Doll's House--Period 2--Group 4

69 comments:

  1. Jeremy-
    In the beginning of Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen, the characters are introduced. The ways the characters are characterized in the first parts is very interesting. I noticed how everyone except Nora is addressed by their last names. Nora is often described using animal diction. She is addressed as “squirrel” (Ibsen 1) by her husband, which shows that she has a lower social status. She also addresses her husband by his first name which supports that. It can be inferred that Helmer does not trust Nora with money, because he hesitates when Nora asks for money. He talks about her father, and how he was bad with his money. It can be foreshadowed that Nora’s issues will begin with money, because her lies seem to be centered around money. She most likely purchased the macarons she hides from Helmer, and when Helmer asks about them, she lies. The stage direction helps a lot with the characterization of Nora. It says that Nora “hides the macaroons” in the stage direction, and then she says “hush-sh-sh” (11). This shows that Nora is very secretive. In the first part of the play, where the setting is set, there are many closed doors that are described. This supports the idea of many secrets lie within the family.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Blog #1:

    Through the beginning of the “Doll’s House” by Ibsen, Nora is characterized as a combination of manipulative, stealthy and shallow. Nora’s manipulative behavior is first seen when she begs Torvald for money, even after receiving $40. When Torvald suggests that she should buy something for herself, she indicates that she doesn’t hope for anything. However, just a few seconds later, she asks for more money. By asking for money instead of an object, it may also foreshadow the secrecy of the object Nora may want to buy. She continues to lie to Torvald when he questions her about possibly buying macaroons. Is there a reason for Nora to lie to and distrust in Torvald to that extent? Although Torvald may not be extremely happy that she disobeys his orders, he doesn’t act as a man who would abuse her.
    Further in the scene, as the doorbell rings, Ibsen includes stage direction and indicates that Nora arranges the room. By fixing a room right before a guest arrives, it demonstrates the amount of secrets that Nora may hold. If she is unsettled by the arrival of a guest and feels the need to change into another person in order to please her guest, then she must not be pleased about many things in her life. In this case, she is characterized as stealthy and secretive.
    Lastly, Nora is also incredibly shallow and self-centered, as shown through her conversation with Mrs. Linden. Towards the beginning of the conversation, Nora apologizes for not writing to Mrs. Linden and makes a commitment to only discuss Mrs. Linden’s situation in the conversation, instead of focusing on herself. Promptly following that statement, however, Nora quickly turned the subject back onto herself. It seems as if Nora may be aware of her faults, yet never proceeds to learn from them or to correct herself.
    As Mrs. Linden calls Nora, she is a “child.” Nora is constantly attempting to deceive people through secrets and believes that the entire world surrounds her and only her. She even continues to manipulate by debating with Mrs. Linden for who has lived the “hardest” life. Not surprisingly, her argument of paying for Torvald’s medical costs is yet another secret that the people closest to her fail to know. Nora’s behavior through the beginning of the play may foreshadow the type of conflict that could occur.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When reading the first Act of Dolls House one of the main assumptions I gathered from Nora was her dainty, childlike characterization. This aligns perfectly with the Victorian eras expectation for women. Noras relations with her husband also exemplifies this when he refers to her as his pet. The authors use of animal diction and the constant reference to her being a squirrel represents not only Helmers viewpoint, but the rest of societies. It can be inferred that a lot of Helmers actions will reflect the majority of the society he is living in because he places a lot of importance on his family's reputation. This brought up the question if Nora truly is this dainty, childlike women or if she is being shaped by society and being forced to play a role. When Mrs. Linde arrives at their perfect family home Nora acts very squirmish, yet inviting. Most of the stage directions connected to Nora entail her smiling or clapping, furthering her perceived frivolous personality. Nora mostly dominates the conversation and begins to confess the significance of her travels down south for Helmers sake. This can be related to the maxim, “When writers send characters south, it's so they can run amok”. As the book progresses I predict that the scandals that took place will be revealed. Ibsen writes, “Nora. Is it rash to save your husband’s life?” (Ibsen 14). This dialogue takes place between Nora and Mrs. Linde and reveals Nora’s possibly guilty actions. The positive connotation of save and her defensive tone contradicts her airhead-like characterization. Another important aspect of Mrs. Linde's visit is the symbolism placed on the doors within their home. In general, doors represent opportunity and protection. In these scenes a lot of the stage directions include a character standing in a doorway. I also noticed that most of the doors within the house were closed revealing the fact that the family has secrets, which is expected from a family that pretends to be perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Act One

    An interesting aspect of “Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen is the frequent usage of animal diction by Torvald Helmer when addressing his wife, Nora. By constantly referring to Nora through animal pet names, Helmer dehumanizes his wife and assumes a superior status. The superiority of the husband Helmer and women’s seemingly inherent deference expected of Nora reflects the marriage dynamic of the Victorian era, as men were the heads of the house. Helmer refers to Nora as, “my little skylark” (1), “my little squirrel” (2), “my little singing bird” (3), “my pretty little pet” (4), using words with fragile, innocent connotations. Animals such as a skylark, squirrel, bird, and a pet are typically seen as small animals that depend on others. These animals often have no bigger purpose in life rather than feeding off of others, seen in the relationship between Nora and Helmer, where Nora constantly receives money from Helmer to shop and feed her “spendthrift” ways. To further emphasize the employment of animal diction, Ibsen selects animals with a delicate, dainty, and beautiful connotation, highlighting the expectation of women held by society in the Victorian Age. While pet names continue to be common in modern times, the extent to which Helmer addresses Nora with them goes beyond the often ironic usage of them in present-day. Helmer utilizes the animal diction and continues to refer to Nora with the same animal diction, saying, “My little singing bird mustn’t go drooping her wings, eh? Has it got the sulks, that little squirrel of mine?” (3). The ongoing usage of animal diction to further describe the actions, behaviour, and emotions of Nora reiterates the degrading treatment of women by men in the Victorian Age.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the first act of “Doll’s House,” I thought it was interesting to see how the characters Mrs. Linde and Nora contrasted and interacted. Right from when Mrs. Linde was introduced, her name is introduced formally, with a “Mrs.” title, while Nora is described by just her first name and not as “Mrs. Torvald,” despite Mrs. Linde’s obvious passiveness for her ex-husband. This reinforces the concept of Nora’s childishness– she is flighty, immature, and from first appearances, seems to just be silly and a spendthrift. Even Mrs. Linde herself believes Nora to be puerile and outrightly tells her she hasn’t faced any real difficulty in her life. “It is awfully kind of you, Nora, offering to do all this for me, particularly in your case, where you haven’t known much trouble or hardship in your own life.” (I.I.12) Mrs. Linde believes Nora to be much more privileged than herself and dismisses what Nora characterizes as “troubles.”

    However, Mrs. Linde and Nora’s interactions are confusing and difficult to interpret throughout the first act. At times, Nora seems genuine and caring about Mrs. Linde’s hardships, but also seems as though she is frustrated by her old friend and is eager to prove to her that her life has not been as easy as it appears. This leads to her revealing her secret about Torvald’s health and how she had paid for everything, which even shocks Mrs. Linde. The relationship between Nora and Mrs. Linde is further complicated when Nora uses her to her advantage when lying to Dr. Rank about the macaroons. This raises the question of whether Nora is really as foolish as she first appears to be.

    ReplyDelete
  6. From what I have read so far in A Doll’s House, the stage directions are a major aspect of this play. They are extremely detailed and can tell us what happens without the characters saying anything at all. This is a huge contrast compared to Shakespeare’s plays because his stage directions were unspecific and could be interpreted in different ways. The first two paragraphs in this play are filled with stage directions. The first paragraph was discussed in class already; its purpose was to set the scene as well as give us a look at how this family will most likely act. The second paragraph is when Nora makes her entrance. She happily hums to herself while answering the door. This tells us she is excited about something. Although we know she is excited, the paragraph does not tell us any other useful information. A somewhat peculiar stage direction is mentioned soon afterwards: “She takes a bag of macaroons out of her pocket and eats one or two; then she walks stealthily across…” (I, 1). This cannot be conveyed through dialogue, especially since she is being “stealthy” according to the author. She is most likely doing something that others would disprove of since she is being stealthy. This turns out to be correct as it becomes clear that Nora’s husband, Helmer, would be upset if he found out about her macaroons. Since Nora is hiding something from Helmer, this characterizes her as secretive and also a bit sneaky. The way Helmer speaks to Nora characterizes her as a child because he speaks to her in a manner that gives little to no respect to her. This is furthered by the stage direction on page 5 where he wags his finger at her. Wagging your finger is something you would do to a child when they have done something wrong. Helmer does it to Nora because he suspects she went to the bakery, which he would not have approved of, as mentioned above. Later on, someone rings the doorbell and the stage directions imply that Nora tidies up the house a little before answering. It is clear she is not excited about answering the door since she says it is a nuisance. However, the fact that she tidied up before answering means she cares about her home’s appearance towards others.

