What I found interesting in act one are women roles and stereotypes. In the beginning of act one we see this when Helmer says “Just like a women” (3). Here Nora had a suggestion of borrowing money but that was not relevant to Helmer and his financial plans, therefore, Helmer quickly went to the notion that all women want to borrow money from others because they have never felt the pressure of handling money and because all they do they just spend it. Helmer also uses animal connotations when talking to Nora. Evidence of this is when Helmer says “My little singing bird mustn’t\ go drooping her wings, eh? Has it got the sulks, that little squirrel of mine”(3). Helmer uses the words “bird” and “squirrel” when talking about Nora. I believe the reason why Helmer refers Nora to these animals is because he is stereotyping that all women don't have anything to say so they as good as animals. This also shows Helmers superiority in the relationship because he can calling her the animal and as if it is his possession sounds like he is the master of the animal in a way, therefore, this shows that Helmer is in control of the marriage. Helmer later refers to Nora as his “pretty little pet” which also shows his superiority and women's roles. The reason why I found this interesting is because this relates to the Victorian era where women's rights were considered but limited in terms of if women wanted to leave her husband, the women would have to try to live off on her own with children consequently leading to difficulty of sustaining themselves as a family. Therefore, I think possibly Henrik Ibsen is conveying that reason why Nora is dealing with Helmers stereotypes and what her role is because she has no other choice since if she leaves no one else would provide for her.
Daniel, I certainly agree with your interpretation about the gender inequality during the Elizabethan era. It seems like the pattern in the play The Taming of the Shrew carried over to our next play, in which the husbands stand in a much superior position above their wives. However, one thing that I disagree is your interpretation on the use of animal diction like "bird" and "squirrel". Even though there seems to be a familiar pattern between the Victorian era and the Elizabethan era, I think there was a lot of improvement over time. During the later time period (Victorian era), husbands showed respect towards wives to a certain degree, and I think Torvald is expressing genuine love when he uses such animal diction. Other than this one point, I certainly agree with your interpretation.
I definitely agree with your interpretation of all the gender inequality. Throughout history, gender inequality has been a huge problem and it was very large in the Elizabethan era. Helmer is very controlling and demeaning towards Nora, and through his use of animal diction, it almost seems as if he's dehumanizing her to justify his control and the societal inequality. I also agree with your idea that Nora has no other choice, but I don't think she really wants to leave. Nora accepts the treatment Helmer gives her because that is the norm to do so, and to fight with your husband would go against the whole Victorian ideal of respectability.
I also agreed that this play had similar themes to Taming of the Shrew such as deception. I also thought that the animal names were originally meant to be out of love, however as they continued on and were more exaggerated I knew they had to be a symbol. A symbol that could, in fact, have nothing to due with the husband, but more so be characterization to describe Nora and show the front she is putting on towards her husband.
In A doll’s house, in Act 1, Helmer and Nora have a very interesting exchange which adds to the overall theme of parenting and their relationship dynamic. Helmer says, “What a funny little one you are! Just like your father. Always on the look-out for money,…It’s in the blood. Oh yes, it is, Nora. That sort of thing is hereditary” to which Nora replies by saying, “Oh, I only wish I’d inherited a few more of Daddy’s qualities” (Act I.5). By calling Nora “a funny little one” which is followed by, “just like your father”, it is implied that Helmer doesn't have much respect for Nora’s father. During the Victorian times, a man is supposed to be proper and masculine, which the words “funny” and “little” don't represent. The audience is not aware of what Nora’s father has done to deserve such a reputation. However, even though Helmer’s apparent disdain towards her father is clear, Nora retorts by saying she wished to have inherited more of his qualities. She not only disagrees with Helmer, but completely ignores his negative comments and instead gives them a positive connotation. Another interesting sentence is how Helmer states, “that sort of thing is hereditary”, which suggests that all of Nora’s family had troubles and that Helmer disregards people developing their own personality. Helmer does not consider Nora to be his equal, rather an inferior being whom he must deal with when he says, “Well, one must accept you are you are.” (Act I.5). Lastly, Helmer doesn't seem to realise that by saying such habits are hereditary, his children will have those qualities too.
Sakina, I agree with your interpretation that Helmer thinks he is superior over Nora. One question I had while reading your blog however, is do you think the reason why Helmer treats Nora this way is because he just stereotyping women or does he mean it directly to Nora?
I think it might be both because Helmer stereotypes women along with not accepting Nora as an individual. In the play when Nora and Helmer have a conversation about borrowing money, Nora says that the debt won't matter if he is dead to which Helmer says, "Nora, Nora! Just like a woman!" (Act 1.3). He is stereotyping women and simply applying it to Nora rather than treating her own being. This is seen later too, when he says that her money spending habits are due to her father and it is hereditary, ignoring any motif she might have for spending the money. When Nora says or does something Helmer disapproves of, instead of directly addressing her, he blames society or genetics for her behaviour.
Something interesting I found in Act 1 of “A Doll’s House” was the hypocrisy in the Victorian Era. Everything was changing, so the people tried to control anything they could, from clothing to social norms like drinking. Drinking, smoking, and gambling were all prohibited, yet people still engaged in these activities behind closed doors. This was very hypocritical, and we see this occur in “A Doll’s House”. Helmer attempts to control everything his wife does, like whether or not she eats macaroons, yet Nora still evades this control. Early on in the act, Nora is seen in the stage directions, “She takes a bag of macaroons out of her pocket and eats one or two; then she walks stealthily across and listens at her husband’s door” (Ibsen 1). Ibsen’s use of the word ‘stealthily’ shows the secretiveness Nora feels she must employ. Later on, Helmer says, “‘Didn’t go nibbling a macaroon or two”, to which Nora replies, “‘No, Torvald, honestly, you must believe me’” (5). The audience knows Nora is obviously lying, even with something as small as a macaroon. This goes back to the Victorian idea of excessive control, yet how very few people obey those rules in private.
Throughout Act One of the play A Doll’s House, Nora is often characterized as a manipulative and lavish wife, and the audience certainly perceives her through such lens. She does not hesitate to lie to her husband, lavishly spends money on insignificant matters, and speaks in a disparaging manner towards her friend. After witnessing such unpleasant characteristics of Nora, it is no surprise that the audience views her in an extremely negative way. However, some questions arise regarding Nora’s true characteristics, not simply what appear to be her inherent traits. In fact, one can associate Nora with some completely opposite characteristics: considerate and caring. One passage that suggest such differing view point comes from the lengthy conversation between Nora and Mrs. Linde:
Nora. …It would spoil everything between us; this happy home of ours would never be the same again. Mrs. Linde. Are you never going to tell him? Nora. [Reflectively, half-smiling]. Oh yes, some day perhaps…in many years time, when I’m no longer as pretty as I am now. You mustn’t laugh! What I mean of course is when Torvald isn’t quite so much in love with me as he is now, when he’s lost interest in watching me dance, or get dressed up, or recite…So what I’ve had to do is save a little here and there, you see, wherever I could. I couldn’t really save anything out of the housekeeping, because Torvald has to live in decent style. I couldn’t let the children go about badly dressed either – I felt any money I got for them had to go on them alone.” (I. p.15)
As the two engage in an intense conversation, Nora reveals her deep, inner secret as to how she afforded such great sum of money for the trip to the South. Even though not all details are uncovered at the moment, the audience still learns that Nora gathered the money through secretive sources – working at the printing press and pleading Torvald for money with excuses – all for her husband’s health, as well as the unity of the family. In the passage above, Henrik Ibsen uses jocund diction to illustrate Nora’s affectionate love towards her family. For instance, positive words like “happy”, “dance”, and “recite” depict a clear picture of a bright household, and how much Nora appreciates such state. All Nora desires is to maintain the happy and regular family with a healthy husband, and such wish provides a reason as to why Nora had to make such extraordinary decision; to quietly gather money without notifying any others. Also, the anaphora of “I couldn’t” represents how little choice Nora had in saving the money for the trip. Nora certainly “couldn’t” sell any household possessions like furniture, for the family had to maintain the current living condition. Also, Nora surely “couldn’t” stop providing for her children despite the situation, for they’re precious and sweet treasures of hers. Thus, the limited choices left for Nora were to earn money from Torvald through unreasonable excuses, and perhaps secretly borrow from someone like Korgstad. Nora desperately had to gather money somehow, in order to keep her husband healthy and maintain a happy family. Yet Nora was given limited choices, which made her appear as a shrewd and lavish individual. There is no doubt that Nora is a manipulative and secretive character. However, given her true intension and the limited situation, the audience may need to reconsider viewing her through such lens, at least for a moment.
I find Ibsen’s use of dehumanization, threw his character Helmer, the husband, intriguing when he talks about his wife, Nora. Several times while addressing his wife, helmer used sexist diction and weak imagery. This didn’t appear unexpected during this era considering women were to obey their husbands. I found, however, the dehumanization of Nora, by comparing her to an animal quite odd. I kept asking myself what Helmer was trying to accomplish with this? Ibsen begins the novel by comparing Nora to a squirrel, “Is that my little squirrel frisking about?” (Dolls House, 2). Helmer then goes on to call her, “a pretty little pet” (Dolls House 4). Dehumanization is often associated with derogatory terms to make the victim feel lesser, and convince the predator that the victim is not human at all. However within this play, this use of dehumanization creates a different tone. Rather than feeling sorry for Nora, because of her agreeable answers and the way she plays back on the comments and accepts them, causes the reader to feel uncertain and uneasy about Nora as a character. The way she accepts the comparison to an animal allows the character's mind to travel to ulterior motives. The tone becomes mysterious rather than empathetic. The reader instantly falls onto the idea that Nora may be a “gold digger”, and willing to remain submissive with her husband in order to get what she wants. It plays into the theme of secrecy and deception often applied within the Victorian Era.
I like that you brought this up Cameron, because in my reading group we also talked about this. We weren't sure whether or not this was meant to be rude, or if it was simply a nickname for Nora. While we do know that their relationship was not the best, it did not seem like he was meaning to be rude to her when saying this. If anything, it was just weird and slightly creepy... Thanks for bringing this point up because I am sure a lot of people noticed this, especially as it was so prevalent in Shakespeare as well!
In Act One of “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, I found the characterization of Nora Helmer to be very interesting. We know from the beginning of the act that she did not possess any control in her marriage at all. We see her directly lying to her husband, Torvald, denying the fact that she ate macaroons, when the audience knows that just before that conversation she had been. This automatically sets the audience up to be upset by her lying to her husband, as well as skeptical of Nora’s character.
Another time where Ibsen tries to make the audience grow dislike towards Nora’s character is when she is having a conversation with her friend who had recently come to their house, Christine Linde. She is very rude to Mrs. Linde, and despite her claims to want to listen to Mrs. Linde, Nora continues to go on and on about herself. She also seems to lack sympathy for Mrs. Linde as she asks questions that very likely are sore spots, and brags about her own life. NORA. And no children? MRS. LINDE. None. ... NORA. So utterly alone! How dreadful that must be! I have three of the loveliest children.
One more thing that Nora’s character does is that she tells a secret about stealing money to Mrs. Linde. This comes as a surprise because we know that Nora and Christine are just meeting again for the first time in years, yet Nora chooses to tell her something that is a big deal. Not only is this bad because she has stolen all of this money and never even told her husband, but she is seemingly proud of this and feels as though she should receive praise. At this point Nora has no idea what Mrs. Linde will do with this information, and doesn’t know if this will remain confidential. My group predicted that Mrs. Linde will eventually cause trouble for Nora, though it will be Nora’s fault that this happens.
All of these things make it so that Nora’s character seems very distasteful, and very naive.
I agree that Nora's character seems distasteful and very naive but what if she's doing it on purpose? When she was talking to Mrs. Linden about the money, she appeared very crafty and in some ways like a mastermind, because no one knew. Yes it is true she's not the nicest person in the planet and isn't very sympathetic towards people's emotions, but what if she is doing it to cover up how disappointed she is that no one has acknowledged all she has done?
Throughout the first act of a Dolls House Homer uses bird imagery to compare with Nora. He says, “ What do they call the birds that are always making the money fly” (3)? He says this to send a message to the audience that the wife doesn't have the rights equal o a man. As well as showing that she is only appreciated for her beauty. Later on the same page he says, “ No one would believe how much it costs a man to keep such a little bird as you” (3). He says this to describe the burden that he believes she has on his life. Overall his attitude towards her embodies the marriage relations of the time in which men were the head of the house and women were thought of as less. The required obedience in the family can be seen more clearly after when Homer says, “Didn't you say that nobody had been here? [Threatens with his finger.] My little bird must never do that again! A song-bird must sing clear and true; no false notes” (17). He uses the analogy of a songbird singing clear to say that she must never speak of out line. He even threatens her with his finger which was acceptable in marriage relations back then. They have also conformed to the accepted practice of having multiple children and trying to seems as rich as possible. Of course nowadays this would have been very unacceptable. I is also really interesting how Nora is starting to seem like Daisy because she is very deceptive and is just playing everybody. For example when she says that other people gave her the macaroons, or that she does not spend all the money she gets. Of course this does not comply to all the marriage relations acceptable back then. Her action most likely foreshadow later devious actions.
One thing I found extremely interesting from the first act of “Doll’s House”, by Henrick Ibsen is the conversation that took place between Nora and Mrs. Linden. Upon first inspection, it appears that Nora is not well aquainted with Mrs. Linden, as seen when when Ibsen writes, “No, I don't think- oh yes!- I believe- [Suddenly brightening.] What, Christina! Is it really you?” (Ibsen). It’s almost as if Nora is trying to recognize an old aquaintance, but this notion is quickly shot down once they begin talking. The first half of their conversation is Nora bashing Mrs. Linden, as when she says, “So utterly alone! How dreadful that must be! I have three of the loveliest children. I can't show them to you just now; they're out with their nurse…” (Ibsen). After reminding Mrs. Linden of everything she doesn't have, Nora continues on to brag about her children and her husband. Because of this, the audience takes pity on Mrs. Linden, but the interesting thing is that she does not want or desire the pity. While she is a punching bag for Nora, eventually she starts bragging to Nora. She brags to Nora about how she had to do things on her own, and how she became accomplished with out anyone's help. Turning the tables on the conversation. As proven when Ibsen writes,”Then I had to fight my way by keeping a shop, a little school, anything I could turn my hand to. The last three years have been one long struggle for me. But now it is over, Nora. My poor mother no longer needs me; she is at rest. And the boys are in business, and can look after themselves…” (Ibsen). While Nora showed off what she accomplished, Mrs. Linden eventually does the same. This goes in contrast with the Victorian theme of facades and being presentable at all times. There was no way for people to entertain themselves, so they seeker entertainment through small talk conversation and by mocking others. Both women are at fault because they are letting the other talk to them like this. They know it is because they needed some source of entertainment.
In Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House, Nora Helmer spends most of her on-stage time as a doll: a vapid, passive character with little personality of her own. Her whole life is a construct of societal norms and the expectations of others. Until she comes to the realization that her life is a sham, she spends her whole life in a dream world. In this dream world, Nora does not take life seriously, an attitude that led to many of the plot’s complications.
Until her change, Nora is very childlike and whimsical. Her first act on stage is her paying the delivery body. Though his service only costs 50-p., she gives him a hundred. Though an additional 50-p. is not a significant amount of money, the casual way in which she gives it to him is indicative of her fiscal irresponsibility (Cummings). She hands him the hundred and before he can thank her, she decides in the middle of the transaction that she is not patient enough to wait for change. The fact that this seemingly mundane occurrence is presented as the first action on stage showcases the reckless attitude implied. An important aspect of a dream world is the suspension of cause and effect. Nora’s lackadaisical approach is very prominent throughout the story. One example of her disregard for others is when she blames Mrs. Linde1 for smuggling forbidden macaroons into the house. Though she is just trying to hide her indiscretions, she does not care whom she hurts in the process.
One particular section of the play that caught my interest was the scene in which Torvald discusses parental immorality poisoning a household. As Nora attempts to put some good words for Krogstad in front of her husband, Torvald gives a thorough description of the kind of man Krogstad appears to be. Torvald says, “A fog of lies like that in a household, and it spread disease and infection to every part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking with evil germs” (I. p.33). What’s even more interesting is that, the reality of parental influence that Torvald describes here is not anything new, and such structure still exists up to this day. In describing Krogstad and the Victorian household under such guardian figure, Torvald uses an extended metaphor and contaminating diction. First of all, the lies and deceit of Krogstad is compared to a fog that prevails throughout the household. The natural tendency of fog is to spread without restriction, and such propensity suggests that Krogstad’s deceitful influence proliferates throughout his household in a similar way. Also, to supplement such idea, Torvald adds, “Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking with evil germs.” By mentioning the inhaling of the fog filled with lies and deceit, Torvald suggests the certainty of children being negatively affected by their deceitful and fraudulent guardians. Another literary element present in the particular passage is contaminating diction. Throughout his decription, Torvald continuously and repetitively uses words like, “disease”, “infection”, and “germs” that contain unpleasant connotation. Such use of diction unmistakably reinforces the idea that deceitful parents like Krogstad would only bring detrimental effects to their household, including the children. In addition, the contaminating diction creates a repugnant tone, continuously characterizing Krogstad’s household in a highly unpretty way. Such tone of the description rather draws antipathy from the audience, creating a great distance between the audience and Krogstad. Therefore, the extended metaphor and contaminating diction employed by Ibsen clearly and almost visibly depict the crucial parental role on the Victorian household, and possibly even that of today’s society. The one last piece that I wanted to point out as a reader, is the dramatic irony found in the passage above. Torvald associates Krogstad and his household with extremely unpleasant traits, yet some things sound awfully familiar; Nora has also been habitually lying and deceiving others within the household. The creation of such dramatic irony, as well as Nora’s conflicted response, engage the audience further into the play and draw unanswered curiosity.
