like this in modern day. Women marry the man that they think will be better for them or the man their parents and friends think is better for them. In reality, they should marry the man they have a bigger connection with, and ignore their outside influences in order to not regret their decision in the future. In this act, we also see another side of Torvald. He always seemed to be a dictator but in this act we see that he just loves her very much. He shows his love by giving her money her money after she returns gifts. However after the party he returns to the possessive person we saw earlier in the play by treating her like property when attempting to seduce her.
So far the development of Mrs. Linde’s character has caught my attention in Act 3. Although I am only about half way through the act, it is clear that Ibsen is trying to tell the reader something about Mrs. Linde. With all the bad people surrounding her doing bad things, she is a great person. In fact, she is focused on fixing everyone else's problems rather than worrying about herself. We see this when it looks as if Nora is giving up on her life and Kristine urges her to come clean to her husband. Nora is hesitant at first, but then understands this is the best thing to do. The trust Nora has in Kristine’s recommendations shows that Kristine is well trusted with her friends. Also, her friends understand they are important to her and she wants to help them. I predict Kristine will play a big role in the resolution of this plot, because so far she seems like the lone character that understands how to fix a problem. In addition, she is the only character unselfish enough to care about the well being of others before herself. It may seem that Torvald is unselfish when he tells Nora not to eat macaroons, but he is still putting himself before her. Yes, he prioritizes her physical appearance, but only so that she is attractive to him and she can make him look good in public.
ReplyDeleteIn Act 3 of the play, I started to notice Nora’s definition of freedom changing. At the beginning, she emphasized that to her, freedom meant getting rid of her debt and living the same life she currently was. However, in act 3, her view is very different. As the play progresses, we see Nora’s role evolving; she starts out as a meek, submissive wife looking to keep her husband out of trouble and gradually becomes a strong-willed, independent woman. At the beginning of the play, Nora says, “ Oh yes, Torvald, surely we can afford to be just a little bit extravagant now, can’t we? Just a teeny-weeny bit. You are getting quite a good salary now, and you are going to earn lots and lots of money” (I.2). Nora’s language at the beginning of the play and the way she acts around her husband gives the reader the sense that she is obedient and almost childish. The way she compares herself to an animal when talking to her husband makes her seem unintelligent and submissive. However, as the play progresses, it becomes clear that Nora is actually very intelligent; she isn’t so much letting her husband walk all over her as she is giving him a false sense of power to gain something for herself. At the end of act 3, Nora says to Torvald, “When you had gotten over your fright—and you weren’t concerned about me but only about what might happen to you—and when all danger was past, you acted as though nothing had happened. I was your little sky-lark again, your little doll, exactly as before; except you would have to protect it twice as carefully as before, now that it had shown itself to be so weak and fragile” (III.85). Nora again uses animal imagery, but she is no longer talking about herself. Instead, she is criticizing Torvald for the first time by finally standing up to him and the way he had treated her. As the play comes to a close, the audience finally sees Nora’s new definition of freedom emerge. She no longer wants to merely please Torvald or keep their family name intact. Instead, she longs for a life where she feels in control and independent. And in the end, she finally gets what she wanted all along—the chance to be a strong woman in a time when women were supposed to be weak.
ReplyDeleteDuring a group reading of Henry Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, one interesting aspect of the story that was discussed by our group was the interaction between Kristine and Krogstad. In this meeting, the romantic past between these two characters is revealed, after being hinted at throughout the play, and the reader finally gets a deeper insight into these two characters. Despite the obvious love that still exists between these two characters, our group discussed the possibility that Kristine finds an added benefit in her meeting Krogstad because it allows her to get revenge on Nora. The beginning of this theory begins when Kristine assures Nora that she will speak to Krogstad to take the letter back, but following this, she encourages Nora to tell Torvald about her borrowing the money for his operation. Of course Nora refuses, and Kristine advises against any further lying. However, after her interaction with her former love, who tells her that he will demand the letter back, Kristine immediately replies, “No, Nils, don’t ask for it back…Helmer must know everything. This unhappy secret must come out. Those two have the whole thing between them. All the secrecy and deception, it just can’t go on” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act 3). This quote shows a direct defiance on Kristine’s part of Nora’s orders, and yet she still carries it out. Our group believed that although Kristine was just trying to look out for Nora and try to help, she was also getting revenge because she was angry with the way Nora flaunted her marriage and family upon their first meeting, immediately after Kristine was widowed, in addition to Kristine’s marriage having been an unhappy one. This is reason enough to believe that Kristine was jealous of Nora, seeing her have everything that she strove for, but never got, and even still seeing Nora manipulate everyone around her for her own benefit while having everything, makes Kristine angry because her friend is continuously taking advantage of the things she has, while she is reduced to nothing. Therefore, in her envy, she wants Nora’s secret to be spilled to make Nora finally appreciate what she has and also wants to get back at her for emphasizing her own loss by immediately boasting about her (seemingly) ideal life. In this scene alone, Ibsen gives the most depth to the characterization of Kristine than in any other part of the play.