    ReplyDelete
  7. While reading A Doll's House, one of the things that I noticed the farther in the play I got, the more I noticed how dynamic of a character Nora is. In the very beginning of the play when Nora is talking with her husband, Torvald, she’s very submissive around him. They’re very playful around each other and banter in a lighthearted tone but it’s still easy to perceive that Nora was the lesser of the two. This can be seen in the way that Torvald continues to call her pet names such as squirrel, spendthrift and even just simply pet. At one point in the play, he refers to her as an it, saying “what do we call my pretty little pet when it runs away with all the money?” to which Nora replies, “I know, I know, we call it a spendthrift.” This shows the dynamic between the two characters and how Torvald always seems to be talking down to her even though on the surface it can seem like normal persiflage between spouses. Another example of the difference between the characters is in the way that Henrik Ibsen introduces them. In the character list in the beginning of the play, Torvald is written as Torvald Helmer, a lawer, and in the play itself is referred to as Helmer. In contrast, Nora is written as Nora, his wife, and is just called Nora throughout the play. In her interactions with Torvald, she seems like a basic character, the housewife, the mother, the submissive, but later when her friend Ms. Linde is introduced, we see another side of her.

    When Ms. Linde is introduced, Nora switches from being a submissive to being an equal almost. Ms. Linde still partly talks down to her in a way similar to Torvald, but not as much, and instead of replying compliantly the way she does with Torvald, Nora gets defensive and accusatory around Ms. Linde. Her dynamic personality shows through when she starts to get secretive and then later spills those secrets about being a little smarter than everyone around her seems to think. Throughout the rest of the play, I predict that we’ll see more sides of Nora than the simple, daft, wife of Mr. Helmer.

    - Komal Raman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your analysis of the first parts of Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen. The point you make Nora seeming plain in the beginning, but changing when Ms. Linde is introduced is very interesting, and very true. When Nora talks to Ms. Linde, she is no longer a submissive house wife, she becomes a "show-off" who brags and talks down to Ms. Linde. I agree with your prediction of seeing more sides of Nora as the play progresses

      Delete
  8. (I'm still on stuff from my wisdom teeth surgery so I'll try to keep this short and making sense).
    I'm probably the only person who read A Doll's House over the summer (not because I was trying to get ahead, but because I didn't know), so I already knows what happens. I won't spoil anything, but I will say there are a lot of things that I found to be interesting as I read through the begininng again that I didn't notice beforehand.
    Helmer treats Nora very much like a child. When I was a kid, my dad had little nicknames for me, including pumpkin, princess, and squirrel, which I was reminded of by Helmer calling Nora a squirrel, a songbird, a lark, etc. He very sternly tells her not to eat sweets, and generally talks down to her. Nora, in turn, plays her role in this relationship, acting childish, silly, hiding the goodies she's eating, nonsensical. Without giving away the rest of the story, this definitely is very supportive of Nora's change she discusses in her closing monologue. I thought it was interesting Ibsen started off the play by bringing to light something that seems so innocent and playful and silly.
    Sorry this isn't coherent. I did my beest.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In the first act of Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen, Nora’s secrets are revealed. It is revealed that while Helmer was sick, Nora had borrowed money from Krogstad by forging her father’s signature on the documents. Krogstad had discovered this illegal act, and uses it to convince Nora in helping him maintain his job at the bank. He threatens that if Nora does not help, then he will “produce this document in court, and [Nora] will be condemned according to them” (29). On page 22, Nora is interacting with her children. She calls her son, Ivar, her “sweet little baby-doll” (22), which is very interesting considering the title of the play is “Dolls House”. In this large section, the children do not speak, however they seem to be doing a lot. Their actions are shown through stage direction, however that is it. Often, stage direction is used for props. Using stage direction to describe the childrens’ actions makes them seem like props as well, almost like dolls--doll’s house! When her husband returns home, he asks if anyone had been in their home, Nora lies and says no. Helmer calls her out on her lie. When Nora asks what crime Krogstad had committed, Helmer says forgery, which is the crime Nora had committed as well. Nora begins to panic, and goes back to decorating her tree. It seems that Nora uses the tree to hide. At the end of the play, the tone has changed. Originally when the lies were still hidden, the tone was playful, however, with the lies being revealed the tone has changed and is no longer playful. This is seen through words such as “corrupt” and “poison” (34).
    - Jeremy

    ReplyDelete
  10. Blog #2:

    Although Torvald appears to be static character in the first part of Act I, Ibsen further reveals Torvald to be cunning and demeaning towards Nora, therefore affecting the character she may have evolved to become. Torvald constantly uses bird diction such as “my little song-bird.” Through this, Torvald expects Nora to be his pet, instead of his equal as a wife. This is further emphasized in the following sentence “Little song-birds must keep their pretty little beaks out of mischief; no chirruping out of tune!” (I. 31). Not only does Torvald expect Nora to be his pet, but rather diminishes all woman and exemplifies the societal norms of the era. Women were expected to always behave and do what they were commanded to do. Anything mildly difficult was the men’s job. Through the inclusion of bird diction, Torvald represents the society’s mindset during the Victorian Era, when women were expected to be prim and pretty.
    Towards the end of the act, Torvald takes on a very cunning personality by using his criticism of Krogstad to teach Nora a lesson. When complaining about Krogstad, he commented,

    “He dodged what was due to him by a cunning trick...Just think how a man with a thing like that on his conscience will always be having to lie and cheat and dissemble...A fog of lies like that in a household, and it spreads disease and infection to every part of it.” (I. 33)

    Although Torvald is referring to Krogstad in this case, it truly forces the readers to question if Torvald is doing this intentionally and directing it towards Nora. Nora had made the same mistake of forgery and is not owning up to her mistake. In this case, Torvald may be both threatening and warning her about the consequences of her mistake, not only towards her, but towards their family. By subtly addressing Nora’s actions, Torvald cunningly scorns them.
    The attitude of which Torvald addressed Nora’s actions is incredibly degrading, which may demonstrate the reasons behind all of Nora’s hidden secrets. In this relationship, Torvald holds the power of ridiculing Nora of all her actions, which may further persuade her to keep her actions to herself, even if they were filled with good intentions. In “A Doll’s House,” Henrik Ibsen characterizes Torvald as demeaning in order to magnify Nora’s secretive behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also noticed Torvald’s demeaning behavior towards Nora throughout Act One. I also agree that his actions and behaviors towards her will affect Nora’s character development. Personally, I think that Nora will eventually be fed up with being like a pet or a child and will end up acting on her frustrations. I found Torvald’s terms for Nora extremely degrading as well. A quote that I found quite offensive was from Act One on page 4, “My pretty little pet is very sweet, but it runs away with an awful lot of money. It’s incredible how expensive it is for a man to keep such a pet.” I think this really exemplifies how Torvald treats Nora as a pet and child. I did not notice how Ibsen characterized Torvald as demeaning so he could emphasize Nora’s secret behavior. I think your view on how Torvald’s ridiculing will cause Nora to keep her secrets is really interesting. I agree with your perspective, and I think Nora will continue to keep her secret about the forgery. I feel like she will eventually get in trouble for keeping her secret from Torvald.

      Delete
  11. Throughout the first half of Act One, Nora becomes characterized as secretive due to the way she lies about her macaroons and the payment for her husband’s vacation. However, I thought it was interesting and surprising how she also becomes characterized as a child, especially near the end of the act. Throughout Act One, she says, ”Pooh!” whenever she becomes upset. For example, when Torvald wants her to be wiser with money, Nora says, “Pooh! We can always borrow in the meantime,” (I, 2). This dialogue characterizes Nora as childish because “Pooh!” is a phrase commonly associated with pouting children. Near the end of Act One, Nora and Torvald’s children make their entrance. They have three children named: Ivar, Bob, and Emmy. Nora is very excited to see her children as can be seen by the stage directions when they enter: “She runs to the front door and opens it,” (I, 22). The way she interacts and talks with her children causes her to seem childish as well. She says, “All right, Mummy will dance with Bobby too. What? You’ve been throwing snowballs? Oh, I wish I’d been there,” (I, 22). Dancing around and throwing snowballs are activities associated with being a child. When Nora takes part in these activities with her children, it makes her appear quite childish. When Nora helps takes their jackets off, she tosses them onto ground, illustrating how messy she can be. This is done to display yet another childlike quality Nora has. She then proceeds to play with her children as if she were one herself. Ibsen uses the stage directions to illustrate how childish she is while spending time with her children. He writes, “Finally Nora hides under the table; the children come rushing in to look for her but cannot find her; they hear her stifled laughter…” (I, 23). Nora is once again characterized as children. However, it is not because she plays along with her children, but because she cannot stay hidden and ends up giving herself away by laughing. The way Nora interacts with her children can be thought of as a child playing with their dolls. She moves them around the way she wants just like children do with their dolls. In addition, she helps them undress the same way children undress their dolls in a messy fashion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you in saying that it's interesting the way that Nora is characterized as secretive and then right after she's characterized as childish. I think this is meant to show off Nora's naivety. It shows how even though she tries really hard to be smarter than other people seem to think she is, she's really more like a child than anything else. This can also be seen in the scene after this when Nora is talking with Krogstad and he calls her out on her lie. All of these elements are made to show how Nora tries to be seen as an adult but because she's constantly being treated as a child, she ends up failing every time. Noras childishness after her secretiveness allude to her naivety and impending undoing. This is proven when it's brought to attention that her entire ruse can be brought down by the simple error of getting the date wrong on the forged signature.

