In today’s world, people tend to discourage their kids in keeping secrets, because secrecy only leads to trouble. Indeed, a child keeping a secret about breaking a valuable of their parents will only make the parents even more angry when they find out. However, in the Victorian era, people would often hide in themselves a secret not revealed to even their wives/husbands. In Act 1 of the play A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen introduces Nora’s characteristics of secrecy in order to foreshadow a possible conflict for the play. The first clue to Nora’s characteristic lies in the very beginning of Act 1, where the stage direction of Nora states that, “She takes a bag of macaroons out of her pocket and eats one or two” (1). From reading just this stage direction, the readers will not be able to get anything out of it. However, when Helmer asks “Didn’t go nibbling a macaroon or two?” (5), Nora replies, “I never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to” (5). Here, Nora states exaggeratedly that she would never do something that Helmer does not like, which in this case is eating macaroons. However, the stage direction in the beginning of the play clearly indicates that Nora was eating the sweets. The use of hyperbole to exaggerate Nora’s earlier statement allows the author to emphasize the fact that Nora lied, which allows the author to characterize her as a wife who is not afraid to keep a secret from her husband. Subsequently, Ibsen reveals yet another secret that Nora has been hiding, but bigger in the level of seriousness. During the conversation between Nora and Mrs. Linde, Nora states that she was the one who got the money to save her husband, but does not reveal how she exactly earned the sum of money. When Mrs. Linde asks, “you haven’t done anything rash, have you?” (14), Nora replies, “Is it rash to save your husband’s life?” (15). Here, Nora does not deny that she had done something out of the line, but she merely states asks a question that conveys her belief that as a wife, she must save her husband at all costs. The question indicates that the method to which she has gotten the money is not danger-free. This indication allows Ibsen to convey to the readers that the secret behind Nora’s method of acquiring money will lead to a conflict. Thus, Ibsen in Act 1 of the play A Doll’s House reveals the secretive characteristic of Nora in order to foreshadow the upcoming conflict.
In “Dolls House”, Henrik Ibsen barrages the audience with a multitude of themes and symbols, all with different messages and ideas. The symbol I found most interesting in this play was the symbol of Dr. Rank, the Helmer’s family doctor. His character is special as he is the only symbol I could find that is actually a person, rather than an object or food item. He also stands for many different things. Looking at him at surface level, his name is the first thing that stands out to me. Rank is an interesting word because it has many different definitions in the dictionary, the primary definition being a position in a hierarchy. This conveys a tone of superiority, sending a message to the audience that he is well qualified as a doctor. However also when you look deeper into the word there is a common slang use, where is often used to describe something that is awful smelling, giving the audience the idea that he is gross and revolting, hygienically and/or physically, removing much of the trust the readers have in him. In the play Nora also tells Mrs. Linde that he comes to check up on the family daily, even though she states that Torvald and the family has not been sick in years. This helps further Rank as a symbol of mystery and secrecy, as it is not likely that a well qualified doctor would check on a man so often years after he was “cured” of his sickness. It would be an inconvenience and a big waste of time for both men, giving the audience the idea that there is something else happening with Torvald that he is keeping from everybody, even his wife, possibly his sickness was not fully cured. This would definitely be possible, as the relationship between Torvald and his wife is very secret and unsettling, because they lie and keep so much from eachother.
I like how you mentioned the fact that Dr. Rank visits Nora’s house everyday to supposedly check up on Helmer’s health, even though his disease is cured. Like you said, it would be a waste of time for the two men to meet every single day, but I have a prediction different from yours as to why Dr. Rank visits the house everyday. There is a possibility that Helmer’s illness has not been cured, but there should signs in the play that indicates that Mr. Helmer is still sick. Additionally, if there are no signs of sickness because Helmer’s illness was mostly cured but not all the way, there would be no reason to visit everyday. Thus, I think that the reason why Dr. Rank visits everyday is not because he feels the need to check on Helmer but because there is a certain reason that makes Dr. Rank himself want to visit the house.
Playing house with dolls often illustrates the household as perfect and ideal, but it’s just playing, the ideal is imaginary. The Helmer’s home depicts “A Doll’s House” —seemingly perfect, but in reality, a delusion. Henrik Ibsen’s play captures Victorian gender roles and the superficiality of the middle class. It seems as though every character cares deeply for their appearance and reputation, desiring for the “respectability” to distinguish themselves from the lower class. Ibsen utilizes Torvald Helmer to represent the Victorian view of the role of women and men. Upon the first interaction between Helmer and Nora, the reader or viewer gains the impression that Helmer views his wife as submissive and naive, affectionately calling her, “my little sky-lark”, “my little squirrel”, and “my pretty little pet” (Ibsen 1,2,4). These comments are meant to be loving, but reveals the Victorian model of the middle class wife as frail and pure. Helmer's recurrent use of, “little” in referring to Nora reinforces her as the innocent wife he expects her to be (1). Nora lies to Helmer, denying that she ate any sweets or macaroons, characterizing her as a child lying about stealing from the cookie jar. This childlike nature exists not just because Nora is naive (a “spendthrift” according to Helmer), but is accentuated by Helmer’s parentlike authority over Nora, a common relationship dynamic in Victorian times (2). A seemingly harmless white lie, the macaroon foreshadows that there are far less innocent lies and secrets within the Helmer household. Later, Nora brags to Mrs. Linde, her childhood friend, that she earned money on her own account and saved her husband’s life. Mrs. Linde questions Nora if she’ll ever tell Helmer of the truth as to the origination of the money, and Nora exclaims that Torvald, “is a man with a good deal of pride—it would be terribly embarrassing and humiliating for him if he thought he owed anything to me” (15). In Nora’s description of Helmer as a prideful man, and humiliation of relying on his wife, it embodies the expectation in Victorian society of the husband providing for the family. Ibsen continues to portray the late 1800s expectation of a working husband and a family bound wife through Torvald Helmer. When Nora appeals to Helmer to hire Mrs. Linde, Helmer assumes that Mrs. Linde is a widow, as a married woman working is considered not “respectable” and low class. Henrik Ibsen’s characterization of Helmer and Nora in the first act demonstrates the conventions of the Victorian era. Through “A Doll’s House”, Ibsen provides a realistic view of family life in a time where such aspects were kept private.
In Act One of “A Doll’s House”, Henrik Ibsen utilizes wintertime as a symbol for the harsh, unwarranted changes of the Victorian Era to emphasize how Nora and Helmer’s family are resistant and unwilling to adapt to the changes. Ibsen first introduces the symbol at the end of the first paragraph in the opening stage directions. Ibsen begins the paragraph with images of comfort and pleasantness, and continues with this imagery all the way up the to last sentence of the paragraph, where he writes, “A winter’s day.” Immediately, the juxtaposition of the numerous images of comfort with the final, singular image of winter draws the audience’s attention to the fact it is a cold, butter day out. The large amount of positive imagery compared to the one image of winter suggests that Nora and Helmer treat their home as a sort of shield against the difficulties of winter, and this is where the symbolism begins. The comfortable, pleasant image projected by the interior of the house represents the conservative mindedness of Nora and Helmer, who want to preserve as much comfort as they can from the winter environment. The winter environment represents the disagreeing ideals of the era that clash with Nora and Helmer’s idea of reality. The larger amount of positive imagery compared to winter imagery represents how They can try to block out the changes of the era as much as they want, but the change will always be apparent in one way or another. This symbolism is further reinforced when Nora says to Mrs. Linde, “All that long journey in the wintertime”, after Mrs. lined tells Nora of her travels. The fact that she is so appalled of winter emphasizes the fact that she is afraid of the change. So, the use of symbolism by Ibsen effectively characterizes Nora and Helmer as co derivative people who are afraid to embrace the changes of the Victorian Era.
Roy, I really agree with everything you said here. Especially with how the family is resistant and unwilling to adapt to change. The author makes it evident that the family is very stuck in their ways, and does not seem to have any desire to come out of them. The imagery and symbols you pointed out also reflect this harshness in their world very well. I also agree how you pointed out that the purpose behind all of this is to crate characterization of Nora and Torvald.
In his play, "A doll's house", Henrik Ibsen successfully creates the reality of the situations present in the family life in the Victorian era. From the first act, the concept that stood out to me the most was this "image" that the characters are trying to show off of their families. This image, however, differs for every person, even if they are from the same family. The main female character of the play, Nora, has this image in her mind of her family seeming perfectly able in affording the necessities of a high-middle class needs. While talking to her husband, Trovald, about how much the family can afford to spend she says, " surely we can adored to be just a little bit extravagant now, can't we?" (Ibsen 3). The nickname her husband has for her, although he has many nicknames for her, is "spendthrift". Here, we can see that Nora is known to spend a lot of money. But, this excessive money spending isn't for her own good, she uses it for her family. When telling her husband about the great deals she scored on her new items, she shows that the items are for the family, she didn't spend the money on buying goods for herself. This shows that, she is only concerned with making her family look good, and whether she doesn't spend money on herself out of humbleness or out of pretending to seem like the perfect and self-less woman, she spends the money she receives from her husband on the family. This shows how concerned she is with making sure the family appears successful and fulfilled. Her husband, Torvald, however, has a different image of an "ideal" in his mind. A hardworking man, his biggest concern is making sure the family lives comfortably enough, but doesn't need to borrow any money. Nora suggests they could borrow money until he gets paid, but Torvald exclaims, "No debts! Never borrow! There's always something inhibited, something unpleasant, about a home built on credit and borrowed money, We two have managed to stick it out so far, and that;s the way we'll go on for a little time that remains"(Ibsen 3). Here we can see that borrowing money is his biggest concern and whatever it takes, even if they won't afford what their "image" has shown them to be, their family will not borrow money to seem richer. From this first act, we can see the different motives that lead people to fulfill their dream of a "perfect image" they want to portray to the world.
I definitely agree with you that the Helmer family, among every other family in the Victorian era, is obsessed with keeping their image to society and displaying their wealth publicly, as false as it may be. However, I have found that in the play the Helmer’s also have showed a great deviation to the norm of the Victorian times, in large part thanks to Nora. This is seen most prominently after the kids were introduced, in the middle of act 1. In Victorian times the children were expected to behave maturely and be “miniature” adults, and Nora could not treat her children any differently. Once the maid brings them into the house, Nora begins to play games with them and induces playful screams and shrieks from all of them, and with innocent and childish connotations. Nora herself even acts innocently when she’s around them, leading me to believe that the Helmer family is quite different from the norm in that time.
One thing I noticed practically immediately was part of the nature of Nora and Torvald. At first, it appears that Torvald is the one in charge, but upon closer inspection, they both have an intricate dynamic of manipulation and power over each other. Torvald is condescending and treats his wife more like a child than a woman; his manipulative nature is the more obvious one. He scolds her for her frivolous spending and the trouble she causes him, but gives her more money anyway. This gives her a false sense of control so she doesn’t ask for anymore power, power that would give him trouble, and he can continue to have an excuse to punish her. Then, Nora’s childish attitude seems like more of an act than anything. She makes herself seem petty and money-oriented so her husband doesn’t question anything else, and her feigned innocence is a cover for her ulterior motives. Money is power in the play, and Nora is well aware of this; as a woman in Victorian England, she has no other method of independence and living her life the way she wants to. Instead, she goes along with the standards, then lies and manipulates to get what she wants instead of submitting completely. She even has to do so to entertain herself, since her life is very boring. When Mrs. Linde shows up, Nora very obviously tries to push her buttons to get a response for her own entertainment. When she gets it, she just keeps going, escalating the situation until they’re both pulled into her game.
I found the dynamic between Nora and Torvald Helmer very interesting too. Ibsen does characterize Nora as childlike: lying about eating a macaroon, pleading with Helmer for more allowance, seemingly less pragmatic than her husband, and in fact a “spendthrift” (Ibsen 2). She does act childish to Helmer, but I don’t think that her childish attitude is entirely an act. In her mannerisms to Mrs. Linde, gloating about her children and her husband’s new prospect, whether she’s manipulating Mrs. Linde or simply ignorant, it’s puerile. I think she prides herself in not only saving her husband’s life, but also the fact that she acted independently of her husband and her father. Her childish character is pronounced also in her naive belief that fraud isn’t a crime when it’s with good intentions, holding onto the idea that “it must say somewhere that things like this are allowed” (29). If the truth is divulged, how would that change Helmer? It'll be interesting to observe how the relationship between the spouses develop as the conflict escalates.
There were several things that I noticed during the reading. One of the main things being Nora and her lifestyle complexly intertwined with lies. Her and Torvald seem to have a very interesting relationship as well. While on a very surface level its seems to be that they love and care about each theory, and that they just want the best for each other. But there is a catch, when examining this relationship more in depth. There seems to be a ver passive aggressive nature to their conversation at the beginning of Act 1. Especially when it comes to the macaroons. These Macaroons seem to be a symbol for the lying and deceit that goes on in their relationship. Nora made it evident in her conversation with her guest that she has something to hide, especially from Torvald because she lies to him about even the smallest thing such as a macaroon. This makes the audience come to seemingly question Nora and not only her morals but what she is doing storing all her money. Another thing I found about Nora was that she seems to smarter than she gives off. She acts as if she has no other priority but spending her money but in the meanwhile, she is storing this money to use it toward something else. without any else having knowledge of her doing this. But she lies to her husband about so much which makes the audience very suspicious of her.
In Henrik Ibsen’s play “A doll’s House” I noticed his use of other characters to characterize Nora as being childlike. This is especially seen in the use of male authority figures. On the first page of act one, Ibsan uses stage direction and Helmer’s dialogue to introduce Nora,”[she begins humming again as she walks over to the table, right.]Helmer [in his study]. ‘Is that my little sky-lark chirruping out there?’(Ibsan 1)”. A skylark is a bird noted for prolonged signing but can also be defined as a verb that means to indulge oneself in horseplay, I suspect that Helmer is using the word for double meaning to insult Nora assuming that she would not understand that he meant the latter. Helmer continually uses animal diction to address Nora as if she were a child, as illustrated on page three as Helmer says,”[following her].There, there! My little singing bird mustn’t go drooping her wings, eh? Has it got the sulks, that little squirrel of mine?[takes out his wallet] Nora, what do you think I’ve got here?” To which Nora replies,”[quickly turns around]. Money!(Ibsen 3)”. Helmer references the skylark again by calling her a songbird, but in his next sentence he refers to her using the pronoun “it” which is very dehumanizing especially in conjunction with the animal diction he uses such as skylark and squirrel. Nora furthers this childlike image by not defending herself or rebuking to his derogatory remarks, but rather immediately acknowledging the money that allows for an extremely unbalanced power dynamic between the married couple.
Henrik Ibsen showcases the life during the Victorian Era and the importance of appearance in his play, “A Doll’s House”. During the Victorian era, image was extremely crucial and people spent a lot of time trying to appear wealthy. Both Nora and Torvald are caught up in creating a good image and they do everything in their ability to appear wealthier or gain a higher status. One example is through the stage directions where it is evident that Nora and Torvald Helmer are not wealthy characters, but rather more middle class. All of their household objects described are nice, but Ibsen continuously describes them all as small, “”A whatnot with china and other small objets d’art; a small bookcase with books in handsome bindings” ( Ibsen 1). The Helmer’s are creating the illusion of wealth through the items in their house, but the size of their objects reveal their true lack of wealth. Also, later when Nora is telling Mrs. Linde about Torvald's past illness, she mentions the doctor’s past request of needing to move Torvald south. She had “suggested he might take out a loan. But at that he nearly lost his temper,” (14). Nora’s request for a loan was immediately shut down by Torvald because using a loan would be a sign of a lack of wealth. Torvald didn’t want any association with loans and was angered by such a foolish request. In the past when Torvald’s sickness was horrible and the Helmer’s had only a little amount of money, Nora still cared desperately about their image. Even though she was trying to save money to help cure Torvald, she still used some to maintain their families appearance. “ I couldn’t really save anything out of housekeeping, because Torvald has to live in decent style. I couldn’t let the children go about badly dressed either-” (15). Nora continued to pay for things things that were not necessary, but made her family look rich. his shows one of the main values of the Victorian Era. Nora had placed image over her husband’s health. Through the Helmer family they represent the Victorian Era and their value of wealth and appearance.