ReplyDeleteIn the end of Act 2 and the beginning of Act 3, the Tarantella dance acts as a symbol for Nora’s frantic and wild state of being, and her freedom. Nora uses the dance as an outlet for the overwhelming amount of emotion and frustration she if feeling towards the debt situation with Krogstad.
ReplyDeleteThe tarantella is a dance which is supposed to be danced at a fast tempo. It is a frenzied dance with quick light steps. When Torvald tries to control Nora’s dancing by saying, “Not so wild,Nora!” (Act 2.58) and when he orders Rank to stop playing by saying, “Stop,Rank! This is sheer madness. Stop,I say.”(Act 2.54). Torvald treats Nora like a puppet who he is the master of and has the right to control however he wishes. It characterises their relation to be of a teacher and student or father and daughter, rather than partners.
It is interesting when Mrs.Linde says, “Hush! The tarantella! You must go!” (Act 3.65), it is almost as though she refers to an actual spider, creating a secretive and scary mood. By saying “the tarantella”, it can also be a person she considers to be quick or virulent. She might think of Nora this way because she is small therefore faster, and she doesn't approve of Nora’s secret from Torvald, making her virulent.
Torvald completely objectifies Nora in the line, [removing Nora’s shawl]. “Well take a good look at her. I think I can say she’s worth looking at. Isn’t she lovely, Mrs Linde?” (Act 3.67). He treats her a like a play doll he dressed up and is proud of his work. Nora does not belong to him, neither is she his creation but Torvald thinks differently. Before talking about her skills, he focuses on her physical attractiveness which shows what Torvald appreciated most in Nora.
Lastly when Torvald said, “She dances her tarantella, there’s wild applause-which was well deserved, although the performance itself was rather realistic…I mean, rather more so than was strictly necessary from the artistic point of view.” (Act 3.67) stood out most to me. This is because he compliments Nora but ended with making it all about himself. He didn't like her performance all too much because he thought it was “rather realistic” meaning that she was too wild, he wanted more order and control in the dance. When he said “more so than was strictly necessary from the artistic point of view”, it was hypocritical coming from him because he calls himself an artist but he didn't perform the dance when its a dance done with two partners. He critiqued all the points he didn't like in Nora’s performance even though he had no right to as he wasn't the one performing. It characterises him as cowardly because he can only remove faults in others but not find enough courage to do something himself.
It is interesting that throughout the entire ordeal at the close of act three, Helmer maintains that he took perfect care of Nora. Furthermore, he continues his bird comparisons throughout.
ReplyDeleteAfter Helmer read Krogstad's letter, he is furious with Nora. Helmer says that, “… it's all the fault of a feather-brained woman!”(76). Helmer uses this comparison to express that Nora is dumb in nature, and although it is in her nature, it is very peeving to have to deal with someone that naive. Later, Helmer says that he has Nora, “… to thank for this… and when I've taken such good care of you, all our married life. Now do you understand what you have done to me?”(76). Helmer is extremely condescending in his fury because he is blind to Nora's intelligence. As he has trained her to act silly for him, he has convinced himself that she is truly silly and nothing more. Thus, Helmer speaks to her as if she is an ungrateful child who doesn't know the extent of their damage. Helmer's image of Nora is in clear contrast to her simple, comprehending answers. Her responses here, compared to the first act, show how she is a dynamic character.