      - Komal Raman

      Delete
    2. I also think it's interesting that Nora is characterized as a child. However, I feel that some aspects and actions outweigh this childish behavior, indicating the strong woman Nora may actually be. In this act, we discover that Nora purposely begs for money from her husband in order to pay pack her loan. Although this may be a secret hidden from her husband, her intentions are quite pure. If she had not taken out the loan to start with, where would Torvald be in this story? Along with that, the pressure of hiding this secret is intense; she's willing to let others see her as a child who doesn't know how to save money as long as the loan is paid off. Through these actions, it shows that although there may be some flaws in Nora's plans, her true intentions are pure. That being said, I feel that she acts like a child with her children because it is the only time when she can relieve stress and not take on the pressures of being an adult, in order to balance the immense pressure she constantly endures. The mood is much lighter when she plays with her children versus when she's talking to Krogstad, for example. Although Nora's childish behavior is shown through the first act, her childish behavior is due to a combination of two reasons: to hide the secret of a loan in order to help her family and to relieve pressure due to the secrecy of the loan.

      Delete
  12. When finishing the first act of A Dolls House one of the things that stood out to me the most was the children. They are mentioned only a handful of times and when they do show up, most of their interactions happen through the stage directions rather than through dialogue. Also, we can gather a lot of information based on the children's interactions with their parents. On page 22, Mr. Helmer says, come along, Mrs. Linde. The place now becomes unbearable for anybody except mothers.” He says this as soon as the kids enter a room, insinuating that taking care of the children is a mother's job and a mother's job only. This proves how the gender roles of the time limited women and put women into a box. However, Nora doesn't show much disdain for this role that she's forced into. Instead of the mother role limiting Nora in a more obviously negative way, it forces her to act as more of a child in a way. When she interacts with her children, she plays with them as if she is one of them. On page 23, the stage directions say, ¨She and the children play, laughing and shrieking.” This shows how she is a part of the group of kids almost. Another interesting aspect of the kids is that when they do have dialogue, they all talk in unison. The kids speak all together, each child doesn't have a separate line, it's just the children talking. When they do talk, they talk to Nora only and talk to her on more of an equal level than Torvlad does. The progression of the roles of the kids in this book will be interesting to see.

    - Komal Raman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really agree with how you said that Nora and the children are almost on the equal levels, given Nora’s childish nature. I could never imagine Torvald playing with the children as Nora is. It’s really interesting to see how Henrik Ibsen portrays Nora as a childish figure, as it is stereotypical for mothers to assume a more lively, interactive role in parenting, but Ibsen furthers this stereotype and degrades Nora from a mother to be almost like one of the children themselves. It really does show how the societal norms of the time limited women’s roles. Men contributed to this limitation by degrading them, just like how Torvald does with the animal diction. He portrays Nora as a fragile, innocent being through the usage of animal diction and these traits are typically found in children. The comparison between Nora and children reflects the mindset of those living in the Victorian era -- women are considered to be childish, frail, and have no place in the working field.
      An interesting point you brought up is how the children talk in unison. I feel like this really dehumanizes the children and points out how children may not have been conceived as an action of love -- rather, children were simply a way to pass on genes and continue the family tree. I don’t believe that children of the Victorian Age received as much love and affection as children of this age do, and Ibsen conveys this through the dialogue.

      Delete
    2. I wrote about the relationship between Nora and her children as well and agree with your analysis. Unlike a typical, distant mother of the Victorian era, Nora is pushy and involved with her children. They are her “little dollies” that she fusses over and dresses. I also thought it was interesting that Ibsen did not write in distinguishable dialogue for the children and only addressed them as “the children” rather than by their separate names. From this, the children are perceived to be more like small objects of lesser importance, similar to playthings. In this case, Nora’s playthings, which allow the reader to observe her childishness and immaturity.

      Additionally, I thought it was interesting that Torvald had absolutely no interaction with his children at all during this act. He doesn’t regard them or even seem to have a large emotional connection to any of them. This behavior is reflective of the Victorian age; however, what would his reaction be to watching Nora play with them as an equal, crawling on the floor and playing hide-and-go-seek? Would he look down at her with further disdain as he does earlier by referring to her (“dotingly”) as small, pesky animals?

      Delete
  13. Act One, Blog 2

    During Act One of “A Doll’s House”, many symbols are introduced. One significant symbol revealed in the first act is the christmas tree, representing the ideals and perfection that a woman in the Victorian era strives for. In the very first speaking line of the play, Nora says, “Hide the Christmas tree away carefully, Helene. The children mustn’t see it till this evening when it’s decorated” (1). The desire to not allow the children to see the tree in its perfection reflects how Nora feels that everything must be precise and ideal. This highlights the social norms set for women back in the Victorian era, as they were supposed to keep the house tidy and looking perfect. The amount of time and effort Nora put into perfecting the Christmas tree is shown when Torvald says, “ Three whole weeks beforehand you shut yourself up every evening till after midnight making flowers for the Christmas tree,” (6). The dedication exemplified in the quote contributes to the symbolism of the tree, as Nora sacrifices her sleep in order to get the family home into its tip top shape for the holidays. The Christmas tree also represents a sort of comfort for Nora, as women were not allowed to do much in the Victorian era. Without the ability to get jobs, women focused on housework and motherly tasks, hence with the skills that the women did have, they applied it where they could. The comfort and protection Nora receives from decorating the Christmas tree is seen where she says, “[busy decorating the tree]. Candles here… and flowers here.-- Revolting man! It’s all nonsense! There’s nothing to worry about. We’ll have a lovely Christmas tree” (30). Nora uses the Christmas tree as a way to distract herself from the real issues occurring in her life, as it is something that she can perfect and mould to be its ideal shape. While she is unable to resolve her real life dilemmas, decorating the Christmas tree is one thing that she can do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I definitely agree with what you're saying. I was curious though, if there was any symbol of it being a Christmas tree, as opposed to something like a really special quilt that was given to a child on their birthday, or stitching a new dress. Personally, I think that Christmas being a very family oriented holiday could be a reason. I'm not sure about then, but now, there's a very picturesque and kinda cookie-cutter (hah) mold for a perfect Christmas. White (as in snowy), big bushy evergreen tree, colorful ornaments, sugar cookies, carols, a firing burning in the fireplace near the the tree...I could go on. What I'm trying to say is I wonder if back then Christmas had such a "perfect model" (I can't think of the right word for that, basically that today Christmas is idealized and the "perfect Christmas" is held up to a standard that is unachievable for many people. Yeah.), but if they did, I think that would also support your ideas about everything had to appear as precise and ideal as possible.

      Delete
    2. I also gathered the same idea from the use of the christmas tree. Not only does the christmas tree represent the role of women in the Victorian era, but in my opinion the society in general. A christmas tree is a very traditional object that is put on display for others to see. It can be inferred that this is to represent the cultural values at that time. A social pressure was put on people to appear a certain way even if something different tuckered behind closed doors. I agree with your point in Nora finding comfort in this task because even though it is a perceived simpler task than a job it still gives her purpose, and thats what everyone searches for in life. Even though a christmas tree isn't very unique because it is a widespread tradition it presents the environment that this family was living in. I also noticed the light imagery that was connected to the tree and wonder if that had any significance to the topics that the tree symbolized.

      Delete
  14. I wasn’t in class when we read this section, so I don’t know if this was discussed, but do other people’s translations mention “Society”, capital S? I’m on kindle so I don’t have correct page numbers, but when Dr. Rank comes downstairs and is talking with Linde and Nora, before she offers them macaroons, which is approximately 22% or page 37, Dr. Rank mentions Society.
    “RANK: (shrugging his shoulders) Yes, there you are. That is the sentiment that is turning Society into a sick house.
    (...Nora laughs…)
    RANK: Why do you laugh at that? Have you any notion what Society really is?”(22%)
    An online pdf version has the word as “society,” no capital. I did some research on “Society 1879” (1879 is when this play was written), and the top results were all about the Norwegian Feminist movement in the late 1800s. None of them mentioned “Society” specifically, but I thought it was very interesting that came up, considering the nature and themes and message of this play.
    What do you guys think? What do your translations say?

    ReplyDelete
  15. As the first act continues, we get one of our first glimpses into a connection to the title of the play when Nora’s children return with the maid. From her interaction with them we are able to analyze their significance and the relationship between a mother and her children. “How fresh and bright you look! My, what red cheeks you’ve got! Like apples and roses. [During the following, the children keep chattering away to her.] Have you had a nice time? That’s splendid. And you gave Emmy and Bob a ride on your sledge? Did you now! Both together! Fancy that! There’s a clever boy, Ivar. Oh, let me take her a little while, Anne Marie, I’ll help them off with their things. No, please, let me – I like doing it…” In this passage, Nora describes the children as they’ve come in from the cold. She acts in a motherly manner, fussing over their clothing and asking them about their day, but Ibsen never writes in comprehensible dialogue or narration of any of the kids. They are simply serving as background noise and irrelevant to their mother. This creates an image of Nora chattering away to herself foolishly. Although Nora refers upon her children in a seemingly doting and kind manner, similarities can be drawn between how she speaks to them as well as how a young girl would speak to her toys. (In this case, her dolls.) This passage could easily be inserted into one where a girl chatters amongst her “little dollies” with their painted cheeks and perfect faces.

    From this passage it is interesting that Nora acts so friendly and motherly to her children. Even the maid, Anne Marie, does not expect this of her and argues to take the children until Nora demands she does it. This motherly interaction is unexpected from this time period, where children were expected to act as miniature versions of adults, refined and urbane rather than running through the snow with flushed cheeks and tracking snow into the house. Although Torvald’s (absent) interactions are typical to a normal father’s in the Victorian era, Nora seems fussy and makes an effort to take a large part of her children's’ lives rather than observe from afar and leave the maid to do all the work.

