After reading the first thirteen pages of “Doll’s House,” I must say that I enjoyed it a lot more I initially thought I would. When I first found out that we were reading “Doll’s House,” I thought it would follow the same depressing mood that the rest of the second semester works do, but so far, it is delightfully upbeat! With this thought, I started to consider the importance of image, either from the image that I had of this play when I first found out about it, or to the image that Nora tries to hard to uphold: That of a child. From her mannerisms to her verbal replies, we are able to see the child she tries so hard to portray, and how the people surrounding her only fuel that image. Nora’s mannerisms often reflect that of a child, which is seen more often when she is talking to Helmer more so than anyone else. Helmer, who treats her as one would a child, is often the second person in the conversation where Nora’s mannerisms most resemble a child. For instance, when Nora is talking about the presents that she bought for Christmas, she replies with “No, Torvald, you mustn’t see that till tonight!” (Page 3). She acts as a child, and the stage direction calls for this line to be “shrieked,” almost as a child would on Christmas morning. In addition that she, Nora shows another childlike mannerism when she lies to Helmer about not buying or eating any sweets. This most resembles a child whose parent found them doing something that they should not be doing, such as eating candy before dinner, or staying up at night. Nora often uses childlike diction, with words such as “pooh,” and “teeny-weeny” to describe adult situations. While the common assumption is that Nora is in her late twenties due to her three children and the average age at the time of marriage, she still acts and speaks like a child. This supports the idea that Nora is playing her part in acting as someone much younger than she, as in the end of all things, the importance of a woman and a child at the time was more similar than that of a woman and man. While Nora does a wonderful job of keeping character, we see that the people who surround her only treat her as even more of a child. On several occasions throughout the thirteen pages that I read, Helmer insists on calling her pet names, often adding “little” before the animal. This can be seen when he calls her “little sky-lark,” “little squirrel,” and “little spendthrift” (Page 1, 2, and 3, respectively. By constantly adding “little” to her pet name, Helmer takes on the role akin to a father figure to Nora instead of a husband, chiding her often for her spending and the use of her time. With this,it seems almost as if Helmer is forcing the role of a child upon Nora and creating the persona that she needs to be, which relates to the title of “Doll’s House,” as Nora is always forced to act as her husband desires.
I agree, I also think that there is immense significance in Nora’s positive responses to Helmer’s constant dehumanization and degradation. Having finished the book though, I don’t think it’s likely that Nora is playing a part, at least not entirely. Examples to support this can be found early in the play though, the distinctions between financially autonomous and dependent women are made clear in the first act in the differences in the names of the two female characters, Nora Helmer and Christine Linde, the former called by belittling terms and her first name and the latter referred to as Mrs. Linde, formally (but still disrespectfully as ‘Linde’ is likely the name of her deceased husband and not her own) and Christine in private talks between herself and Nora. Mrs. Linde is not referred to in such blatantly degrading terms as Nora is and she has shown herself to be a working, independent woman capable of her own thoughts and opinions, she is in some ways a foil to Nora. I think this shows that, like the play seems to suggest in a much broader sense, that a person’s traits are learned and that Nora has the potential to raise herself up beyond the stifling, male-dominated environment she has spent her life in and grow into a strong, independent woman.
Being new to the Southridge community, I am excited to begin reading and discussing "A Doll's House" with my fellow classmates. Having never experienced this type of assignment, I'm a little bit hesitant and unsure how this should go, so I will try my best. I have never read "A Doll's House", but after reading the stage directions I was intrigued by how proper everything was. It made me sit back and ponder the significance of the household decor. Nora appears to have a child-like character, since she is only referred to as Nora, while others are referred to as a Mr. or Mrs. I feel as though Nora is not well respected. When she speaks, her vocabulary is found to be lacking. All this may explain why she chooses to buy a dollhouse and porcelain doll for her daughter, as this purchase may actually be a window into her own life. Torvald Helmer is somewhat selfish and feels the need to control what goes on in his household. He doesn't care much for his children and treats his wife, Nora, as though she is a child. For example, one time after Nora eats a macaroon, he attempts to coax a confession out of her. He belittles her and treats her like a child, caring for her just as he cares for his children. He also coaches her on how to manage the money he gives to her and what her diet should consist of. Finally, in his efforts to control his wife's daily activities, he completely disregards her efforts to design Christmas ornaments instead of spending time with him.