Gender roles are a common motif in the play “A Doll’s House”, by Henrik Ibsen. We get to see how both males and females are expected to act and behave in this Victorian era, through the perspectives of many different characters. For example, Torvald believes that women should be subservient to men and they are most of the time a complete nuisance, constantly asking for money and taking things away from the men of the house. He complains about this to Nora multiple times in act 1. However, Nora expects much more of herself as a woman, she entitles herself to more rights that are not commonly given to women, which surprises many of the people she talks to. This is seen when she was explaining her situation to Mrs. Linde, when she was working to gain money in order to save her ill husbands life. She describes the process as “tremendous fun all the same, sitting there working and earning money like that. It was almost like being a man” (Ibsen 16). From this quote we can see that Nora wants more in her life than to be the wife of a man, as she took great pleasure in working for her own money and even says that “it was almost like being a man”, which is a very powerful statement, especially for the era. Woman assuming the work of men was not even considered for years later, so this was a big deviation from the Victorian norm. Nora’s attitude comes as a shock to many that speak with her, especially men who are taken aback by her defiant personality. Mr. Krogstad displays this when she threatens to essentially kick him out of her (or Helmer’s) house, saying that “the lady’s got courage” (25). Calling her “the lady” demeans her, but the statement as a whole shows that he has respect for her words, and does not doubt the fact that she will indeed kick him out of the house if need be, no matter the gender.
What do you think Ibsen's social commentary is here? Does it show some sort of lack of understanding of the plight of women since Ibsen himself is a man, or do you think he's able to write realistic women? Ms. Ballard
When taking into consideration of the question Mrs. Ballard asks, I do think that this commentary Ibsen is making is meant to show the plight of women. He uses the animal pronouns such as "squirrel" to show that her as a wife is more of pet than an actual human. In this though, I found it very telling of the time period how Nora would not want to bruise her husbands ego with the debt she had acquired trying to save his life. Torvald also uses many phrases that demonstrate the lack of social standing of women such as that they were meant not to work but to tend the house. This is a very common stereotype that is really only being challenged in the last 60 or so years. So I think it would have been very easy and obvious on how to use the stereotypes of thoughts of women to make commentary.
As said in my previous blog, Nora’s dishonest and secretive personality in the beginning of Act 1 foreshadows the major conflict in the story, which is about the blackmail Krogstad commits to Nora for her secret about the money shed borrowed from him. Subsequently, Nora also introduces to the readers the theme of lies. Ibsen in the second half of Act 1 in the play A Doll’s House shifts a positive tone to that of a negative one to illustrate the theme that lies will only lead to disaster. For example, when Nora greets the children coming home, the stage direction says, “She and the children play, laughing and shrieking” (23). Here, Ibsen describes Nora and the children playing hide and seek. In the Victorian Era, children were expected to behave like mini adults. However, Nora, who is an adult, instead acts like a complete child. The fact that Nora is acting in a way that completely contrasts the social norms of the Victorian Era illustrates a delighted tone, which conveys to the readers the extent to which Nora is currently content with her life. However, this happiness inverts after her unexpected talk with Mr Krogstad. After he threatens Nora about her secret and leaves, the children ask to play like Nora promised she would. However, she replies, “Yes, but I can’t just now. off you go now, I have a lot to do. Off you go, my darlings” (30). Here, Nora declines the children’s request to continue the game of hide and seek. Although she nicely refuses and calls them “darlings”, the fact that she broke her promise of playing with the children illustrates that she no longer feels the same happiness she felt moments ago and is too caught up with the fear of her secret being exposed. This shift in Nora’s feelings is also accompanied by the shift in a delightful tone to that of a gloomy and stressful one. Because the reason of the shift in Nora’s feelings stems from the lie and secret she made about the money she made to save Torvald, the change in the tone allows Ibsen to convey to the readers the theme that lying will only drive people to unwanted situations.
In the play “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, Nora’s foolishness when loaning money gets herself caught into a blackmailing situation. Ibsen uses dramatic irony to play into the scene when Torvald and Nora are discussing Krogstad’s past mistakes. Torvald shows a great amount of distaste due to Krogstad’s forgery and states, “just think how a man like that on his conscience will always be having to lie and cheat and dissemble; he can never drop the mask, not even with his own wife and children” (Ibsen 33). It is ironic that Torvald is saying such horrible things about this man when his own wife did the exact same thing. While the audience is aware of the forgery done by his wife, Torvald is still in the dark and ignorant to her actions. As Torvald continues to tear apart Krogstad calling him “morally deprived” and saying that Krogstad has, “ been poisoning his own children for years with lies and deceit” (33), he than goes on to calling his wife his “precious little singing bird” and “My sweet little Nora”. These are very opposite descriptions and adds to the irony of what Torvald is stating. While he says foul things in regard to Krogstad, he still calls Nora sweet and compares her to a singing bird, while the two committed the same crime. Ibsen utilizes this irony because through this scene Nora is able to hear Torvald’s true concerns and what issues lie with forgery.The solemnity of the situation is brought to Nora’s attention. Soon after Torvald leaves, Nora is seen contemplating Torvald’s words, “[Pale with terror] . Corrupt my children…! Poison my home? [Short Pause; she throws back her head.] It’s not true! It could never, never be true!” (34). It is evident that Torvald’s words have left an impact and have caused a greater realization to the seriousness of her forgery and even foreshadows possible issues to come.
Victorian times viewed children as smaller models of adults and were often considered an afterthought. For the wealthy, families often hired a nanny to raise their children and were the ones to instill proper codes of conduct and formalities. Thus, the nanny, or the nursemaid in “A Doll’s House”, fulfills the role of a parent as wealthy children rarely interacted with their mother or father. Only later in the first act of Henrik Ibsen’s play are the children introduced and even at their arrival, he writes no dialogue for them. Instead, Nora carries on a lengthy banter where the reader or viewer understands through stage directions her interaction with the children. It’s quite revealing that Nora is not the primary caretaker, where she tells Anne Marie, the nursemaid to go in and “NORA takes off the children’s coats and hats and throws them down anywhere, while the children all talk at once.]” (Ibsen 22). Undressing the children, Nora in a juvenile manner leaves the clothing anywhere without a thought. Parents tend to clean up after their children or teach them to hang clothing, but Nora who, “throws them down anywhere” reveals that she is more of a playmate than the mother figure (22). There’s a little irony when Torvald Helmer declares that young criminals come from deceitful mothers, when in reality most morals and societal rules are taught by the nursemaid for families who afford it. From just the beginning impression, Nora doesn’t interact with her children enough to actually discipline them into Victorian manners, rather she acts as the modern equivalent of an aunt: playing hide and seek and gifting them toys and clothes. Ibsen demonstrates the perspective of wealthy children as an accessory where Nora repeatedly gushes about her children as, “my sweet little baby-doll”, and “my pretty little dollies” (22). By using nicknames, and tenderly comparing the children as dolls, it portrays the Victorian view of children as objects necessary for the respectable middle-class family. Nora also speaks of not letting, “the children go about badly dressed either”, and she goes on to explain that, “any money I got for them had to go on them alone. Such sweet little things!” (15). While Nora clearly adores and loves her children, the necessity to keep the children well-dressed despite tight finances displays the importance placed upon appearance—even upon juveniles. In the entirety of the Act One, Ibsen solely wrote three lines for, “THE CHILDREN”, not bothering to directly introduce them individually (29). Lack of the Helmer children’s dialogue emphasizes the background role adolescents assumed in the Victorian era.
Yena, I also think it’s interesting how there was not dialogue for the children.. However, have you noticed that the housekeeper also did not have any dialogue? Furthermore, both the children and the maid was given dialogue in the end of Act 1. So a question I have is, why do you think that Ibsen initially exempted the children and maid from dialogue but decide to include them in the end of the first act? Like you said, children were seen as objects, such as dolls that are seen as accessory for middle class parents. Likewise, the the housekeeper was utilized by Nora in taking the role of actually taking care of the children. The two characters having dialogue acts as an indication that when they have their own lines, Nora does not see them as mere objects, in which she does not rely on the maid and starts to act as a real mother by gathering up the children’s clothes herself.
It’s not only until I read the beginning of Act Two where I can see that Nora is still a mother figure in the sense that it seems like it hasn’t been a long time where she’s been away from the children. When speaking with the Nursemaid, Anne Marie, Nora asks about the children: “Do they keep asking for me?” to which the Nursemaid replies: “They are so used to being with their Mummy” (Ibsen 35). This suggests that the children have been under Nora’s care for quite some time, perhaps until the Helmer’s could afford to hire the Nursemaid. To address your question, I think Ibsen purposely left out the children's dialogue initially only to have them speak toward the end of the act for the purpose of emphasizing the background role the children play. By initially leaving them silent, Ibsen accentuates the view of the children as accessories to the middle class family. And by having them speak later, it provides that although they are seen as “dolls” they play a significant role in Nora’s fear of influencing them negatively. Writing dialogue for the children right after Krogstad’s threat and right before Helmer warnings of dishonest mothers makes it clear to the reader and viewers the dire situation Nora is in.
In the play "A Doll's House", Henrik Ibsen's characterization of Nora reflects the situation of women of the Victorian era. Being quite clever, Nora is the epitomy of a " good wife", but at the same time, she uses this image she attains to win more say amongst men. The fact that she is involved in the business world, taking out a loan to protect her husband's health shows her capabilities that are more than expected of an average wife. These dealings, however, come with a cost, for if her husband every finds out about her "business transactions", which is really a loan she took out to preserve his well-being, her husband would be furious. This shows her courageousness, but at the same time shows how she is, in some ways, disobeying her husbands' beliefs, which are unacceptable of a wife. Nora, in this way, is fighting to maintain her status and image of a perfect wife, but at the same time, she is ambitious and looks for ways to make herself seem more prominent in the life of the men among her. With her naive and credulous front, she often seems to manipulate others to receive what she wants. This, however, only is the cause of lack of say she has had in society being a woman. Nora, although she seems manipulative, is in constant war with the woman that she is supposed to be in the eyes of society, and the woman she knows she's capable of being. She knows that with her wit and looks, she is able to do more than she is expected of, but at the same time, getting involved in such dealings puts her in a bad position as a wife, since it crosses the line of the expectations of the husbands. When she is speaking to Mrs. Linde, trying to prove the difficulties her family has faced, she says how she had to save money as much as she could, and also work on the side to be able to pay back the debt that she is in. This shows her determination and will to pursue her callings and capabilities, but hiding this from her husband and being alarmed at all times around the matter shows how she is trying to keep her "wifely" image that she is supposed to have. Looking at a bigger picture, Nora is not an ironically manipulative woman, she is just an ambitious wife whose main concern is the well-being of her family, willing to do whatever it takes to ensure their health and prosperity.
As act one of "A Dolls House" came to a close one thing became more and more clear to me. As we had talked about Bianca being a foil to Kate, Mrs. Linde is the foil to Nora. This can initially be seen when examining the differences in why they each wed and different characteristics their families, or lack of. While Nora obviously wed for personal welfare, Ibsen makes it very clear that Mrs. Linde wed to care for her immediate family, who was suffering. Also, when examining their families Nora has gushed on and on about her children and husband while being aware that Linde had lost not only her husband, but also her mother and brother. Mrs. Linde later makes a comment about how Nora has never faced true hardship in her life, yet in typical fashion Nora has a way to counter that accusation. Claiming how she had saved her husbands life and had procured a mass about of money on her own in which she has kept a secret from her husband for over a year now. This all comes together to show one main difference in the characters. Mrs. Linde is used as a foil to makes Nora's childish and naive behavior even more obvious. Linde has a very realistic and mature perspective on the world around her as she has learned many lessons. This comes while Nora continuously brags about herself and has no regard for anyone else while she speaks. This childish-ness made me think of the title of the play, "A Dolls house", and how the doll could possibly even be a symbol for Nora. Nora has proven she is more intellectual than she comes off with her childish and naive actions to the masses, thus creating the symbol for these actions to be the doll. With more depth than can be perceived purely by examining their life from the outside.
“I quite literally feel physically sick in the presence of such people” (Ibsen 33). The usage of “sick” here appears to have a double meaning. The obvious is that Torvald is disgusted by people such as Krogstad, and, as shown by the ending of the act, his wife; whether or not he knows of Nora and Krogstad’s similarities is unknown. Therefore, he is indirectly calling his wife sickening, which ties into the other, subtextual meaning: the sick, twisted nature of their relationship. If that is a quality he finds in his wife, it will seep into their marriage, which has been obvious from the start. Both are incredibly manipulative, plus Nora’s deception and Torvald’s condescension and mockery. He also probably uses these words to Nora to imply that he does know what she has been up to. Torvald has been shown to be very passive aggressive, addressing issues with his wife indirectly. They both enjoy messing with others and making them uncomfortable for entertainment; this action would be a surefire way to do so. Nora would pick up on the hint that he knows, but be unsure whether it is true, leading to more tension and lies.
In the second half of Act One in “A Doll’s House”, Henrik Ibsen uses cold, ominous diction and and authoritative language to characterize Mr. Krogstad as a dark, eerie character that should be feared. When Krogstad comes into the scene towards the end of the act, Ibsen immediately gets to establishing Krogstad’s dark presence in the stage directions. Ibsen writes, “Meanwhile there has been a knock at the front door, which nobody has heard, The door half opens, and Krogstad can be seen. He waits a little; the game continues” (23). Ibsen uses furtive diction when describing how Krogstad’s arrival should look when the play is brought to life in order to create an ominous tone surrounding Krogstad. Phrases such as “meanwhile there has been”, “nobody has heard”, and “the door half opens” incite connotations of sneaky, surreptitious behavior. The repeated idea of these new developments going unnoticed adds to the ominous tone, creating a sense of foreboding. The last phrase, “the game continues” contributes greatly to the ominous tone, suggesting the image of Krogstad slowly creeping towards Nora and her children while they are completely unsuspecting of his presence. Later on, in the middle of Nora and Krogstad’s conversation, Ibsen uses authoritative language in Krogstad’s speech to make him appear even darker. When Nora insists that she doesn’t have the power to help Krogstad keep his job at the bank, Krogstad turns the table on her by saying, “That’s because you haven’t the will to help me. But I have ways of making you” (26). Krogstad’s last sentence contributes greatly to the ominous tone that Ibsen has established around his character. The fact that Krogstad insists he has methods of making Nora do his bidding, but doesn’t elaborate on what these methods are, adds to the ominous tone quite a bit.