    ReplyDelete
  16. While finishing up Act one I noticed the miniscule use of the dialogue from the children, and when they did speak it was in unison. I initially thought that this could mean that they hadn't found individuality yet because they are so young, but it was probably just for convenience and effect. It is also interesting that the children didn't have a greater part because in the victorian era they were seen as little adults and were supposed to behave like them. Ibsen writes, “The children [in the doorway, left]. Mummy, the gentlemen's just gone out of the gate” (I 29). In this line the stage directions are used very particularly placing the kids in the doorway. This has been a recurring stage direction throughout the first act and could represent the closed off nature of the family. I predict that they are on the cusp of something big that is going to happen because doors represent opportunity and different paths. In a lot of the stage directions the characters are standing underneath the doors, possibly representing a transition for that character or the family as a whole into something different. The role of the children in this act is mainly used as an aid to the development of Nora's characterization. Their interactions are what would be expected from a mother to her children, but there is a negative tone attached to this because she has no other choice than the life of a mother and obedient wife. A different side of Nora is revealed and it can be seen that in their society women were seen as equals to children. There is also a lack of relations between Helmer and his kids furthering the realities of the gender roles at that time.

    ReplyDelete
  17. In the first half of Act II, Ibsen contrasts Torvald and Dr. Rank’s personalities through characterization and diction to portray Dr. Rank as a foil to Torvald Helmer. Torvald is portrayed as extremely egotistical and seemingly only cares about his experiences based on how other people could potentially see him. Ibsen demonstrates that he is disrespectful to Nora when he replies, “You have the nerve to bring that up again?” when Nora mentions keeping Krogstad’s job. Torvald continues to hurt her through his demeaning and merciless diction when he says, “ This is really the most incredible obstinacy! Just because you go and make some thoughtless promise…” (II.41). Although Torvald has his own valid reasons as to why Krogstad should be rid of his position, he never attempts to hear Nora out. In this marriage, Torvald treats Nora as a pet and a child, but never as a wife. As Nora is feeling down due to her memories about her father, instead of comforting her, Torvald scrutinizes him and compares him to a person of a better standard: himself. His egotistical traits pervade when he argues,

    “As long as the little woman gets her own stubborn ways…! Do you want me to make myself a laughing stock in the office? Give people the idea that I am susceptible to any kind of outside pressure?” (II.42)

    He turns the complicated situation into pity for himself. He would rather care for how the world could possibly judge him than for his own wife. This egotistical characteristic is often not seen in an adult of his age, which is ironic since he treats Nora as a child, when he may be more of a child. Torvald furthers this concept by using petty behavior to solve the problem at hand and decides to send the letter containing Krogstad’s notice to make a statement. Throughout the entire conversation with Nora, Torvald is not only demeaning towards Nora, but reveals his egotistical and child-like behavior.
    On the other hand, Torvald’s behavior is entirely contrasted my Dr. Rank’s. As Torvald has shown that he doesn’t care for Nora’s feelings, Dr. Rank expresses his love for her when he suggests,
    “Rank [bending towards her]. Nora… do you think he’s the only one who…?
    Nora [stiffening slightly]. Who…?
    Rank. Who wouldn’t gladly give his life for your sake.” (II.48)

    Instead of using demeaning and harsh diction towards Nora, his tone is extremely soft and calm. It becomes clear that Dr. Rank values Nora more than how Torvald values Nora, as Dr. Rank states, “Anyway, you know now that I’m at your service, body and soul.” (II.49) Dr. Rank is willing to give up pride and face embarrassment as he professes his love for Nora, but Torvald, on the contrary, wouldn’t even trust Nora’s judgement. Dr. Rank’s soft diction and mature behavior emphasizes Torvald’s harsh diction and egotistical, child-like behavior as a foil should. Through the difference of these two characters, Ibsen portrays Torvald in negative light and defines his hurtful actions towards Nora.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also agree with you that Torvald and Dr. Rank can be foil characters. Torvald is more selfish and doesn’t often listen to Nora and what she has to say while Dr. Rank actually listens to her and is on more of an equal level with her. In my blog post I talked about how one of my hypothesis is that Torvald doesn’t actually love Nora as much as she says which would give Torvald and Dr. Rank another reason to be foil characters since Dr. Rank admitted that he loves Nora. Another difference in their behavior that I noticed is that Dr. Rank seems to be more emotional than Torvald. When he’s talking to Nora, it seems like he says certain things just to get her attention and he also a tad dramatic while Torvald doesn’t care as much about Nora’s attention. This could also be because of how Nora follows after Torvald and loves him while she just considers Dr. Rank as a close friend.

      - Komal Raman

      Delete
    2. I never realized that Dr. Rank was a foil to Torvald! It’s much more subtle than Mrs. Linde as a foil to Nora. I definitely did notice how Torvald is very cold and unaffectionate towards Nora, as opposed to Dr. Rank, who appears to be very flirtatious and a lot of innuendo seems to occur in conversations between Nora and Dr. Rank. Also, I think your group read further than my group, but I did not know that Dr. Rank confesses his love for Nora. Any sort of loving endearment that does not involve a condescending tone does not come out of Torvald’s mouth, so it is quite obvious that Dr. Rank is a foil to Torvald then. Maybe Henrik Ibsen is commenting upon the societal norm of the time, as husbands were more like Torvald and treated their wives accordingly. Perhaps Ibsen wanted to contrast the two men in order to depict the more loving, gentle man, Dr. Rank, who would be the ideal husband.

      Delete
    3. I thought your comparison between Torvald and Dr. Rank was very accurate. I thought it was really interesting that you identified them as foils because I never thought about it that way before. I agree that Torvald acts very childish when it comes to Nora’s requests about letting Krogstad keep his job. When I wrote about it in my blog, I talked about how it seemed like Torvald did not want to lose his reputation at the bank. I also think he was being really self-centered too. I think a really interesting difference between the two is the character development that has taken place within each of them. Torvald has had no character development so far. He remains stubborn and unwilling to view Nora as an actual wife. Instead, he continues to address her using demeaning names like “skylark.” Dr. Rank on the other hand, has experienced a major character development as he confesses his feelings for Nora.

      Delete
  18. I agree with your argument on how Rank is a direct opposite of Trovald in these scenes. The relationship between Nora and Trovald is revealed to its full extent. He is very demeaning because he finds it ludicrous that he would ever consider her opinion on this matter, and so far everything else,as you stated. The only similarity I saw between Trovald and Ranks relationship with Nora is they were both very flirtatious. I agree with you because in order to build up one character with multiple demensions it is critical to highlight their traits through the use of another.

    ReplyDelete
  19. One of the things that I noticed that interested me from Act II was Nora saying things like, “Torvald is so terribly in love with me.” In the second act she says phrases similar to this twice, once when she’s talking to Mrs. Linde and another time when she’s talking to Dr. Rank. It’s interesting to me not because of the declaration itself but that way that she phrases it. She says things like “Torvald is so terribly in love with me,” and “You know how deeply, how passionately Torvald is in love with me.” The way she phrases these sentences make is seem like she’s trying to brag to Dr. Rank and Mrs. Linde that her life is so amazing, and that she has an amazing and loving husband. It would be one thing to say calmly that she has a loving and caring husband but she over exaggerates the sentence in a way that makes it seem like she’s overcompensating for an actual lack of love in her house. This can relate to my interpretation of the title which is that Nora’s trying to be a doll. She’s trying to turn her house into a doll house. A doll’s house is usually perfect, prim, delicate and beautiful. It would have no problems, everything would be perfect and everyone would be happy. Nora is trying to portray this perfect dollhouse image to the people around her to possibly mask some deep feelings of unhappiness that I predict will come out later in the play.

    - Komal Raman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeremy-
      I also found it interesting how she would say that Torvald was so terribly in love with her when I was reading. I agree that she says it to brag to her friends in an exaggerated fashion, when in reality, there is not much love between them. It is interesting how you compare Nora with a doll, however i agree with the comparison because through her actions and solely based on her lies, it would seem as if she lives in a perfect "dolls house".

      Delete
    2. Ooooh, I like this interpretation of it being "A Doll's House." I think it it also supports the reasoning of the title of this play. Think about it. This play isn't called "A Dollhouse" or "The Dollhouse," but "A/The Doll's House." Literally, we are talking about the house owned by a doll, not a dollhouse where you play with dolls. Nice!