Hello, Cassie! It's so nice to have you in our class! I don't think I've had the chance to meet you yet, but I look forward to seeing you in class :). After each of our posts, we usually go back and comment on the post of another student, based on how we feel about their arguments. I particularly like your point about how Nora buys a doll house and a doll for her daughter! I did not notice that while reading, but I agree with those being indicative of more than simply objects, and those toys are another way for the reader to see into Nora's current role in the household. Nora is, essentially,the same as the doll that she bought for her daughter, a beautiful toy for someone to play with and then leave behind, much like Helmer acts with Nora. In addition to that, I believe the doll house acts like the home which is described in the stage directors on the first page, because doll houses are known to have cheap furniture and are usually scarcely furbished, just as described in the stage directions.
This is an interesting idea, when I first heard the title, I got excited because I thought we would be able to look into the idea that we’re all really dolls being controlled by some giants in the sky, similar to Simulation theory. When I was like 10, I remember having this really meta thought that I was really just a doll being controlled by some kind of weird sky-giant, and that essentially meant that all my actions were predetermined and there was no such thing as free will. What was I saying again? I don’t really remember. But to change topics slightly, I feel as though this idea of a controlling puppeteer can have a very interesting mirror in this play, Nora being the puppet and her controllers being Victorian Era sexism focused through Helmer and the other men in her life.
I’d like to preface this by saying that I’ve already read the entire play, and writing this is very difficult, trying to tiptoe around spoilers, I’ve done so successfully, but additionally, everything I’ve written is a bit stilted and awkward. Oops. The part of Act I that stood out most to me was the characterization of Nora by way of mention of her father (on the fourth page of my book, but I don’t think that anyone else has my copy, so…). The reason this interested me is because it is the only notable time the play points out a non-gender related cause of Nora’s inability to save money. Before, and after this point in the novel, Nora is referred to in dehumanizing terms by Helmer, being called ‘squirrel’, ‘lark’, or ‘skylark’, and even ‘it’ in a couple of translated versions, and when showing her ‘spendthrift’ qualities and lack of knowledge surrounding money and business, Helmer remarks “That is like a woman!” (Ibsen 2). All of this points to the very clear association of femininity with lack of general knowledge as well as inability to handle financial autonomy, something held as truth in the Victorian Era. Bringing up Nora’s father as a person similarly bad with money may seem to weaken this theme, but the fact that he is a man and is seen as a major source of her character shows another common attitude of the time, an underpinning belief that women are rightfully lesser than and subservient to men. This shows another aspect of the dramatic separations of gender roles in the Victorian Era, the conceptualization of women as innately incomplete as people, as less than a man. Helmer (to Nora): You are an odd little soul. Very like your father. You will always find a new way of wheedling money out of me, and as soon as you have got it it seems to melt in your hands. You never know where it has gone. Still, one must take you as you are. It is in the blood; for indeed it is true that you can inherit these things, Nora. This quote introduces an interesting idea and theme (which may or may not be significant in the rest of the play…I don’t know…) of the play, that children are malleable by their early circumstances and influences. This brings up an interesting new lens through which to look at the actions of the characters, it gives a new weight and importance to the actions and expressed beliefs of parents like Nora and Torvald and allows the reader to better place themselves in the shoes of a person with a cultural background of the Victorian Era.
Furthermore, the characterization of Nora as childish, suggests that she is similarly malleable and that she has the potential to grow beyond her inabilities to stand alone, financially, socially, and emotionally. This can be generalized into a statement about the uselessness of gender roles in Victorian society by Ibsen, he frames them as something stifling and destructive to be transcended .
Blog #1: From the very first page of the play, Ibsen uses characterization to develop several motifs and themes: the motifs of secrecy, lying, evasion, and the theme of using and hiding knowledge to manipulate people, to play on their curiosity, and to condescend them. Nora’s first line is, “Hide the Christmas tree away carefully,” and one of her first stage directions are, “she walks stealthily across and listens at her husband’s door,” (Ibsen 1). Ibsen’s use of secretive diction in Nora’s speech and actions suggests that Nora is the Abigail/ Daisy/ Curly’s wife/ Bianca of the play - she is hiding something from her husband under the guise of an ignorant, childish wife. Ibsen, as well as the other writers, all use this archetypical manipulative female character to create conflict as a form of mockery and satire. Ibsen characterizes Torvald as gullible, pompous, and even stingy, coming out of his study saying, “‘Bought,’ did you say?” (2). With her neediness and pity-seeking, Nora fits the desired personality of a fawning and dependant Wife, and builds Torvald’s feeling of self-importance and usefulness as a Man, all to further her own needs of getting money. Through these characters, Ibsen introduces the motif of secrecy and foreshadows conflict when the secret is revealed - we predict that Nora was/is a prostitute.