“All right, then we’ll share it, Nora--as man and wife. That’s what we’ll do” (Ibsen 44). At first glance, this particular quote may not look like much, Mr. Helmer simply says that he wants to share the responsibility from his job (once he lets Krogstad go) as man and wife. However whenever first read this passage, the way Mr. Helmer worded “man and wife”, set me back slightly. Rather than describing their relationship as “husband and wife” or “man and woman”, he calls is “man and wife”. This set a tone of superiority in Mr. Helmer’s words, as if Nora is his wife, but he is not her husband. Nora “belongs” to him, but it’s not mutual. This image is important to the play because it is most likely an accurate reflection of man and woman relationships in the Victorian era, it is a theme commonly referred to throughout the play. Later on in Act 2 it is clear how strongly Mr. Helmer feels about the image of superiority in his marriage, it seems as though to him it is even more important than his work is. After Nora asks him to keep Krogstad at the bank, he bluntly tells her that it is too late to keep him, because then that would show to the bank that Nora has an influence over him. He has to make all the decisions, or else his “image” would be ruined, making him look weak. This idea of superiority is seen in every male character in the play, and even in the women’s submission to their male counterparts. Because it is so common, it’s most likely a big message that Ibsen was trying to convey to his audience, perhaps trying to parody or diminish this sexist view in his own society. This is just one example of Ibsen carrying out his goal of “painting a picture” of Victorian society for the audience.
I agree with you on the fact that Ibsen portrays society in the Victorian era. Another example of this portrayal can be found in the conversation between Nora and Helmer. When Nora asks Helmer to reconsider his decision of firing Krogstad, he replies, “It’s already known down at the Bank that I am going to give Krogstad his notice. If it ever got around that the new manager had been talked over by his wife...” (42). Here, Helmer expresses his disapproval in letting Krogstad keep his job, because he does not want to be seen as the manager who got persuaded by his wife. During the Victorian era, husbands were considered to be superior to wives, meaning that it would be humiliating for husband to be told what to do by the wife. Thus, this conversation is another example of the gender roles during the Victorian Era.
In the beginning of the play, the character Krogstad threatens Nora, demanding her to let him keep his job at the bank, or else he will reveal the forging of the IOU. He justifies this blackmail by stating that it is for the sake of his sons, yet people still view him in a negative way, since he is willing to hurt others for the sake of himself and his family. However, it is important to remember that Krogstad is not the only character that prioritizes himself and his families. In Act 2 of the play, A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen characterizes Nora as somewhat selfish in order to convey that people would prioritize themselves and the people they love over strangers. For example, this egotistical side of Nora is portrayed in the conversation between her and Torvald. When she brings up the point of letting Krogstad keep his job, Torvald says, “My dear Nora, I'm giving his job to Mrs. Linde” (41). In response, Nora says, “Yes, it’s awfully sweet of you. But couldn’t you get rid of somebody else in the office instead of Krogstad?” (41). Here, Torvald reveals his intention to replace Krogstad with Mrs. Linde. However, Nora cannot let Krogstad be fired, since he would then reveal the secret about the forging of the IOU and as a result get her in serious trouble. However, if she were to let Krogstad keep his job, then her precious friend Mrs Linde would not get a job. Thus, because she did not want bad things happening to neither herself nor her friend, she instead asks if Torvald can fire some other worker. Notice how the situation between Nora and Krogstad are surprisingly similar. Both of the characters are in a tight situation and starts to prioritize themselves and their peers over others. This egotistical personality on a nice and childish person like Nora illustrates the human nature of selfishness. In addition, another example is present during the conversation between Nora and Dr. Rank. When he says, “Only what I have long expected. but I didn't think it would come quite so soon” (45), Nora reacts very emotionally, because she believed that something bad had happened to Torvald’s condition. However, when Dr. Rank revealed that it was himself that was going to die soon, Nora replies, “oh, it's you you’re...” (45). In this phrase, Nora deep inside is feeling relieved that it is Dr. Rank who is going to die instead of her beloved husband. Again, the relief that Nora feels illustrate that in a way, she reflects Krogstad valuing himself and his sons more than Nora and Torvald. The huge difference in reaction of Nora of when she hears her husband dying and Dr. Rank dying illustrates the difference in priority she feels towards the two men, which once again illustrates the selfish side of human nature. Thus, Ibsen gives a selfish side to a sweet and childish character like Nora in order to convey that people at one point prioritizes themselves and the people they love over others.
I really liked your characterization of Ibsen’s characterization of Nora, I think that most in the audience would get the same idea that Nora is very self-centered, and is unable to see the perspectives of other people. This idea was introduced early on in the book, and continues on to the example that you mentioned with Dr. Rank and his bad news. From the first act when Mrs. Linde arrives at the house, Nora bombards her with all of the problems in her own life, failing to ask for or take into account any of those from Mrs. Linde. Sometimes I get the idea that Nora is actually worried more about her own well-being than that of her family, since she’d rather run away and leave her kids before she has to face Helmer with her mistakes.
“My poor little Nora never had any mother but me” (Ibsen 36). The nursemaid says this to Nora when the two mention how Nora grew up with her as a maternal figure. This could explain Nora’s issues with leaving her children alone; she cannot remember her actual mother because she had spent so much time away, so she assumes the same would happen to her children with even the slightest bit of separation. Nora then latched onto the maid as a mother, which she expresses here. The maid’s status as a maternal figure means she likely had a great deal of influence over Nora, especially if she knew her since she was young. The maid calls her her “poor little Nora,” a description reminiscent of what Torvald calls her. It is condescending and degrading but hidden under a veneer of endearment and kindness. If Nora grew up with someone like this, someone who had that much influence over her, it makes sense that she would regard these types of nicknames and descriptions as normal. She goes along with it, too, such as when she asks for a favor from Torvald and calls herself the animalistic nicknames. The “my” in the quote also denotes ownership, which is not far off from the reality of Victorian women. Even though the maid is a woman and was just using it teasingly, it still implies that Nora has always belonged to someone, whether it be her family or her husband. The fact that she is owned makes it harder for Nora to gain the independence and control she so desires, which is why she has to manipulate and deceive to get what she wants.
In act two of "A Dolls House" Nora says: "Your squirrel would run about and do all her tricks if you would be nice, and do what she wants." (2.92). I found this quote to be particularly interesting. Here Ibsen uses animal diction to describe where Nora ranks with Torvald. She calls herself a squirrel to downgrade herself and demonstrate how he is superior. She also says how the squirrel would do tricks to show how she is not an equal partner in the relationship, showing how she is more of a pet than a spouse. Stating that she is of the status of a pet to Torvald reflects the status of most women of the victorian era. The women of this time were believed to be confined to the house because that is "where they belonged". Ibsen uses Mrs. Linde and Nora to show how while this was believed to be the social norm, it was not necessarily true for all women. Many people may have had the need to challenge these standards set by society. Whether that be for personal wants, needs for their families, or just to throw a wrench in the system. Yet, again in the quote Nora expresses how all she really wants is for her husband be kind. She may have in fact had some sort of sexual context to this but again, that would not have been acceptable socially for the time period.
I don’t know if you had a different translation (which I don’t think is the case) or I just couldn’t find the quote to read the context it is in, but I’m assuming this is when Nora is attempting to convince Helmer to keep Krogstad at the Bank. Nora is asking her husband to be kind, but I think the main purpose of Nora using animal imagery on herself was the purpose of manipulating Helmer into agreeing to let Krogstad keep his job. I agree with you that Nora’s position in their marriage is the inferior one, and I viewed it almost like a parent-child dynamic (Nora pleads for allowance, Helmer controls what she eats etc). Despite the position she’s in as you described as, “pet,” she knows how to appeal to his need for being dominant; by lowering herself she knows that she has the chance of manipulating him.
After Dr. Rank confesses to be in love with Nora, she explains “Well, you see, there are those people you love and those people you’d almost rather be with.” (Ibsen 50). Nora distinguishes that the people she loves differ from the people she enjoys being in company. She goes on to describe that as a child she, “loved Daddy best,” but always spent time in, “the maids’ room,” because she enjoyed the freedom from her father’s control (50). Dr. Rank understands Nora’s implications; she loves Torvald Helmer the most, like her father, while Dr. Rank has taken the maids’ role, the group she’d “rather be with” (50). Nora’s insight can be interpreted as her simply rejecting Dr. Rank’s confession, where Henrik Ibsen italicizes “be” to emphasize Nora’s hint at Rank that she regards him as good company (50). However, while this might be her purpose, the importance of this quote lies in that it reveals Nora’s perspective of love and marriage. Ibsen uses repetition with the phrase, “those people,” emphasizing to the reader or viewer that Nora is distinguishing between these two groups (50). Nora actually separates her loved ones and those she enjoys being around, giving the example of her father and the maids. Her comment intrigues the reader or viewer for the reason that it contrasts the idea that loved ones are the ones a person desires most to be around. Why wouldn’t someone want to be with the people they love? It’s possible that Nora is not separating these two groups, that she’s not commenting that the people she loves are people she doesn’t want to “be with” (50). This may hold true, but Nora in her examples does distinguish these two groups. She depicts her father as the person she loved best, but admits that she preferred the maids’ company because, “For one thing they never preached at me” (50). Juxtaposing her love for her father to her love for her husband, Nora insinuates that with Torvald Helmer, she feels just as controlled and suffocated as she did with her father. Nora doesn’t separate between the familial love for her father and the romantic love for Helmer, suggesting that their marriage is far from equal partnership. By describing her love for her husband as similar to her father, Nora characterizes her relationship with Helmer as a parent-child dynamic. It seems as though Nora’s love for her husband is one of loyalty and societal expectation and Nora realizes that.
“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” (Ibsen 43)
In this scene Torvald, usually a mature and calm character is seen creating a childish outburst leading to his rash decisions of sending out Krogstad’s job notice. These actions are caused by Nora’s comment in regards to Torvald's issues with Krogstad being, “all so petty”(43). Torvald’s response to Nora’s comment are rather surprising and show a new side of Torvald. Throughout all of Act 1 Torvald is portrayed as a patient, light, and caring person especially when interacting with his wife Nora. In this scene however Torvalds outbursts are filled with anger and are rather abrupt and unlike his usual personality. Nora and Torvald’s characteristics seem to briefly switch in this scene.He sends out Krogstad’s letter of notice in spite of Nora’s comment and his actions are impulsive instead of thoughtout. The reactions of Torvald are immature while Nora is the character whose actions are usually deemed childish or foolish. Torvald’s outbursts happen due to the disrespect Nora shows by calling her husband “petty”. All though this doesn’t seem terribly disrespectful in a modern retrospect during the Victorian era husbands were supposed to be superior to their wifes. They were to be looked at with adoration and held on a pedestal by their wifes. Any form of slight belittling or slander from any wife was seen as extremely disrespectful. Torvald’s reactions to Nora’s remark show his value in his superiority in their relationship. He is punishing Nora for her disrespect by doing the one thing she is asking him not to, which is giving away Krogstad’s job. After the letter is sent out Torvald’s mood quickly changes. He is no longer angry or upset with Nora and his light personality reappears as does his love for his wife. Image and superiority are very important to Torvald as shown in this scene. He punished Nora for her remark in order to prove his power in their relationship. Through this interaction Ibsen shows the relationships and different roles both genders had during the Victorian era.
In Act Two, when Nora is attempting to convince Torvald to allow Krogstad to keep his job at the bank, Torvald replies with the words, “There, there, don’t look at me with those eyes, like a little frightened dove. The whole thing is sheer imagination.––Why don’t you run through the tarantella and try out the tambourine?” (44). Here, Ibsen uses condescending language and symbolism to illustrate the subdued, submissive role of women in the Victorian Era. Torvald begins his spiel by attempting to make Nora into the villain of the situation. The language of his words, “there, there” “don’t look at me”, and “those eyes”, create a condescending tone in his speech as though he knows better than Nora. This behavior by Torvald towards his wife is largely representative of the norm during the Victorian Era; women were to obey men’s rules and not question their authority. In the next bit of speech, Ibsen sneaks a bit of symbolism into the line to further expound on women’s role in relation to men. Here, Torvald compares Nora to a “little frightened dove”, suggesting that Nora is no more than a pretty object to be admired. Doves come with connotations of beauty and peace, but by adding the words “little” and “frightened”, Ibsen transforms the dove’s meaning into a conquered, helpless creature that no longer possesses the necessary power to stand up for itself. This comparison works well for Ibsen’s purpose, because women of the Victorian Era essentially had the same level of power and stood for the same things that the dove does. Women were generally the caretakers of the children and stayed at home, trying to bring love and peace to the rigid, cold environment of the Victorian Era. But when they attempted to step out of the home and increase their influence across the population, the men crushed them and ensured that they did not achieve the same level of power that men possessed. This is the ideal that Torvald represents when he speaks to Nora in the way that he does. This is especially important at this point in the play, because Nora is attempting to make a play for power by convincing Torvald to allow Krogstad to keep his job. Torvald draws from the ideals of the Victorian Era in his speech to ensure that Nora’s influence does not surpass his own.
During the Victorian Era, men were treated as superior to women, and husbands often treated their wives as their possessions. Because the gender role are so much different today than back then, modern people tend to see the men in the past in a somewhat negative outlook. However, one must remember that “most” men treated their women as inferior but not all did. In act 3 of the play A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen compares the couple of Helmer and Nora to that of Krogstad and Kristine in order to illustrate that some couples deviate the time period’s gender norms. First, the author clearly portrays the relationship between Nora and Helmer. When Helmer says, “Can’t I look at my most treasured possession?” (69), he seems to complement Nora by calling her someone that is “treasured”. However, he also calls her a “possession”. The fact that Helmer’s statement was intended to be a complement indicates that he unconsciously called her a possession, which allows Ibsen to illustrate that women in the past were treated as possession. On the contrary, Ibsen seems to delineate the couple of Krogstad and Kristine as more similar to that of today then in the past. This characteristic is evident during the conversation between the two characters. When Krogstad and Mrs. Linde agree to get back together, Krogstad says, “I’ve never been so incredibly happy before” (66). Likewise, Kristine states, “How things change! Somebody to work for... to live for. A home to bring happiness into” (66). Here, just like Nora, Kristine is delighted to be with the man she loves. However, the factor that makes the two relationship drastically different lies in the view of husband. Unlike Helmer, Krogstad does not treat her lover as a possession but genuinely appreciates the relationship he has with her. The fact that Ibsen made this relationship deviate from the gender roles may be a message to the audience that not all men in the Victorian Era treated women like their possessions.
A recurring motif in A Doll’s House is the nicknames that Helmer gives Nora, it’s one of the many ways the Helmer asserts his dominance over her. Usually the names consist of “my little…” both giving a tone of inferiority, as well as making Nora seem like a possession that Helmer owns. The nicknames, while odd, still must not have been out of the norm for the Victorian era, and Nora seemed to not take any offense to them. While they seemed to set a tone of male superiority, they could also be seen as endearing, especially since “songbird” and “skylark” are rather loving remarks, and even in modern would not be considered offensive. Helmer’s different names for Nora generally following the same pattern, until the end of Act 2 when he referred to her with something unordinary. After Nora begs Helmer to focus all of his attention on her and help her with her dance, he says that, “the child must have her way. But tomorrow night, when your dance is done….” (Ibsen 60). Here in this instance Helmer calls Nora a “child”, which is definitely something that is not often heard of between husband and wife. While Nora often times does act rather childish, especially around her kids and Helmer, referring to her as such demeans her and once again puts himself above her, which I believe is just what she wants. Being thought of as a child is simply a mask that Nora puts on, so she can get away with more without suspicion. As we can see from all her piled lies with Krogstad, she can be devious and smart in secret, and in order to help hide everything she’s done she needs to have Helmer (and everyone else around her) either; 1) take responsibility for letting her out of his sight or 2) never suspect that she would be capable of such things.