      Delete
  20. Jeremy-
    At the beginning of act 2 of Dolls House by Henrik Ibsen, it can be seen through the stage direction that Nora is extremely nervous. She is constantly doing something. She puts “her coat down again”, then “crosses to the door”, then “opens the door and looks out” (35). Her actions show that she is quite nervous, and she is finding things to do to keep her mind off the current situation. When Helmer returns home, it is seen once again how he talks down to Nora through words such as “little rogue” (40) and “little squirrel” (41). Nora even describes her own actions with the word “scamper” (41) as if a child, or small animal. This shows that this family follows the very commonly seen ideals of that time. It is very interesting how dr. Rank and Nora interact. They seem to be flirting with each other. Ms. Linde even begins to question Nora and Ranks’ relationship. When dr. Rank says “...I’ll send you my visiting card with a black cross on it” (45), it made me wonder what he meant by “black cross.” After reading the line again, it understood that Rank plans to send Nora a card with a black cross when he is dying. Eventually, we discover that Dr. Rank does love Nora when he says that he would do anything for Nora.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Something that Ibsen has done here that I think is kinda cool is that we have Nora constantly being described as a little creature or animal. Little squirrel, song bird, skylark, and just the general use of calling her little. At the start of Act II, we see her very paranoid. She's pacing, picking things up and putting them down again, talking to herself, watching for any person or any action to occur. It reminds the reader of a scared, trapped animal, like the kind you'd see in cheap circuses that take very poor care of their animals, keeping them in tiny cages with no stimulation. This builds upon the theme of the animals, of Nora being small, and belonging to someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Act Two Blog

    “Nora: Torvald, surely you aren’t serious?
    Helmer: Oh? Why not?
    Nora: Well, it’s all so petty.
    Helmer: What’s that you say? Petty? Do you think I’m petty?
    Nora: No, not at all, Torvald dear! And that’s why…
    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!
    Nora: What are you going to do?
    Helmer [searching among his papers]. Settle things.” (43)

    As Nora attempts to inconspicuously persuade Helmer to not fire Krogstad, her plan backfires with the usage of the word “petty”. Petty is defined as small-minded and trivial, often having a childish connotation. Due to its negative connotation, Helmer is clearly offended and insulted that Nora would refer to her husband as petty. The childish diction used by Nora to describe Helmer led to childish actions, despite Helmer’s protests that he was anything but petty. Situational irony is exemplified in this quote, as Helmer claims that he is not petty, but then writes Krogstad’s dismissal letter, which is extremely petty. Helmer had no urgent need to immediately write the notice, but the trivial insult led to Helmer’s childish behaviour.

    For a majority of the beginning of “A Doll’s House”, Nora is clearly depicted as extremely childish, with all of the animal diction, flittering stage direction, and childish behaviours, seen through the lies and hiding of the macaroons. On the other hand, her husband, Helmer, seems to be in a high-standing position at his office and reaps a lot of money, enough to fund Nora’s spendthrift ways. Due to the play being set in the Victorian Age, as Nora’s husband, Helmer is portrayed as an authoritarian figure with omnipresent control and power over the family. It’s shocking to see that a man, who is stereotyped as mature and respectable, commit such petty actions towards his wife. His childish behaviour illustrates the childish streak in him, but despite the trivial actions, Helmer continues to maintain power and control over Nora. Henrik Ibsen contrasted the wife and husband’s childish actions in order to convey the idea that despite acting young and immature, the husband will always have the upper hand in the marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your analysis of this passage. I also agree that Nora's use of "petty" to describe Torvald was a mistake. The tone of the play quickly changes to a much angrier tone, and also reveals another side to Torvald. Torvald seems to want to "get even" with Nora, and does this through the unnecessary action of sending Krogstad a letter telling him he is fired.

      -Jeremy

      Delete
  23. So far, in A Doll’s House, fear is what motivates the actions of Torvald and Nora. This can be seen in the first half of Act Two. Nora is terrified that Krogstad will expose the situation with her loan and forgery to Torvald. At the beginning of Act Two, she is paranoid that he is going to come to their house. She says, “Oh, if only I dare go out. If only I could be sure nobody would come. And that nothing would happen in the meantime here at home. Rubbish—nobody’s going to come. I mustn’t think about it,” (II, 36). Although Krogstad is also acting out of fear of losing his job, the first half of this act focuses on the actions of Torvald and Nora. Out of fear of being exposed, Nora tries fulfill Krogstad’s wish by trying to convince Torvald into letting him keep his job. She does this by purposely addressing herself as a squirrel to appease him: “If a little squirrel were to ask ever so nicely…?” (II, 41). She begs Torvald to allow Krogstad to keep his job. Nora says: “That man writes in all the nastiest papers, you told me that yourself. He can do you no end of harm. He terrifies me to death…” (II, 41). With the threat of her secret being exposed, she makes up reasons for Torvald to allow Krogstad to keep his job. However, Torvald does not listen to her pleas and ends up sending a letter to fire him. It is no surprise that Torvald is an extremely stubborn man who requires particular standards in his household. For example, Nora has to tell Mrs. Linde to hide so Torvald would not see the sewing. Even with his stubbornness, it was surprising that Torvald kept blatantly rejecting Nora’s request. I think this comes from a fear of being perceived as weak by the public eye. He says to Nora: “Do you want me to make myself a laughing stock in the office?…Give people the idea that I am susceptible to any kind of outside pressure?” (II, 42). This quote from Torvald conveys how he does not want to lose his reputation at the bank. Out of fear from this happening, he continuously denies Nora’s requests.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your concept that fear fuels and drives both Nora and Torvald’s actions. In the first act, it was difficult to draw similarities between the married couple because not much context about Torvald is provided by Ibsen. However, as Krogstad’s old connection to Helmer is revealed, it is interesting to see how Helmer is affected by fear of appearing weaker or less manly. His desperation and insecurity is stated on page 42, “Oh, nothing! As long as the little woman gets her own stubborn way…! Do you want me to make myself a laughing stock in the office?... Give people the idea that I am susceptible to any kind of outside pressure? You can imagine how soon I’d feel the consequences of that! Anyway, there’s one other consideration that makes it impossible to have Krogstad in the Bank as long as I am manager.” (42) Shown here, Torvald is afraid of appearing less powerful in his position and being regarded as less masculine in the office. He tells her that others may take advantage of him if they perceive him to be subject to peer pressure. Just like Nora, his actions to give Krogstad his notice are purely motivated by fear. Ultimately, he sends Krogstad’s letter of notice in protest when Nora complains that he is petty and immature because he feels as though his masculinity is at stake.

      Delete
  24. The start of the second act of “Doll’s House” gives the reader more perspective on Torvald and begins to shape his character. Though prior to this, Nora has been the only character (besides the children) to act foolish and childish, Helmer is revealed to portray some of these qualities as well. We are able to begin to draw similarities between characters that appeared to be opposites in the first act.

    When Nora brings up the topic of Krogstad and her husband giving him his notice, she asks him why he wishes to fire Krogstad to the bank, which he responds to with, “But we knew each other rather well when we were younger. It was one of those rather rash friendships that prove embarrassing in later life. There’s no reason why you shouldn’t know we were once on terms of some familiarity. And he, in his tactless way, makes no attempt to hide the fact, particularly when other people are present. On the contrary, he thinks he has every right to treat me as an equal, with his ‘Torvald this’ and ‘Torvald that’ every time he opens his mouth. I find it extremely irritating, I can tell you. He would make my position at the Bank absolutely intolerable.” From this passage, it can be inferred that Helmer significantly cares about his reputation and what his co-workers-to-be will perceive him as. “Do you want me to make myself a laughing stock in the office?... Give people the idea that I am susceptible to any kind of outside pressure?” This reveals Torvald’s self-consciousness and we can tell that Torvald has a false sense of maturity. Like Nora, he is wearing a mask at times to conceal his own secrets and subconscious insecurities. This adds to the meaning “a doll’s house,” where everything is perceived to be perfect and pure; Torvald appears as confident and a typical “man of the house” when he himself actually struggles with having to feel “man enough.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I definitely agree that Torvald is also revealed as childish. It's ironic that he berates Nora for being childish and treats her as a pet, while he is not so different himself. Often times, as humans, we comply to the standard social norms. Although we don't want to ever be ridiculed for breaking them, we also ridicule others for doing so. We would rather make fun of someone else than for someone else to make fun of us. This may demonstrate the reasons behind Torvald's actions. As there are more social norms/restrictions, there are more possibilities to demean someone. Society indicates that an adult should never act childish, therefore Torvald puts on his mask, yet berates Nora for being childish. I agree with how Torvald's actions and personality creates the idea of a perfect and pure household, because he desires to perfectly comply with the social norms. However, this desire to fit into society will, in turn, hurt Nora and possibly their kids.