Something I found very interesting, within the play Dolls House, is how the mother acted towards her children. On page 22, the mother Nora, uses a metaphor to compare her children to dolls, “No, the doggies wouldn’t bite my pretty little dollies.” Referencing the word dolls reminds the reader of the title, Dolls House. This connection between Nora's language and the title causes the reader to believe Nora is using her family and childrens to play happy family, that this is all an act. Nora subtly manipulates all the other characters within the play and acts out her life like a child’s game. The reference to her children as dolls reminded me of how Nora is in fact quite young, however she is a mother and needs to act as one. She acted like a babysitter to the children rather than a mother, trying to be their friend in an exaggerated odd way. Nora tries to hide her identity by faking to be a weak and helpless wife as she’s expected and appears to be. Although by some of her actions the reader can’t tell if she is truly smarter than she looks or if she just believes she is. For example, when Nora didn’t sign the right date to her father's signature, the reader has to guess whether she forgot, didn’t think about it, or rushed. Nora also began to break down when her husband told her about Krogstad’s fraud. Nora puts up a weak front to fool her fellow cast members to hide her inner strength, but do you think that Nora is infact much wiser than perceived or just not as hopeless as the world sees her to be?
Cameron, I really liked the connection you made between Nora's manipulative actions throughout the play and the title of the play itself: A Doll's House. And just like you said, I also found Nora's excessive reaction towards her children very odd, and it made me wonder if Nora was showing her genuine love or simply exaggerating or pretending to adore them. To answer your question, I personally think Nora is truely hopeless for the most part, and the reason why I think so is that Nora reveals her conflicted emotion at the end of the act, when no one is around her. I think that particular scene really reveals the inner turmoil and hopelessness that she is experiencing currently, and reinforces the fact that Nora is lost.
That was a great analysis! While I was reading it, I wondered why Nora would feel the need to act out her life like a child's game, would it be because she was raised in a similar manner , so that is all she knows or is she trying to gain some kind of control over her life? Something I found intriguing was that Nora mentions her father multiple times but only when its to do with money, his death comes in afterwards and so far there hasn't been a single dialogue relating to her mother. I feel like this could signify the lack of closure the children felt towards their parents. Nora doesn't seem to be affected by this at all, and this could reflect the Victorian society.
Those were some great ideas! I just wanted to add that I feel like the relations to the dolls are symbolic of Helmer's view of Nora. In the way he treats her and speaks to her, it feels like Torvald considers her as inferior as their children. It also symbolizes how she is manipulated by the people around her to act they way that is expected of her, falling in line with the strict Victorian ideals of her time. At the same time, I think that her deceptive behavior in Act I alluded to how she will later break free of the metaphorical bonds that force her to act in such a submissive and controlled manner.
Another part that I found interesting when I read Act 1 was when Nora confessed to Krogstad that she forged her father's signature. She said “No, it wasn't. It was me who signed father’s name” (Act I Pg.28). The reason why I found this interesting is because Nora already had one case in which she lied about the macaroons (capable of lying), but she didn't decide to lie to Krogstad at this scene. She could've said that her father had signed it and make up an excuse for the reason why the date was wrong on the IOU. Instead, she took a bold move and told Krogstad that she forged her father's signature. Then when she explains the reason for why she forged the signature it adds drama to the play and reveals more about Nora. She says “It was impossible. Daddy was ill. If I’d asked him for his signature, I'd have had to tell him what the money was for. Don't you see, when he was as ill as that I couldn't go and tell him that my husband's life was in danger. It was simply impossible” (Act 1 Pg. 28).This shows that Nora cares about her father and her husband by showing that she cares for her father's health by not putting any stress on him and by not asking him for money and for her husband by planning a trip for Helmer so he can feel better from his illness. When Nora asks Krogstad “You? Are you trying to tell me that you once risked everything to save your wife’s life” and Krogstad respond “The law takes no account of motives” (Act 1 Pg.29) Then Nora states that the theses are bad laws. This conversation reveals how much Nora cares about her family and that she would go against the law to prevent anything from happening to them. I found this whole sequence interesting because Nora knows that Krogstad is a cruel person, however, she still decided to take a loan from him to help her family. She wanted to prevent any stress to her family so she tried her hardest to prevent this whole situation from getting to her husband showcasing her concern because she believed that one day when she pays him off everything will be alright and Helmer will actually be happy that she did that. But in reality, as shown by the final line in the act, Nora is now contemplating that she is poisoning her kids because she is modeling that lying is not a big deal because Helmer figured out about her and Krogstad. This changed my perspective of Nora from the beginning of this act because it seems like all she's trying to make her family happy but it's just that she is doing it in a secretive way that no one really knows about.
I noticed the oddity in Nora's confession to Krogstad as well, and I like the point you brought up about Nora caring about her family. Despite her naivety, she does truly try her hardest. She could have have handled the situation better, I don't think it was necessary to tell Krogstad, although it did reveal more of her character. It also displays her impulsivity, and how she has the tendency to not really think things through. This is shown both in her confession to Krogstad, and her lie to Helmer about the macaroons. The revealing to Krogstad could destroy her life, and the lie to Helmer simply drove a larger rift between the two of them, albeit a secret one, in their marriage.
Daniel, I also found her choice of when to lie interesting. Personally, I would think that it would be better to come clean to her own husband about something as simple as macaroons, than to tell the truth about doing something illegal. I agree with your point that she does whatever she thinks will be best for her family, but sometimes these actions do not seem well thought-out. I think it will be interesting to see what other confessions Nora decides to share, versus what secrets she decides to keep for the rest of the Play.
Something else interesting in Act 1 of "A Doll's House" is Helmer's attitude towards Nora's dishonesty. I think his reaction to such a little white lie is foreshadowing to a huge reaction when or if Nora shares her big secret she’s been with-holding for such a long time. Helmer says, “‘Nora, Nora, what possessed you to do a thing like that? Talking to a person like him, making him promises? And the on top of everything, to tell me a lie?”’. One line later, he says, “‘Little song-birds must keep their pretty little beaks out of mischief; no chirruping out of tune!’ [Puts his arm around her waist] ‘Isn’t that the way we want things to be?’” (31). Here, Helmer uses patronizing diction to demean Nora’s dishonesty and berate her for lying in the first place. While Nora neglecting to tell Helmer about Krogstad’s visit wasn’t a large lie, she has another huge secret just lurking below the surface. Helmer’s extreme reaction to something small could potentially be foreshadowing a huge blow-up that could shake the foundation their relationship is built on and everything between them.
Nora also realizes that her big secret could cause problems in their relationship, which is why she changes the subject so quickly after Helmer tells her not to lie anymore. She says, “‘I’m so looking forward to the fancy dress ball at the Stenborgs on Boxing Day’” (31). This is a very abrupt change, showing Nora is slowly growing uncomfortable about lying to Helmer.
After reading more of Act 1,Ibsen’s characterisation of Nora is very interesting. He makes Nora's rebellious nature more apparent, which could foreshadow conflict she might face with Torvald. Ibsen introduces this by using profane or vulgar diction and through Nora’s conflict against society.
Nora. I would simply love to say: ‘Damn’ Rank. Are you mad! Mrs Linde. Good gracious, Nora…! Rank. Say it! Here he is! (Act 1.20)
Nora wanted to swear in front of Torvald, but eventually she did not. She felt more relaxed around Dr. Rank and Mrs. Linde which adds to the unhealthy relationship between Torvald and Nora. Although Nora and Torvald have been married for 8 years, she does not feel comfortable around him. The need for Nora to act rebellious in terms of using profane diction reflects the Victorian society. Even though times were changing for women, Nora had very little control over her life. If she wanted something which Torvald disagreed with, she did it secretly as seen with the macaroons. By swearing, she was able to demonstrate control over her life, which might have made her feel empowered. Dr Rank’s line stood out too because instead of discouraging her, he encourages her to swear in front of Torvald. Through Torvald’s characterisation so far, it can be inferred that he wouldn't approve of it. Is there a reason why Dr. Rank would want to encourage conflict between Nora and Torvald?
Krogstad: The law takes no account of motives. Nora: Then they must be very bad laws. (Act 1.29)
Nora’s line clearly states that she disagrees with the laws. Her conflict reminds me of Katherina in Taming of the Shrew, who also faced conflict versus society due to gender roles and their expectations. Nora’s conflict stems from the laws, which Torvald holds in high regard. Ibsen subtly hints at their incompatibility using Nora’s rebellious nature, which might foreshadow a climatic ending for her relationship with Torvald.
After reading further into Act One, we learned a lot more about the characters who had been presented. One thing that I noticed and found very interesting was the relationship between Nora and her three children. Normally when we picture a relationship between a mother and her children we imagine a close-knit bond, where the mother cares immensely for her children. This is not the kind of relationship that they have. When the Helmer’s home was described, it did not seem very child-friendly, and many students in the class agreed that they likely did not have kids.
Another thing that we discussed was how the children were hardly brought up, and when they were brought up, it was to use as a bragging point, or something to simply dress up. Nora boasts about her three children to Mrs. Linde multiple times, knowing that Mrs. Linde wishes that she had children of her own. Nora also talks about how she could never let her children go badly dressed, likely because she believes that it would reflect poorly on herself. Another thing about the children in the story that we noticed while reading Act One was that the interactions were often very impersonal. None of the children had their own speaking part, but rather the times that the children spoke, it was labeled “Children” rather than each child’s name. Also, Nora dehumanized the children, and even addressed her daughter Anna as “My sweet little dolly!” We found this very strange, that a mother would call her child a doll, but we did think that it related to how she treated and regarded her children. As dolls, or objects used for show, which can be dressed up.
We also noticed that her children were not Nora’s top priority. While it was common in this day to have a maid who tended to your children, we barely saw the children until nearly the end of Act One, and this was only because it takes place around Christmas. Then, after her unpleasant encounter with Krogstad, she blows off her children, even though she had promised to play with them before. CHILDREN. [At the door, left.] Mamma, the strange man has gone now. NORA. Yes, yes, I know. But don't tell anyone about the strange man. Do you hear? Not even papa! CHILDREN. No, mamma; and now will you play with us again? NORA. No, no; not now. CHILDREN. Oh, do, mamma; you know you promised. NORA. Yes, but I can't just now. Run to the nursery; I have so much to do. Run along,- run along, and be good, my darlings! [She pushes them gently into the inner room, and closes the door behind them…] This shows that her focus is on herself, rather than her children, and that she is not reliable when she says that she will do something.
I agree with analyzation the in depth you did of the importance of the children. It is really quite evident that she does not care for her children and they are only a symbol of rank. They almost seem like objects in the eyes of Nora. I also like how you looked at the importance of the children talking just being labeled as Children. Through this they are given less characterization and can be used more to characterize Nora. similarly I wrote about in my essay for the Taming of the Shrew that the servants with no names in the induction are used more for the characterization of others and are not very appreciated by charterers with names. The interactions between them do tell us how they act, but they act this way due to the personality of the other characters.
The first act of Henrik Ibsen's “A Doll House” sets the scene and provides the premise for the events of the subsequent acts. We see our protagonist, Nora, presented with a difficult ultimatum at the end of the act. Her myopic actions lead her into a position where she must help Krogstad retain his job, although she has just given a good word for her old friend, Mrs. Lined, for a job at the bank. If she refuses to help Krogstad, he threatens to expose the crimes of her past. In most cases the reader would develop some sympathy for characters in such a position, however Nora is unlike others in her self serving and secretive nature, a fact that she prides herself on. This leads the audience to feel that her “lose-lose” situation is well deserved. We can clearly see her unfavorable behavior in a conversation between Dr. Rank, Mrs. Linde, and Nora. Here, we see Dr. Rank discovers the macaroons that Nora had smuggled in. Rather than simply admit that she bought the macaroons at the store, she chooses instead the blame it on the innocent Mrs. Linde. Mrs. Linde is dumbstruck, but chooses not to defend herself as she wants Nora to put in a good word to her husband about a job. This small and seemingly harmless lie contributes the the overall setting of Victorian England, a very conservative time and place where secrets abounded as people desperately tried to hide the truth about themselves and their actions.
Saurav, I found your interpretation of how the reader would view Nora interesting . When I read this act I developed sympathy for Nora because of the position she was in and because of her endeavors to keep everyone in her family happy however her choices to make those efforts are very questionable. so how you said this was because Nora found pride in keeping a secretive nature, it makes more since why she made some her questionable bke action for example forging her fathers signature and thing she could get away form it because of her pride.
The father I got into Act one the more my opinion changed about Nora. At first I thought she was evil, manipulative and deceptive, but I came to realize she has good intentions. Although she is a little mean. For example she says, “But it would have been fatal for him to know! Can't you understand that? He wasn't even to suspect how ill he was. The doctors came to me privately and told me his life was in danger- that nothing could save him but a winter in the South. Do you think I didn't try diplomacy first”(8)? Her action began to show selflessness and the audience may even start to sympathize for what she had to go through to help her husband. Later she is even harassment by Krogstad the man who gave her a loan but she stays strong. She is still helping in a deceptive way which makes the audience question the morality of her actions. The audience can also start to see the apartment gender role system in the economy at first through Nora supposedly losing all the stuff she made for Christmas. While she was actually selling it because that was the only way she could make money. The audience can later see this through Mrs. Linde when Nora says, “You see, Christina is tremendously clever at office-work, and she's so anxious to work under a first-rate man of business in order to learn still more”(11). Mrs. Linde can only get a low level job in a business because she is a widowed female. Of course Helmer would never let Nora get a job because it would affect his class status. If only he knew that she was debted to someone maybe his opinion would change, but he would be very angry.
Towards the end of act one in Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, Nora claiming that Mrs. Linden is at fault for posessing the macaroons is a symbol. During their conversation, Nora revealed some extreme information to Mrs. Linden, some of which could bring harm to her if brought to light. The macaroons stand as a symbol, stating that if Mrs. Linden reveals to anyone what Nora told her, Nora’s lie will dominate her truth. Ibsen writes,” Oh, well! Don't be frightened. You couldn't possibly know that Torvald had forbidden them. The fact is, he's afraid of me spoiling my teeth. But, oh bother, just for once!- That's for you, Doctor Rank! [Puts a macaroon into his mouth.] And you too, Christina. And I'll have one while we're about it- only a tiny one, or at most two. [Walks about again.] Oh dear, I am happy! There's only one thing in the world I really want.”(Ibsen). Not only is this a warning to Christina about not telling anyone Nora's secret, she is also divulging what would happen if Helmer found out about the information. Also revealing that Helmer is a proud man, and would be very offended and angry at Nora (in her eyes) if he found out.
One quote I found interesting was one by Nora, "Something glorious is going to happen". ( ) Toward the end of act 2, Nora says these words to Mrs.Linde. She is describing the effects that will follow when Torvald opens Krogstads letter which contains Nora's loan secret. This quote struck me as foreshadowing even though I am unaware of what will happen. For the first time, Nora uses excited diction and shows hope for the future. This quote represents a turning point in Nora's life and mindset. It is also interesting how Nora is seemingly finding hope at the rock bottom of her life. This is a positive ideal, as she could easily be negative in this situation. In this way, readers can look up to Nora for her outlook in life. The foreshadowing in this quote leads me to believe Nora is going to do something very brave about her "trapped" situation.
Act 2 of “A Doll’s House” is fraught with symbolism, namely the Christmas tree. In the very beginning of Act 2, the stage directions tell us, “In the corner beside the piano stands the Christmas tree, stripped, bedraggled and with its candles burnt out” (II.35). Here, Ibsen uses negative diction to show the sorry state of the tree, when Nora had previously boasted about the tree being, “‘There’s nothing to worry about. We’ll have a lovely Christmas tree’” (I.30). This is a striking parallel, as the Christmas tree is a symbol of Nora’s psyche, and her relationship with Helmer. Prior to Helmer denouncing forgery and lies of the type Nora has kept secret, the tree was happy, and full of candles and flowers. Following Helmer’s rant, and the parallel of Krogstad and Nora, we see the Christmas tree worn-down and a shadow of its former self, much like Nora. Nora is closed-off, fearful, and doesn’t want to spend time with her children for fear she’ll poison them. She says, “‘Yes, Anne Marie, from now on I can’t be with them as often as I was before’” (II.36). This is a sharp contrast from Act 1, where she played with her children, “‘How fresh and bright you look! My, what red cheeks you’ve got! Like apples and roses’” (I.22). Where Nora used to dote on the children, she now withdraws from them after the stage directions with the Christmas tree. The wilting of the Christmas tree shows the beginning of the end for the Helmer household, where relationships are disintegrating.