Jared, I really like what you had to say about the nicknames applied to Nora from Torvald. I agree that while some of them can be seen as loving and endearing, many of them are used to show his superiority and possession. I do think that this language is very demeaning as you said. I thought it was interesting what you said about the act she put on using her childish actions to get away with more. My question was if you thought that these remarks and nicknames add to why she ultimately feel the need to leave torvald and her children?
There are many different aspects of act three of "A Dolls House" that I found very interesting. One thing I found very interesting was the interaction with Doctor Rank. Earlier in the work rank had made it evident that he was ill and would thus die. But when considering the short length of time that passes within the context of the play, the fact that he comes and says his goodbye so soon is somewhat shocking. When looking over the development of the disease I found that the final stage of the disease occurs years(3-15) after exposure to the disease. So if he has all this time before he will be actually potentially dying, I am left wondering why he is going to hid away for so long. As a human it is very bad to hide away for such a long time. I also wonder how he will continue his living time if he is just going to shack up in his home and stay there till he is really dead. I know I have to consider that the knowledge about the progression of this disease was not even close to what it is now. But despite all that, I found it very interesting that Rank was seemingly flirting with Nora, yet very subtly. He talked how in the future Nora could just go in her everyday clothes, hinting that she is wonderful enough on her own therefore she needs no costume. He does this right in front of Helmer. I found this very strange because especially during the time, one man would not flirt with another mans wife, especially not right in front of that man.
I also thought his actions were interesting. The fact that he kept it hidden for so long could have something to do with Victorian secrecy and not wanting to bring any sort of shame or pity to oneself and/or one's family. The fact that he himself is a doctor may have made it even more shameful. A disease should not be seen this way, but considering Victorian era people, they may have seen it as disgusting or thought less of him. On the flipside, he may be flirting with Nora because he realizes he has little time left, so he might as well.
Once again Henrik Ibsen displays the value of “image” during the Victorian Era in, “A Doll’s House”. Torvald is one character in particular who cares vastly about his appearance to others. After the party Torvald is extremely cheerful with Nora because her tarantella dance was such a success. He cares a lot about what others think of him and the reputation he holds.When Nora seems to have made a good impression on everybody at the party Torvald is seen being more affectionate than usual. Also, he seems more prideful to have Nora as his wife as he brags to Mrs. Linde, “Isn’t she quite extraordinarily lovely? That’s what everybody at the party thought too” (67). Would Torvald have been in the same mood had Nora’s dance gone horribly wrong? Also, when Mrs. Linde is about to depart from both Nora and Torvald's home, Torvald asks if the knitted garment left behind is Mrs. Linde’s. While on this topic Torvald elaborates by stating she should embroider rather than knit. Torvald claims embroidering is, “So much prettier. Watch! You hold the embroidery like this in the left hand, and than you take the needle in the right hand, like this, and you describe a long graceful curve” (68). He than goes on to compare it to knitting, “whereas knitting on the other hand just can’t help being ugly. Look! Arms pressed into the sides, the knitting needles going up and down”(68-69).Torvald’s comments about knitting almost seem to be more broadly directed at Mrs.Linde’s life. Kristine, unlike most women, is a hardworking women with a job and is less infatuated with her appearance. Torvald’s comment indicates his belief that she should try be more like most women. Embroidery is very delicate and has no real functions other than looking nice or being decorations, similar to most women’s roles in the Victorian era. Torvald automatically deems embroidery as better simply because it has a better appearance in comparison to knitting. Fixation with appearances was a common trait during the Victorian age and is shown using Torvald’s character throughout the play.
The conversation between Mrs. Linde and Krogstad is something my group found very interesting. It highlights Linde’s character, both how she fits in with the rest of the cast and stands out. She, too, is manipulative and does what she can to get what she want. However, she is also considerate in her own way, and the way she uses people, such as Krogstad, is mutually beneficial. She says towards the end of the conversation, “This unhappy secret must come out...All this secrecy and deception, it just can’t go on” (Ibsen 66). She still works against Nora, but because she believes it is in her friend’s best interest, and that letting Nora have her way would only make her situation worse in the future. The way she words the sentence, two, is as if she is speaking about the play itself, like she knows everything that has been going on even if she has not seen it. Not quite a fourth wall break, but a fourth wall lean. A casual, subtle rest against the fourth wall, as to not alert the other characters that they are characters in a play. (Considering their personalities, that would probably not go over well.) It foreshadows the events of the play as well as emphasizing the main conflict, and serves as commentary for the Victorian era. Ibsen wanted to take a “snapshot” of the era, and having Linde point this aspect of their lives out is part of his method, while characterizing her by adding her opinion into the statement and her motivations. Linde’s actions also imply that she believes the Helmer family cannot take care of their own problems; in order to help them, she has to manipulate them like dolls.
I found your comment very interesting Anika. I had never thought about how Linde's speech and her part in the play, really, is to show an outside-of-the-box view of the characters and I think it's very interesting how you pointed out Ibsen's use of her character. Also, I agree with the "fourth-wall lean" you mentioned, because it highlights her subtle, yet enormous effect on the purpose and meaning of the play.
The heated fiery conversation between Nora and Dr. Rank was something my group discussed about quite a bit. We were discussing how this seductive, flirtatiousness of Nora is to lure Dr. Rank into doing her a favor that could potentially restore her life, or she genuinely wants to be with him. Nora and Mrs. Linde had a previous conversation about this situation, where Mrs. Linde, shocked and in disbelief, asks Nora if the "rich admirer who was to provide you with money..." (Ibsen II.i pg. 38), is Dr. Rank, and of course Nora says no. This, however, could be foreshadowing what is next to come, which does. At this instance, our group believed that the idea of Dr. Rank giving her money was planted into Nora's brain, therefore, is the reason why she tries to seduce him in the next scene. There are lots of subtitles in Nora's speech when she is trying to play or seduce Dr. Rank. The silk stockings mentioned, of course, do add to the sexual tension present, but what we found more interesting is how Nora keeps giving him misleading hints about her feelings. After flirting with him, he confesses his long love for her, to which she responds," Oh, how could you be so clumsy, Dr. rank! When everything was so nice" (Ibsen II. pg 49). Here, she degenerates Rank's courage to speak up about his feelings, giving a hint that she doesn't feel that way about him. However, right after this, she gives another misleading hint by saying that, " Well you see, there are those people you love and those people you'd almost rather be with" (Ibsen II. pg 50). Here, she is implying that although she loves Torvald, she would rather be with someone else, Rank possibly. These abrupt changes in her speech show how she was purposefully playing Dr. Rank to have him fall in love with her even more, that maybe he would help he eventually pay off her debt.
I agree, I think that this particular scene says a lot about the attitudes of Nora, both her selfishness, and her rebellious attitude of the common norms/rules in the Victorian society. The addition of the silk stockings is a testament to just that, I agree with your interpretation of that image. Such a scandalous action would’ve been disgraceful to Victorian society, and clearly came as a shock to Rank, although he did not care too much since he is so fond of her. I was surprised with her drastic change of attitudes in this scene, it shows well her inability to have sympathy or feel the emotions for others, since she basically just played with him, drawing him in the shutting him out. This scene could be a good foreshadow for a later event, since we now know it is both difficult for her to love, and for others to love her.
One interesting thing our group discussed in the beginning of act three was about the character Mrs. Linde. Mrs. Linde, who had offered to speak to Krogstad for Nora, is revealed to have had a romantic relationship with Krogstad, and turned down his proposal due to the fact that Krogstad could not provide for her and her family. We were discussing whether Mrs. Linde actually had any genuine motive to help Nora, or is planning to get revenge on a supposed friend that hasn’t kept in contact for years. It’s likely Mrs. Linde has good intentions, but also wants to view Nora in bad fortune, due to Nora’s previous bragging about her fortunes in act one. Henrik Ibsen uses light imagery to the foreshadow events. using light as a positive connotation and darkness as a negative one. In the beginning scene, Ibsen describes “A lamp is burning on the table” (Ibsen 62). The imagery of a lamp not just lit, but “burning” foreshadows the climax of the story yet to come. Mrs. Linde’s restlessness pictured here also suggests that she and Krogstad had more than just a simple relationship. Our group also discussed how it was very interesting the stark contrast between Krogstad and Torvald Helmer. Krogstad readily accepts Mrs. Linde’s offer of supporting him, saying “Thank you, thank you, Kristine.” (65). If Helmer was in Krogstad’s position, it would be likely that he would reject his spouse’s help for the sake of pride. It’ll be interesting to see how Mrs. Linde’s plan works out; whether Helmer would be told of the truth that the light foreshadows.
I really like the insight you brought up about the relationship between Krogstad and Mrs.Linde. I also feel that they also most likely had a very complex relationship. But what you said about how helmer might act if proposed with this information is a very interesting point. I never thought about this but I do think that you are correct. Torvald is a very prideful man and I think this would get in the way of him accepting any help from his wife or any other woman. And essentially the light show does foreshadow that everything comes out in the end even if that is not in the way that the audience may have thought.
Throughout the play "A Doll's House" many very interesting things were presented. One of the most interesting motifs I found that was continual throughout the whole play is that the main characters were always talking around the issue. For example, Nora's exchange with Doctor Rank. The doctor will not address that he has syphilis, he refers to the issue as "tuberculosis of the spine". Another example of when they talk around the main problem is when Nora is speaking to Mrs. Linde about what she has done to ensure Helmer's health and how she went about making that happen. It really speaks to the time period and who people lived their lives. Many people hid behind a certain image or reputation. While this still stands true today, now many people are more willing to speak about their struggles and hardships instead of hiding behind them. I feel like Nora is very dynamic in this sense. In the beginning of the play she is very conformed to societies expectations and rules and would do nothing to stain her image. But at the end when she makes a bowl decision to do whats best for her and her children it proves that no matter what society claims to be right those rules are always meant to tested. Many people have proven this throughout history. If people weren't willing to challenge the societal norm we would still have slavery, apartheid, or even overthrowing a leader in order create better lives for themselves(for example in the french revolution). While many men and women of the time would not approve of Nora leaving her family, now as a society it can be seen that this can sometimes better the lives of an individual and those around them to provide a better life.
I would agree. The fact that they were always talking around the issue seems to be part of what leads to all their problems, mostly Nora refusing to confront anything that she had done. in fact, it was only when people were direct in their intentions and questions that anything actually got done; even if it seemed negative at the time, it led to the resolution at the end. Ibsen painted the societal norm of being indirect as a huge issue, part of the commentary he made or "snapshot" of the time he wanted to take.
Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” wields dramatic irony, which not only creates climatic moments, but characterizes Torvald Helmer. Ibsen depicts Helmer as a person who prides himself on appearance and fulfilling the Victorian era’s demand for “respectability”. Towards the end of the first act, Ibsen utilizes dramatic irony where Helmer remains unenlightened of Nora’s IOU. Helmer denounces Krogstad for hiding forgery exclaiming that, “Many a man might be able to redeem himself, if he honestly confessed his guilt and took his punishment.” (Ibsen 32). Without knowledge of Nora’s lies, Helmer essentially condemns Nora as she committed forgery and did not reveal it to him. This use of dramatic irony creates a tension; the seemingly jocund tone in the opening scene collapses. While Helmer criticizes Krogstad for avoiding judgement, Helmer rejects his own righteous declaration when the truth about the IOU and forgery is disclosed. Instead of gallantly taking on the blame as Nora expected (which in itself is situational irony because Nora repeatedly expected that he would take upon the punishment), Helmer emphasizes keeping up appearances, ranting that, “The thing must be hushed up at all costs,” and, “All we can do is save the bits and pieces from the wreck, preserve appearances” (76). Not only does this characterize Helmer as very Victorian in valuing appearance over all else, it illustrates him as a very hypocritical character. Just before Helmer knows of the IOU, Iben uses dramatic irony where Helmer fantasizes, “You know, Nora . . .many’s the time I wish you were threatened by some terrible danger so I could risk everything, body and soul, for your sake.” (74). The irony that Helmer does have a chance to “risk everything” for Nora but instead shudders in fear of being mistaken as an accomplice further depicts him as hypocritical and selfish (74). But is Torvald Helmer necessarily a “bad” person for his hypocrisy and repulsion to the very idea of sacrificing his honor for Nora? Not many people are genuinely altruistic. It’s human nature to be hypocritical and self-serving, so can we blame Helmer?
Your question is very interesting. I saw the message in the play as, yes, people are self-serving and put themselves first, so if we accept Nora's actions, we should do the same with Helmer's. However, his interest is less genuine; he does not really care about himself, just what other people think and his reputation, or maybe to the point in which they are one and the same. Nora, on the other hand, says that she does not care what people think. I don't think Helmer is necessarily a bad person, because he is just doing what he was raised to do by society, and I thought these parallels and differences between the two were quite interesting. They add a thought-provoking aspect to the end of the play.
In the end of Act 3, Nora leaves the home without taking the children with her. Nora may of been partially right to leave her children but ultimately she as a mother should not have done so. Firstly, leaving the children will allow Nora to relieve them from the hardships she may go through. During the Victorian Era, women who did not have the aid of a husband experienced financial promes. This hardship can be reflected in the background of Mrs. Linde. She was forced to marry a man she didn't even love, all for the sake of being financially stable. Her reliance illustrates the need of women to stay with a husband. Indeed, when her husband passes away, she started to experience hardships regarding money and was not truly happy until she reunited and got back together with Krogstad. Thus, if Nora were to leave her children with her husband, they would not need to go through such trouble, In contrast, however, it does not seem that Nora is leaving for the sake of her children. When she argues with Helmer in leaving the house, she makes the point that she must leave for “herself”. There are many instances in the play where she prioritizes herself over others, and she also even blames the children for picking Helmer’s letter box. Furthermore, she says to Helmer that, “I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Daddy’s doll child” (81). Here, she is stating the fact that both her husband and father treated her like their own doll. Indeed, leaving the house would most likely free Nora from her status as Helmer’s doll, but who would replace Nora? There would only be one choice: The children. Leaving the house may prevent the children from bearing the potential hardships Nora may have to go through, but she just does not consider the possibility of her children being treated the same way she was treated by her husband and father .Considering the personality of Helmer (cars only about his image), the children needs the love of their mother, and therefore she should not have left them in the house.
After finishing Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, there was one particular aspect that impacted me the most, above all the other ideas, messages, and symbols that Ibsen threw our way. The stereotypes amd expectations of self image in the Victorian society surprised me, it was interesting to see how much self image drove the lives of those in the Victorian era. Helmer was a perfect example of this, putting the way people thought of him before his job, and even his wife. He displays this blunty when he tells Nora, “No one sacrifices his honour for the one he loves” (Ibsen 84). This shocked me, and was a good example of how toxic the relationship between Torvald and Nora is. This idea of self image and letting the opinions of other people drive your actions is a big part of my life, I related well and was even inspired by many of Nora’s words. This is surely still a problem in our society as well, however just in a different light, through social media especially. It’s something that I’ve tried to ingore personally, I feel that is important to live for no one but yourself. Nora illustrated this well when she fired back at Helmer with, “That’s no concern of mine. All I know is that this necessary for me” (82). That quote was super refreshing to read after hearing about all these people living in vain. It brought a smile to my face hearing Nora stand up to her husband and even society, and choose to live on her own terms, something I think everyone should do.
In today’s world, people tend to discourage their kids in keeping secrets, because secrecy only leads to trouble. Indeed, a child keeping a secret about breaking a valuable of their parents will only make the parents even more angry when they find out. However, in the Victorian era, people would often hide in themselves a secret not revealed to even their wives/husbands. In Act 1 of the play A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen introduces Nora’s characteristics of secrecy in order to foreshadow a possible conflict for the play.