      Delete
  25. In the beginning of Act two Nora's and Torvald's inequality is further revealed. At this point they are discussing the matter of Krogstad employment. It was surprising to me initially that Nora referenced herself in third person.
    “Nora. If a little squirrel were to ask ever so nicely.
    Helmer. Well?
    Nora. Would you do something for it?
    Helmer. Naturally I would have to first have to know what it is” (Ibsen 41).
    The animal diction in this case comes from Nora which is the first occurrence of this. These lines seem very flirtatious, in effect the interaction seems lighthearted, but there is significance in the fact that Torvald doesn't consider her opinion. Her interactions can be taken two different ways when analyzing her character. This could be a result of the pressure put on her from both her husband and societies expectations. There is a certain point where a person will begin to think of himself negatively if there is continuous negativity from others. Another possibility would be that she is putting a mask on to make her life easy and bearable. In my opinion Nora has become both a mold of the society she lives and is partially act. What lead me to this conclusion is her continuous childlike behavior and her nonexistent reaction to being called little by not only her husband, but many other characters. If a person is to pretend to be something for an extended amount of time it is possible to turn into that person. In this conversation I think Nora's failed fight regarding Krogstad job is supposed to create suspense. The use of dramatic irony is further brought to light because Nora committed a similar crime as Krogstad, but Torvald is not aware of it. By knowing how Torvald treats and views Krogstad's actions we can assume it will reflect what would happen to Nora if her secret is revealed. It has already been revealed that Torvald thinks little of his wife's opinion and views her as a child. This could also explain her actions because if the news was circulated there is a high chance that he wouldn't believe it. He would most likely question the credibility of the information because of the little respect he has for Nora. From his perspective she would be incapable of committing forgery, so by Nora playing the part of an incompetent person she furthers his already existing views.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jeremy-
    In act 2 of A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, Nora’s secrets begin to unfold. Krogstad returns to Nora’s home to confront her about receiving a letter from Torvald about being fired from his position at the bank. Nora begs Krogstad not to tell her husband her secret, reminding Krogstad “my husband must never know” (52). Krogstad seems to be thinking of demands as his interaction with Nora continues. He asks Nora “can you pay off the balance?” (52), however later says “I want no money” (53). His plan quickly changes from getting the money that is owed to him, to then blackmailing Nora, hoping he will receive promotion after promotion at the bank until he is the boss. Krogstad talks down to Nora, calling her a “precious pampered little thing” (54). The use of alliteration of the aggressive “p” sound shows that Krogstad means business. He continues to try and scare Nora with cold diction, using words such as “ice”, cold” and “black water” (54). Krogstad’s continued attempts to scare and blackmail Nora makes me wonder how far Krogstad will go to get what he wants. When Helmer returns into the scene, and attempts to collect the mail where Krogstad has placed his letter, Nora resorts to her childish ways by demanding attention and acting like a child. It is interesting how Nora says “macaroons...lots of them” (60), when throughout the play, she hides the macaroons. This could represent her secrets becoming public, she knows this.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Blog #4

    Throughout the play up to the end of Act II, Ibsen crafts a story that build up extreme amounts of tension to illustrate the severity of social norms in the Victorian Era. One example of this is the scandalous scene between Nora and Dr. Rank. Nora teases Dr. Rank when she flirts with him with the stockings, but as soon as the situation becomes serious and Dr. Rank confesses his love for her, she backs off, but with much regret. She wavers between staying with her husband, meaning that she would stay unhappy but also complying with social norms, versus being with Dr. Rank, which would leave her happy, yet may face the consequences of breaking social restrictions. She ends up choosing to stay with Torvald because breaking social restrictions may cause her entire life to fall apart. The sexual tension and stressful situation illustrates the emotions that Nora endure on a daily basis in order to balance her happiness and compliance with social norms.
    Tension as a result of societal restrictions continue to occur, such as during Nora’s conversation with Mrs. Linde. Nora suggests,
    “Nora. You see something miraculous is going to happen.
    Mrs. Linde. Something miraculous?
    Nora. Yes, a miracle. But something so terrible as well, Kristine-- oh, it must never happen, not for anything.” (II.56)

    In this scene, Nora hints to her own suicide if Torvald were to find out about the loan. It demonstrates her extreme fear of her secrets being exposed because they don’t comply to the social restrictions of a woman. At the same time, without Torvald, she would never be able to survive in the world because of her gender. These tense situations demonstrate the strictness of societal norms/restrictions in the Victorian Era, allowing the readers to relate to Nora’s emotions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tensions have grown very high at this point in the play. I agree with you that this is blatantly stated when Nora says what she would do if Trovald were to find out. It is interesting that she has confided in people about what she has illegally done, but would go to that extent if he found out. This pressure from both the social norms and the fear of Trovald finding out has potential to break Nora down eventually.

      Delete
    2. I agree that there are a lot of tensions at this point in the play. I also find it interesting that the play will be coming to an end after just one more act. I thought that more would happen during the play. I feel like the end will feel somewhat incomplete, but I am not sure. I thought it was really interesting how Nora and Dr. Rank were flirting. When Dr. Rank’s character was first introduced, I did not think that he liked Nora. He hid his feelings well until Act Two when he finally tells Nora how he feels. I am not sure whether or not Nora knew the whole time about Dr. Rank’s feelings about her. This is because she seemed surprised when he told her, but when she was talking to Mrs. Linde, she did not seem too surprised by the idea that he might like her. I think she just wanted to ignore his feelings so she could use him to intervene in her situation with Krogstad. I think it is sad how much Nora has to sneak around her husband.

      Delete
  28. At the end of Act two there is a scene with Nora dancing after Dr. Ranks confession to Nora of his feelings for her. Once again the stage directions in this part show great importance.
    Ibsen writes, ¨[Rank sits down at the piano and plays. Nora dances more and more widely. Helmer stands by the stove giving her repeated directions as she dances; she does not seem to hear them. Her hair comes undone and falls about her shoulders; she pays no attention and goes on dancing. Mrs. Linde enters.]¨ (II.59).
    There is a lot of symbolism within these stage directions pertaining to Nora's defiance of the Victorian era's social norms, even if it is just for a moment. Her hair coming undone represents this moment as Rank plays the piano and she ignores Helmer´s directions. There is also another occurrence of animal diction when Nora is described as dancing wildly. The interesting part is that Rank is playing the piano, this can be seen as her life if it were with him. Even if this is not probable and would further her difficulties she feels joy from pondering it. When Mrs. Linde comes in, reality returns, the moment is gone and she falls back to pertaining to Helmers wishes. Helmer then expresses his dismay and tells Nora that she has forgotten everything he had taught her, as if she were a child. This reveals his authority over her because even in a topic that represents freedom and expression he still has control over her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really do like the idea that in this moment, Nora is defying the Victorian era norms. I think we can take it one step further; this whole time, Nora has gone on about this big secret she has. Only the audience has a complete understanding of the things she has done. I feel like this moment is her revealing this secret to everybody (not literally though). This crazed dancing could be all the pent up stress, fear, and anxiety that she has accumulated over the loan and repaying it. Her ignoring Helmer's instructions is her going ahead and getting the loan anyway, without her father or husbands consent. She keeps dancing and dancing, just like she kept working and working to repay her loan. Suddenly Mrs. Linde enters (just like the way she appeared at the beginning of the play), and Nora stops, signifying that Krogstad will no longer take the money and has given Helmer the letter; anything she does now is useless, only delaying the inevitable. At this moment, she is completely vulnerable, and has shared her secret for all to see.
      I don't know, I thought it was kinda cool.

      Delete
  29. I think that Henrik Ibsen really opens the character of Nora as well as the nature of humanity in Act Two of A Doll’s House. It is natural that all people want what is good for themselves. I definitely believe that this is not always bad. In fact, it is usually good, as it is what keeps species alive. But in A Doll’s House, Nora takes this self favor way too far in Act Two. Nora does only what is good for herself, no matter what the consequences are for her future. She continues to lie and cheat her way into whatever situation she gets herself into. Some examples simply being hiding macaroons from her husband when asked, to faking, forging, and lying about her father’s signature.
    Another example is when she flirts with Dr. Rank so she can ask him a favor. She hits him lightly with stockings, which would have been seen as very scandalous considering the time period. I think she wanted to ask him to intervene in the situation between her and Krogstad so she would not get into trouble for her forgery. I believe this truly exemplifies the Victorian society. A large amount of that society emphasized on self-appearance and self-worth, which can easily be shown through Nora, even if she does use lying/cheating to get her way. I believe readers will see this trend of lying and deceit continues throughout the play, and that Nora will eventually suffer from the actions she took. I think that this creates a theme for A Doll’s House that Ibsen wants to convey: that fraud is never the right path for life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although I agree that it is human nature for people to want what is good for themselves, I don't believe that Nora's actions necessarily benefit herself. When considering the plot as a whole, we see that Nora lies about the secret and conceals it from Torvald. However, society during the Victorian Era suggests that women should not be the ones to provide. More specifically, women shouldn't have the ability to take out loans. Nora, on the other hand, does take out a loan to help her husband survive. This action is a benefit to her entire family. She chooses to conceal this secret from Torvald because it would maintain his and their family's honor. Nora is willing to keep this secret for the rest of her life, given that Torvald isn't embarrassed that he wasn't able to provide for the family. From this point of view, I believe that Nora is incredibly selfless. She is willing to be ridiculed as a child or a pet as long as Torvald's honor is maintained.

      Delete
    2. Never have I read a word in “A Doll’s House” and found Nora to be selfless. I strongly believe that every action she makes is selfish, even if it’s unconscious. The loan that Nora got from Krogstad to “help her husband survive” has no foundation as to how it would help her husband survive. For all we know, she could have just wanted to go shopping or swimming on the beach. It’s also not necessarily like she kept the secret. Nora has quite a big mouth and spilled the “secret” to Mrs. Linde almost immediately after she saw her again for the first time in a decade or so -- and she didn’t even recognize her when Nora first saw her. There was no need to Nora to share her secret if she had done it selflessly, but because she decided to tell someone, it’s as if Nora wanted validation and proud recognition for her actions. She wanted to be the one who saved her husband and she loved having that title, even if she, Krogstad, and Mrs. Linde were the only ones to know so. As for her willingness to be ridiculed and treated like an animal, I don’t feel like Nora is necessarily willing as opposed to her just fulfilling the role of a stereotypical Victorian Age wife. She acts strangely childish all of the time, regardless of whether or not her husband is around.