Act I I don’t know if any of you are familiar with the documentary “Miss Representation”, but I spent my morning watching it and so I feel compelled to draw parallels between the Victorian era and modern American culture before getting into what compelled me about what we read in class because, well, feminism. “Miss Representation” is all about how the media influences our youth. Because men dominate almost all aspects of the media, including movie directing, advertising, news casting/producing, etc, both young men and women are exposed to an idealized world created by men. This leads to young women trying to focus their lives on what appeals to men since the media’s portrayal of what a women should be and should look like is determined by men. What does this have to do with “A Dolls’ House”? During the Victorian era, men were very much in control. As we discussed in class, the things that are important to men of social standing are money and power, including power over women (because if a man can’t control his wife, what can he control, amiright?). The result of this ideal men are striving for was the objectification of women. They were no longer human beings with thoughts, emotions, and potential; they were childbearers and trophies who needed men to operate. And, unfortunately, the reinforcement of this standard came from education, which was dominated by men. In school, young girls were taught how to be perfect examples of domestication. Similarly, girls who didn’t attend school were given a residential “governess” to learn the same domestic duties. Women that were considered role models were chosen by men in charge to teach young girls so they knew what a woman should look like. In the Victorian era, education was the driving force behind this incredibly sexist society that didn’t allow women to be their own people, the same way the media in our society promotes sexist content that discourages women from being anything more that someone men want to look at. This idea of gender roles is immediately identified in Act I of “A Doll’s House” in terms of both men and women. For example, Helmer uses pet names such as “little squirrel” and “songbird” to describe his wife, Nora, and those terms dehumanize her, showing the second class standing held by women. Additionally, Nora and Helmer do not have an equal partnership, as seen in the quote, “Certainly; that is to say, if you really kept the money I gave you, and really spent it on something for yourself” where it is clear that Helmer is in charge of the money, and because money was equated to power, he has the power (Act 1, Page 3). Additionally, before I fall asleep, I want to talk for a moment about Nora’s bizarre story. We, as a class, seemed very convinced that her elaborate story was all made up, and I don’t doubt that. However, I am intrigued by the possible reasons WHY she would chose to say those things. The most plausible conclusion I drew was that Nora wanted to feel justified in her portrayed happiness to Kristina because Kristina is an independent woman. For example, after talking about how Kristina no longer has to work to support her mother and brothers, Nora says, “How free your life must feel!” as if she is jealous that Kristina doesn’t have to rely on anyone, or be relied on, the way Nora has to rely on her husband and is relied on by her kids (which was characteristic of the family structures at the time). Therefore, the story must have been created to make Nora look as if she had a purpose because she raised all the money for the trip to Europe that saved her husband’s life. Ok, that’s all. See everyone tomorrow :)
I just had another thought (imagine that!). From a self aware perspective, if you will, this play is centered around Nora. Nora is our protagonist. I think that for Victorian era rhetoric, this is, in itself, very impressive. A story about a woman shows that they are not just one dimensional, because you can't write a story about a one dimensional character; no one would want to watch that play (I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but come one). Therefore, my initial grasp on Ibsen is that he has feminist intentions. Ok, goodnight for real this time.
Reading the first couple of pages of A Doll’s House really gave a lot away with the characters and the situations they are in. Even if you are just reading between the lines, you can tell what Nora is after or what she thinks is the most important in life, which is money. Throughout these first few pages, Nora speaks a lot with the other characters, Helmer and Mrs. Linde. You can very much tell that Nora is the main character of this play because she is almost always in the scenes with her opinion. Nora alone has a very interesting persona about her. She always seems to be talking about herself even when the people around her are going through rough times. For example Mrs. Linde visits Nora and tells Nora about how her husband has died and she still hasn’t found anyone. Mrs. Linde is very sad about it, yet Nora still finds a way to bring her life up and how her life is going. Nora asks Ms. Linde if she remarried or had children and all of her answers are no and then she goes on to brag about how her husband, Helmer, has just been given a promotion at the bank as a manager. This also kind of tells us about her personality and how she can act like a child in situations that are meant to be serious. Especially when Mrs. Linde is trying to be very serious and trying to look for comfort in a friend. Another give away that shows Nora acts like a child and is treated like a child is that she goes by her first name, Nora, and not by her last name or by miss like Mrs. Linde, Helmer, or Dr. Rank. It is like she doesn’t have the right to be called like that and that she is still just a immature women in this house, this seemingly perfect house that seems to be too perfect and could possibly be hiding secrets that are too dangerous and ugly to show to friends and the public.