ReplyDeleteThe first clue to Nora’s characteristic lies in the very beginning of Act 1, where the stage direction of Nora states that, “She takes a bag of macaroons out of her pocket and eats one or two” (1). From reading just this stage direction, the readers will not be able to get anything out of it. However, when Helmer asks “Didn’t go nibbling a macaroon or two?” (5), Nora replies, “I never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to” (5). Here, Nora states exaggeratedly that she would never do something that Helmer does not like, which in this case is eating macaroons. However, the stage direction in the beginning of the play clearly indicates that Nora was eating the sweets. The use of hyperbole to exaggerate Nora’s earlier statement allows the author to emphasize the fact that Nora lied, which allows the author to characterize her as a wife who is not afraid to keep a secret from her husband. Subsequently, Ibsen reveals yet another secret that Nora has been hiding, but bigger in the level of seriousness. During the conversation between Nora and Mrs. Linde, Nora states that she was the one who got the money to save her husband, but does not reveal how she exactly earned the sum of money. When Mrs. Linde asks, “you haven’t done anything rash, have you?” (14), Nora replies, “Is it rash to save your husband’s life?” (15). Here, Nora does not deny that she had done something out of the line, but she merely states asks a question that conveys her belief that as a wife, she must save her husband at all costs. The question indicates that the method to which she has gotten the money is not danger-free. This indication allows Ibsen to convey to the readers that the secret behind Nora’s method of acquiring money will lead to a conflict. Thus, Ibsen in Act 1 of the play A Doll’s House reveals the secretive characteristic of Nora in order to foreshadow the upcoming conflict.
In “Dolls House”, Henrik Ibsen barrages the audience with a multitude of themes and symbols, all with different messages and ideas. The symbol I found most interesting in this play was the symbol of Dr. Rank, the Helmer’s family doctor. His character is special as he is the only symbol I could find that is actually a person, rather than an object or food item. He also stands for many different things. Looking at him at surface level, his name is the first thing that stands out to me. Rank is an interesting word because it has many different definitions in the dictionary, the primary definition being a position in a hierarchy. This conveys a tone of superiority, sending a message to the audience that he is well qualified as a doctor. However also when you look deeper into the word there is a common slang use, where is often used to describe something that is awful smelling, giving the audience the idea that he is gross and revolting, hygienically and/or physically, removing much of the trust the readers have in him. In the play Nora also tells Mrs. Linde that he comes to check up on the family daily, even though she states that Torvald and the family has not been sick in years. This helps further Rank as a symbol of mystery and secrecy, as it is not likely that a well qualified doctor would check on a man so often years after he was “cured” of his sickness. It would be an inconvenience and a big waste of time for both men, giving the audience the idea that there is something else happening with Torvald that he is keeping from everybody, even his wife, possibly his sickness was not fully cured. This would definitely be possible, as the relationship between Torvald and his wife is very secret and unsettling, because they lie and keep so much from eachother.
ReplyDeleteI like how you mentioned the fact that Dr. Rank visits Nora’s house everyday to supposedly check up on Helmer’s health, even though his disease is cured. Like you said, it would be a waste of time for the two men to meet every single day, but I have a prediction different from yours as to why Dr. Rank visits the house everyday. There is a possibility that Helmer’s illness has not been cured, but there should signs in the play that indicates that Mr. Helmer is still sick. Additionally, if there are no signs of sickness because Helmer’s illness was mostly cured but not all the way, there would be no reason to visit everyday. Thus, I think that the reason why Dr. Rank visits everyday is not because he feels the need to check on Helmer but because there is a certain reason that makes Dr. Rank himself want to visit the house.
DeletePlaying house with dolls often illustrates the household as perfect and ideal, but it’s just playing, the ideal is imaginary. The Helmer’s home depicts “A Doll’s House” —seemingly perfect, but in reality, a delusion. Henrik Ibsen’s play captures Victorian gender roles and the superficiality of the middle class. It seems as though every character cares deeply for their appearance and reputation, desiring for the “respectability” to distinguish themselves from the lower class. Ibsen utilizes Torvald Helmer to represent the Victorian view of the role of women and men. Upon the first interaction between Helmer and Nora, the reader or viewer gains the impression that Helmer views his wife as submissive and naive, affectionately calling her, “my little sky-lark”, “my little squirrel”, and “my pretty little pet” (Ibsen 1,2,4). These comments are meant to be loving, but reveals the Victorian model of the middle class wife as frail and pure. Helmer's recurrent use of, “little” in referring to Nora reinforces her as the innocent wife he expects her to be (1). Nora lies to Helmer, denying that she ate any sweets or macaroons, characterizing her as a child lying about stealing from the cookie jar. This childlike nature exists not just because Nora is naive (a “spendthrift” according to Helmer), but is accentuated by Helmer’s parentlike authority over Nora, a common relationship dynamic in Victorian times (2). A seemingly harmless white lie, the macaroon foreshadows that there are far less innocent lies and secrets within the Helmer household. Later, Nora brags to Mrs. Linde, her childhood friend, that she earned money on her own account and saved her husband’s life. Mrs. Linde questions Nora if she’ll ever tell Helmer of the truth as to the origination of the money, and Nora exclaims that Torvald, “is a man with a good deal of pride—it would be terribly embarrassing and humiliating for him if he thought he owed anything to me” (15). In Nora’s description of Helmer as a prideful man, and humiliation of relying on his wife, it embodies the expectation in Victorian society of the husband providing for the family. Ibsen continues to portray the late 1800s expectation of a working husband and a family bound wife through Torvald Helmer. When Nora appeals to Helmer to hire Mrs. Linde, Helmer assumes that Mrs. Linde is a widow, as a married woman working is considered not “respectable” and low class. Henrik Ibsen’s characterization of Helmer and Nora in the first act demonstrates the conventions of the Victorian era. Through “A Doll’s House”, Ibsen provides a realistic view of family life in a time where such aspects were kept private.
ReplyDeleteIn Act One of “A Doll’s House”, Henrik Ibsen utilizes wintertime as a symbol for the harsh, unwarranted changes of the Victorian Era to emphasize how Nora and Helmer’s family are resistant and unwilling to adapt to the changes. Ibsen first introduces the symbol at the end of the first paragraph in the opening stage directions. Ibsen begins the paragraph with images of comfort and pleasantness, and continues with this imagery all the way up the to last sentence of the paragraph, where he writes, “A winter’s day.” Immediately, the juxtaposition of the numerous images of comfort with the final, singular image of winter draws the audience’s attention to the fact it is a cold, butter day out. The large amount of positive imagery compared to the one image of winter suggests that Nora and Helmer treat their home as a sort of shield against the difficulties of winter, and this is where the symbolism begins. The comfortable, pleasant image projected by the interior of the house represents the conservative mindedness of Nora and Helmer, who want to preserve as much comfort as they can from the winter environment. The winter environment represents the disagreeing ideals of the era that clash with Nora and Helmer’s idea of reality. The larger amount of positive imagery compared to winter imagery represents how They can try to block out the changes of the era as much as they want, but the change will always be apparent in one way or another. This symbolism is further reinforced when Nora says to Mrs. Linde, “All that long journey in the wintertime”, after Mrs. lined tells Nora of her travels. The fact that she is so appalled of winter emphasizes the fact that she is afraid of the change. So, the use of symbolism by Ibsen effectively characterizes Nora and Helmer as co derivative people who are afraid to embrace the changes of the Victorian Era.
ReplyDeleteRoy, I really agree with everything you said here. Especially with how the family is resistant and unwilling to adapt to change. The author makes it evident that the family is very stuck in their ways, and does not seem to have any desire to come out of them. The imagery and symbols you pointed out also reflect this harshness in their world very well. I also agree how you pointed out that the purpose behind all of this is to crate characterization of Nora and Torvald.
DeleteIn his play, "A doll's house", Henrik Ibsen successfully creates the reality of the situations present in the family life in the Victorian era. From the first act, the concept that stood out to me the most was this "image" that the characters are trying to show off of their families. This image, however, differs for every person, even if they are from the same family. The main female character of the play, Nora, has this image in her mind of her family seeming perfectly able in affording the necessities of a high-middle class needs. While talking to her husband, Trovald, about how much the family can afford to spend she says, " surely we can adored to be just a little bit extravagant now, can't we?" (Ibsen 3). The nickname her husband has for her, although he has many nicknames for her, is "spendthrift". Here, we can see that Nora is known to spend a lot of money. But, this excessive money spending isn't for her own good, she uses it for her family. When telling her husband about the great deals she scored on her new items, she shows that the items are for the family, she didn't spend the money on buying goods for herself. This shows that, she is only concerned with making her family look good, and whether she doesn't spend money on herself out of humbleness or out of pretending to seem like the perfect and self-less woman, she spends the money she receives from her husband on the family. This shows how concerned she is with making sure the family appears successful and fulfilled. Her husband, Torvald, however, has a different image of an "ideal" in his mind. A hardworking man, his biggest concern is making sure the family lives comfortably enough, but doesn't need to borrow any money. Nora suggests they could borrow money until he gets paid, but Torvald exclaims, "No debts! Never borrow! There's always something inhibited, something unpleasant, about a home built on credit and borrowed money, We two have managed to stick it out so far, and that;s the way we'll go on for a little time that remains"(Ibsen 3). Here we can see that borrowing money is his biggest concern and whatever it takes, even if they won't afford what their "image" has shown them to be, their family will not borrow money to seem richer. From this first act, we can see the different motives that lead people to fulfill their dream of a "perfect image" they want to portray to the world.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you that the Helmer family, among every other family in the Victorian era, is obsessed with keeping their image to society and displaying their wealth publicly, as false as it may be. However, I have found that in the play the Helmer’s also have showed a great deviation to the norm of the Victorian times, in large part thanks to Nora. This is seen most prominently after the kids were introduced, in the middle of act 1. In Victorian times the children were expected to behave maturely and be “miniature” adults, and Nora could not treat her children any differently. Once the maid brings them into the house, Nora begins to play games with them and induces playful screams and shrieks from all of them, and with innocent and childish connotations. Nora herself even acts innocently when she’s around them, leading me to believe that the Helmer family is quite different from the norm in that time.
DeleteOne thing I noticed practically immediately was part of the nature of Nora and Torvald. At first, it appears that Torvald is the one in charge, but upon closer inspection, they both have an intricate dynamic of manipulation and power over each other. Torvald is condescending and treats his wife more like a child than a woman; his manipulative nature is the more obvious one. He scolds her for her frivolous spending and the trouble she causes him, but gives her more money anyway. This gives her a false sense of control so she doesn’t ask for anymore power, power that would give him trouble, and he can continue to have an excuse to punish her. Then, Nora’s childish attitude seems like more of an act than anything. She makes herself seem petty and money-oriented so her husband doesn’t question anything else, and her feigned innocence is a cover for her ulterior motives. Money is power in the play, and Nora is well aware of this; as a woman in Victorian England, she has no other method of independence and living her life the way she wants to. Instead, she goes along with the standards, then lies and manipulates to get what she wants instead of submitting completely. She even has to do so to entertain herself, since her life is very boring. When Mrs. Linde shows up, Nora very obviously tries to push her buttons to get a response for her own entertainment. When she gets it, she just keeps going, escalating the situation until they’re both pulled into her game.
ReplyDeleteI found the dynamic between Nora and Torvald Helmer very interesting too. Ibsen does characterize Nora as childlike: lying about eating a macaroon, pleading with Helmer for more allowance, seemingly less pragmatic than her husband, and in fact a “spendthrift” (Ibsen 2). She does act childish to Helmer, but I don’t think that her childish attitude is entirely an act. In her mannerisms to Mrs. Linde, gloating about her children and her husband’s new prospect, whether she’s manipulating Mrs. Linde or simply ignorant, it’s puerile. I think she prides herself in not only saving her husband’s life, but also the fact that she acted independently of her husband and her father. Her childish character is pronounced also in her naive belief that fraud isn’t a crime when it’s with good intentions, holding onto the idea that “it must say somewhere that things like this are allowed” (29). If the truth is divulged, how would that change Helmer? It'll be interesting to observe how the relationship between the spouses develop as the conflict escalates.
DeleteThere were several things that I noticed during the reading. One of the main things being Nora and her lifestyle complexly intertwined with lies. Her and Torvald seem to have a very interesting relationship as well. While on a very surface level its seems to be that they love and care about each theory, and that they just want the best for each other. But there is a catch, when examining this relationship more in depth. There seems to be a ver passive aggressive nature to their conversation at the beginning of Act 1. Especially when it comes to the macaroons. These Macaroons seem to be a symbol for the lying and deceit that goes on in their relationship. Nora made it evident in her conversation with her guest that she has something to hide, especially from Torvald because she lies to him about even the smallest thing such as a macaroon. This makes the audience come to seemingly question Nora and not only her morals but what she is doing storing all her money. Another thing I found about Nora was that she seems to smarter than she gives off. She acts as if she has no other priority but spending her money but in the meanwhile, she is storing this money to use it toward something else. without any else having knowledge of her doing this. But she lies to her husband about so much which makes the audience very suspicious of her.
ReplyDeleteIn Henrik Ibsen’s play “A doll’s House” I noticed his use of other characters to characterize Nora as being childlike. This is especially seen in the use of male authority figures. On the first page of act one, Ibsan uses stage direction and Helmer’s dialogue to introduce Nora,”[she begins humming again as she walks over to the table, right.]Helmer [in his study]. ‘Is that my little sky-lark chirruping out there?’(Ibsan 1)”. A skylark is a bird noted for prolonged signing but can also be defined as a verb that means to indulge oneself in horseplay, I suspect that Helmer is using the word for double meaning to insult Nora assuming that she would not understand that he meant the latter. Helmer continually uses animal diction to address Nora as if she were a child, as illustrated on page three as Helmer says,”[following her].There, there! My little singing bird mustn’t go drooping her wings, eh? Has it got the sulks, that little squirrel of mine?[takes out his wallet] Nora, what do you think I’ve got here?” To which Nora replies,”[quickly turns around]. Money!(Ibsen 3)”. Helmer references the skylark again by calling her a songbird, but in his next sentence he refers to her using the pronoun “it” which is very dehumanizing especially in conjunction with the animal diction he uses such as skylark and squirrel. Nora furthers this childlike image by not defending herself or rebuking to his derogatory remarks, but rather immediately acknowledging the money that allows for an extremely unbalanced power dynamic between the married couple.
ReplyDeleteHenrik Ibsen showcases the life during the Victorian Era and the importance of appearance in his play, “A Doll’s House”. During the Victorian era, image was extremely crucial and people spent a lot of time trying to appear wealthy. Both Nora and Torvald are caught up in creating a good image and they do everything in their ability to appear wealthier or gain a higher status. One example is through the stage directions where it is evident that Nora and Torvald Helmer are not wealthy characters, but rather more middle class. All of their household objects described are nice, but Ibsen continuously describes them all as small, “”A whatnot with china and other small objets d’art; a small bookcase with books in handsome bindings” ( Ibsen 1). The Helmer’s are creating the illusion of wealth through the items in their house, but the size of their objects reveal their true lack of wealth. Also, later when Nora is telling Mrs. Linde about Torvald's past illness, she mentions the doctor’s past request of needing to move Torvald south. She had “suggested he might take out a loan. But at that he nearly lost his temper,” (14). Nora’s request for a loan was immediately shut down by Torvald because using a loan would be a sign of a lack of wealth. Torvald didn’t want any association with loans and was angered by such a foolish request. In the past when Torvald’s sickness was horrible and the Helmer’s had only a little amount of money, Nora still cared desperately about their image. Even though she was trying to save money to help cure Torvald, she still used some to maintain their families appearance. “ I couldn’t really save anything out of housekeeping, because Torvald has to live in decent style. I couldn’t let the children go about badly dressed either-” (15). Nora continued to pay for things things that were not necessary, but made her family look rich. his shows one of the main values of the Victorian Era. Nora had placed image over her husband’s health. Through the Helmer family they represent the Victorian Era and their value of wealth and appearance.