Wow, Madeline, I found answers to many things I was wondering about in your blog post. First of all, I only saw the Christmas tree as a symbol of Nora's mental state, and never thought of it as her relationship with her husband. But now that I look at your interpretation and certain parts of the play, they surprisingly fit together, showing a parallel relationship. Also, I've been continuously wondering why Nora suddenly shut herself apart from her children, and you provided a clear answer to that question as well; so that she may not poison them like Krogstad supposedly did. I think your interpretation was excellent, and it's full of rich information!
I found many of of the same comparisons when I thought about the Christmas tree. Do you think that the tree dying may also be foreshadowing, and if so what to?
As we have discussed as a class earlier, Act Two consists of various symbols that contain significant representation. And one prominent symbol is the IOU, or a signed document acknowledging a debt. When her husband was severely ill, Nora made a bold decision to borrow a significant amount of money for the trip to the South, specifically from Krogstad. During the process, the IOU had to be drawn up between the two, legally acknowledging that the debt exists until the sum is fully paid back. What Nora did not foresee, however, is that such contract could turn into a binding force that continuously oppresses her. Krogstad, being a deceitful and shrewd man, finds a fault within the IOU and attempts to use it to his advantage: pressure Nora so that he may regain his position at the bank. Thus, the IOU symbolizes the binding force and pressure that Nora desperately tries to escape from, and the unending conflict between the two.
One example that well demonstrates such symbol appears in the beginning of Act Two: NORA. When you’ve paid everything you owe, you do get your IOU back again, don’t you? MRS. LINDE. Of course. NORA. And you can tear it up into a thousand pieces and burn it – the nasty, filthy thing! (II. P.39-40)
In the particular quote above, Henrik Ibsen uses impure diction and hyperbole in order to illustrate Nora’s hatred toward the binding IOU and her desperate effort to escape such suppression. First of all, Nora uses impure diction in order to express her genuine hatred towards the inescapable contract. In describing the IOU, Nora uses words like “nasty” and “filthy”, clearly expressing her negative connotation and attitude. Usually, in describing regular objects, we don’t normally use radical and impure diction like the ones that Nora employs to describe the contract. Thus, such use of impure diction easily suggests the extent to which Nora despises the contract. To Nora, the IOU drawn between her and Krogstad is no longer a simple contract, but rather a forceful and inescapable chain. In addition, Ibsen uses hyperbole in order to depict Nora’s effort to escape such binding chain. Nora questions if she would get the IOU back once all debt is paid, then says, “And you can tear it up into a thousand pieces and burn it…” When Nora says ‘thousand’ pieces, she does not literally mean to tear it apart into thousand pieces. Rather, she is exaggerating that she wants to do so in such an extreme degree that she may become completely free from the oppression she has now experienced for years. By completely tearing the document apart, by erasing its existence, Nora hopes to find herself in complete freedom, although it may only be mere hope. Thus, in the particular passage above, Henrik Ibsen uses impure diction and hyperbole in an attempt to express Nora’s disgust towards the binding contract, as well as her attempt to become free from the oppressing chain.
I really like how you really looked into the importance of the IOU. Although I had acknowledged it as a symbol I had not thought as deep as you have. Similar to what you said about the IOU symbolizes the binding pressure and force that Nora is trying to escape, I saw the IOU you as Krogstad's weapon. It strange that a signed piece of paper is the weapon in a book. When it is usually a sword or wand etc. Yet it seems to be a very powerful weapon that allows Krogstad to have so much power over Nora.
“That’s what we’ll do. [Caressing her.] Does that make you happy now? There, there, don’t look at me with those eyes, like a little frightened dove. The whole thing is sheer imagination.” (A Doll's House, Ibsen, 44)
Throughout the entire story, Nora acts and is treated like a child. She plays wither her children like dolls, she is slightly ignorant, immature, and wears all her emotions on her sleeve. Mrs. Linde even states, “Nora! In lots of ways you are still a child” (38). She says this to Nora because Nora is stating that her husband doesn’t like her talking about her past because he’s “so in love with (her) he says he wants (her) all to himself” (38). Any adult knows this explanation is illogical and most likely not the actual reason Helmer doesn’t enjoy his wife discussing her past. Nora is very similar to a young, prideful, child who’s trying to make up excuses to make herself look better, which is immature, or believes what she says and is therefore incredibly ignorant. Nora is not only childlike in her verbal communication but also in her body language. Within the quote above, Helmer is speaking to Nora. Helmer begins by trying to comfort his wife the same way mothers comfort their younger children by gently touching their faces saying, “there, there”. Helmer then dehumanizes her by using a simile to comparing her to a dove, a soft, pure, yet delicate animal. However within this quote you can tell how well Helmer is able to read her facial expressions because, similar to a child, she wears her emotions on her sleeve. Helmer has been able to see right through her the entire story, but not only has Helmer been able to clearly read Nora but also Mrs. Linde and Dr. Rank. This quote sets a sad tone for the play because the reader feels both sorry for Nora in her problem and sorry for Nora in the uncomfortable relationship she has married into. The simple reading of Nora’s facial expressions are just another example of the childlike qualities that Nora possesses.
Cameron, you have an insightful analysis of Nora's puerile behavior and being treated as if she is a child. I found it interesting when you talked about Helmer being able to read Nora emotion like a child. In the first act, we see Helmer read Nora's facial expressions when he blatantly says "Nora, I can tell by your face has been asking you to put a good word in for him" (I Pg. 30). Helmer being able to see this because of Nora's puerile behaviour was the catalyst to Helmers accusation of Nora lying and saying she is poisoning her kids because of it. I just find it interesting that Nora couldn't play off something as simple as that but can be able to plan a whole trip for Helmer to Italy by forging her father's signature and taking a loan from Krogstad. I am just curious about what you think about Nora's behaviour and whether you think it's intentional or not since she clearly shows instances of intelligence like hiding the macaroons and pulling off the trip to Italy.
Helmer- Doesn't make any difference!... You call my motives petty; so I must be petty too. Petty! Indeed! Well, we’ll put a stop to that, once and for all. [he opens the hall door and calls.] Helene! (II Pg.43)
I found this quote in act two interesting because it tells us more about Helmer. This quote was in response to Nora when she tells Torvald that he can't be serious about the pure hatred he has for Krogstad and firing him and that it was petty. Helmer then has a puerile tone when responding saying that if she thinks of him as petty then he will be petty. This is something a little child would do. Helmer is not even giving Nora the chance to explain herself or consider for a second why Nora doesn't want him to fire Krogstad. He then calls out the maid so she can deliver the notice quickly right in front of Nora! This action showcases his anger and makes the audience think why he is acting this way. This could be that since in the Victorian time men felt like they had to support their family and defend them, so he took it seriously when Nora called his actions of endeavoring this petty . Therefore, the repetition of petty in this quote really showcases his utter desire to defend the family because Helmer thinks he doing this to help his family and protect because Krogstad is just overall is an atrocious influence but Nora calls it petty when really petty is the last thing that would come to mind to at least Helmer when he is trying to help his family.
This is an interesting take on why Torvald acted the way he did. You say it is because he was ashamed that Nora thought he was petty, however could he possibly be acting out as a form of pure anger toward Nora and not just to help his family?
In Act II of Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” a number of symbols appear that enlighten the audience of the real state of mind Nora. Although she is a deceptive characters, Ibsen’s use of symbolic features allows for the reader to look beyond her shallow nature and find out how this character really feels. For instance, the Christmas tree is a powerful example of how quickly Nora’s life was turned upside down. In Act I, the Christmas tree is brought into the Helmer household for the first time and we see it as a freshly cutting sparkling beauty, a symbol of Nora effervescent personality and lack of worries. However in the stage direction at the beginning of Act II, the tree has entered a state of dreary disrepair. This alludes to how her lively spirit has been shattered by the threat of the balance of her home being broken by the ambitious Krogstad. The use of the tree is an effective symbol in reinforcing the idea that Nora's world is crumbling, literally and metaphorically. Nora chant in state of mind is also seen through her consumption of her macaroons. In the first Act, she eating them fairly often to the point where Torvald seems to figure out that she often spends his money on sweet at the confectioner’s store. However by the time that the second Act II begins, she stops eating these sweet treats as her stress over the issue at hand prevents her from indulging in such pleasures. These symbols work in conjunction to provide the reader a little more insight into the state of mind of such a secretive character.
“The same room. In the corner, beside the piano, stands the Christmas-tree, stripped, and with the candles burnt out. NORA's outdoor things lie on the sofa. NORA, alone, is walking about restlessly. At last she stops by the sofa, and takes up her cloak”(Ibsen 19-20).
The author uses the description of the scene to symbolize changes in the story. Compared to the earlier description of the inside of the house this one is much more fast paced and shorter making it feel like something is about to happen. The Christmas tree was also described at the start of the play just being brought into the house. It was expected to bring joy and happiness and set the mood of the house. While now the Christmas tree is symbolic of the current situation of Nora. She is running out of options since Helmer is going to fire Krogstad and the beauty of her ruse is falling apart. Also throughout the play when there is more light in the room people act more proper while now that the candles are burning out the dark side of people is coming out. The description of Nora's actions symbolises her current mood about her conundrum. She is walking about restlessly due to being worried she will get in trouble for her wrongdoings, but then it seems as if she realizes she has very little control over the situation and just kinda sits down. Perhaps she is just giving up for the night though because she doesn't seem like a quitter. Ibsen also brings up the piano again. Perhaps the piano symbolizes the beauty and elegance which they are supposed to maintain. Also nobody has really played the piano yet which could symbolizes that there really is no elegance that can be heard throughout the house.
One quote I found extremely interesting from act two takes place shortly after Nora slaps Dr. Rank with her stockings. Ibsen writes,” how can I tell whether I did or didn't. I simply can't tell you...How could you be so clumsy, Dr. Rank when everything was was so nice.” Nora is cruel to Dr. Rank after flirting shamelessly with him, she stops because he got attached. Revealing that Nora is a tease and that she has a cold heart in terms of love.
One symbol I noticed in Act 2 of “A Doll’s House” is Nora’s dance of the tarantella. Nora has the plan to do the tarantella at a ball, a dance usually done in a group that she is doing alone. This in itself is symbolic because it shows Nora distancing herself from her friends and family, and feeling isolated due to the secret she is holding. It also is potentially foreshadowing Nora being alone. When Nora is practicing the tarantella in front of Torvald, she continually goes faster and faster, and Torvald is unable to control her. He says, “‘Not so fast! Not so fast’” to which Nora replies, “‘I can’t help it’”; Torvald says, “‘Not so wild, Nora!’” so Nora says “‘This is how it has to be’” (58). Torvald continually tells Nora to slow down, and tries to control her dancing. Nora disregards her husband, and continually dances faster and faster, and wilder and wilder. This is a symbol for Nora’s life and their relationship. Torvald is always trying to control Nora’s actions, even barring her from eating macaroons, something viewed as fairly benign. He also has extreme reactions to any trying on her part to escape from his control. When Nora tells a small lie, Torvald blows up at her, and warns that she must never lie. Despite his anger, Nora breaks out of her husband’s hold a lot and has lied to him frequently, about items both important and unimportant. Their relationship is built on secrets, and attempts to control each other. The tarantella dance shows Torvald’s futile endeavors to restrict Nora’s actions, and how she evades them.
I really like how you went in depth into the importance of the tarantella dance. I really like how you talked about how she is using it to show how she is using it to distract herself from her dark secret. Also found it interesting how you made the connection between how Torvald was acting and their overall relationship. I definitely agree when you say their relationship is built on secrets and they try to control each other. Even though Nora pretends to conform to the marriage standards she still is very deceptive.
Throughout the Victorian era, there was an unmistakable social norm of gender inequality, in which husbands retained a superior position over their subordinate wives. Even though the conditions certainly improved in comparison to the Elizabethan era (explored in the play The Taming of the Shrew), the repeating pattern of gender inequality seems to have entrenched its position deep inside the societal ground. One relative passage that our reading group discussed with interest is the scene whereby Torvald treats Nora as a possession after the dance practice. The scene is portrayed as:
[He leads her, in spite of her resistance, gently but firmly into the room.] HELMER. …The main thing is she was a success, a tremendous success. Was I supposed to let her stay after that? Spoil the effect? No thank you! I took my lovely little Capri girl – my capricious little Capri girl… (III. p. 67)
Within the passage above, Henrik Ibsen mainly uses stage direction and attaching diction in order to convey the sense of superiority that men held during the Victorian era. To begin with, the stage direction already conveys a sense of inequality that exists between husbands and wives. As the Helmer couple gets closer and closer in completing their practice of tarantella, Nora desperately attempts to keep Torvald occupied, so that Mrs. Linde may successfully convince Krogstad. However, unable to continue any longer with already-successful dance practice, Torvald “lead her, in spite of her resistance, gently but firmly into the room.” The unambiguous stage direction portrays the particular scene within readers’ mind, the picture of Torvald almost forcefully dragging Nora out of the room. Instead of properly respecting Nora’s plead and autonomy to move with her own will, Torvald rather forces her out of the room. Such action clearly conveys a sense of superiority and masculinity men felt over their women, once again reinforcing the social norm that prevailed throughout the Victorian era. In addition to the stage direction, another literary element Ibsen employs is the diction of attachment. In describing Nora, Torvald uses words like, “lovely”, “little”, “Capri” in order to express his appreciation and attachment towards his wife. However, rather than conveying a sense of genuine love, the expression rather delivers a feeling of possession and ownership. The use of attaching diction associates Torvald as the owner of all the treasure that he describes previously, and the fact that he uses the verb “took” bolsters such connotation. Therefore, by using stage direction and diction of attachment, Henrik Ibsen unmistakably conveys the social norm of gender inequality that has continued unchangingly throughout the centuries.
Something that I found interesting in Act 3 was Helmers first reaction when figuring out Nora fraudulent act that was committed eight years ago. Helmer wants Nora to come clean and admit her criminal act. Nora then admits it and Helmer exposes his anger. He says “Quiet…… All you father's irresponsible ways are coming to you. No religion, no morals, no sense of duty… Oh, this is my punishment for turning a blind eye to him. It was for your sake I did it, and this is what I get for it” (III, Pg. 76).This quote stood out to me because for the most part, this book was leading to the anticipated reveal of Helmers reaction of Nora's fraudulent act. This is due the instances in which Nora revealed her secretive nature of the audience through dramatic irony in which the amplest act was the criminal act of forging the signature and not letting Helmer or anybody know about it. I found it interesting that Helmer decided to resort back to Nora's father to blame the reasoning behind Nora's motive to perform such an act and Nora doesn't do anything to defend her father. This makes me wonder what Nora's father did to make Helmer have this negative notion of him.
NORA. Torvald. HELMER. [Stopping.] Yes? NORA. If your little squirrel were to beg you for something so prettily- HELMER. Well? NORA. Would you do it? HELMER. I must know first what it is. NORA. The squirrel would skip about and play all sorts of tricks if you would only be nice and kind. HELMER. Come, then, out with it. NORA. Your lark would twitter from morning till night- HELMER. Oh, that she does in any case. NORA. I'll be an elf and dance in the moonlight for you, Torvald.
Again in Act 2 of the Dolls house the audience can again see the recurring theme that men are superior in marriage. At this point it can also be seen that even Nora is accepting the marriage hierarchy. Although she may just be faking the acceptance of the hierarchy to get what she wants, because she is a very devious character. The translation uses words like “squirrel”, “lark”, and “elf”. Both a squirrel and a lark are not dominate creatures which implies that she is calling herself weak and fragile. Also an “elf” is defined as a small creature indicating that she is say she is small compared to him. On the other hand an “elf” can be an elusive and capricious being. Thus she could also send the message that she is this type of “elf”. Nora uses these words to describe herself giving the indication that she is trying to portray to Torvald that she accepts the hierarchy. Still she seems to just be playing a role to try and get ahead in life.
NORA. That's such a petty reason. HELMER. What! Petty! Do you consider me petty! NORA. No, on the contrary, Torvald dear; and that's just why- HELMER. Never mind; you call my motives petty; then I must be petty too. Petty! Very well!- Now we'll put an end to this, once for all. [Goes to the door into the hall and calls.] Ellen!
In the passage above the author characterizes Torvald using repetition, and stage directions. He repeats the word petty over and over which makes him look quite childish. As well as yelling which makes him look very immature. He goes and yells for Ellen like he a child yelling for his mother. He is supposed to be the mature one yet he is so immature.
I liked your comparison of the idea of male superiority and the immaturity of Torvald. Men were seen to be the head of the household, yet in that last scene, Torvald is portrayed as a young, petty child. He also seems really irrational, something usually emblematic of women during the Victorian era. That scene is also ironic, because Torvald claims he isn't petty, but immediately afterwards, he does something that seems very petty to the audience.