      Delete
  30. Torvald is not a very good husband. I think we all know this to some degree, but what really hit it home for me was at the end of Act II. Nora is flustered and scared, as Krogstad has put the letter in the letterbox. Dr. Rank picks up on her anxiousness, and brings it up to Torvald, saying “I suppose there is nothing- she is not expecting anything?”(69% on kindle). And this isn’t some random question; she has just danced the Tarantella wildly, in a very unladylike manner. She mentions that she is dancing so crazily because her life depends on it. But when Dr. Rank asks Torvald this, Torvald responds, “Far from it, dear fellow; it is simply nothing more that this childish nervousness I was telling you of”(69%). In comparison to Rank, who earlier confessed his absolute love to Nora a few pages ago, Torvald seems ignorant and heartless. His utter disregard of how Nora feels and acts is an example of what a poor husband he is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you on the fact that it’s very obvious that Torvald isn’t a great husband to Nora. One example that came to my mind when I thought of that was the few lines that were specifically talking about the letter. It was obvious in the way that Nora was all frantic and jittery when it was mentioned that she was nervous about the letter being opened yet Torvald kind of pushes the limits of her nervousness and keeps prying into why she’s nervous. Also instead of just trusting Nora and not opening the letter he gives in to her demands just enough that she’s put at ease for the night but he’s not totally giving in to her by saying that he’ll leave the letters alone for tonight but he’ll end up opening them tomorrow. I think this shows the disregard he has for Nora and her feelings.

      - Komal Raman

      Delete
  31. One of the things that came to my mind when reading the end of act two and the little bit of act three that our group got to was Mrs. Linde’s role in this play. When she’s first introduced, Ibsen makes it seem as if her and Nora hadn’t seen each other in years. When her and Nora first meet, it’s implied that Nora doesn’t recognize her at first because of how long it’s been. When they catch up they also talk about things that would have happened over a long period of time showing that they haven’t even talked in a long time. This is interesting to me because of how close Nora and Mrs. Linde seem now. They seem to be very close friends now, Nora has spilled all her secrets to Mrs. Linde and she’s doing favors for her and things of that sort. It makes me suspicious of Mrs. Linde’s character and if she has ulterior motives for coming back into Nora’s life. This is also just another example of Nora’s naivety because of how fast she spills her secrets to somebody that she doesn’t know very well. Another thing it reveals to us about Nora is that she’s probably very lonely in her marriage. This can be seen in the fact that her only other friend seems to be Dr. Rank and it can also be seen in the way that she interacts with her children. It can be said that she acts more friendly with her kids rather than motherly and this can show how she has no one else to be herself around since her husband isn’t very close to her and he seems to be very judgemental. Since she seems to have no other close friends, a new one coming into her life gives her the chance to dump all her secrets on, since similarly to a child, she likes to have a confidant.

    - Komal Raman

    ReplyDelete
  32. Act Two Blog #2

    Near the end of Act Two, Nora begins to act wildly and is seemingly out of control as she practices her dance with Torvald. This emphasizes the childish nature that has been prevalent in Nora’s actions and dialogue all throughout Act One and Act Two. In this specific scene, Nora has truly let loose, shown literally when her hair falls loose and drapes around her shoulder. In consideration of the time period, undone hair equivocates to an improper woman, so this event occurring around men (gasp!) is shocking. This scene also depicts the omnipresent control that Torvald attempts to have over Nora, seen when he says, “Not so fast! Not so fast!”, in which Nora responds with, “I can’t help it”, to which Helmer says, “Not so wild, Nora!”, then Nora claims, “This is how it has to be”, and Helmer finally stops playing the piano and declares, “No, no, that won’t do at all” (58). This further highlights the childish aspect of Nora’s personality, as Helmer shouts demands at Nora, as a father would command his child. Again, this places emphasis on the power Helmer had over Nora, and how wives in general during the Victorian Age were expected to obey their husbands.

    Nora had always acted childish and immature throughout the play, but it seems as if more is going wrong, she continues to act more and more juvenile and sophomoric. She bluntly disobeys her husband’s orders, flirts with other men, and cannot keep a secret, even if her life depended on it. Her actions and behaviour reflect the youthful and unsophisticated traits. Henrik Ibsen may be conveying the madness that women experience from the total control from their husbands, the lack of enjoyable tasks to spend their free time, and a lack of liberties in general. While it has not been told why Nora acts so childish, her actions may be linked to the oppressive societal norms of the Victorian Age.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your analysis of this passage. Nora overemphasizes her immature personality through her frenzied dancing and spinning. I thought that it was interesting how her undone and unkempt hair proved an allusion to her secrets, specifically her scandalous conversation earlier with Dr. Rank. It seems that the more secrets she holds, the more undone she becomes in both her actions and appearance. Something I thought was interesting was how Nora did not seem to have a typical reaction to being chastised by her husband. She does not seem particularly hurt or offended by his words and impatience, instead whirling and spinning faster and more frantically than before. Does this reflect her careless and puerile personality? Or does this demonstrate how she does not take him seriously and does not believe him to be threatening?

      Delete
  33. Nora uses the metaphor of herself as a bird to mimic the way her husband treats her in order to get what she wants. While insisting that Krogstad keep his position at the bank, Nora uses Helmer’s phrases such as “little squirrel” and “pretty little sky-lark” to portray her request as sweet and innocent in hopes of Torvald being soft-hearted towards her and compliant to her demands. “If a little squirrel were to ask ever so nicely…? / Would you do something for it? / Please, if only you would let it have it’s way, and do what it wants, it’d scamper about and do all sorts of marvellous tricks. / And the pretty little sky-lark would sing all day long…” (II, 45). Ibsen’s use of soft diction gives Nora a soothing tone in order to persuade her husband. Much more differently than her usual independent personality who seeks to be “like a man”, Nora mimics Helmer’s usual nicknames of her, characterizing her as his pet and giving him a false sense of power and dominance. By bending to his will, she avoids a threatening appearance and soothes his ego. This comparison to a skylark displays bird-like imagery and symbolizes Nora being locked in a cage of Helmer and the Victorian era’s norms, where women were commonly belittled.

    Similar to the common phrase that “flight is freedom”, Nora will never able to exercise true freedom in making her own decisions because of her constant need to receive approval and attention from others. Due to male superiority in the Victorian age, women were not able to make their own decisions nor have control of their own lives. In “A Doll’s House”, Torvald has a high amount of control (though some false) over his wife, characterizing her as his pet songbird in a gilded cage. Ibsen’s use of soft diction and animal imagery is used in the characterization of Nora by alluding to the role of women and their obligation to address and respect their male counterparts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeremy-

      I agree with your analysis of this section of A Dolls House. I find it interesting that you say Torvald has a lot of control over Nora. It seems that Nora does her own thing behind Torvald's back consistently, which one could argue shows that Torvald has no control over Nora. Nora defies social norms and borrows money, she disobeys Torvalds' requests and eats macaroons, and lies throughout the play, however, textually, the idea that Torvald does control his wife can be seen.

      Delete
  34. Jeremy-

    In act 3 of A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen, Nora finally takes control of her own life. At the beginning of the play, Nora does not get the attention she wants as a wife or mother, however whenever she acts as a child, or “doll”, she is finally able to get Torvald’s attention. In the final act of the play, her secrets are revealed, and she becomes her individual self. The symbol of a black cross can be seen as a way of foreshadowing Nora and Torvald’s impending doomed relationship. Torvald says “there’s a black cross above his name...as if he were announcing his own death” (74). This is ironic because Torvald jokes about Rank’s way of announcing his death, however right after this is said, the death of Torvald and Nora’s relationship is to come. Nora finally takes control of her life when she says, “my duty is to myself” (82). This is very surprising, because the responsibility of a woman of that time was to take care of her children and be a housewife. It is finally at the moment that Nora threatens to leave, that Torvald recognizes Nora as “a wife and mother” (82). Before this, Torvald would only pay attention to Nora if she acted childish. It is very interesting that Nora decides to leave Torvald this late in the play. Nora seems to have conflicting emotions throughout the entire play on whether to obey or disobey Torvald, however she always obeys him until this point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was also surprised at Nora’s decision to leave so suddenly especially because she didn't even want to say goodbye to her children. A possible reason it was so sudden is because she had all that built up anger from her past interactions with Torvald, but it took her scandal to be able to look at what her life had become. It is also interesting how Torvald only pays attention to Nora when she is acting childish because he want to feel dominant, but this is so extreme that it is the cause of her leaving him and her disobedience.

      Delete
    2. Your analysis is very interesting; I had never considered the effect of the black cross to that extent. Perhaps Dr. Rank's situation also made Nora realize that life is truly precious and that she is only given one? With this realization, she decides that she needs to face reality with Torvald and earn a place in the world through her own efforts, instead of being dragged around by people such as Torvald or her father. Although it may be important to maintain honor, it's more important to find happiness and truthfully, be selfish in order to do so. When Nora confronts Torvald, she indicates that she is going to focus her life more on herself, rather than protecting others. I believe that through the death of Dr. Rank, she discovered that her own true happiness is the most important goal in her life.