ReplyDeleteGender roles are a common motif in the play “A Doll’s House”, by Henrik Ibsen. We get to see how both males and females are expected to act and behave in this Victorian era, through the perspectives of many different characters. For example, Torvald believes that women should be subservient to men and they are most of the time a complete nuisance, constantly asking for money and taking things away from the men of the house. He complains about this to Nora multiple times in act 1. However, Nora expects much more of herself as a woman, she entitles herself to more rights that are not commonly given to women, which surprises many of the people she talks to. This is seen when she was explaining her situation to Mrs. Linde, when she was working to gain money in order to save her ill husbands life. She describes the process as “tremendous fun all the same, sitting there working and earning money like that. It was almost like being a man” (Ibsen 16). From this quote we can see that Nora wants more in her life than to be the wife of a man, as she took great pleasure in working for her own money and even says that “it was almost like being a man”, which is a very powerful statement, especially for the era. Woman assuming the work of men was not even considered for years later, so this was a big deviation from the Victorian norm. Nora’s attitude comes as a shock to many that speak with her, especially men who are taken aback by her defiant personality. Mr. Krogstad displays this when she threatens to essentially kick him out of her (or Helmer’s) house, saying that “the lady’s got courage” (25). Calling her “the lady” demeans her, but the statement as a whole shows that he has respect for her words, and does not doubt the fact that she will indeed kick him out of the house if need be, no matter the gender.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think Ibsen's social commentary is here? Does it show some sort of lack of understanding of the plight of women since Ibsen himself is a man, or do you think he's able to write realistic women?
DeleteMs. Ballard
When taking into consideration of the question Mrs. Ballard asks, I do think that this commentary Ibsen is making is meant to show the plight of women. He uses the animal pronouns such as "squirrel" to show that her as a wife is more of pet than an actual human. In this though, I found it very telling of the time period how Nora would not want to bruise her husbands ego with the debt she had acquired trying to save his life. Torvald also uses many phrases that demonstrate the lack of social standing of women such as that they were meant not to work but to tend the house. This is a very common stereotype that is really only being challenged in the last 60 or so years. So I think it would have been very easy and obvious on how to use the stereotypes of thoughts of women to make commentary.
DeleteAs said in my previous blog, Nora’s dishonest and secretive personality in the beginning of Act 1 foreshadows the major conflict in the story, which is about the blackmail Krogstad commits to Nora for her secret about the money shed borrowed from him. Subsequently, Nora also introduces to the readers the theme of lies. Ibsen in the second half of Act 1 in the play A Doll’s House shifts a positive tone to that of a negative one to illustrate the theme that lies will only lead to disaster. For example, when Nora greets the children coming home, the stage direction says, “She and the children play, laughing and shrieking” (23). Here, Ibsen describes Nora and the children playing hide and seek. In the Victorian Era, children were expected to behave like mini adults. However, Nora, who is an adult, instead acts like a complete child. The fact that Nora is acting in a way that completely contrasts the social norms of the Victorian Era illustrates a delighted tone, which conveys to the readers the extent to which Nora is currently content with her life. However, this happiness inverts after her unexpected talk with Mr Krogstad. After he threatens Nora about her secret and leaves, the children ask to play like Nora promised she would. However, she replies, “Yes, but I can’t just now. off you go now, I have a lot to do. Off you go, my darlings” (30). Here, Nora declines the children’s request to continue the game of hide and seek. Although she nicely refuses and calls them “darlings”, the fact that she broke her promise of playing with the children illustrates that she no longer feels the same happiness she felt moments ago and is too caught up with the fear of her secret being exposed. This shift in Nora’s feelings is also accompanied by the shift in a delightful tone to that of a gloomy and stressful one. Because the reason of the shift in Nora’s feelings stems from the lie and secret she made about the money she made to save Torvald, the change in the tone allows Ibsen to convey to the readers the theme that lying will only drive people to unwanted situations.
ReplyDeleteIn the play “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, Nora’s foolishness when loaning money gets herself caught into a blackmailing situation. Ibsen uses dramatic irony to play into the scene when Torvald and Nora are discussing Krogstad’s past mistakes. Torvald shows a great amount of distaste due to Krogstad’s forgery and states, “just think how a man like that on his conscience will always be having to lie and cheat and dissemble; he can never drop the mask, not even with his own wife and children” (Ibsen 33). It is ironic that Torvald is saying such horrible things about this man when his own wife did the exact same thing. While the audience is aware of the forgery done by his wife, Torvald is still in the dark and ignorant to her actions. As Torvald continues to tear apart Krogstad calling him “morally deprived” and saying that Krogstad has, “ been poisoning his own children for years with lies and deceit” (33), he than goes on to calling his wife his “precious little singing bird” and “My sweet little Nora”. These are very opposite descriptions and adds to the irony of what Torvald is stating. While he says foul things in regard to Krogstad, he still calls Nora sweet and compares her to a singing bird, while the two committed the same crime. Ibsen utilizes this irony because through this scene Nora is able to hear Torvald’s true concerns and what issues lie with forgery.The solemnity of the situation is brought to Nora’s attention. Soon after Torvald leaves, Nora is seen contemplating Torvald’s words, “[Pale with terror] . Corrupt my children…! Poison my home? [Short Pause; she throws back her head.] It’s not true! It could never, never be true!” (34). It is evident that Torvald’s words have left an impact and have caused a greater realization to the seriousness of her forgery and even foreshadows possible issues to come.
ReplyDeleteVictorian times viewed children as smaller models of adults and were often considered an afterthought. For the wealthy, families often hired a nanny to raise their children and were the ones to instill proper codes of conduct and formalities. Thus, the nanny, or the nursemaid in “A Doll’s House”, fulfills the role of a parent as wealthy children rarely interacted with their mother or father. Only later in the first act of Henrik Ibsen’s play are the children introduced and even at their arrival, he writes no dialogue for them. Instead, Nora carries on a lengthy banter where the reader or viewer understands through stage directions her interaction with the children. It’s quite revealing that Nora is not the primary caretaker, where she tells Anne Marie, the nursemaid to go in and “NORA takes off the children’s coats and hats and throws them down anywhere, while the children all talk at once.]” (Ibsen 22). Undressing the children, Nora in a juvenile manner leaves the clothing anywhere without a thought. Parents tend to clean up after their children or teach them to hang clothing, but Nora who, “throws them down anywhere” reveals that she is more of a playmate than the mother figure (22). There’s a little irony when Torvald Helmer declares that young criminals come from deceitful mothers, when in reality most morals and societal rules are taught by the nursemaid for families who afford it. From just the beginning impression, Nora doesn’t interact with her children enough to actually discipline them into Victorian manners, rather she acts as the modern equivalent of an aunt: playing hide and seek and gifting them toys and clothes. Ibsen demonstrates the perspective of wealthy children as an accessory where Nora repeatedly gushes about her children as, “my sweet little baby-doll”, and “my pretty little dollies” (22). By using nicknames, and tenderly comparing the children as dolls, it portrays the Victorian view of children as objects necessary for the respectable middle-class family. Nora also speaks of not letting, “the children go about badly dressed either”, and she goes on to explain that, “any money I got for them had to go on them alone. Such sweet little things!” (15). While Nora clearly adores and loves her children, the necessity to keep the children well-dressed despite tight finances displays the importance placed upon appearance—even upon juveniles. In the entirety of the Act One, Ibsen solely wrote three lines for, “THE CHILDREN”, not bothering to directly introduce them individually (29). Lack of the Helmer children’s dialogue emphasizes the background role adolescents assumed in the Victorian era.
ReplyDeleteYena, I also think it’s interesting how there was not dialogue for the children.. However, have you noticed that the housekeeper also did not have any dialogue? Furthermore, both the children and the maid was given dialogue in the end of Act 1. So a question I have is, why do you think that Ibsen initially exempted the children and maid from dialogue but decide to include them in the end of the first act? Like you said, children were seen as objects, such as dolls that are seen as accessory for middle class parents. Likewise, the the housekeeper was utilized by Nora in taking the role of actually taking care of the children. The two characters having dialogue acts as an indication that when they have their own lines, Nora does not see them as mere objects, in which she does not rely on the maid and starts to act as a real mother by gathering up the children’s clothes herself.
DeleteIt’s not only until I read the beginning of Act Two where I can see that Nora is still a mother figure in the sense that it seems like it hasn’t been a long time where she’s been away from the children. When speaking with the Nursemaid, Anne Marie, Nora asks about the children: “Do they keep asking for me?” to which the Nursemaid replies: “They are so used to being with their Mummy” (Ibsen 35). This suggests that the children have been under Nora’s care for quite some time, perhaps until the Helmer’s could afford to hire the Nursemaid. To address your question, I think Ibsen purposely left out the children's dialogue initially only to have them speak toward the end of the act for the purpose of emphasizing the background role the children play. By initially leaving them silent, Ibsen accentuates the view of the children as accessories to the middle class family. And by having them speak later, it provides that although they are seen as “dolls” they play a significant role in Nora’s fear of influencing them negatively. Writing dialogue for the children right after Krogstad’s threat and right before Helmer warnings of dishonest mothers makes it clear to the reader and viewers the dire situation Nora is in.
DeleteIn the play "A Doll's House", Henrik Ibsen's characterization of Nora reflects the situation of women of the Victorian era. Being quite clever, Nora is the epitomy of a " good wife", but at the same time, she uses this image she attains to win more say amongst men. The fact that she is involved in the business world, taking out a loan to protect her husband's health shows her capabilities that are more than expected of an average wife. These dealings, however, come with a cost, for if her husband every finds out about her "business transactions", which is really a loan she took out to preserve his well-being, her husband would be furious. This shows her courageousness, but at the same time shows how she is, in some ways, disobeying her husbands' beliefs, which are unacceptable of a wife. Nora, in this way, is fighting to maintain her status and image of a perfect wife, but at the same time, she is ambitious and looks for ways to make herself seem more prominent in the life of the men among her. With her naive and credulous front, she often seems to manipulate others to receive what she wants. This, however, only is the cause of lack of say she has had in society being a woman. Nora, although she seems manipulative, is in constant war with the woman that she is supposed to be in the eyes of society, and the woman she knows she's capable of being. She knows that with her wit and looks, she is able to do more than she is expected of, but at the same time, getting involved in such dealings puts her in a bad position as a wife, since it crosses the line of the expectations of the husbands. When she is speaking to Mrs. Linde, trying to prove the difficulties her family has faced, she says how she had to save money as much as she could, and also work on the side to be able to pay back the debt that she is in. This shows her determination and will to pursue her callings and capabilities, but hiding this from her husband and being alarmed at all times around the matter shows how she is trying to keep her "wifely" image that she is supposed to have.
ReplyDeleteLooking at a bigger picture, Nora is not an ironically manipulative woman, she is just an ambitious wife whose main concern is the well-being of her family, willing to do whatever it takes to ensure their health and prosperity.
As act one of "A Dolls House" came to a close one thing became more and more clear to me. As we had talked about Bianca being a foil to Kate, Mrs. Linde is the foil to Nora. This can initially be seen when examining the differences in why they each wed and different characteristics their families, or lack of. While Nora obviously wed for personal welfare, Ibsen makes it very clear that Mrs. Linde wed to care for her immediate family, who was suffering. Also, when examining their families Nora has gushed on and on about her children and husband while being aware that Linde had lost not only her husband, but also her mother and brother. Mrs. Linde later makes a comment about how Nora has never faced true hardship in her life, yet in typical fashion Nora has a way to counter that accusation. Claiming how she had saved her husbands life and had procured a mass about of money on her own in which she has kept a secret from her husband for over a year now. This all comes together to show one main difference in the characters. Mrs. Linde is used as a foil to makes Nora's childish and naive behavior even more obvious. Linde has a very realistic and mature perspective on the world around her as she has learned many lessons. This comes while Nora continuously brags about herself and has no regard for anyone else while she speaks. This childish-ness made me think of the title of the play, "A Dolls house", and how the doll could possibly even be a symbol for Nora. Nora has proven she is more intellectual than she comes off with her childish and naive actions to the masses, thus creating the symbol for these actions to be the doll. With more depth than can be perceived purely by examining their life from the outside.
ReplyDelete“I quite literally feel physically sick in the presence of such people” (Ibsen 33). The usage of “sick” here appears to have a double meaning. The obvious is that Torvald is disgusted by people such as Krogstad, and, as shown by the ending of the act, his wife; whether or not he knows of Nora and Krogstad’s similarities is unknown. Therefore, he is indirectly calling his wife sickening, which ties into the other, subtextual meaning: the sick, twisted nature of their relationship. If that is a quality he finds in his wife, it will seep into their marriage, which has been obvious from the start. Both are incredibly manipulative, plus Nora’s deception and Torvald’s condescension and mockery. He also probably uses these words to Nora to imply that he does know what she has been up to. Torvald has been shown to be very passive aggressive, addressing issues with his wife indirectly. They both enjoy messing with others and making them uncomfortable for entertainment; this action would be a surefire way to do so. Nora would pick up on the hint that he knows, but be unsure whether it is true, leading to more tension and lies.
ReplyDeleteIn the second half of Act One in “A Doll’s House”, Henrik Ibsen uses cold, ominous diction and and authoritative language to characterize Mr. Krogstad as a dark, eerie character that should be feared. When Krogstad comes into the scene towards the end of the act, Ibsen immediately gets to establishing Krogstad’s dark presence in the stage directions. Ibsen writes, “Meanwhile there has been a knock at the front door, which nobody has heard, The door half opens, and Krogstad can be seen. He waits a little; the game continues” (23). Ibsen uses furtive diction when describing how Krogstad’s arrival should look when the play is brought to life in order to create an ominous tone surrounding Krogstad. Phrases such as “meanwhile there has been”, “nobody has heard”, and “the door half opens” incite connotations of sneaky, surreptitious behavior. The repeated idea of these new developments going unnoticed adds to the ominous tone, creating a sense of foreboding. The last phrase, “the game continues” contributes greatly to the ominous tone, suggesting the image of Krogstad slowly creeping towards Nora and her children while they are completely unsuspecting of his presence. Later on, in the middle of Nora and Krogstad’s conversation, Ibsen uses authoritative language in Krogstad’s speech to make him appear even darker. When Nora insists that she doesn’t have the power to help Krogstad keep his job at the bank, Krogstad turns the table on her by saying, “That’s because you haven’t the will to help me. But I have ways of making you” (26). Krogstad’s last sentence contributes greatly to the ominous tone that Ibsen has established around his character. The fact that Krogstad insists he has methods of making Nora do his bidding, but doesn’t elaborate on what these methods are, adds to the ominous tone quite a bit.
ReplyDelete“All right, then we’ll share it, Nora--as man and wife. That’s what we’ll do” (Ibsen 44).