Just as it seems Helmer has finished excoriating Nora, Krogstad returns the IOU. Helmer speaks extensively on how he will protect Nora in the future. Ibsen writes, “Here I shall hold you like a hunted dove I have rescued unscathed from the cruel talons of the hawk, and calm your poor beating heart. And that will come, gradually, believe me… …That is how you will seem to me after today, helpless perplexed little thing you are. Don't worry your pretty little head about anything, Nora”(78). Ibsen uses bird imagery and vulnerable diction to emphasize Helmer's lack of change in comparison to Nora. It is ironic that Helmer describes Nora as hunted and saved by him, as he thought of himself before her when he learned of the IOU. It is also ironic given how he treated Nora. Ibsen's use of bird imagery emphasizes how Helmer is unchanged because throughout the play, he has referred to Nora as a little bird. However, the metaphor strikes true when Nora decides to leave him because birds, for the most part, fly, and flight is freedom. The use of vulnerable diction is iconic given the Victorian era, as Helmer was supposed to be the strong head of the house, and Nora a weak woman. However, the opposite is true, as Nora undertakes the difficult burden of a large loan, and Helmer is left begging for her to stay with him at the end of the play.
Great analysis, Simone! I agree with all the points you bring up. The bird imagery being used throughout the play can also serve as a foreshadow to hint at the maxim and the ending.
DeleteA question I had while reading was that what is reflected about Torvald's personality by the lack of his change? Do you think Ibsen portraying Torvald as a flat character is to enhance Nora’s change or is there any other motif behind it?
ReplyDeleteIn Act 3 of A Doll’s house, a quote which I found interesting during Nora and Torvald’s argument was when he said:
Helmer. There is some truth in what you say, exaggerated and hysterical thought it is. But from now on it will be different. Play-time is over; now comes time for lessons.
This quote creates dramatic irony because Torvald clearly disregards Nora again, so it cannot be any different in the future because he hasn't changed. He continues to treat her like a child when he says that “play-time is over; now comes time for lessons.”, Torvald doesn't seem to understand that a relationship is built on partnership where both the individuals are equal rather than one being superior. Even though this wasn't the norm back then, Torvald calls Nora his child because he forgave her and how helpless she is, this is unhealthy because Nora is also an adult.
When Nora states her opinion about the whole situation, Helmer calls it “exaggerated and hysterical” rather than just accepting her viewpoint too. This characterises him as childish and narrow-minded. However, by saying that play-time is over, Torvald does accept that he did indeed treat Nora like his toy. He is aware but he doesn't understand what the problem is.
As Nora said, Torvald and her simply cannot understand each other and Torvald proves her right in this quote. I also think that Torvald cannot teach Nora anything because he, himself has a lot to learn.
I like how you pointed out that despite everything they've been through, Torvald is still treating Nora like a child, and that he even admits that he treated her like nothing more than a doll. Considering that the way Nora also manipulated everyone else around her throughout the play, even calling her children her "little dollies," do you think that this made Nora and Torvald's marriage a failure from the start? Do you think that both of them acting like this isn't good because they both act the same way, and have nobody else to balance each other out? Do you think that if Nora had stayed in the marriage, even after expressing her desire to leave and Torvald begging her not to, do you think that their marriage could have been better now that all of their secrets were out in the open?
DeleteYes I really like this quote. Helmer has always been very sarcastic and has exaggerated on many things. He often doesn't take her seriously which relates back to calling her a songbird and squirrel. Especially towards the end of the play, there is a lot of drmatic irony evident as Helmer gets mad at Nora for acting in a way that he acts all the time.