      Delete
  35. Blog #5

    In the final act of “A Doll’s House,” Ibsen reveals the ending of the play, which directly correlates with foreshadowing from the title. The title, “A Doll’s House,” suggests that everything is appears to be perfect in their family, each person playing their own assigned role. However, in real life, a family is never perfect. This false appearance of Nora’s family suggests that, eventually, they will have to return to reality.
    Throughout the entire play, Nora takes on a false personality in order to hide the secret and also to play the role of a perfect wife that society and Torvald expects her to be. She goes to great lengths to conceal her secrets, even allowing others to view her as childish despite her true intentions to help Torvald. This amount of effort is extremely tiring, leading her to consider a life filled with truth and happiness. This is shown through her flirtatious scene with Dr. Rank. She suggests that Dr. Rank is someone that she would enjoy spending time with, but she soon regrets her flirtatious behavior because of societal norms. Society would look down on her if she had an affair with Dr. Rank when she’s married to Torvald. In Act III, Nora finally decides to face reality, leave Torvald, and live life for herself when she says,
    “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… It’s your fault that I’ve never made anything of my life.” (III.80)
    In this scene, Nora confronts Torvald on his way of treating Nora as a doll. She has to be prim and proper and obey Torvald’s each and every command. This is a great reference to the title of the play, but is also represents Nora breaking free from this doll’s house. This doll’s house that Ibsen refers to is only one representation of many cases of inequality. Due to the social norms of the Victorian Era, it is believed that males should dominate and females obey. Ibsen wrote this play as a tribute to all women who felt trapped during the time period and encouraged them to find the power within themselves and break free from the social norms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Firstly, I love your connection to the title, as you phrased it really well!

      Secondly, I want to further your point about the flirtatious scene between Dr. Rank and Nora. I felt as if Nora had already known -- or at least had a feeling -- that Dr. Rank was in love with her. The scene where Nora playfully hits him with the stockings is quite flirtatious and overly sexual for that time period, but I felt as if Nora did that in order to exhibit the little power that she had over him. She used her feminine nature to gain the upper hand in their relationship. Although Nora does follow her stereotype, as women are often seen as the seductive ones as compared with men, she does so in order to gain something herself. Almost immediately after the flirtatious scene, Nora begins to ask Torvald for a favor. Because of the quick change in the nature of the interaction, I feel like this hints towards how Nora was already clued in on Torvalds feelings for her, and because of her knowledge, she used it to her own advantage in order to get what she wanted.

      Delete
    2. I really like your interpretation of Ibsen’s play. I agree with your interpretation of the title. I thought it was really interesting how the title gained a whole different meaning at the end of the play. Nora’s position of being a doll for her father and then a doll for Torvald is what the title was referring to the whole time. What do you think is the purpose of the scene with Nora and her children? She treats them like dolls and plays with them that way too. What do you think this says about her relationship with her children and her relationship with her husband? I thought it was really sad how Nora had to hide who she was throughout the whole play. Even though she seems really selfish throughout the whole play, she was somewhat trapped by her role as a mother and wife. I thought it was even sadder how she really believed Torvald would sacrifice himself for her because she must have been really disappointed when she realized how unhappy she was in her marriage.

      Delete
  36. Act three of A Doll’s House concludes the play with a very abrupt ending where Nora leaves her dreadful life with Torvald. Once Nora defies the rules guiding her old life with Torvald, Torvald who is also a product of society says she is out of her mind and he forbids her from going. Only moments later when he actually sees that she is threatening to leave does he react to what would happen to their appearance. In this era a proper appearance, even if it was false, was valued excessively. Ibsen writes, “And leave your home, your husband and your children? Don't you care what people will say?” (III.53). As Nora continues to try to express her ambitions to find her own opinions he calls her a child and states that she doesn't know anything about the society that they live in. It is evident that Nora is trying to relay her feelings to him gently with the use of diction contrasted to the harsh diction Torvald uses. The fact is that Nora does know society's expectations because she has been abiding by them all her life. Nora confesses that she doesn't love him anymore, but I question if she ever really loved him. This is possible because most for most of her life she has been pretending to be something she isn't. I think that if you play a part a lot you can start to become the person that was originally fake. This is probably true with whatever feelings she had for him because she isn't aware of herself and her opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Blog #5

    An interesting inclusion in A Doll’s House is the alternate ending, as Henrik Ibsen himself referred to it as a “barbaric outrage”. The immense pressure which Ibsen was under to write an alternate ending reflected the Victorian Age ideals, where women were to be submissive and display deference towards their husbands. On the other hand, Ibsen’s reluctance to conform demonstrates the impact that he desired the play to have. Ibsen wanted to portray how women should stand up for themselves and have the same rights as men. In a time like the Victorian Age, it’s likely that Ibsen’s views were not agreed upon by the majority of the population, so it makes sense for an alternate ending to be demanded.

    Overall, the alternate ending truly undermines the purpose and theme of the play. A Doll’s House has social purpose and presents a theme of women struggling to become more independent from their husbands and how it is beneficial. By having an alternate ending where Nora once again succumbs to Torvald completely alters the theme of the play, making it seem as if a woman’s duty is to keep her family together. Prior to the ending of the play, Nora acts determined and fierce when leaving her husband, talking seriously with him for the first time. She has truly begun to gain independence and her mind is clear, as she is beginning to form her own opinions and morals, rather than clinging onto Torvald’s. The original ending enhances the theme as Nora genuinely leaves her husband and is finally going on her own path, while the alternate ending completely undercuts the theme, portraying Nora to be weak and unable to do things for herself. In the alternate ending, Nora fulfills the wife and mother stereotype of the Victorian Age, as being a mother and a wife comes first and foremost. It makes sense for Ibsen to consider the alternate ending as a “barbaric outrage” as it does not match the ideals and message that he had intended for A Doll’s House to portray.

    ReplyDelete
  38. In “A Doll’s House,” Henrik Ibsen uses a form of realism in his play that he helped popularize to the world. Realism is the accurate representation of a person, place, or situation, based on how it actually happened. Ibsen looks at gender roles through this lense. When reading this play, many people recognize that Ibsen stands up for women and their rights by describing what would have been a realistic situation in this age. He shows how caged in Nora is by her marriage, and her secrets, and then in the end shows her freeing herself from the marriage, which was a very scandalous and unacceptable thing during the Victorian Era. The very last scene of this play ends dramatically with Nora literally walking out on her and Torvald’s marriage.
    “Nora: That communion between us shall be a marriage. Good-bye. [She goes out by the hall door.]
    Helmer: [Sinks into a chair by the door with his face in his hands.] Nora! Nora! [He looks round and rises.] Empty. She is gone. [A hope springs up in him.] Ah! The miracle of miracles-?! [From below is heard the reverberation of a heavy door closing.]”
    This last line of the play leaves the reader off on a question that Ibsen attempts to pose to the audience. Was this marriage just as restraining to Torvald as it was to Nora? Base on this line, we gather that at first he is worried and distressed by Nora’s sudden exit both physically, and mentally, from their marriage. Then after pondering it for a few seconds, he realizes that he too is free from their unhealthy marriage, where there were many secrets and lies, and tensions ran high. I think that this was an attempt for Henrik Ibsen to not only show the audience what kind of role women had, and their lack of rights during this time period, but to also show that the men felt equally restrained by the things that held women back during this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought it was interesting how you analyzed Torvald's side of the marriage. I agree with your analysis of the concept that men relied on marriage in the Victorian era as well. In the last scene at Nora's final stand, it's easy to see how stressed and anxious Torvald is due to the uncoupling. His reputation, as well as his children (though he seems to care little about them) are at stake, and though Nora seemed to contribute little to the relationship, he is desperate to cling onto her. In this time period, marriages were much more legal and social affairs. People married early, not often for love, and typically stayed together for the rest of their relatively short lives. Marriage was more of a business affair and partnership than a passionate lifestyle. Husband and wife were more social characters and presentations to the public and it was socially frowned upon to have a divorce, which was seen as a messy, unkempt process.

      Delete
  39. In the third and final act of “A Doll’s House”, the distant dehumanization of women reoccurs when Nora tells her husband that all she is and has been is a doll and play-thing. 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 between Nora and a doll displays how women dehumanized and characterized as a fragile object not to be taken too seriously during the Victorian era. Women were referred to by silly and demeaning pet names to justify mistreatment and gender inequality. We see this earlier and more frequently in the play as well, when Torvald compares Nora to various kinds of birds, such as ‘sparrow’ or a little singing ‘sky-lark’. As Mrs. Linde and Nora stated throughout the play, there was a high amount of gender inequality in the Victorian era, where women has minimal to none social and legal power. They were forbidden to borrowing money without the consent of their husbands and were pushed to remain in the home and tend to the children. Additionally, women were encouraged to take up feminine, dainty hobbies such as embroidery. Torvald even makes a statement about Mrs. Linde and how she should take up a more graceful hobby: “You should embroider instead, you know…. So much prettier, Watch! You hold the embroidery like this in the left hand, and then you take the needle in the right hand, like this, and you describe a long, graceful curve. Isn’t that right?” (III, 68).

    Another interesting idea that Ibsen states is the children being dolls. Children play a pivotal role in “A Doll’s House” in the prior acts and although stationary and uncharacterized for the entirety of the play, seem to be crucial devices to advance the plot. Despite being their mother and doting on them in the first act, Nora is seldom involved in their lives, instead urging 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. In the first act, she gets on her hands and knees and plays little games with the children, thinking them to be childish. Similarly, Torvald calls her his little pet names and dotes on her. Immediately after Act 1, Nora withdraws from Torvald, but she also withdraws from the children. Both relationships are very secretive and superficial. Both Nora and the children symbolize toy dolls under the control of the owner of the doll house.

    ReplyDelete