Nearing the end of the play, I found the dance that Ibsen decided to chose very interesting. At first, I didn't understand why the tarantella was chosen and I knew there had to be symbolic reason. After Mrs.Ballard showed the video in class, I concluded that the dance was a symbol of Nora’s unwillingness to be in contact with Torvald at this point in the act. It symbolizes the whole relationship, as the dance is very high speed and intense, and Nora dances it alone. Nora is dealing with many emotions while dancing and the tarantella shows that to the readers without her having to say it. The dance was placed in the scene to shed light on both the situation that Nora is in and the state of Nora and Torvald's relationship. Before and during the dance, readers can also see that Torvald is suddenly showing affection for his wife. He goes out of his way to show her that he wants her, and this is the first time in the book that he is portrayed as showing affection. This lead my group to analyze what Torvald was saying a little bit deeper as we noticed something was different. The reasoning for adding this to the last section of the play, in my group's opinion, was to create a stress factor in Nora’s life to create situational irony. Nora is about to be exposed for this huge secret in her life, and is now all of a sudden being treated with a little affection when Torvald explains how “seductive” her body is when she dances. It makes readers sympathize for Nora wondering if she did the right thing and made the right decisions. I feel that this part in the play is the plot twist section, as most of the play up until this point has been slow and uneventful. Now, readers can use this situation as foreshadowing of a higher climax in the story.
Do you think that the dance alone symbolizes the relationship between the two characters or the inner struggle and confusion within Nora also? To me it also begins to symbolize foreshadowing to the further unraveling of the relationship through confusion.
HELMER. Stop play- acting! [locks the front door.] You are staying here to give an account of yourself. Do you understand what you have done? Answer me! Do you understand? NORA. [looking fixedly at him, her face hardening]. Yes now I’m really beginning to understand. Dolls House (35) Ibsen
My group was constantly discussing Nora’s confusing role as a character. Why reading act one and her interaction with her husband, you first get the sense that Nora is incredibly clever and great at deceiving her husband. Our first impression collectively was that Nora was a gold digger, doing whatever she had to do to get money. The audience at the time didn’t know what the money for was either and why it was needed making Nora look suspicious and guilty. As we continued to read and discussed Nora’s interaction with her children, we came to the conscientious that Nora was immature and acted with her children like a babysitter, not at money. Once again the group was still confused on how the true character of Nora because she was one way around her husband, than another way around her children, then another way around her friends, Ms. Linde and Dr. Rank. With Linde and Dr. Rank Nora was much bubblier, honest, and hopeful. This confused my group immensely because we couldn’t decide who Nora really was and what her motives were. Her constantly changing personalities and secrets reflect the Victorian Era in the way that you always wanted to put up your best front to your husband and everyone around you, except for in this case, Nora wanted to put up her front to her husband, not caring if everyone else around her saw who she really was. I began to feel within act three that Nora truly did believe that her husband loved her as much as he said he did, and she believed he’d take the blame to protect her, however once Helmer began to yell at her, Nora stated “ I am beginning to understand” after a stern look fell upon her face. This reflects the idea that Nora had infact not understood the magnitude to what she had done, but she had finally understood the relationship between her and her husband and where it stood. Nora finally realized that it was all a show and that is all it would ever be. I think this was a moment of maturity for Nora. She had either finally realized or accepted the fact that her life wasn’t this epic love story she had believed or forced herself to believe. Nora realized that all the lovely words and promises Helmer had made to her were all just words with no real meaning, that they were all romantic words meant to woo her but with no real weight. As dark as the tone gets within the act, this scene appears to be the turning point of the play because it is a moment of clarity. You see by the stern look appearing on Nora’s face that she is no longer the young child all the characters assume she is, within this moment, Nora would be forced to grow up.
Cameron, you had a very intriguing analysis of Nora's character. It wasn't until I read your blog that I realize that that line is significant to the story. When I first read this I thought she just said this line out of fear (because she was Helmer starting to get mad). Your interpretation makes sense and I agree that Nora is, in fact, realizing what she had done and that her life is not this love story that she forced herself to believe in. This relates back to the maxim of an important character being introduced early and Nora was introduced as childish. Now we see her began to progress into maturity and we will just have to read more to see whether her maturity is immensely important in this play.
In this time period, do you think Nora is justified to feel this way? Is she crazy for trying to create a better life for herself when most women did not have that right?
In Act 3 of Henrik Ibsen's “A Doll’s House”, the true motivations and feelings of the characters are exposed. Even in the first half of this act, we see as the characters’ actions differ radically from what we would have expected them to do based on how they acted throughout the rest of the play. First, the audience learns that Mrs. Linde once had a romantic relationship with Krogstad. Now she wishes to reconcile and once again be with him. However, she asks Krogstad as a favor to her to forgive Nora’s debt. Krogstad asks what is one the audience’s mind, saying that she only wants to be with Krogstad to help her friend. However, Kristine replies that she no longer wants to do anything for anyone else seeing as she has been serving others all her life. This move seems rather unsympathetic considerably that it was Nora who gave her a place to stay and considered Helmer to award her a position at the bank. However, Mrs. Linde ask that Krogstad leaves the letter so that the secret does come out between Nora and her husband. This reinforces Kristine’s belief, one that she has mentioned many times before to Nora, that their should be no secrets in Nora’s relationship. We also see Nora and Helmer return home from the dance, with Nora doing everything in her power to prevent Torvald from seeing Krogstad’s letter. She desperately tries to distract Torvald, although she soon finds that his alcohol consumption has made him start to make “advances” on his wife. Being in a less than happy move she refuses. A knock on the door interrupts, as Dr. Rank comes to visit. He arrives in a suspiciously happy mood, a stark contrast from his previous personality. However the reader soon realized that the his mood is linked to his acceptance with his forthcoming passing. It feels as though his visit is his final attempt to help out Nora one last time.
There are many interesting topics of conversation in Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, one of them being the character of Mrs. Linden. In acts one an two, she come’s across to the audience as yearning and ambitious, and engagiging in satirical comedy with Nora. She appears to be little more than comic relief, or a sidekick for the main protagonist, Nora. In act three however, the tide shifts and comes rushing in. Christina gains a strongly heroic personality. As hinted in act two, it is revealed that Krogstad and Christina use to be romantically involved, and that Christina had to leave him for a man of greater wealth and fortune to provide for her family members. She really showed her true colors by suggesting she takes care of Krogstad and taking care of everyone. She needs someone to take care of, and Krogstad needs someone to love. It's a compromise that works out for everyone.
In the play “ A Doll's House”, there was plenty interesting ideas presented. One interesting thing that I found the most compelling to me was how Nora towards the end of the play admits that she had pretended to agree with Torvald whenever he makes a decision or have any tastes. Nora says “You arranged everything to your tastes, and I acquired the same tastes. Or I pretended to… I don't really know… I think it was a bit of both, sometimes one thing and sometimes the other. When I look back, it seems to me I have been living here like a beggar, from hand to mouth. I lived by doing tricks for you Torvald. But that the way you wanted” (III, Pg. 80). I found this interesting because when reading this play I had conflicting views on Nora's character. Sometimes I would feel bad for her because she is trying so hard to keep everyone happy, look at her gold digger or selfish, a liar, unintelligent, intelligent etc. This play had presented evidence that supports all of these viewpoints which make her character conflicting. So what I found interesting is Nora's claim that she had acquired the same tastes as Helmer, could suggest why she was a conflicting character. For instance, because Helmer cared so much about his image, Nora carried that on when talking to Mrs. Linde about how much money they have and how well their children are therefore she was being selfish because she knew Mrs. Linde's life was not as pleasantly surrounded as her. The simile that Nora uses “ like a beggar” is also very powerful. I believe what she means by beggar is that she's been begging for Hemler to give her more freedom but that's not what Helmer wanted because of the Victorian image of the man providing for his family, therefore, he can show that by controlling his family and keeping things in order and him making all the big decision. For example, when Helmer was worried if had not fired Krogstad because of Nora he would look bad because he is letting others influence his decisions. Finally, this shows her intelligence in realizing that Hemler is actually controlling everything, stereotypical, and her doing tricks for him. This is evident whenever Helmer calls Nora animal names (property/Nora showing that she likes that), or stereotyping women (superiority over Nora), or blaming Nora's father (His tastes on want he wants Nora to be).
I really like your analysis of Ibsen's word choice, and your discussion of the conflicting views surrounding Nora's character. You talked about how Nora pretended to agree with Torvald, simply to keep those around her happy. Do you think that this was a common occurrence with wives during the Victorian era? I think it was, simply based on the whole ideal of respectability. It wasn't respectable for a wife to disagree with her husband, so Nora did not.
In Act 3, the almost dehumanization of women comes up again when Nora says she is just a doll. She says, “‘But our house has never been anything but a play-room. I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Daddy’s doll child. And the children in turn have been my dolls. I thought it was fun when you came and played with me’” (III. 80-81). The comparison of Nora and dolls shows how women were almost dehumanized during the Victorian era to more easily justify the gender inequality. We see this earlier in the play as well, when Torvald compares Nora to various kinds of birds, such as ‘sparrow’ or ‘meadowlark’. There was gender inequality both social and legal. Women could not borrow money without the consent of their husbands, and it also was widely accepted that a woman’s place was in the home.
An interesting point brought up in this quote as well is the children also being dolls. Children play a very interesting role in “A Doll’s House”. They almost seem to be devices to advance the plot, and are only brought on stage once. Nora is seldom involved in their lives, instead allowing the nursemaid to take over the child-rearing duties. The relationship between Nora and Torvald almost seems to mirror the one between Nora and her children. Immediately after Act 1, Nora withdraws from Torvald, but she also withdraws from the children. Both Nora and the children are dolls under the control of someone else (Torvald and the nursemaid/Nora respectively). Both relationships are very secretive, and superficial. Women are dehumanized in “A Doll’s House”, but so are the children.
Madeline, I found your analysis very insightful. I agree that Nora in comparison to dolls show how women were dehumanized during the Victorian era. Like you said, it is interesting that the relationship of Nora and Torvald seem to mirror the relationship between Nora and her children especially shown at the ending when she withdraws from both of them. Do you think,however, Nora loves/cares about her children more than Helmer? I think so since she did admit to Dr. Rank that she prefers to be with people she loves implying that she doesn't love Helmer.
In response to Daniel, I question whether or not Nora loved her kids at all. They were never a deciding factor in her life except a small thought when thinking about leaving forever when she wonders if they will miss her. Even then, they didn't seem to be a huge deciding factor. Do you think this could be because she was motherless, and never had a connection with her mom to have a good role model of what that relationship really means?
Going off of Sierra's comment, I also question weather Nora truly loved her children or if she saw them mealy as duties that society tells her she needs to commit to. Rather than wanting to be with her children she is almost dismissed to be with the children by Torvolt as it is a "woman's job". Also during this time period, The Victorian Era, it's important to know the roles of children, or how society viewed their roles. Children were often taught to be polite and aways be on their best behavior. They were young adults rather than children at all.
Finishing the play, the most obvious debate was the final scene in which Nora leaves her family behind. However, I also found the amount of maxims throughout the play quite valuable to the plot of her decision. One of these maxims is “Flight is Freedom”, which is shown through Torvalds nicknames for her such as songbird. While the bird symbolizes a dominance of Torvald over his wife, it also represents a willingness to flee from the situation from Nora’s point of view. Ibsen also cleverly uses internal conflict when Nora is questioning her final decision when she questions whether the kids will miss her. As Jacob mentioned in the short class discussion, Nora is unknowing of what she thinks, believes, wants or even who she is. So, one might ask, is this a selfish act or simply human tendency to question? She believes that she can leave, and will not care what others think of her. Her only other option to escape the situation is suicide, and I personally feel she was too afraid to go through with that choice. The word suicide is talked around as everything was in the Victorian Era when Krogstad says, “How did you know I was thinking of THAT?"(53) “That” refers to suicide, and readers are to infer this meaning. He attempts to scare Nora by explaining what will happen if she goes through with it, “'being washed up in the spring, bloated, hairless, unrecognizable..." (54). For Nora to even consider this option shows that she is that unhappy, and should not remain where she is. In this sense, Nora’s decision can be justified for her own happiness, as she has none in her marriage. Ibsen’s message with Nora’s almost willingness to kill herself is to show people to simply face the truth about the way women were treated back then and change it.
I really like how you talk about the internal conflict that Nora is having. Just as you said she considered suicide throughout the first two acts, but then in the first act after the conflict of the IOU was resolved between Nora and Torvald she just realized she wanted to leave. I’m confused though how she wasn't just considering that before. It seems like she should have considered leaving before but after Torvald showed how little he cared about her during the IOU conflict she would consider suicide.
“I was your lark again, your doll, just as before- whom you would take twice as much care of in future, because she was so weak and fragile. [Stands up.] Torvald- in that moment it burst upon me that I had been living here these eight years with a strange man, and had borne him three children.- Oh, I can't bear to think of it! I could tear myself to pieces” (Ibsen, 44).
In Act three many of the main problems in the story were resolved. The problem of Nora just being an object in Torvalds eyes and Nora just being ok with that was resolved especially though this quote. Some could argue that she didn't realize she was just an object but in reality she has known for a while and just didn't say anything about it because it was socially acceptable. She expresses openly how she feels in the quote and the fathers use of a variety of literary devices helps enhance the disgruntled tone. She uses exaggeration when saying “I could tear myself to pieces” because it gives the impression that she can no longer bear the oppression of her husband, and really emits how she feels so low and can't take it and she cant take it any more. Ibsen also uses oppressive direction when Nora says “I was your lark again, your doll” to continue to show the reader how Torvald objectified her as he had earlier in the book. He again uses a lark which is a weak bird, but he also uses a doll which had only been used to describe the children up to this point. Nora describing the children as dolls earlier represented how they were just objects to her and that she could just play with them when she chose felt she had the time. Her use of the word here to describe herself gives the impression that she realizes how much Torvald just sees her as she sees the children(weak and an object to show off and use).
In Act III of Ibsen’s play, the audience witnesses the conclusion of the play but also sees some major development from the characters involved. First, Nora and Helmer arrive back from the party and the letter from Krogstad is read. Helmer’s reaction was harsh, as he insults his wife and threatens to separate her from her children, claiming that he can no longer trust her with them. He goes on the speak of how they must keep up appearances but that in his heart she would no longer be his wife. Suddenly a letter arrives that absolves Nora of the debt and returns the IOU. Helmer is ecstatic and tells Nora that everything he said was just in the heat of the moment and that he never meant it. Nora, who has been quiet from most of the this conversation asks Helmer to sit down and have a serious talk with her. She explains to him that she will be leaving him to go find her own beliefs and opinions, citing that she no longer knows what she wants herself as Torvald had been pushing his agenda on her life. Torvald tries to appeal to her domestic side, claiming that both he and their children need her. However Nora responds, saying that she is an individual first so she needs to work on improving herself. This last act forces Nora to embrace the secret she has been hiding for so long from her husband. However just like Mrs. Linde predicted, the truth coming out did indeed improve Nora’s relationship as she was able to recognize that Torvald didn't really love her and was too busy caring about their outward appearance. It did not improve their relationship because it led to Nora ending their marriage.
One thing I found extremely interesting in act three of the play a dolls house, is that Nora changed completely. She went from being feeble and manipulated constantly to being independent. While a lot of what she has done by leaving her children can be viewed as a negative thing I believe that Nora had to go off on her own In order to not taint her children. Nora and some perspective has been deprived of who she really is her entire life. She doesn't know how to think for herself or have opinions for herself, and while a lot of women back in the Victorian era were like this or women just in general, Ibsen wrote the play in a gesture towards women’s rights. Nora leaving her children is both a positive and negative thing, there are two sides to the story. While Nora believes she will taint her children, why would she leave them there with Torvald who treats her like she is a child anyways? Or perhaps he will raise them good in her image.
“I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Daddy’s doll child. And the children, in turn, have been my dolls.” (80-81)
I found this quote quite intriguing. It reminded me of the name of the story, A Doll’s house. I couldn't help but wonder who was referencing the doll was. I think the obvious and easy answer would be Nora. It’s easy to argue that Nora was constantly controlled and played with as a tool. However, although Nora was verbally dehumanized, by being called a bird and squirrel, physically she had more control over her husband than he had over her. THis is proved when Nora is eating the macaroon with Dr. Ran and Ms. Linda are in the room. Nora pretends to listen to Tovolt when she is in the room with him, but often disobeys, Nora often also controls her husband and higher house using different tactics to get what she wants. Nora uses her power over her Maid’s manipulating her to take care of the kid. Nora then goes on to trick Torvolt into getting what she wants by flaunting her sexuality constantly changing his mind. This led me to question who was really playing who throughout the story. However I couldn’t decide if Nora even really understood her control over Torvolt because she was still very immature and nieve.