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, this particular quote may not look like much, Mr. Helmer simply says that he wants to share the responsibility from his job (once he lets Krogstad go) as man and wife. However whenever first read this passage, the way Mr. Helmer worded “man and wife”, set me back slightly. Rather than describing their relationship as “husband and wife” or “man and woman”, he calls is “man and wife”. This set a tone of superiority in Mr. Helmer’s words, as if Nora is his wife, but he is not her husband. Nora “belongs” to him, but it’s not mutual. This image is important to the play because it is most likely an accurate reflection of man and woman relationships in the Victorian era, it is a theme commonly referred to throughout the play. Later on in Act 2 it is clear how strongly Mr. Helmer feels about the image of superiority in his marriage, it seems as though to him it is even more important than his work is. After Nora asks him to keep Krogstad at the bank, he bluntly tells her that it is too late to keep him, because then that would show to the bank that Nora has an influence over him. He has to make all the decisions, or else his “image” would be ruined, making him look weak. This idea of superiority is seen in every male character in the play, and even in the women’s submission to their male counterparts. Because it is so common, it’s most likely a big message that Ibsen was trying to convey to his audience, perhaps trying to parody or diminish this sexist view in his own society. This is just one example of Ibsen carrying out his goal of “painting a picture” of Victorian society for the audience.
I agree with you on the fact that Ibsen portrays society in the Victorian era. Another example of this portrayal can be found in the conversation between Nora and Helmer. When Nora asks Helmer to reconsider his decision of firing Krogstad, he replies, “It’s already known down at the Bank that I am going to give Krogstad his notice. If it ever got around that the new manager had been talked over by his wife...” (42). Here, Helmer expresses his disapproval in letting Krogstad keep his job, because he does not want to be seen as the manager who got persuaded by his wife. During the Victorian era, husbands were considered to be superior to wives, meaning that it would be humiliating for husband to be told what to do by the wife. Thus, this conversation is another example of the gender roles during the Victorian Era.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the play, the character Krogstad threatens Nora, demanding her to let him keep his job at the bank, or else he will reveal the forging of the IOU. He justifies this blackmail by stating that it is for the sake of his sons, yet people still view him in a negative way, since he is willing to hurt others for the sake of himself and his family. However, it is important to remember that Krogstad is not the only character that prioritizes himself and his families. In Act 2 of the play, A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen characterizes Nora as somewhat selfish in order to convey that people would prioritize themselves and the people they love over strangers. For example, this egotistical side of Nora is portrayed in the conversation between her and Torvald. When she brings up the point of letting Krogstad keep his job, Torvald says, “My dear Nora, I'm giving his job to Mrs. Linde” (41). In response, Nora says, “Yes, it’s awfully sweet of you. But couldn’t you get rid of somebody else in the office instead of Krogstad?” (41). Here, Torvald reveals his intention to replace Krogstad with Mrs. Linde. However, Nora cannot let Krogstad be fired, since he would then reveal the secret about the forging of the IOU and as a result get her in serious trouble. However, if she were to let Krogstad keep his job, then her precious friend Mrs Linde would not get a job. Thus, because she did not want bad things happening to neither herself nor her friend, she instead asks if Torvald can fire some other worker. Notice how the situation between Nora and Krogstad are surprisingly similar. Both of the characters are in a tight situation and starts to prioritize themselves and their peers over others. This egotistical personality on a nice and childish person like Nora illustrates the human nature of selfishness. In addition, another example is present during the conversation between Nora and Dr. Rank. When he says, “Only what I have long expected. but I didn't think it would come quite so soon” (45), Nora reacts very emotionally, because she believed that something bad had happened to Torvald’s condition. However, when Dr. Rank revealed that it was himself that was going to die soon, Nora replies, “oh, it's you you’re...” (45). In this phrase, Nora deep inside is feeling relieved that it is Dr. Rank who is going to die instead of her beloved husband. Again, the relief that Nora feels illustrate that in a way, she reflects Krogstad valuing himself and his sons more than Nora and Torvald. The huge difference in reaction of Nora of when she hears her husband dying and Dr. Rank dying illustrates the difference in priority she feels towards the two men, which once again illustrates the selfish side of human nature. Thus, Ibsen gives a selfish side to a sweet and childish character like Nora in order to convey that people at one point prioritizes themselves and the people they love over others.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your characterization of Ibsen’s characterization of Nora, I think that most in the audience would get the same idea that Nora is very self-centered, and is unable to see the perspectives of other people. This idea was introduced early on in the book, and continues on to the example that you mentioned with Dr. Rank and his bad news. From the first act when Mrs. Linde arrives at the house, Nora bombards her with all of the problems in her own life, failing to ask for or take into account any of those from Mrs. Linde. Sometimes I get the idea that Nora is actually worried more about her own well-being than that of her family, since she’d rather run away and leave her kids before she has to face Helmer with her mistakes.
Delete“My poor little Nora never had any mother but me” (Ibsen 36). The nursemaid says this to Nora when the two mention how Nora grew up with her as a maternal figure. This could explain Nora’s issues with leaving her children alone; she cannot remember her actual mother because she had spent so much time away, so she assumes the same would happen to her children with even the slightest bit of separation. Nora then latched onto the maid as a mother, which she expresses here. The maid’s status as a maternal figure means she likely had a great deal of influence over Nora, especially if she knew her since she was young. The maid calls her her “poor little Nora,” a description reminiscent of what Torvald calls her. It is condescending and degrading but hidden under a veneer of endearment and kindness. If Nora grew up with someone like this, someone who had that much influence over her, it makes sense that she would regard these types of nicknames and descriptions as normal. She goes along with it, too, such as when she asks for a favor from Torvald and calls herself the animalistic nicknames. The “my” in the quote also denotes ownership, which is not far off from the reality of Victorian women. Even though the maid is a woman and was just using it teasingly, it still implies that Nora has always belonged to someone, whether it be her family or her husband. The fact that she is owned makes it harder for Nora to gain the independence and control she so desires, which is why she has to manipulate and deceive to get what she wants.
ReplyDeleteIn act two of "A Dolls House" Nora says: "Your squirrel would run about and do all her tricks if you would be nice, and do what she wants." (2.92). I found this quote to be particularly interesting. Here Ibsen uses animal diction to describe where Nora ranks with Torvald. She calls herself a squirrel to downgrade herself and demonstrate how he is superior. She also says how the squirrel would do tricks to show how she is not an equal partner in the relationship, showing how she is more of a pet than a spouse. Stating that she is of the status of a pet to Torvald reflects the status of most women of the victorian era. The women of this time were believed to be confined to the house because that is "where they belonged". Ibsen uses Mrs. Linde and Nora to show how while this was believed to be the social norm, it was not necessarily true for all women. Many people may have had the need to challenge these standards set by society. Whether that be for personal wants, needs for their families, or just to throw a wrench in the system. Yet, again in the quote Nora expresses how all she really wants is for her husband be kind. She may have in fact had some sort of sexual context to this but again, that would not have been acceptable socially for the time period.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know if you had a different translation (which I don’t think is the case) or I just couldn’t find the quote to read the context it is in, but I’m assuming this is when Nora is attempting to convince Helmer to keep Krogstad at the Bank. Nora is asking her husband to be kind, but I think the main purpose of Nora using animal imagery on herself was the purpose of manipulating Helmer into agreeing to let Krogstad keep his job. I agree with you that Nora’s position in their marriage is the inferior one, and I viewed it almost like a parent-child dynamic (Nora pleads for allowance, Helmer controls what she eats etc). Despite the position she’s in as you described as, “pet,” she knows how to appeal to his need for being dominant; by lowering herself she knows that she has the chance of manipulating him.
DeleteAfter Dr. Rank confesses to be in love with Nora, she explains “Well, you see, there are those people you love and those people you’d almost rather be with.” (Ibsen 50). Nora distinguishes that the people she loves differ from the people she enjoys being in company. She goes on to describe that as a child she, “loved Daddy best,” but always spent time in, “the maids’ room,” because she enjoyed the freedom from her father’s control (50). Dr. Rank understands Nora’s implications; she loves Torvald Helmer the most, like her father, while Dr. Rank has taken the maids’ role, the group she’d “rather be with” (50). Nora’s insight can be interpreted as her simply rejecting Dr. Rank’s confession, where Henrik Ibsen italicizes “be” to emphasize Nora’s hint at Rank that she regards him as good company (50). However, while this might be her purpose, the importance of this quote lies in that it reveals Nora’s perspective of love and marriage. Ibsen uses repetition with the phrase, “those people,” emphasizing to the reader or viewer that Nora is distinguishing between these two groups (50). Nora actually separates her loved ones and those she enjoys being around, giving the example of her father and the maids. Her comment intrigues the reader or viewer for the reason that it contrasts the idea that loved ones are the ones a person desires most to be around. Why wouldn’t someone want to be with the people they love? It’s possible that Nora is not separating these two groups, that she’s not commenting that the people she loves are people she doesn’t want to “be with” (50). This may hold true, but Nora in her examples does distinguish these two groups. She depicts her father as the person she loved best, but admits that she preferred the maids’ company because, “For one thing they never preached at me” (50). Juxtaposing her love for her father to her love for her husband, Nora insinuates that with Torvald Helmer, she feels just as controlled and suffocated as she did with her father. Nora doesn’t separate between the familial love for her father and the romantic love for Helmer, suggesting that their marriage is far from equal partnership. By describing her love for her husband as similar to her father, Nora characterizes her relationship with Helmer as a parent-child dynamic. It seems as though Nora’s love for her husband is one of loyalty and societal expectation and Nora realizes that.
ReplyDelete“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” (Ibsen 43)
ReplyDeleteIn this scene Torvald, usually a mature and calm character is seen creating a childish outburst leading to his rash decisions of sending out Krogstad’s job notice. These actions are caused by Nora’s comment in regards to Torvald's issues with Krogstad being, “all so petty”(43). Torvald’s response to Nora’s comment are rather surprising and show a new side of Torvald. Throughout all of Act 1 Torvald is portrayed as a patient, light, and caring person especially when interacting with his wife Nora. In this scene however Torvalds outbursts are filled with anger and are rather abrupt and unlike his usual personality. Nora and Torvald’s characteristics seem to briefly switch in this scene.He sends out Krogstad’s letter of notice in spite of Nora’s comment and his actions are impulsive instead of thoughtout. The reactions of Torvald are immature while Nora is the character whose actions are usually deemed childish or foolish. Torvald’s outbursts happen due to the disrespect Nora shows by calling her husband “petty”. All though this doesn’t seem terribly disrespectful in a modern retrospect during the Victorian era husbands were supposed to be superior to their wifes. They were to be looked at with adoration and held on a pedestal by their wifes. Any form of slight belittling or slander from any wife was seen as extremely disrespectful. Torvald’s reactions to Nora’s remark show his value in his superiority in their relationship. He is punishing Nora for her disrespect by doing the one thing she is asking him not to, which is giving away Krogstad’s job. After the letter is sent out Torvald’s mood quickly changes. He is no longer angry or upset with Nora and his light personality reappears as does his love for his wife. Image and superiority are very important to Torvald as shown in this scene. He punished Nora for her remark in order to prove his power in their relationship. Through this interaction Ibsen shows the relationships and different roles both genders had during the Victorian era.
In Act Two, when Nora is attempting to convince Torvald to allow Krogstad to keep his job at the bank, Torvald replies with the words, “There, there, don’t look at me with those eyes, like a little frightened dove. The whole thing is sheer imagination.––Why don’t you run through the tarantella and try out the tambourine?” (44). Here, Ibsen uses condescending language and symbolism to illustrate the subdued, submissive role of women in the Victorian Era. Torvald begins his spiel by attempting to make Nora into the villain of the situation. The language of his words, “there, there” “don’t look at me”, and “those eyes”, create a condescending tone in his speech as though he knows better than Nora. This behavior by Torvald towards his wife is largely representative of the norm during the Victorian Era; women were to obey men’s rules and not question their authority. In the next bit of speech, Ibsen sneaks a bit of symbolism into the line to further expound on women’s role in relation to men. Here, Torvald compares Nora to a “little frightened dove”, suggesting that Nora is no more than a pretty object to be admired. Doves come with connotations of beauty and peace, but by adding the words “little” and “frightened”, Ibsen transforms the dove’s meaning into a conquered, helpless creature that no longer possesses the necessary power to stand up for itself. This comparison works well for Ibsen’s purpose, because women of the Victorian Era essentially had the same level of power and stood for the same things that the dove does. Women were generally the caretakers of the children and stayed at home, trying to bring love and peace to the rigid, cold environment of the Victorian Era. But when they attempted to step out of the home and increase their influence across the population, the men crushed them and ensured that they did not achieve the same level of power that men possessed. This is the ideal that Torvald represents when he speaks to Nora in the way that he does. This is especially important at this point in the play, because Nora is attempting to make a play for power by convincing Torvald to allow Krogstad to keep his job. Torvald draws from the ideals of the Victorian Era in his speech to ensure that Nora’s influence does not surpass his own.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Victorian Era, men were treated as superior to women, and husbands often treated their wives as their possessions. Because the gender role are so much different today than back then, modern people tend to see the men in the past in a somewhat negative outlook. However, one must remember that “most” men treated their women as inferior but not all did. In act 3 of the play A Doll’s House, Henrik Ibsen compares the couple of Helmer and Nora to that of Krogstad and Kristine in order to illustrate that some couples deviate the time period’s gender norms. First, the author clearly portrays the relationship between Nora and Helmer. When Helmer says, “Can’t I look at my most treasured possession?” (69), he seems to complement Nora by calling her someone that is “treasured”. However, he also calls her a “possession”. The fact that Helmer’s statement was intended to be a complement indicates that he unconsciously called her a possession, which allows Ibsen to illustrate that women in the past were treated as possession. On the contrary, Ibsen seems to delineate the couple of Krogstad and Kristine as more similar to that of today then in the past. This characteristic is evident during the conversation between the two characters. When Krogstad and Mrs. Linde agree to get back together, Krogstad says, “I’ve never been so incredibly happy before” (66). Likewise, Kristine states, “How things change! Somebody to work for... to live for. A home to bring happiness into” (66). Here, just like Nora, Kristine is delighted to be with the man she loves. However, the factor that makes the two relationship drastically different lies in the view of husband. Unlike Helmer, Krogstad does not treat her lover as a possession but genuinely appreciates the relationship he has with her. The fact that Ibsen made this relationship deviate from the gender roles may be a message to the audience that not all men in the Victorian Era treated women like their possessions.
ReplyDeleteA recurring motif in A Doll’s House is the nicknames that Helmer gives Nora, it’s one of the many ways the Helmer asserts his dominance over her. Usually the names consist of “my little…” both giving a tone of inferiority, as well as making Nora seem like a possession that Helmer owns. The nicknames, while odd, still must not have been out of the norm for the Victorian era, and Nora seemed to not take any offense to them. While they seemed to set a tone of male superiority, they could also be seen as endearing, especially since “songbird” and “skylark” are rather loving remarks, and even in modern would not be considered offensive. Helmer’s different names for Nora generally following the same pattern, until the end of Act 2 when he referred to her with something unordinary. After Nora begs Helmer to focus all of his attention on her and help her with her dance, he says that, “the child must have her way. But tomorrow night, when your dance is done….” (Ibsen 60). Here in this instance Helmer calls Nora a “child”, which is definitely something that is not often heard of between husband and wife. While Nora often times does act rather childish, especially around her kids and Helmer, referring to her as such demeans her and once again puts himself above her, which I believe is just what she wants. Being thought of as a child is simply a mask that Nora puts on, so she can get away with more without suspicion. As we can see from all her piled lies with Krogstad, she can be devious and smart in secret, and in order to help hide everything she’s done she needs to have Helmer (and everyone else around her) either; 1) take responsibility for letting her out of his sight or 2) never suspect that she would be capable of such things.