DeleteWhile reading Act III of Henry Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, something interesting that caught my attention was the stage directions for Nora, after Torvald discovers Krogstad’s letter in the mail. When he first reads the letter, he storms out of his office and grabs Nora, as she struggles to get free. Torvald follows this with a speech, where he continuously demeans Nora, demanding an explanation for her actions, crying, “Do you understand what you have done? Answer me! Do you understand?” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act III). Despite the numerous times Torvald demeans Nora throughout the play, this is the first time that the audience sees him doing so out of pure anger, explaining why his previous condescending epithets for her were things usually considered pleasant, like songbirds, but here the reader sees him calling her a “miserable woman.” Until this point, Nora still continues to act the way she is expected, claiming that she only forged the signature for the money out of love for him, but when Torvald locks the door and demands that she explain herself immediately, a change is seen in Nora’s character, which is expressed through her stage directions, as described when Ibsen writes that Nora, “Looks fixedly at him, her face hardening” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act III). This is the first time in the play that Nora actually does something that shows some disdain towards her husband, despite all of his wrongdoings towards her. As Helmer continues to complain about how his reputation will be ruined, the directions continue to say, “Nora remains silent and looks fixedly at him” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act III). This sudden negativity that Nora has towards her husband foreshadows that something very bad is soon to impact their marriage, which is expressed after Torvald calls her a “feather-brained woman”, in which Nora replies, “When I’ve left this world behind, you will be free” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House, Act III), followed by Torvald asking her again if she understands what she has done to him, which Nora responds “coldly and calmly” to. Despite being seemingly small gestures, when the doorbell rings, Torvald immediately demands that Nora run and hide herself away, but as he goes to answer the door, Nora remains standing in her place. This direct act of defiance symbolizes that she no longer is willing to be treated badly by her husband and that she is beginning to openly stand up for herself. This foreshadowing is all accounted for by the end of the play, when Nora decides to leave Torvald forever, despite his protests, saying that she needs to find herself. The ending shows that Nora can no longer take all of the lies that have occurred in their marriage, and that now she is no longer going to take any abuse from Torvald or anybody else ever again.
ReplyDeleteIn act three, Nora became very scandalous. It was very scandalous for a woman in the victorian era to show such strong emotion. It is also very unlike women to take such a stand and fight for what they want, especially against their husband. A major turning point for Nora was when she stated “Never have I felt so calm and collected as I do tonight” (Ibsen, 83). This shows that Nora has officially changed and has made her decision that she no longer loves Torvald. Regarding her decision to leave Torvald and her children, there are many different opinions on whether this was the right decision. Some think this was very selfish of her while others think that this was a very good move for her as she is now independent of her husband. In my opinion, leaving her children is like adoption. It is a very difficult thing to do, but if she knows that she is not suited to be a mother, than it is for her children's’ own good to be without her. In some way, she is sacrificing herself for her children’s happiness but also for Torvald. She may have left because she knows that if Torvald found about the scandal, then everyone would be in a lot of trouble. One more thing I found interesting, was the shall that she was wearing. While Nora and Helmer are talking on page 76, he tells her to take her shall off. Later on page 85 she puts her shall back on as she is finally leaving. The shall represents her independence as she finally gains complete control of her independence when putting the shall on and saying her final goodbye to Helmer.
ReplyDeleteSomething I found interesting in Act 3 was the overall event that led to Nora leaving Torvald. Initially, Torvald appeared to show off his wife, claiming that she is "extraordinarily lovely..." (67). He led her around the room at the dance so that more applause would follow. However, once Torvald later opens the letter from Krogstad, he turns on his wife completely. It is almost like the eight years of marriage they had before them no longer exists to him. He calls her a "miserable woman," and dramatically claims that she has ruined his life. This part of Torvald is slightly surprising to see, because we thought Torvald would have been more defending of Nora, considering how much Nora claims he loves her. We soon learn that that is false. Torvald might care about Nora, but he treasures his appearance more. (This is in line with societal norms of the Victorian era.) Torvald then changes when he sees another letter saying their IOU has been sent back to them. He "forgives her" and advises her to ignore what he had said about her previously. Torvald's actions support Nora's decision in leaving. Not only was her husband confusing her with these mood swings, his actions clearly showed that he didn't love her as much as she thought.
ReplyDeleteIn Act Three, Nora’s character does a complete one-eighty. In the past acts, Nora was seen as naive, childish, and submissive to most of Torvald’s commands. Her only known act of defiance was eating macaroons behind Torvald’s back. Nora grew up lacking her own opinions and admits to Torvald, “At home, Daddy used to tell me what he thought, then I thought the same. And if I thought differently, I kept quiet about it, because he wouldn’t have liked it,” (Isben 80). In this time, women were thought to be only good for baring children and looking pretty, so for one to have her own opinion was outrageous. However, Nora disagrees with this social norm, and tells Torvald, “I believe that first and foremost I am an individual, just as much as you are—or at least I’m going to try to be,” (Isben 82). Nora ends up leaving Torvald and her children to find herself and “discover who is right, society or me,” (Isben 83). The ending of this play makes the reader ponder about their own morals whether they stand with with Nora, or Torvald and the children.
ReplyDelete