What I found interesting in act one are women roles and stereotypes. In the beginning of act one we see this when Helmer says “Just like a women” (3). Here Nora had a suggestion of borrowing money but that was not relevant to Helmer and his financial plans, therefore, Helmer quickly went to the notion that all women want to borrow money from others because they have never felt the pressure of handling money and because all they do they just spend it. Helmer also uses animal connotations when talking to Nora. Evidence of this is when Helmer says “My little singing bird mustn’t\ go drooping her wings, eh? Has it got the sulks, that little squirrel of mine”(3). Helmer uses the words “bird” and “squirrel” when talking about Nora. I believe the reason why Helmer refers Nora to these animals is because he is stereotyping that all women don't have anything to say so they as good as animals. This also shows Helmers superiority in the relationship because he can calling her the animal and as if it is his possession sounds like he is the master of the animal in a way, therefore, this shows that Helmer is in control of the marriage. Helmer later refers to Nora as his “pretty little pet” which also shows his superiority and women's roles. The reason why I found this interesting is because this relates to the Victorian era where women's rights were considered but limited in terms of if women wanted to leave her husband, the women would have to try to live off on her own with children consequently leading to difficulty of sustaining themselves as a family. Therefore, I think possibly Henrik Ibsen is conveying that reason why Nora is dealing with Helmers stereotypes and what her role is because she has no other choice since if she leaves no one else would provide for her.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, I certainly agree with your interpretation about the gender inequality during the Elizabethan era. It seems like the pattern in the play The Taming of the Shrew carried over to our next play, in which the husbands stand in a much superior position above their wives. However, one thing that I disagree is your interpretation on the use of animal diction like "bird" and "squirrel". Even though there seems to be a familiar pattern between the Victorian era and the Elizabethan era, I think there was a lot of improvement over time. During the later time period (Victorian era), husbands showed respect towards wives to a certain degree, and I think Torvald is expressing genuine love when he uses such animal diction. Other than this one point, I certainly agree with your interpretation.
DeleteI definitely agree with your interpretation of all the gender inequality. Throughout history, gender inequality has been a huge problem and it was very large in the Elizabethan era. Helmer is very controlling and demeaning towards Nora, and through his use of animal diction, it almost seems as if he's dehumanizing her to justify his control and the societal inequality. I also agree with your idea that Nora has no other choice, but I don't think she really wants to leave. Nora accepts the treatment Helmer gives her because that is the norm to do so, and to fight with your husband would go against the whole Victorian ideal of respectability.
DeleteI also agreed that this play had similar themes to Taming of the Shrew such as deception. I also thought that the animal names were originally meant to be out of love, however as they continued on and were more exaggerated I knew they had to be a symbol. A symbol that could, in fact, have nothing to due with the husband, but more so be characterization to describe Nora and show the front she is putting on towards her husband.
DeleteIn A doll’s house, in Act 1, Helmer and Nora have a very interesting exchange which adds to the overall theme of parenting and their relationship dynamic. Helmer says, “What a funny little one you are! Just like your father. Always on the look-out for money,…It’s in the blood. Oh yes, it is, Nora. That sort of thing is hereditary” to which Nora replies by saying, “Oh, I only wish I’d inherited a few more of Daddy’s qualities” (Act I.5).
ReplyDeleteBy calling Nora “a funny little one” which is followed by, “just like your father”, it is implied that Helmer doesn't have much respect for Nora’s father. During the Victorian times, a man is supposed to be proper and masculine, which the words “funny” and “little” don't represent. The audience is not aware of what Nora’s father has done to deserve such a reputation. However, even though Helmer’s apparent disdain towards her father is clear, Nora retorts by saying she wished to have inherited more of his qualities. She not only disagrees with Helmer, but completely ignores his negative comments and instead gives them a positive connotation.
Another interesting sentence is how Helmer states, “that sort of thing is hereditary”, which suggests that all of Nora’s family had troubles and that Helmer disregards people developing their own personality. Helmer does not consider Nora to be his equal, rather an inferior being whom he must deal with when he says, “Well, one must accept you are you are.” (Act I.5). Lastly, Helmer doesn't seem to realise that by saying such habits are hereditary, his children will have those qualities too.
Sakina, I agree with your interpretation that Helmer thinks he is superior over Nora. One question I had while reading your blog however, is do you think the reason why Helmer treats Nora this way is because he just stereotyping women or does he mean it directly to Nora?
DeleteI think it might be both because Helmer stereotypes women along with not accepting Nora as an individual. In the play when Nora and Helmer have a conversation about borrowing money, Nora says that the debt won't matter if he is dead to which Helmer says, "Nora, Nora! Just like a woman!" (Act 1.3). He is stereotyping women and simply applying it to Nora rather than treating her own being. This is seen later too, when he says that her money spending habits are due to her father and it is hereditary, ignoring any motif she might have for spending the money. When Nora says or does something Helmer disapproves of, instead of directly addressing her, he blames society or genetics for her behaviour.
DeleteSomething interesting I found in Act 1 of “A Doll’s House” was the hypocrisy in the Victorian Era. Everything was changing, so the people tried to control anything they could, from clothing to social norms like drinking. Drinking, smoking, and gambling were all prohibited, yet people still engaged in these activities behind closed doors. This was very hypocritical, and we see this occur in “A Doll’s House”. Helmer attempts to control everything his wife does, like whether or not she eats macaroons, yet Nora still evades this control. Early on in the act, Nora is seen in the stage directions, “She takes a bag of macaroons out of her pocket and eats one or two; then she walks stealthily across and listens at her husband’s door” (Ibsen 1). Ibsen’s use of the word ‘stealthily’ shows the secretiveness Nora feels she must employ. Later on, Helmer says, “‘Didn’t go nibbling a macaroon or two”, to which Nora replies, “‘No, Torvald, honestly, you must believe me’” (5). The audience knows Nora is obviously lying, even with something as small as a macaroon. This goes back to the Victorian idea of excessive control, yet how very few people obey those rules in private.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Act One of the play A Doll’s House, Nora is often characterized as a manipulative and lavish wife, and the audience certainly perceives her through such lens. She does not hesitate to lie to her husband, lavishly spends money on insignificant matters, and speaks in a disparaging manner towards her friend. After witnessing such unpleasant characteristics of Nora, it is no surprise that the audience views her in an extremely negative way. However, some questions arise regarding Nora’s true characteristics, not simply what appear to be her inherent traits. In fact, one can associate Nora with some completely opposite characteristics: considerate and caring. One passage that suggest such differing view point comes from the lengthy conversation between Nora and Mrs. Linde:
ReplyDeleteNora. …It would spoil everything between us; this happy home of ours would never be the same again.
Mrs. Linde. Are you never going to tell him?
Nora. [Reflectively, half-smiling]. Oh yes, some day perhaps…in many years time, when I’m no longer as pretty as I am now. You mustn’t laugh! What I mean of course is when Torvald isn’t quite so much in love with me as he is now, when he’s lost interest in watching me dance, or get dressed up, or recite…So what I’ve had to do is save a little here and there, you see, wherever I could. I couldn’t really save anything out of the housekeeping, because Torvald has to live in decent style. I couldn’t let the children go about badly dressed either – I felt any money I got for them had to go on them alone.” (I. p.15)
As the two engage in an intense conversation, Nora reveals her deep, inner secret as to how she afforded such great sum of money for the trip to the South. Even though not all details are uncovered at the moment, the audience still learns that Nora gathered the money through secretive sources – working at the printing press and pleading Torvald for money with excuses – all for her husband’s health, as well as the unity of the family. In the passage above, Henrik Ibsen uses jocund diction to illustrate Nora’s affectionate love towards her family. For instance, positive words like “happy”, “dance”, and “recite” depict a clear picture of a bright household, and how much Nora appreciates such state. All Nora desires is to maintain the happy and regular family with a healthy husband, and such wish provides a reason as to why Nora had to make such extraordinary decision; to quietly gather money without notifying any others. Also, the anaphora of “I couldn’t” represents how little choice Nora had in saving the money for the trip. Nora certainly “couldn’t” sell any household possessions like furniture, for the family had to maintain the current living condition. Also, Nora surely “couldn’t” stop providing for her children despite the situation, for they’re precious and sweet treasures of hers. Thus, the limited choices left for Nora were to earn money from Torvald through unreasonable excuses, and perhaps secretly borrow from someone like Korgstad.
Nora desperately had to gather money somehow, in order to keep her husband healthy and maintain a happy family. Yet Nora was given limited choices, which made her appear as a shrewd and lavish individual. There is no doubt that Nora is a manipulative and secretive character. However, given her true intension and the limited situation, the audience may need to reconsider viewing her through such lens, at least for a moment.
I find Ibsen’s use of dehumanization, threw his character Helmer, the husband, intriguing when he talks about his wife, Nora. Several times while addressing his wife, helmer used sexist diction and weak imagery. This didn’t appear unexpected during this era considering women were to obey their husbands. I found, however, the dehumanization of Nora, by comparing her to an animal quite odd. I kept asking myself what Helmer was trying to accomplish with this? Ibsen begins the novel by comparing Nora to a squirrel, “Is that my little squirrel frisking about?” (Dolls House, 2). Helmer then goes on to call her, “a pretty little pet” (Dolls House 4). Dehumanization is often associated with derogatory terms to make the victim feel lesser, and convince the predator that the victim is not human at all. However within this play, this use of dehumanization creates a different tone. Rather than feeling sorry for Nora, because of her agreeable answers and the way she plays back on the comments and accepts them, causes the reader to feel uncertain and uneasy about Nora as a character. The way she accepts the comparison to an animal allows the character's mind to travel to ulterior motives. The tone becomes mysterious rather than empathetic. The reader instantly falls onto the idea that Nora may be a “gold digger”, and willing to remain submissive with her husband in order to get what she wants. It plays into the theme of secrecy and deception often applied within the Victorian Era.
ReplyDeleteCameron Kays
I like that you brought this up Cameron, because in my reading group we also talked about this. We weren't sure whether or not this was meant to be rude, or if it was simply a nickname for Nora. While we do know that their relationship was not the best, it did not seem like he was meaning to be rude to her when saying this. If anything, it was just weird and slightly creepy... Thanks for bringing this point up because I am sure a lot of people noticed this, especially as it was so prevalent in Shakespeare as well!
DeleteIn Act One of “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, I found the characterization of Nora Helmer to be very interesting. We know from the beginning of the act that she did not possess any control in her marriage at all. We see her directly lying to her husband, Torvald, denying the fact that she ate macaroons, when the audience knows that just before that conversation she had been. This automatically sets the audience up to be upset by her lying to her husband, as well as skeptical of Nora’s character.
ReplyDeleteAnother time where Ibsen tries to make the audience grow dislike towards Nora’s character is when she is having a conversation with her friend who had recently come to their house, Christine Linde. She is very rude to Mrs. Linde, and despite her claims to want to listen to Mrs. Linde, Nora continues to go on and on about herself. She also seems to lack sympathy for Mrs. Linde as she asks questions that very likely are sore spots, and brags about her own life.
NORA. And no children?
MRS. LINDE. None.
...
NORA. So utterly alone! How dreadful that must be! I have three of the loveliest children.
One more thing that Nora’s character does is that she tells a secret about stealing money to Mrs. Linde. This comes as a surprise because we know that Nora and Christine are just meeting again for the first time in years, yet Nora chooses to tell her something that is a big deal. Not only is this bad because she has stolen all of this money and never even told her husband, but she is seemingly proud of this and feels as though she should receive praise. At this point Nora has no idea what Mrs. Linde will do with this information, and doesn’t know if this will remain confidential. My group predicted that Mrs. Linde will eventually cause trouble for Nora, though it will be Nora’s fault that this happens.
All of these things make it so that Nora’s character seems very distasteful, and very naive.
I agree that Nora's character seems distasteful and very naive but what if she's doing it on purpose? When she was talking to Mrs. Linden about the money, she appeared very crafty and in some ways like a mastermind, because no one knew. Yes it is true she's not the nicest person in the planet and isn't very sympathetic towards people's emotions, but what if she is doing it to cover up how disappointed she is that no one has acknowledged all she has done?
DeleteThroughout the first act of a Dolls House Homer uses bird imagery to compare with Nora. He says, “ What do they call the birds that are always making the money fly” (3)? He says this to send a message to the audience that the wife doesn't have the rights equal o a man. As well as showing that she is only appreciated for her beauty. Later on the same page he says, “ No one would believe how much it costs a man to keep such a little bird as you” (3). He says this to describe the burden that he believes she has on his life. Overall his attitude towards her embodies the marriage relations of the time in which men were the head of the house and women were thought of as less. The required obedience in the family can be seen more clearly after when Homer says, “Didn't you say that nobody had been here? [Threatens with his finger.] My little bird must never do that again! A song-bird must sing clear and true; no false notes” (17). He uses the analogy of a songbird singing clear to say that she must never speak of out line. He even threatens her with his finger which was acceptable in marriage relations back then. They have also conformed to the accepted practice of having multiple children and trying to seems as rich as possible. Of course nowadays this would have been very unacceptable. I is also really interesting how Nora is starting to seem like Daisy because she is very deceptive and is just playing everybody. For example when she says that other people gave her the macaroons, or that she does not spend all the money she gets. Of course this does not comply to all the marriage relations acceptable back then. Her action most likely foreshadow later devious actions.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found extremely interesting from the first act of “Doll’s House”, by Henrick Ibsen is the conversation that took place between Nora and Mrs. Linden. Upon first inspection, it appears that Nora is not well aquainted with Mrs. Linden, as seen when when Ibsen writes, “No, I don't think- oh yes!- I believe- [Suddenly brightening.] What, Christina! Is it really you?” (Ibsen). It’s almost as if Nora is trying to recognize an old aquaintance, but this notion is quickly shot down once they begin talking. The first half of their conversation is Nora bashing Mrs. Linden, as when she says, “So utterly alone! How dreadful that must be! I have three of the loveliest children. I can't show them to you just now; they're out with their nurse…” (Ibsen). After reminding Mrs. Linden of everything she doesn't have, Nora continues on to brag about her children and her husband. Because of this, the audience takes pity on Mrs. Linden, but the interesting thing is that she does not want or desire the pity. While she is a punching bag for Nora, eventually she starts bragging to Nora. She brags to Nora about how she had to do things on her own, and how she became accomplished with out anyone's help. Turning the tables on the conversation. As proven when Ibsen writes,”Then I had to fight my way by keeping a shop, a little
ReplyDeleteschool, anything I could turn my hand to. The last three years have been one long struggle for me. But now it is over, Nora. My poor mother no longer needs me; she is at rest. And the boys are in business, and can look after themselves…” (Ibsen). While Nora showed off what she accomplished, Mrs. Linden eventually does the same. This goes in contrast with the Victorian theme of facades and being presentable at all times. There was no way for people to entertain themselves, so they seeker entertainment through small talk conversation and by mocking others. Both women are at fault because they are letting the other talk to them like this. They know it is because they needed some source of entertainment.
ReplyDeleteIn Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House, Nora Helmer spends most of her on-stage time as a doll: a vapid, passive character with little personality of her own. Her whole life is a construct of societal norms and the expectations of others. Until she comes to the realization that her life is a sham, she spends her whole life in a dream world. In this dream world, Nora does not take life seriously, an attitude that led to many of the plot’s complications.
Until her change, Nora is very childlike and whimsical. Her first act on stage is her paying the delivery body. Though his service only costs 50-p., she gives him a hundred. Though an additional 50-p. is not a significant amount of money, the casual way in which she gives it to him is indicative of her fiscal irresponsibility (Cummings). She hands him the hundred and before he can thank her, she decides in the middle of the transaction that she is not patient enough to wait for change. The fact that this seemingly mundane occurrence is presented as the first action on stage showcases the reckless attitude implied.
An important aspect of a dream world is the suspension of cause and effect. Nora’s lackadaisical approach is very prominent throughout the story. One example of her disregard for others is when she blames Mrs. Linde1 for smuggling forbidden macaroons into the house. Though she is just trying to hide her indiscretions, she does not care whom she hurts in the process.
Two minutes before class, Saurav? :)
ReplyDeleteHahahahahaha XD
DeleteOne particular section of the play that caught my interest was the scene in which Torvald discusses parental immorality poisoning a household. As Nora attempts to put some good words for Krogstad in front of her husband, Torvald gives a thorough description of the kind of man Krogstad appears to be. Torvald says, “A fog of lies like that in a household, and it spread disease and infection to every part of it. Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking with evil germs” (I. p.33). What’s even more interesting is that, the reality of parental influence that Torvald describes here is not anything new, and such structure still exists up to this day.
ReplyDeleteIn describing Krogstad and the Victorian household under such guardian figure, Torvald uses an extended metaphor and contaminating diction. First of all, the lies and deceit of Krogstad is compared to a fog that prevails throughout the household. The natural tendency of fog is to spread without restriction, and such propensity suggests that Krogstad’s deceitful influence proliferates throughout his household in a similar way. Also, to supplement such idea, Torvald adds, “Every breath the children take in that kind of house is reeking with evil germs.” By mentioning the inhaling of the fog filled with lies and deceit, Torvald suggests the certainty of children being negatively affected by their deceitful and fraudulent guardians. Another literary element present in the particular passage is contaminating diction. Throughout his decription, Torvald continuously and repetitively uses words like, “disease”, “infection”, and “germs” that contain unpleasant connotation. Such use of diction unmistakably reinforces the idea that deceitful parents like Krogstad would only bring detrimental effects to their household, including the children. In addition, the contaminating diction creates a repugnant tone, continuously characterizing Krogstad’s household in a highly unpretty way. Such tone of the description rather draws antipathy from the audience, creating a great distance between the audience and Krogstad. Therefore, the extended metaphor and contaminating diction employed by Ibsen clearly and almost visibly depict the crucial parental role on the Victorian household, and possibly even that of today’s society.