ReplyDeleteJared, I really like what you had to say about the nicknames applied to Nora from Torvald. I agree that while some of them can be seen as loving and endearing, many of them are used to show his superiority and possession. I do think that this language is very demeaning as you said. I thought it was interesting what you said about the act she put on using her childish actions to get away with more. My question was if you thought that these remarks and nicknames add to why she ultimately feel the need to leave torvald and her children?
DeleteThere are many different aspects of act three of "A Dolls House" that I found very interesting. One thing I found very interesting was the interaction with Doctor Rank. Earlier in the work rank had made it evident that he was ill and would thus die. But when considering the short length of time that passes within the context of the play, the fact that he comes and says his goodbye so soon is somewhat shocking. When looking over the development of the disease I found that the final stage of the disease occurs years(3-15) after exposure to the disease. So if he has all this time before he will be actually potentially dying, I am left wondering why he is going to hid away for so long. As a human it is very bad to hide away for such a long time. I also wonder how he will continue his living time if he is just going to shack up in his home and stay there till he is really dead. I know I have to consider that the knowledge about the progression of this disease was not even close to what it is now. But despite all that, I found it very interesting that Rank was seemingly flirting with Nora, yet very subtly. He talked how in the future Nora could just go in her everyday clothes, hinting that she is wonderful enough on her own therefore she needs no costume. He does this right in front of Helmer. I found this very strange because especially during the time, one man would not flirt with another mans wife, especially not right in front of that man.
ReplyDeleteI also thought his actions were interesting. The fact that he kept it hidden for so long could have something to do with Victorian secrecy and not wanting to bring any sort of shame or pity to oneself and/or one's family. The fact that he himself is a doctor may have made it even more shameful. A disease should not be seen this way, but considering Victorian era people, they may have seen it as disgusting or thought less of him. On the flipside, he may be flirting with Nora because he realizes he has little time left, so he might as well.
DeleteOnce again Henrik Ibsen displays the value of “image” during the Victorian Era in, “A Doll’s House”. Torvald is one character in particular who cares vastly about his appearance to others. After the party Torvald is extremely cheerful with Nora because her tarantella dance was such a success. He cares a lot about what others think of him and the reputation he holds.When Nora seems to have made a good impression on everybody at the party Torvald is seen being more affectionate than usual. Also, he seems more prideful to have Nora as his wife as he brags to Mrs. Linde, “Isn’t she quite extraordinarily lovely? That’s what everybody at the party thought too” (67). Would Torvald have been in the same mood had Nora’s dance gone horribly wrong? Also, when Mrs. Linde is about to depart from both Nora and Torvald's home, Torvald asks if the knitted garment left behind is Mrs. Linde’s. While on this topic Torvald elaborates by stating she should embroider rather than knit. Torvald claims embroidering is, “So much prettier. Watch! You hold the embroidery like this in the left hand, and than you take the needle in the right hand, like this, and you describe a long graceful curve” (68). He than goes on to compare it to knitting, “whereas knitting on the other hand just can’t help being ugly. Look! Arms pressed into the sides, the knitting needles going up and down”(68-69).Torvald’s comments about knitting almost seem to be more broadly directed at Mrs.Linde’s life. Kristine, unlike most women, is a hardworking women with a job and is less infatuated with her appearance. Torvald’s comment indicates his belief that she should try be more like most women. Embroidery is very delicate and has no real functions other than looking nice or being decorations, similar to most women’s roles in the Victorian era. Torvald automatically deems embroidery as better simply because it has a better appearance in comparison to knitting. Fixation with appearances was a common trait during the Victorian age and is shown using Torvald’s character throughout the play.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe conversation between Mrs. Linde and Krogstad is something my group found very interesting. It highlights Linde’s character, both how she fits in with the rest of the cast and stands out. She, too, is manipulative and does what she can to get what she want. However, she is also considerate in her own way, and the way she uses people, such as Krogstad, is mutually beneficial. She says towards the end of the conversation, “This unhappy secret must come out...All this secrecy and deception, it just can’t go on” (Ibsen 66). She still works against Nora, but because she believes it is in her friend’s best interest, and that letting Nora have her way would only make her situation worse in the future. The way she words the sentence, two, is as if she is speaking about the play itself, like she knows everything that has been going on even if she has not seen it. Not quite a fourth wall break, but a fourth wall lean. A casual, subtle rest against the fourth wall, as to not alert the other characters that they are characters in a play. (Considering their personalities, that would probably not go over well.) It foreshadows the events of the play as well as emphasizing the main conflict, and serves as commentary for the Victorian era. Ibsen wanted to take a “snapshot” of the era, and having Linde point this aspect of their lives out is part of his method, while characterizing her by adding her opinion into the statement and her motivations. Linde’s actions also imply that she believes the Helmer family cannot take care of their own problems; in order to help them, she has to manipulate them like dolls.
I found your comment very interesting Anika. I had never thought about how Linde's speech and her part in the play, really, is to show an outside-of-the-box view of the characters and I think it's very interesting how you pointed out Ibsen's use of her character. Also, I agree with the "fourth-wall lean" you mentioned, because it highlights her subtle, yet enormous effect on the purpose and meaning of the play.
DeleteThe heated fiery conversation between Nora and Dr. Rank was something my group discussed about quite a bit. We were discussing how this seductive, flirtatiousness of Nora is to lure Dr. Rank into doing her a favor that could potentially restore her life, or she genuinely wants to be with him. Nora and Mrs. Linde had a previous conversation about this situation, where Mrs. Linde, shocked and in disbelief, asks Nora if the "rich admirer who was to provide you with money..." (Ibsen II.i pg. 38), is Dr. Rank, and of course Nora says no. This, however, could be foreshadowing what is next to come, which does. At this instance, our group believed that the idea of Dr. Rank giving her money was planted into Nora's brain, therefore, is the reason why she tries to seduce him in the next scene. There are lots of subtitles in Nora's speech when she is trying to play or seduce Dr. Rank. The silk stockings mentioned, of course, do add to the sexual tension present, but what we found more interesting is how Nora keeps giving him misleading hints about her feelings. After flirting with him, he confesses his long love for her, to which she responds," Oh, how could you be so clumsy, Dr. rank! When everything was so nice" (Ibsen II. pg 49). Here, she degenerates Rank's courage to speak up about his feelings, giving a hint that she doesn't feel that way about him. However, right after this, she gives another misleading hint by saying that, " Well you see, there are those people you love and those people you'd almost rather be with" (Ibsen II. pg 50). Here, she is implying that although she loves Torvald, she would rather be with someone else, Rank possibly. These abrupt changes in her speech show how she was purposefully playing Dr. Rank to have him fall in love with her even more, that maybe he would help he eventually pay off her debt.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think that this particular scene says a lot about the attitudes of Nora, both her selfishness, and her rebellious attitude of the common norms/rules in the Victorian society. The addition of the silk stockings is a testament to just that, I agree with your interpretation of that image. Such a scandalous action would’ve been disgraceful to Victorian society, and clearly came as a shock to Rank, although he did not care too much since he is so fond of her. I was surprised with her drastic change of attitudes in this scene, it shows well her inability to have sympathy or feel the emotions for others, since she basically just played with him, drawing him in the shutting him out. This scene could be a good foreshadow for a later event, since we now know it is both difficult for her to love, and for others to love her.
DeleteOne interesting thing our group discussed in the beginning of act three was about the character Mrs. Linde. Mrs. Linde, who had offered to speak to Krogstad for Nora, is revealed to have had a romantic relationship with Krogstad, and turned down his proposal due to the fact that Krogstad could not provide for her and her family. We were discussing whether Mrs. Linde actually had any genuine motive to help Nora, or is planning to get revenge on a supposed friend that hasn’t kept in contact for years. It’s likely Mrs. Linde has good intentions, but also wants to view Nora in bad fortune, due to Nora’s previous bragging about her fortunes in act one. Henrik Ibsen uses light imagery to the foreshadow events. using light as a positive connotation and darkness as a negative one. In the beginning scene, Ibsen describes “A lamp is burning on the table” (Ibsen 62). The imagery of a lamp not just lit, but “burning” foreshadows the climax of the story yet to come. Mrs. Linde’s restlessness pictured here also suggests that she and Krogstad had more than just a simple relationship. Our group also discussed how it was very interesting the stark contrast between Krogstad and Torvald Helmer. Krogstad readily accepts Mrs. Linde’s offer of supporting him, saying “Thank you, thank you, Kristine.” (65). If Helmer was in Krogstad’s position, it would be likely that he would reject his spouse’s help for the sake of pride. It’ll be interesting to see how Mrs. Linde’s plan works out; whether Helmer would be told of the truth that the light foreshadows.
ReplyDeleteI really like the insight you brought up about the relationship between Krogstad and Mrs.Linde. I also feel that they also most likely had a very complex relationship. But what you said about how helmer might act if proposed with this information is a very interesting point. I never thought about this but I do think that you are correct. Torvald is a very prideful man and I think this would get in the way of him accepting any help from his wife or any other woman. And essentially the light show does foreshadow that everything comes out in the end even if that is not in the way that the audience may have thought.
DeleteThroughout the play "A Doll's House" many very interesting things were presented. One of the most interesting motifs I found that was continual throughout the whole play is that the main characters were always talking around the issue. For example, Nora's exchange with Doctor Rank. The doctor will not address that he has syphilis, he refers to the issue as "tuberculosis of the spine". Another example of when they talk around the main problem is when Nora is speaking to Mrs. Linde about what she has done to ensure Helmer's health and how she went about making that happen. It really speaks to the time period and who people lived their lives. Many people hid behind a certain image or reputation. While this still stands true today, now many people are more willing to speak about their struggles and hardships instead of hiding behind them. I feel like Nora is very dynamic in this sense. In the beginning of the play she is very conformed to societies expectations and rules and would do nothing to stain her image. But at the end when she makes a bowl decision to do whats best for her and her children it proves that no matter what society claims to be right those rules are always meant to tested. Many people have proven this throughout history. If people weren't willing to challenge the societal norm we would still have slavery, apartheid, or even overthrowing a leader in order create better lives for themselves(for example in the french revolution). While many men and women of the time would not approve of Nora leaving her family, now as a society it can be seen that this can sometimes better the lives of an individual and those around them to provide a better life.
ReplyDeleteI would agree. The fact that they were always talking around the issue seems to be part of what leads to all their problems, mostly Nora refusing to confront anything that she had done. in fact, it was only when people were direct in their intentions and questions that anything actually got done; even if it seemed negative at the time, it led to the resolution at the end. Ibsen painted the societal norm of being indirect as a huge issue, part of the commentary he made or "snapshot" of the time he wanted to take.
DeleteHenrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” wields dramatic irony, which not only creates climatic moments, but characterizes Torvald Helmer. Ibsen depicts Helmer as a person who prides himself on appearance and fulfilling the Victorian era’s demand for “respectability”. Towards the end of the first act, Ibsen utilizes dramatic irony where Helmer remains unenlightened of Nora’s IOU. Helmer denounces Krogstad for hiding forgery exclaiming that, “Many a man might be able to redeem himself, if he honestly confessed his guilt and took his punishment.” (Ibsen 32). Without knowledge of Nora’s lies, Helmer essentially condemns Nora as she committed forgery and did not reveal it to him. This use of dramatic irony creates a tension; the seemingly jocund tone in the opening scene collapses. While Helmer criticizes Krogstad for avoiding judgement, Helmer rejects his own righteous declaration when the truth about the IOU and forgery is disclosed. Instead of gallantly taking on the blame as Nora expected (which in itself is situational irony because Nora repeatedly expected that he would take upon the punishment), Helmer emphasizes keeping up appearances, ranting that, “The thing must be hushed up at all costs,” and, “All we can do is save the bits and pieces from the wreck, preserve appearances” (76). Not only does this characterize Helmer as very Victorian in valuing appearance over all else, it illustrates him as a very hypocritical character. Just before Helmer knows of the IOU, Iben uses dramatic irony where Helmer fantasizes, “You know, Nora . . .many’s the time I wish you were threatened by some terrible danger so I could risk everything, body and soul, for your sake.” (74). The irony that Helmer does have a chance to “risk everything” for Nora but instead shudders in fear of being mistaken as an accomplice further depicts him as hypocritical and selfish (74). But is Torvald Helmer necessarily a “bad” person for his hypocrisy and repulsion to the very idea of sacrificing his honor for Nora? Not many people are genuinely altruistic. It’s human nature to be hypocritical and self-serving, so can we blame Helmer?
ReplyDeleteYour question is very interesting. I saw the message in the play as, yes, people are self-serving and put themselves first, so if we accept Nora's actions, we should do the same with Helmer's. However, his interest is less genuine; he does not really care about himself, just what other people think and his reputation, or maybe to the point in which they are one and the same. Nora, on the other hand, says that she does not care what people think. I don't think Helmer is necessarily a bad person, because he is just doing what he was raised to do by society, and I thought these parallels and differences between the two were quite interesting. They add a thought-provoking aspect to the end of the play.
DeleteIn the end of Act 3, Nora leaves the home without taking the children with her. Nora may of been partially right to leave her children but ultimately she as a mother should not have done so. Firstly, leaving the children will allow Nora to relieve them from the hardships she may go through. During the Victorian Era, women who did not have the aid of a husband experienced financial promes. This hardship can be reflected in the background of Mrs. Linde. She was forced to marry a man she didn't even love, all for the sake of being financially stable. Her reliance illustrates the need of women to stay with a husband. Indeed, when her husband passes away, she started to experience hardships regarding money and was not truly happy until she reunited and got back together with Krogstad. Thus, if Nora were to leave her children with her husband, they would not need to go through such trouble, In contrast, however, it does not seem that Nora is leaving for the sake of her children. When she argues with Helmer in leaving the house, she makes the point that she must leave for “herself”. There are many instances in the play where she prioritizes herself over others, and she also even blames the children for picking Helmer’s letter box. Furthermore, she says to Helmer that, “I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Daddy’s doll child” (81). Here, she is stating the fact that both her husband and father treated her like their own doll. Indeed, leaving the house would most likely free Nora from her status as Helmer’s doll, but who would replace Nora? There would only be one choice: The children. Leaving the house may prevent the children from bearing the potential hardships Nora may have to go through, but she just does not consider the possibility of her children being treated the same way she was treated by her husband and father .Considering the personality of Helmer (cars only about his image), the children needs the love of their mother, and therefore she should not have left them in the house.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAfter finishing Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, there was one particular aspect that impacted me the most, above all the other ideas, messages, and symbols that Ibsen threw our way. The stereotypes amd expectations of self image in the Victorian society surprised me, it was interesting to see how much self image drove the lives of those in the Victorian era. Helmer was a perfect example of this, putting the way people thought of him before his job, and even his wife. He displays this blunty when he tells Nora, “No one sacrifices his honour for the one he loves” (Ibsen 84). This shocked me, and was a good example of how toxic the relationship between Torvald and Nora is. This idea of self image and letting the opinions of other people drive your actions is a big part of my life, I related well and was even inspired by many of Nora’s words. This is surely still a problem in our society as well, however just in a different light, through social media especially. It’s something that I’ve tried to ingore personally, I feel that is important to live for no one but yourself. Nora illustrated this well when she fired back at Helmer with, “That’s no concern of mine. All I know is that this necessary for me” (82). That quote was super refreshing to read after hearing about all these people living in vain. It brought a smile to my face hearing Nora stand up to her husband and even society, and choose to live on her own terms, something I think everyone should do.
ReplyDelete