The one last piece that I wanted to point out as a reader, is the dramatic irony found in the passage above. Torvald associates Krogstad and his household with extremely unpleasant traits, yet some things sound awfully familiar; Nora has also been habitually lying and deceiving others within the household. The creation of such dramatic irony, as well as Nora’s conflicted response, engage the audience further into the play and draw unanswered curiosity.
Feb 9. 2016
ReplyDeleteDoll's House, Act 1
Something I found very interesting, within the play Dolls House, is how the mother acted towards her children. On page 22, the mother Nora, uses a metaphor to compare her children to dolls, “No, the doggies wouldn’t bite my pretty little dollies.” Referencing the word dolls reminds the reader of the title, Dolls House. This connection between Nora's language and the title causes the reader to believe Nora is using her family and childrens to play happy family, that this is all an act. Nora subtly manipulates all the other characters within the play and acts out her life like a child’s game. The reference to her children as dolls reminded me of how Nora is in fact quite young, however she is a mother and needs to act as one. She acted like a babysitter to the children rather than a mother, trying to be their friend in an exaggerated odd way.
Nora tries to hide her identity by faking to be a weak and helpless wife as she’s expected and appears to be. Although by some of her actions the reader can’t tell if she is truly smarter than she looks or if she just believes she is. For example, when Nora didn’t sign the right date to her father's signature, the reader has to guess whether she forgot, didn’t think about it, or rushed. Nora also began to break down when her husband told her about Krogstad’s fraud. Nora puts up a weak front to fool her fellow cast members to hide her inner strength, but do you think that Nora is infact much wiser than perceived or just not as hopeless as the world sees her to be?
Cameron Kays
Cameron, I really liked the connection you made between Nora's manipulative actions throughout the play and the title of the play itself: A Doll's House. And just like you said, I also found Nora's excessive reaction towards her children very odd, and it made me wonder if Nora was showing her genuine love or simply exaggerating or pretending to adore them. To answer your question, I personally think Nora is truely hopeless for the most part, and the reason why I think so is that Nora reveals her conflicted emotion at the end of the act, when no one is around her. I think that particular scene really reveals the inner turmoil and hopelessness that she is experiencing currently, and reinforces the fact that Nora is lost.
DeleteThat was a great analysis! While I was reading it, I wondered why Nora would feel the need to act out her life like a child's game, would it be because she was raised in a similar manner , so that is all she knows or is she trying to gain some kind of control over her life?
DeleteSomething I found intriguing was that Nora mentions her father multiple times but only when its to do with money, his death comes in afterwards and so far there hasn't been a single dialogue relating to her mother. I feel like this could signify the lack of closure the children felt towards their parents. Nora doesn't seem to be affected by this at all, and this could reflect the Victorian society.
Those were some great ideas! I just wanted to add that I feel like the relations to the dolls are symbolic of Helmer's view of Nora. In the way he treats her and speaks to her, it feels like Torvald considers her as inferior as their children. It also symbolizes how she is manipulated by the people around her to act they way that is expected of her, falling in line with the strict Victorian ideals of her time. At the same time, I think that her deceptive behavior in Act I alluded to how she will later break free of the metaphorical bonds that force her to act in such a submissive and controlled manner.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnother part that I found interesting when I read Act 1 was when Nora confessed to Krogstad that she forged her father's signature. She said “No, it wasn't. It was me who signed father’s name” (Act I Pg.28). The reason why I found this interesting is because Nora already had one case in which she lied about the macaroons (capable of lying), but she didn't decide to lie to Krogstad at this scene. She could've said that her father had signed it and make up an excuse for the reason why the date was wrong on the IOU. Instead, she took a bold move and told Krogstad that she forged her father's signature. Then when she explains the reason for why she forged the signature it adds drama to the play and reveals more about Nora. She says “It was impossible. Daddy was ill. If I’d asked him for his signature, I'd have had to tell him what the money was for. Don't you see, when he was as ill as that I couldn't go and tell him that my husband's life was in danger. It was simply impossible” (Act 1 Pg. 28).This shows that Nora cares about her father and her husband by showing that she cares for her father's health by not putting any stress on him and by not asking him for money and for her husband by planning a trip for Helmer so he can feel better from his illness. When Nora asks Krogstad “You? Are you trying to tell me that you once risked everything to save your wife’s life” and Krogstad respond “The law takes no account of motives” (Act 1 Pg.29) Then Nora states that the theses are bad laws. This conversation reveals how much Nora cares about her family and that she would go against the law to prevent anything from happening to them. I found this whole sequence interesting because Nora knows that Krogstad is a cruel person, however, she still decided to take a loan from him to help her family. She wanted to prevent any stress to her family so she tried her hardest to prevent this whole situation from getting to her husband showcasing her concern because she believed that one day when she pays him off everything will be alright and Helmer will actually be happy that she did that. But in reality, as shown by the final line in the act, Nora is now contemplating that she is poisoning her kids because she is modeling that lying is not a big deal because Helmer figured out about her and Krogstad. This changed my perspective of Nora from the beginning of this act because it seems like all she's trying to make her family happy but it's just that she is doing it in a secretive way that no one really knows about.
ReplyDeleteI noticed the oddity in Nora's confession to Krogstad as well, and I like the point you brought up about Nora caring about her family. Despite her naivety, she does truly try her hardest. She could have have handled the situation better, I don't think it was necessary to tell Krogstad, although it did reveal more of her character. It also displays her impulsivity, and how she has the tendency to not really think things through. This is shown both in her confession to Krogstad, and her lie to Helmer about the macaroons. The revealing to Krogstad could destroy her life, and the lie to Helmer simply drove a larger rift between the two of them, albeit a secret one, in their marriage.
DeleteDaniel, I also found her choice of when to lie interesting. Personally, I would think that it would be better to come clean to her own husband about something as simple as macaroons, than to tell the truth about doing something illegal. I agree with your point that she does whatever she thinks will be best for her family, but sometimes these actions do not seem well thought-out. I think it will be interesting to see what other confessions Nora decides to share, versus what secrets she decides to keep for the rest of the Play.
DeleteSomething else interesting in Act 1 of "A Doll's House" is Helmer's attitude towards Nora's dishonesty. I think his reaction to such a little white lie is foreshadowing to a huge reaction when or if Nora shares her big secret she’s been with-holding for such a long time. Helmer says, “‘Nora, Nora, what possessed you to do a thing like that? Talking to a person like him, making him promises? And the on top of everything, to tell me a lie?”’. One line later, he says, “‘Little song-birds must keep their pretty little beaks out of mischief; no chirruping out of tune!’ [Puts his arm around her waist] ‘Isn’t that the way we want things to be?’” (31). Here, Helmer uses patronizing diction to demean Nora’s dishonesty and berate her for lying in the first place. While Nora neglecting to tell Helmer about Krogstad’s visit wasn’t a large lie, she has another huge secret just lurking below the surface. Helmer’s extreme reaction to something small could potentially be foreshadowing a huge blow-up that could shake the foundation their relationship is built on and everything between them.
ReplyDeleteNora also realizes that her big secret could cause problems in their relationship, which is why she changes the subject so quickly after Helmer tells her not to lie anymore. She says, “‘I’m so looking forward to the fancy dress ball at the Stenborgs on Boxing Day’” (31). This is a very abrupt change, showing Nora is slowly growing uncomfortable about lying to Helmer.
After reading more of Act 1,Ibsen’s characterisation of Nora is very interesting. He makes Nora's rebellious nature more apparent, which could foreshadow conflict she might face with Torvald. Ibsen introduces this by using profane or vulgar diction and through Nora’s conflict against society.
ReplyDeleteNora. I would simply love to say: ‘Damn’
Rank. Are you mad!
Mrs Linde. Good gracious, Nora…!
Rank. Say it! Here he is! (Act 1.20)
Nora wanted to swear in front of Torvald, but eventually she did not. She felt more relaxed around Dr. Rank and Mrs. Linde which adds to the unhealthy relationship between Torvald and Nora. Although Nora and Torvald have been married for 8 years, she does not feel comfortable around him.
The need for Nora to act rebellious in terms of using profane diction reflects the Victorian society. Even though times were changing for women, Nora had very little control over her life. If she wanted something which Torvald disagreed with, she did it secretly as seen with the macaroons. By swearing, she was able to demonstrate control over her life, which might have made her feel empowered.
Dr Rank’s line stood out too because instead of discouraging her, he encourages her to swear in front of Torvald. Through Torvald’s characterisation so far, it can be inferred that he wouldn't approve of it. Is there a reason why Dr. Rank would want to encourage conflict between Nora and Torvald?
Krogstad: The law takes no account of motives.
Nora: Then they must be very bad laws. (Act 1.29)
Nora’s line clearly states that she disagrees with the laws. Her conflict reminds me of Katherina in Taming of the Shrew, who also faced conflict versus society due to gender roles and their expectations. Nora’s conflict stems from the laws, which Torvald holds in high regard. Ibsen subtly hints at their incompatibility using Nora’s rebellious nature, which might foreshadow a climatic ending for her relationship with Torvald.
After reading further into Act One, we learned a lot more about the characters who had been presented. One thing that I noticed and found very interesting was the relationship between Nora and her three children. Normally when we picture a relationship between a mother and her children we imagine a close-knit bond, where the mother cares immensely for her children. This is not the kind of relationship that they have. When the Helmer’s home was described, it did not seem very child-friendly, and many students in the class agreed that they likely did not have kids.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that we discussed was how the children were hardly brought up, and when they were brought up, it was to use as a bragging point, or something to simply dress up. Nora boasts about her three children to Mrs. Linde multiple times, knowing that Mrs. Linde wishes that she had children of her own. Nora also talks about how she could never let her children go badly dressed, likely because she believes that it would reflect poorly on herself.
Another thing about the children in the story that we noticed while reading Act One was that the interactions were often very impersonal. None of the children had their own speaking part, but rather the times that the children spoke, it was labeled “Children” rather than each child’s name.
Also, Nora dehumanized the children, and even addressed her daughter Anna as “My sweet little dolly!” We found this very strange, that a mother would call her child a doll, but we did think that it related to how she treated and regarded her children. As dolls, or objects used for show, which can be dressed up.
We also noticed that her children were not Nora’s top priority. While it was common in this day to have a maid who tended to your children, we barely saw the children until nearly the end of Act One, and this was only because it takes place around Christmas. Then, after her unpleasant encounter with Krogstad, she blows off her children, even though she had promised to play with them before.
CHILDREN. [At the door, left.] Mamma, the strange man has gone now.
NORA. Yes, yes, I know. But don't tell anyone about the strange man. Do you hear? Not even papa!
CHILDREN. No, mamma; and now will you play with us again?
NORA. No, no; not now.
CHILDREN. Oh, do, mamma; you know you promised.
NORA. Yes, but I can't just now. Run to the nursery; I have so much to do. Run along,- run along, and be good, my darlings! [She pushes them gently into the inner room, and closes the door behind them…]
This shows that her focus is on herself, rather than her children, and that she is not reliable when she says that she will do something.
I agree with analyzation the in depth you did of the importance of the children. It is really quite evident that she does not care for her children and they are only a symbol of rank. They almost seem like objects in the eyes of Nora. I also like how you looked at the importance of the children talking just being labeled as Children. Through this they are given less characterization and can be used more to characterize Nora. similarly I wrote about in my essay for the Taming of the Shrew that the servants with no names in the induction are used more for the characterization of others and are not very appreciated by charterers with names. The interactions between them do tell us how they act, but they act this way due to the personality of the other characters.
DeleteThe first act of Henrik Ibsen's “A Doll House” sets the scene and provides the premise for the events of the subsequent acts. We see our protagonist, Nora, presented with a difficult ultimatum at the end of the act. Her myopic actions lead her into a position where she must help Krogstad retain his job, although she has just given a good word for her old friend, Mrs. Lined, for a job at the bank. If she refuses to help Krogstad, he threatens to expose the crimes of her past. In most cases the reader would develop some sympathy for characters in such a position, however Nora is unlike others in her self serving and secretive nature, a fact that she prides herself on. This leads the audience to feel that her “lose-lose” situation is well deserved. We can clearly see her unfavorable behavior in a conversation between Dr. Rank, Mrs. Linde, and Nora. Here, we see Dr. Rank discovers the macaroons that Nora had smuggled in. Rather than simply admit that she bought the macaroons at the store, she chooses instead the blame it on the innocent Mrs. Linde. Mrs. Linde is dumbstruck, but chooses not to defend herself as she wants Nora to put in a good word to her husband about a job. This small and seemingly harmless lie contributes the the overall setting of Victorian England, a very conservative time and place where secrets abounded as people desperately tried to hide the truth about themselves and their actions.
ReplyDeleteSaurav, I found your interpretation of how the reader would view Nora interesting . When I read this act I developed sympathy for Nora because of the position she was in and because of her endeavors to keep everyone in her family happy however her choices to make those efforts are very questionable. so how you said this was because Nora found pride in keeping a secretive nature, it makes more since why she made some her questionable bke action for example forging her fathers signature and thing she could get away form it because of her pride.
DeleteThe father I got into Act one the more my opinion changed about Nora. At first I thought she was evil, manipulative and deceptive, but I came to realize she has good intentions. Although she is a little mean. For example she says, “But it would have been fatal for him to know! Can't you understand that? He wasn't even to suspect how ill he was. The doctors came to me privately and told me his life was in danger- that nothing could save him but a winter in the South. Do you think I didn't try diplomacy first”(8)? Her action began to show selflessness and the audience may even start to sympathize for what she had to go through to help her husband. Later she is even harassment by Krogstad the man who gave her a loan but she stays strong. She is still helping in a deceptive way which makes the audience question the morality of her actions.
ReplyDeleteThe audience can also start to see the apartment gender role system in the economy at first through Nora supposedly losing all the stuff she made for Christmas. While she was actually selling it because that was the only way she could make money. The audience can later see this through Mrs. Linde when Nora says, “You see, Christina is tremendously clever at office-work, and she's so anxious to work under a first-rate man of business in order to learn still more”(11). Mrs. Linde can only get a low level job in a business because she is a widowed female. Of course Helmer would never let Nora get a job because it would affect his class status. If only he knew that she was debted to someone maybe his opinion would change, but he would be very angry.
Towards the end of act one in Henrik Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, Nora claiming that Mrs. Linden is at fault for posessing the macaroons is a symbol. During their conversation, Nora revealed some extreme information to Mrs. Linden, some of which could bring harm to her if brought to light. The macaroons stand as a symbol, stating that if Mrs. Linden reveals to anyone what Nora told her, Nora’s lie will dominate her truth. Ibsen writes,” Oh, well! Don't be frightened. You couldn't possibly know
ReplyDeletethat Torvald had forbidden them. The fact is, he's afraid of me spoiling my teeth. But, oh bother, just for once!- That's for
you, Doctor Rank! [Puts a macaroon into his mouth.] And you too, Christina. And I'll have one while we're about it- only a tiny
one, or at most two. [Walks about again.] Oh dear, I am happy!
There's only one thing in the world I really want.”(Ibsen). Not only is this a warning to Christina about not telling anyone Nora's secret, she is also divulging what would happen if Helmer found out about the information. Also revealing that Helmer is a proud man, and would be very offended and angry at Nora (in her eyes) if he found out.
One quote I found interesting was one by Nora, "Something glorious is going to happen". ( ) Toward the end of act 2, Nora says these words to Mrs.Linde. She is describing the effects that will follow when Torvald opens Krogstads letter which contains Nora's loan secret. This quote struck me as foreshadowing even though I am unaware of what will happen. For the first time, Nora uses excited diction and shows hope for the future. This quote represents a turning point in Nora's life and mindset. It is also interesting how Nora is seemingly finding hope at the rock bottom of her life. This is a positive ideal, as she could easily be negative in this situation. In this way, readers can look up to Nora for her outlook in life. The foreshadowing in this quote leads me to believe Nora is going to do something very brave about her "trapped" situation.
ReplyDeleteAct 2 of “A Doll’s House” is fraught with symbolism, namely the Christmas tree. In the very beginning of Act 2, the stage directions tell us, “In the corner beside the piano stands the Christmas tree, stripped, bedraggled and with its candles burnt out” (II.35). Here, Ibsen uses negative diction to show the sorry state of the tree, when Nora had previously boasted about the tree being, “‘There’s nothing to worry about. We’ll have a lovely Christmas tree’” (I.30). This is a striking parallel, as the Christmas tree is a symbol of Nora’s psyche, and her relationship with Helmer. Prior to Helmer denouncing forgery and lies of the type Nora has kept secret, the tree was happy, and full of candles and flowers. Following Helmer’s rant, and the parallel of Krogstad and Nora, we see the Christmas tree worn-down and a shadow of its former self, much like Nora. Nora is closed-off, fearful, and doesn’t want to spend time with her children for fear she’ll poison them. She says, “‘Yes, Anne Marie, from now on I can’t be with them as often as I was before’” (II.36). This is a sharp contrast from Act 1, where she played with her children, “‘How fresh and bright you look! My, what red cheeks you’ve got! Like apples and roses’” (I.22). Where Nora used to dote on the children, she now withdraws from them after the stage directions with the Christmas tree. The wilting of the Christmas tree shows the beginning of the end for the Helmer household, where relationships are disintegrating.
ReplyDeleteWow, Madeline, I found answers to many things I was wondering about in your blog post. First of all, I only saw the Christmas tree as a symbol of Nora's mental state, and never thought of it as her relationship with her husband. But now that I look at your interpretation and certain parts of the play, they surprisingly fit together, showing a parallel relationship. Also, I've been continuously wondering why Nora suddenly shut herself apart from her children, and you provided a clear answer to that question as well; so that she may not poison them like Krogstad supposedly did. I think your interpretation was excellent, and it's full of rich information!
DeleteI found many of of the same comparisons when I thought about the Christmas tree. Do you think that the tree dying may also be foreshadowing, and if so what to?
DeleteAs we have discussed as a class earlier, Act Two consists of various symbols that contain significant representation. And one prominent symbol is the IOU, or a signed document acknowledging a debt. When her husband was severely ill, Nora made a bold decision to borrow a significant amount of money for the trip to the South, specifically from Krogstad. During the process, the IOU had to be drawn up between the two, legally acknowledging that the debt exists until the sum is fully paid back. What Nora did not foresee, however, is that such contract could turn into a binding force that continuously oppresses her. Krogstad, being a deceitful and shrewd man, finds a fault within the IOU and attempts to use it to his advantage: pressure Nora so that he may regain his position at the bank. Thus, the IOU symbolizes the binding force and pressure that Nora desperately tries to escape from, and the unending conflict between the two.
ReplyDeleteOne example that well demonstrates such symbol appears in the beginning of Act Two:
NORA. When you’ve paid everything you owe, you do get your IOU back again, don’t you?
MRS. LINDE. Of course.
NORA. And you can tear it up into a thousand pieces and burn it – the nasty, filthy thing! (II. P.39-40)
In the particular quote above, Henrik Ibsen uses impure diction and hyperbole in order to illustrate Nora’s hatred toward the binding IOU and her desperate effort to escape such suppression. First of all, Nora uses impure diction in order to express her genuine hatred towards the inescapable contract. In describing the IOU, Nora uses words like “nasty” and “filthy”, clearly expressing her negative connotation and attitude. Usually, in describing regular objects, we don’t normally use radical and impure diction like the ones that Nora employs to describe the contract. Thus, such use of impure diction easily suggests the extent to which Nora despises the contract. To Nora, the IOU drawn between her and Krogstad is no longer a simple contract, but rather a forceful and inescapable chain. In addition, Ibsen uses hyperbole in order to depict Nora’s effort to escape such binding chain. Nora questions if she would get the IOU back once all debt is paid, then says, “And you can tear it up into a thousand pieces and burn it…” When Nora says ‘thousand’ pieces, she does not literally mean to tear it apart into thousand pieces. Rather, she is exaggerating that she wants to do so in such an extreme degree that she may become completely free from the oppression she has now experienced for years. By completely tearing the document apart, by erasing its existence, Nora hopes to find herself in complete freedom, although it may only be mere hope. Thus, in the particular passage above, Henrik Ibsen uses impure diction and hyperbole in an attempt to express Nora’s disgust towards the binding contract, as well as her attempt to become free from the oppressing chain.
I really like how you really looked into the importance of the IOU. Although I had acknowledged it as a symbol I had not thought as deep as you have. Similar to what you said about the IOU symbolizes the binding pressure and force that Nora is trying to escape, I saw the IOU you as Krogstad's weapon. It strange that a signed piece of paper is the weapon in a book. When it is usually a sword or wand etc. Yet it seems to be a very powerful weapon that allows Krogstad to have so much power over Nora.
DeleteFeb. 11, 2016
ReplyDelete“That’s what we’ll do. [Caressing her.] Does that make you happy now? There, there, don’t look at me with those eyes, like a little frightened dove. The whole thing is sheer imagination.” (A Doll's House, Ibsen, 44)
Throughout the entire story, Nora acts and is treated like a child. She plays wither her children like dolls, she is slightly ignorant, immature, and wears all her emotions on her sleeve. Mrs. Linde even states, “Nora! In lots of ways you are still a child” (38). She says this to Nora because Nora is stating that her husband doesn’t like her talking about her past because he’s “so in love with (her) he says he wants (her) all to himself” (38). Any adult knows this explanation is illogical and most likely not the actual reason Helmer doesn’t enjoy his wife discussing her past. Nora is very similar to a young, prideful, child who’s trying to make up excuses to make herself look better, which is immature, or believes what she says and is therefore incredibly ignorant. Nora is not only childlike in her verbal communication but also in her body language. Within the quote above, Helmer is speaking to Nora. Helmer begins by trying to comfort his wife the same way mothers comfort their younger children by gently touching their faces saying, “there, there”. Helmer then dehumanizes her by using a simile to comparing her to a dove, a soft, pure, yet delicate animal. However within this quote you can tell how well Helmer is able to read her facial expressions because, similar to a child, she wears her emotions on her sleeve. Helmer has been able to see right through her the entire story, but not only has Helmer been able to clearly read Nora but also Mrs. Linde and Dr. Rank. This quote sets a sad tone for the play because the reader feels both sorry for Nora in her problem and sorry for Nora in the uncomfortable relationship she has married into. The simple reading of Nora’s facial expressions are just another example of the childlike qualities that Nora possesses.
Cameron Kays
Cameron, you have an insightful analysis of Nora's puerile behavior and being treated as if she is a child. I found it interesting when you talked about Helmer being able to read Nora emotion like a child. In the first act, we see Helmer read Nora's facial expressions when he blatantly says "Nora, I can tell by your face has been asking you to put a good word in for him" (I Pg. 30). Helmer being able to see this because of Nora's puerile behaviour was the catalyst to Helmers accusation of Nora lying and saying she is poisoning her kids because of it. I just find it interesting that Nora couldn't play off something as simple as that but can be able to plan a whole trip for Helmer to Italy by forging her father's signature and taking a loan from Krogstad. I am just curious about what you think about Nora's behaviour and whether you think it's intentional or not since she clearly shows instances of intelligence like hiding the macaroons and pulling off the trip to Italy.
DeleteHelmer- Doesn't make any difference!... You call my motives petty; so I must be petty too. Petty! Indeed! Well, we’ll put a stop to that, once and for all. [he opens the hall door and calls.] Helene! (II Pg.43)
ReplyDeleteI found this quote in act two interesting because it tells us more about Helmer. This quote was in response to Nora when she tells Torvald that he can't be serious about the pure hatred he has for Krogstad and firing him and that it was petty. Helmer then has a puerile tone when responding saying that if she thinks of him as petty then he will be petty. This is something a little child would do. Helmer is not even giving Nora the chance to explain herself or consider for a second why Nora doesn't want him to fire Krogstad. He then calls out the maid so she can deliver the notice quickly right in front of Nora! This action showcases his anger and makes the audience think why he is acting this way. This could be that since in the Victorian time men felt like they had to support their family and defend them, so he took it seriously when Nora called his actions of endeavoring this petty . Therefore, the repetition of petty in this quote really showcases his utter desire to defend the family because Helmer thinks he doing this to help his family and protect because Krogstad is just overall is an atrocious influence but Nora calls it petty when really petty is the last thing that would come to mind to at least Helmer when he is trying to help his family.
This is an interesting take on why Torvald acted the way he did. You say it is because he was ashamed that Nora thought he was petty, however could he possibly be acting out as a form of pure anger toward Nora and not just to help his family?
DeleteIn Act II of Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” a number of symbols appear that enlighten the audience of the real state of mind Nora. Although she is a deceptive characters, Ibsen’s use of symbolic features allows for the reader to look beyond her shallow nature and find out how this character really feels. For instance, the Christmas tree is a powerful example of how quickly Nora’s life was turned upside down. In Act I, the Christmas tree is brought into the Helmer household for the first time and we see it as a freshly cutting sparkling beauty, a symbol of Nora effervescent personality and lack of worries. However in the stage direction at the beginning of Act II, the tree has entered a state of dreary disrepair. This alludes to how her lively spirit has been shattered by the threat of the balance of her home being broken by the ambitious Krogstad. The use of the tree is an effective symbol in reinforcing the idea that Nora's world is crumbling, literally and metaphorically. Nora chant in state of mind is also seen through her consumption of her macaroons. In the first Act, she eating them fairly often to the point where Torvald seems to figure out that she often spends his money on sweet at the confectioner’s store. However by the time that the second Act II begins, she stops eating these sweet treats as her stress over the issue at hand prevents her from indulging in such pleasures. These symbols work in conjunction to provide the reader a little more insight into the state of mind of such a secretive character.
ReplyDelete“The same room. In the corner, beside the piano, stands the Christmas-tree, stripped, and with the candles burnt out. NORA's outdoor things lie on the sofa. NORA, alone, is walking about restlessly. At last she stops by the sofa, and takes up her cloak”(Ibsen 19-20).
ReplyDeleteThe author uses the description of the scene to symbolize changes in the story. Compared to the earlier description of the inside of the house this one is much more fast paced and shorter making it feel like something is about to happen. The Christmas tree was also described at the start of the play just being brought into the house. It was expected to bring joy and happiness and set the mood of the house. While now the Christmas tree is symbolic of the current situation of Nora. She is running out of options since Helmer is going to fire Krogstad and the beauty of her ruse is falling apart. Also throughout the play when there is more light in the room people act more proper while now that the candles are burning out the dark side of people is coming out. The description of Nora's actions symbolises her current mood about her conundrum. She is walking about restlessly due to being worried she will get in trouble for her wrongdoings, but then it seems as if she realizes she has very little control over the situation and just kinda sits down. Perhaps she is just giving up for the night though because she doesn't seem like a quitter. Ibsen also brings up the piano again. Perhaps the piano symbolizes the beauty and elegance which they are supposed to maintain. Also nobody has really played the piano yet which could symbolizes that there really is no elegance that can be heard throughout the house.
One quote I found extremely interesting from act two takes place shortly after Nora slaps Dr. Rank with her stockings. Ibsen writes,” how can I tell whether I did or didn't. I simply can't tell you...How could you be so clumsy, Dr. Rank when everything was was so nice.” Nora is cruel to Dr. Rank after flirting shamelessly with him, she stops because he got attached. Revealing that Nora is a tease and that she has a cold heart in terms of love.
ReplyDeleteOne symbol I noticed in Act 2 of “A Doll’s House” is Nora’s dance of the tarantella. Nora has the plan to do the tarantella at a ball, a dance usually done in a group that she is doing alone. This in itself is symbolic because it shows Nora distancing herself from her friends and family, and feeling isolated due to the secret she is holding. It also is potentially foreshadowing Nora being alone. When Nora is practicing the tarantella in front of Torvald, she continually goes faster and faster, and Torvald is unable to control her. He says, “‘Not so fast! Not so fast’” to which Nora replies, “‘I can’t help it’”; Torvald says, “‘Not so wild, Nora!’” so Nora says “‘This is how it has to be’” (58). Torvald continually tells Nora to slow down, and tries to control her dancing. Nora disregards her husband, and continually dances faster and faster, and wilder and wilder. This is a symbol for Nora’s life and their relationship. Torvald is always trying to control Nora’s actions, even barring her from eating macaroons, something viewed as fairly benign. He also has extreme reactions to any trying on her part to escape from his control. When Nora tells a small lie, Torvald blows up at her, and warns that she must never lie. Despite his anger, Nora breaks out of her husband’s hold a lot and has lied to him frequently, about items both important and unimportant. Their relationship is built on secrets, and attempts to control each other. The tarantella dance shows Torvald’s futile endeavors to restrict Nora’s actions, and how she evades them.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you went in depth into the importance of the tarantella dance. I really like how you talked about how she is using it to show how she is using it to distract herself from her dark secret. Also found it interesting how you made the connection between how Torvald was acting and their overall relationship. I definitely agree when you say their relationship is built on secrets and they try to control each other. Even though Nora pretends to conform to the marriage standards she still is very deceptive.
DeleteThroughout the Victorian era, there was an unmistakable social norm of gender inequality, in which husbands retained a superior position over their subordinate wives. Even though the conditions certainly improved in comparison to the Elizabethan era (explored in the play The Taming of the Shrew), the repeating pattern of gender inequality seems to have entrenched its position deep inside the societal ground. One relative passage that our reading group discussed with interest is the scene whereby Torvald treats Nora as a possession after the dance practice. The scene is portrayed as:
ReplyDelete[He leads her, in spite of her resistance, gently but firmly into the room.]
HELMER. …The main thing is she was a success, a tremendous success. Was I supposed to let her stay after that? Spoil the effect? No thank you! I took my lovely little Capri girl – my capricious little Capri girl… (III. p. 67)
Within the passage above, Henrik Ibsen mainly uses stage direction and attaching diction in order to convey the sense of superiority that men held during the Victorian era. To begin with, the stage direction already conveys a sense of inequality that exists between husbands and wives. As the Helmer couple gets closer and closer in completing their practice of tarantella, Nora desperately attempts to keep Torvald occupied, so that Mrs. Linde may successfully convince Krogstad. However, unable to continue any longer with already-successful dance practice, Torvald “lead her, in spite of her resistance, gently but firmly into the room.” The unambiguous stage direction portrays the particular scene within readers’ mind, the picture of Torvald almost forcefully dragging Nora out of the room. Instead of properly respecting Nora’s plead and autonomy to move with her own will, Torvald rather forces her out of the room. Such action clearly conveys a sense of superiority and masculinity men felt over their women, once again reinforcing the social norm that prevailed throughout the Victorian era. In addition to the stage direction, another literary element Ibsen employs is the diction of attachment. In describing Nora, Torvald uses words like, “lovely”, “little”, “Capri” in order to express his appreciation and attachment towards his wife. However, rather than conveying a sense of genuine love, the expression rather delivers a feeling of possession and ownership. The use of attaching diction associates Torvald as the owner of all the treasure that he describes previously, and the fact that he uses the verb “took” bolsters such connotation. Therefore, by using stage direction and diction of attachment, Henrik Ibsen unmistakably conveys the social norm of gender inequality that has continued unchangingly throughout the centuries.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I found interesting in Act 3 was Helmers first reaction when figuring out Nora fraudulent act that was committed eight years ago. Helmer wants Nora to come clean and admit her criminal act. Nora then admits it and Helmer exposes his anger. He says “Quiet…… All you father's irresponsible ways are coming to you. No religion, no morals, no sense of duty… Oh, this is my punishment for turning a blind eye to him. It was for your sake I did it, and this is what I get for it” (III, Pg. 76).This quote stood out to me because for the most part, this book was leading to the anticipated reveal of Helmers reaction of Nora's fraudulent act. This is due the instances in which Nora revealed her secretive nature of the audience through dramatic irony in which the amplest act was the criminal act of forging the signature and not letting Helmer or anybody know about it. I found it interesting that Helmer decided to resort back to Nora's father to blame the reasoning behind Nora's motive to perform such an act and Nora doesn't do anything to defend her father. This makes me wonder what Nora's father did to make Helmer have this negative notion of him.
ReplyDeleteNORA. Torvald.
ReplyDeleteHELMER. [Stopping.] Yes?
NORA. If your little squirrel were to beg you for something so prettily-
HELMER. Well?
NORA. Would you do it?
HELMER. I must know first what it is.
NORA. The squirrel would skip about and play all sorts of tricks if you would only be nice and kind. HELMER. Come, then, out with it.
NORA. Your lark would twitter from morning till night-
HELMER. Oh, that she does in any case.
NORA. I'll be an elf and dance in the moonlight for you, Torvald.
Again in Act 2 of the Dolls house the audience can again see the recurring theme that men are superior in marriage. At this point it can also be seen that even Nora is accepting the marriage hierarchy. Although she may just be faking the acceptance of the hierarchy to get what she wants, because she is a very devious character. The translation uses words like “squirrel”, “lark”, and “elf”. Both a squirrel and a lark are not dominate creatures which implies that she is calling herself weak and fragile. Also an “elf” is defined as a small creature indicating that she is say she is small compared to him. On the other hand an “elf” can be an elusive and capricious being. Thus she could also send the message that she is this type of “elf”. Nora uses these words to describe herself giving the indication that she is trying to portray to Torvald that she accepts the hierarchy. Still she seems to just be playing a role to try and get ahead in life.
NORA. That's such a petty reason.
HELMER. What! Petty! Do you consider me petty!
NORA. No, on the contrary, Torvald dear; and that's just why-
HELMER. Never mind; you call my motives petty; then I must be petty too. Petty! Very well!- Now we'll put an end to this, once for all. [Goes to the door into the hall and calls.] Ellen!
In the passage above the author characterizes Torvald using repetition, and stage directions. He repeats the word petty over and over which makes him look quite childish. As well as yelling which makes him look very immature. He goes and yells for Ellen like he a child yelling for his mother. He is supposed to be the mature one yet he is so immature.
I liked your comparison of the idea of male superiority and the immaturity of Torvald. Men were seen to be the head of the household, yet in that last scene, Torvald is portrayed as a young, petty child. He also seems really irrational, something usually emblematic of women during the Victorian era. That scene is also ironic, because Torvald claims he isn't petty, but immediately afterwards, he does something that seems very petty to the audience.
DeleteNearing the end of the play, I found the dance that Ibsen decided to chose very interesting. At first, I didn't understand why the tarantella was chosen and I knew there had to be symbolic reason. After Mrs.Ballard showed the video in class, I concluded that the dance was a symbol of Nora’s unwillingness to be in contact with Torvald at this point in the act. It symbolizes the whole relationship, as the dance is very high speed and intense, and Nora dances it alone. Nora is dealing with many emotions while dancing and the tarantella shows that to the readers without her having to say it. The dance was placed in the scene to shed light on both the situation that Nora is in and the state of Nora and Torvald's relationship. Before and during the dance, readers can also see that Torvald is suddenly showing affection for his wife. He goes out of his way to show her that he wants her, and this is the first time in the book that he is portrayed as showing affection. This lead my group to analyze what Torvald was saying a little bit deeper as we noticed something was different. The reasoning for adding this to the last section of the play, in my group's opinion, was to create a stress factor in Nora’s life to create situational irony. Nora is about to be exposed for this huge secret in her life, and is now all of a sudden being treated with a little affection when Torvald explains how “seductive” her body is when she dances. It makes readers sympathize for Nora wondering if she did the right thing and made the right decisions. I feel that this part in the play is the plot twist section, as most of the play up until this point has been slow and uneventful. Now, readers can use this situation as foreshadowing of a higher climax in the story.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the dance alone symbolizes the relationship between the two characters or the inner struggle and confusion within Nora also? To me it also begins to symbolize foreshadowing to the further unraveling of the relationship through confusion.
DeleteFeb. 16, 2016
ReplyDeleteHELMER. Stop play- acting! [locks the front door.] You are staying here to give an account of yourself. Do you understand what you have done? Answer me! Do you understand?
NORA. [looking fixedly at him, her face hardening]. Yes now I’m really beginning to understand.
Dolls House (35) Ibsen
My group was constantly discussing Nora’s confusing role as a character. Why reading act one and her interaction with her husband, you first get the sense that Nora is incredibly clever and great at deceiving her husband. Our first impression collectively was that Nora was a gold digger, doing whatever she had to do to get money. The audience at the time didn’t know what the money for was either and why it was needed making Nora look suspicious and guilty. As we continued to read and discussed Nora’s interaction with her children, we came to the conscientious that Nora was immature and acted with her children like a babysitter, not at money. Once again the group was still confused on how the true character of Nora because she was one way around her husband, than another way around her children, then another way around her friends, Ms. Linde and Dr. Rank. With Linde and Dr. Rank Nora was much bubblier, honest, and hopeful. This confused my group immensely because we couldn’t decide who Nora really was and what her motives were. Her constantly changing personalities and secrets reflect the Victorian Era in the way that you always wanted to put up your best front to your husband and everyone around you, except for in this case, Nora wanted to put up her front to her husband, not caring if everyone else around her saw who she really was. I began to feel within act three that Nora truly did believe that her husband loved her as much as he said he did, and she believed he’d take the blame to protect her, however once Helmer began to yell at her, Nora stated “ I am beginning to understand” after a stern look fell upon her face. This reflects the idea that Nora had infact not understood the magnitude to what she had done, but she had finally understood the relationship between her and her husband and where it stood. Nora finally realized that it was all a show and that is all it would ever be. I think this was a moment of maturity for Nora. She had either finally realized or accepted the fact that her life wasn’t this epic love story she had believed or forced herself to believe. Nora realized that all the lovely words and promises Helmer had made to her were all just words with no real meaning, that they were all romantic words meant to woo her but with no real weight. As dark as the tone gets within the act, this scene appears to be the turning point of the play because it is a moment of clarity. You see by the stern look appearing on Nora’s face that she is no longer the young child all the characters assume she is, within this moment, Nora would be forced to grow up.
Cameron Kays
Cameron, you had a very intriguing analysis of Nora's character. It wasn't until I read your blog that I realize that that line is significant to the story. When I first read this I thought she just said this line out of fear (because she was Helmer starting to get mad). Your interpretation makes sense and I agree that Nora is, in fact, realizing what she had done and that her life is not this love story that she forced herself to believe in. This relates back to the maxim of an important character being introduced early and Nora was introduced as childish. Now we see her began to progress into maturity and we will just have to read more to see whether her maturity is immensely important in this play.
DeleteIn this time period, do you think Nora is justified to feel this way? Is she crazy for trying to create a better life for herself when most women did not have that right?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Act 3 of Henrik Ibsen's “A Doll’s House”, the true motivations and feelings of the characters are exposed. Even in the first half of this act, we see as the characters’ actions differ radically from what we would have expected them to do based on how they acted throughout the rest of the play. First, the audience learns that Mrs. Linde once had a romantic relationship with Krogstad. Now she wishes to reconcile and once again be with him. However, she asks Krogstad as a favor to her to forgive Nora’s debt. Krogstad asks what is one the audience’s mind, saying that she only wants to be with Krogstad to help her friend. However, Kristine replies that she no longer wants to do anything for anyone else seeing as she has been serving others all her life. This move seems rather unsympathetic considerably that it was Nora who gave her a place to stay and considered Helmer to award her a position at the bank. However, Mrs. Linde ask that Krogstad leaves the letter so that the secret does come out between Nora and her husband. This reinforces Kristine’s belief, one that she has mentioned many times before to Nora, that their should be no secrets in Nora’s relationship. We also see Nora and Helmer return home from the dance, with Nora doing everything in her power to prevent Torvald from seeing Krogstad’s letter. She desperately tries to distract Torvald, although she soon finds that his alcohol consumption has made him start to make “advances” on his wife. Being in a less than happy move she refuses. A knock on the door interrupts, as Dr. Rank comes to visit. He arrives in a suspiciously happy mood, a stark contrast from his previous personality. However the reader soon realized that the his mood is linked to his acceptance with his forthcoming passing. It feels as though his visit is his final attempt to help out Nora one last time.
ReplyDeleteThere are many interesting topics of conversation in Ibsen’s play, “A Doll’s House”, one of them being the character of Mrs. Linden. In acts one an two, she come’s across to the audience as yearning and ambitious, and engagiging in satirical comedy with Nora. She appears to be little more than comic relief, or a sidekick for the main protagonist, Nora. In act three however, the tide shifts and comes rushing in. Christina gains a strongly heroic personality. As hinted in act two, it is revealed that Krogstad and Christina use to be romantically involved, and that Christina had to leave him for a man of greater wealth and fortune to provide for her family members. She really showed her true colors by suggesting she takes care of Krogstad and taking care of everyone. She needs someone to take care of, and Krogstad needs someone to love. It's a compromise that works out for everyone.
ReplyDeleteIn the play “ A Doll's House”, there was plenty interesting ideas presented. One interesting thing that I found the most compelling to me was how Nora towards the end of the play admits that she had pretended to agree with Torvald whenever he makes a decision or have any tastes. Nora says “You arranged everything to your tastes, and I acquired the same tastes. Or I pretended to… I don't really know… I think it was a bit of both, sometimes one thing and sometimes the other. When I look back, it seems to me I have been living here like a beggar, from hand to mouth. I lived by doing tricks for you Torvald. But that the way you wanted” (III, Pg. 80). I found this interesting because when reading this play I had conflicting views on Nora's character. Sometimes I would feel bad for her because she is trying so hard to keep everyone happy, look at her gold digger or selfish, a liar, unintelligent, intelligent etc. This play had presented evidence that supports all of these viewpoints which make her character conflicting. So what I found interesting is Nora's claim that she had acquired the same tastes as Helmer, could suggest why she was a conflicting character. For instance, because Helmer cared so much about his image, Nora carried that on when talking to Mrs. Linde about how much money they have and how well their children are therefore she was being selfish because she knew Mrs. Linde's life was not as pleasantly surrounded as her. The simile that Nora uses “ like a beggar” is also very powerful. I believe what she means by beggar is that she's been begging for Hemler to give her more freedom but that's not what Helmer wanted because of the Victorian image of the man providing for his family, therefore, he can show that by controlling his family and keeping things in order and him making all the big decision. For example, when Helmer was worried if had not fired Krogstad because of Nora he would look bad because he is letting others influence his decisions. Finally, this shows her intelligence in realizing that Hemler is actually controlling everything, stereotypical, and her doing tricks for him. This is evident whenever Helmer calls Nora animal names (property/Nora showing that she likes that), or stereotyping women (superiority over Nora), or blaming Nora's father (His tastes on want he wants Nora to be).
ReplyDeleteI really like your analysis of Ibsen's word choice, and your discussion of the conflicting views surrounding Nora's character. You talked about how Nora pretended to agree with Torvald, simply to keep those around her happy. Do you think that this was a common occurrence with wives during the Victorian era? I think it was, simply based on the whole ideal of respectability. It wasn't respectable for a wife to disagree with her husband, so Nora did not.
DeleteIn Act 3, the almost dehumanization of women comes up again when Nora says she is just a doll. She says, “‘But our house has never been anything but a play-room. I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Daddy’s doll child. And the children in turn have been my dolls. I thought it was fun when you came and played with me’” (III. 80-81). The comparison of Nora and dolls shows how women were almost dehumanized during the Victorian era to more easily justify the gender inequality. We see this earlier in the play as well, when Torvald compares Nora to various kinds of birds, such as ‘sparrow’ or ‘meadowlark’. There was gender inequality both social and legal. Women could not borrow money without the consent of their husbands, and it also was widely accepted that a woman’s place was in the home.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting point brought up in this quote as well is the children also being dolls. Children play a very interesting role in “A Doll’s House”. They almost seem to be devices to advance the plot, and are only brought on stage once. Nora is seldom involved in their lives, instead allowing the nursemaid to take over the child-rearing duties. The relationship between Nora and Torvald almost seems to mirror the one between Nora and her children. Immediately after Act 1, Nora withdraws from Torvald, but she also withdraws from the children. Both Nora and the children are dolls under the control of someone else (Torvald and the nursemaid/Nora respectively). Both relationships are very secretive, and superficial. Women are dehumanized in “A Doll’s House”, but so are the children.
Madeline, I found your analysis very insightful. I agree that Nora in comparison to dolls show how women were dehumanized during the Victorian era. Like you said, it is interesting that the relationship of Nora and Torvald seem to mirror the relationship between Nora and her children especially shown at the ending when she withdraws from both of them. Do you think,however, Nora loves/cares about her children more than Helmer? I think so since she did admit to Dr. Rank that she prefers to be with people she loves implying that she doesn't love Helmer.
DeleteIn response to Daniel, I question whether or not Nora loved her kids at all. They were never a deciding factor in her life except a small thought when thinking about leaving forever when she wonders if they will miss her. Even then, they didn't seem to be a huge deciding factor. Do you think this could be because she was motherless, and never had a connection with her mom to have a good role model of what that relationship really means?
DeleteGoing off of Sierra's comment, I also question weather Nora truly loved her children or if she saw them mealy as duties that society tells her she needs to commit to. Rather than wanting to be with her children she is almost dismissed to be with the children by Torvolt as it is a "woman's job". Also during this time period, The Victorian Era, it's important to know the roles of children, or how society viewed their roles. Children were often taught to be polite and aways be on their best behavior. They were young adults rather than children at all.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFinishing the play, the most obvious debate was the final scene in which Nora leaves her family behind. However, I also found the amount of maxims throughout the play quite valuable to the plot of her decision. One of these maxims is “Flight is Freedom”, which is shown through Torvalds nicknames for her such as songbird. While the bird symbolizes a dominance of Torvald over his wife, it also represents a willingness to flee from the situation from Nora’s point of view. Ibsen also cleverly uses internal conflict when Nora is questioning her final decision when she questions whether the kids will miss her. As Jacob mentioned in the short class discussion, Nora is unknowing of what she thinks, believes, wants or even who she is. So, one might ask, is this a selfish act or simply human tendency to question? She believes that she can leave, and will not care what others think of her. Her only other option to escape the situation is suicide, and I personally feel she was too afraid to go through with that choice. The word suicide is talked around as everything was in the Victorian Era when Krogstad says, “How did you know I was thinking of THAT?"(53) “That” refers to suicide, and readers are to infer this meaning. He attempts to scare Nora by explaining what will happen if she goes through with it, “'being washed up in the spring, bloated, hairless, unrecognizable..." (54). For Nora to even consider this option shows that she is that unhappy, and should not remain where she is. In this sense, Nora’s decision can be justified for her own happiness, as she has none in her marriage. Ibsen’s message with Nora’s almost willingness to kill herself is to show people to simply face the truth about the way women were treated back then and change it.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you talk about the internal conflict that Nora is having. Just as you said she considered suicide throughout the first two acts, but then in the first act after the conflict of the IOU was resolved between Nora and Torvald she just realized she wanted to leave. I’m confused though how she wasn't just considering that before. It seems like she should have considered leaving before but after Torvald showed how little he cared about her during the IOU conflict she would consider suicide.
Delete“I was your lark again, your doll, just as before- whom you would take twice as much care of in future, because she was so weak and fragile. [Stands up.] Torvald- in that moment it burst upon me that I had been living here these eight years with a strange man, and had borne him three children.- Oh, I can't bear to think of it! I could tear myself to pieces” (Ibsen, 44).
ReplyDeleteIn Act three many of the main problems in the story were resolved. The problem of Nora just being an object in Torvalds eyes and Nora just being ok with that was resolved especially though this quote. Some could argue that she didn't realize she was just an object but in reality she has known for a while and just didn't say anything about it because it was socially acceptable. She expresses openly how she feels in the quote and the fathers use of a variety of literary devices helps enhance the disgruntled tone. She uses exaggeration when saying “I could tear myself to pieces” because it gives the impression that she can no longer bear the oppression of her husband, and really emits how she feels so low and can't take it and she cant take it any more. Ibsen also uses oppressive direction when Nora says “I was your lark again, your doll” to continue to show the reader how Torvald objectified her as he had earlier in the book. He again uses a lark which is a weak bird, but he also uses a doll which had only been used to describe the children up to this point. Nora describing the children as dolls earlier represented how they were just objects to her and that she could just play with them when she chose felt she had the time. Her use of the word here to describe herself gives the impression that she realizes how much Torvald just sees her as she sees the children(weak and an object to show off and use).
In Act III of Ibsen’s play, the audience witnesses the conclusion of the play but also sees some major development from the characters involved. First, Nora and Helmer arrive back from the party and the letter from Krogstad is read. Helmer’s reaction was harsh, as he insults his wife and threatens to separate her from her children, claiming that he can no longer trust her with them. He goes on the speak of how they must keep up appearances but that in his heart she would no longer be his wife. Suddenly a letter arrives that absolves Nora of the debt and returns the IOU. Helmer is ecstatic and tells Nora that everything he said was just in the heat of the moment and that he never meant it. Nora, who has been quiet from most of the this conversation asks Helmer to sit down and have a serious talk with her. She explains to him that she will be leaving him to go find her own beliefs and opinions, citing that she no longer knows what she wants herself as Torvald had been pushing his agenda on her life. Torvald tries to appeal to her domestic side, claiming that both he and their children need her. However Nora responds, saying that she is an individual first so she needs to work on improving herself. This last act forces Nora to embrace the secret she has been hiding for so long from her husband. However just like Mrs. Linde predicted, the truth coming out did indeed improve Nora’s relationship as she was able to recognize that Torvald didn't really love her and was too busy caring about their outward appearance. It did not improve their relationship because it led to Nora ending their marriage.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I found extremely interesting in act three of the play a dolls house, is that Nora changed completely. She went from being feeble and manipulated constantly to being independent. While a lot of what she has done by leaving her children can be viewed as a negative thing I believe that Nora had to go off on her own In order to not taint her children. Nora and some perspective has been deprived of who she really is her entire life. She doesn't know how to think for herself or have opinions for herself, and while a lot of women back in the Victorian era were like this or women just in general, Ibsen wrote the play in a gesture towards women’s rights. Nora leaving her children is both a positive and negative thing, there are two sides to the story. While Nora believes she will taint her children, why would she leave them there with Torvald who treats her like she is a child anyways? Or perhaps he will raise them good in her image.
ReplyDeleteFeb. 20, 2016
ReplyDelete“I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Daddy’s doll child. And the children, in turn, have been my dolls.” (80-81)
I found this quote quite intriguing. It reminded me of the name of the story, A Doll’s house. I couldn't help but wonder who was referencing the doll was. I think the obvious and easy answer would be Nora. It’s easy to argue that Nora was constantly controlled and played with as a tool. However, although Nora was verbally dehumanized, by being called a bird and squirrel, physically she had more control over her husband than he had over her. THis is proved when Nora is eating the macaroon with Dr. Ran and Ms. Linda are in the room. Nora pretends to listen to Tovolt when she is in the room with him, but often disobeys, Nora often also controls her husband and higher house using different tactics to get what she wants. Nora uses her power over her Maid’s manipulating her to take care of the kid. Nora then goes on to trick Torvolt into getting what she wants by flaunting her sexuality constantly changing his mind. This led me to question who was really playing who throughout the story. However I couldn’t decide if Nora even really understood her control over Torvolt because she was still very immature and nieve.
Cameron Kays