Blog #1 Like many others have already noted, right off the bat "A Doll's House" introduces motifs of deception and condescension. Helmer, Nora's husband, often treats his wife as more of a pet than a human being; he refers to her as "my little songbird," "my squirrel," and even as his "pretty little pet." In the Victorian Era this kind of relationship between husband and wife, although backwards in today's culture, was more or less the norm. What's more surprising is how condescending Nora and her old friend Kristine are towards each other. When Nora brings up the fact that Kristine has been widowed, she treats the situation more like a child got a bruise on their knee; "Poor Kristine, you're a widow now, of course...oh, you poor thing..." Nora treats Kristine much like how her husband treats her. Everyone up until this point in the story has had a role in their relationships that they've been forced to maintain. Helmer treats his wife Nora like a pet, and in turn Nora treats her friend Kristine like a child: neither of those relationships have equal footing. In literature an author will often introduce important concepts early, these two relationships may foreshadows the ones to follow in the coming chapters; perhaps their is no equality when it comes to friendship or matrimony. One should watch for a relationship between two people who treat each other as equals, because that will be one to keep an eye on.
On the second day of reading “Doll’s House” in our groups in class, my group finally got to a respectable part in the first act (though we still have a long while to go to finish). Now that we’ve read more than the first couple of pages’ worth of surface characterization of Nora, we can now understand that Nora is a multi-leveled character, she is being very clearly manipulated and controlled by her husband, Torvald. But, seemingly to cope with this stifling domination, she turns around and manipulates and controls her children, whom she refers to as ‘dolls’. Once the background of her suppression by Torvald and its roots in Victorian Era sexism has been established, her secretly held pride in claiming some financial independence (and declaring that “it was like being a man”) sets a precedent for her true nature being more shapeless and restless than the rigid gender roles of the time would have her be. Her relationship with her kids is bizarrely one-sided (none of her children speak, as per Victorian expectations of children), and her hyperactive mannerisms are all the more amplified. The way she talks about her children reveals her to be not only coerced- as she is by Torvald- but also a coercer, in any way possible for her restricted position in society. This reveals the essentially unnatural and impossible job of forcing people into societal gender roles. Along with this, but kind of unrelatedly, is something I noticed a little earlier in my first read-through of the play, that Mrs. Linde and Nora seem complete opposites of each other, like foils. This became apparent to me looking at the contrasting mannerisms of the two characters, Nora is hyperactive, constantly manic and frazzled, whereas Mrs. Linde seems burnt out and physically depressed. It’s also shown in the two characters’ financial standing, independent contrasted with dependent, but both do still bear the same basic societal burdens coming with being a woman in the Victorian Era, the difference is how total domination has pushed Nora to express herself fully but concurrently intensely secretively.
The other thing that peaked my interest was Rank’s response to Mrs. Linde: Linde: Still I think the sick are those who most need taking care of. Rank: [shrugging his shoulders] Yes, there you are. That is the sentiment that is turning society into a sick house. … Like… What? Seriously? I don’t think I can express how I feel about this without cursing a lot, I’m interested in other opinions. What do you think?
After reading through Act 1, I notice a dramatic change of character in Nora. Whenever she was around her husband, Torvald, she resorted to childish antics, obviously brought on by the manipulation and control of her husband. As we have discussed before, Torvald is somewhat of a control freak. He makes all decisions for his wife regarding what she buys and what she eats. The doll house and the doll imitate the life of a Victorian era household. The Helmer's house is set up with simplistic furniture and decor and Nora is the puppet. Once Torvald leaves, Nora's character makes a complete 180. When she speaks to others it is as though she is commanding that an action be done just as she asked. Her children, including the maid, are Nora's doll's; she has absolute control over their every move. Nora's outlet for escaping Torvald's endless reign of control is controlling the lives of her children. The children obey Nora, similar to the way Nora follows her husband's instructions. In this scene, Nora becomes a child herself, playing with her children and treating them like tiny china doll's. Because she is dominated by power almost every day of her life, the interpretation that Nora bought a doll house and and small doll for her daughter expose her own troubles. After reading her conversation with Mrs. Linde, I became aware of the many "holes" in Nora's story. Why would she lie to a woman who she hasn't seen in 10 years? What surprised me the most was the heated conversation between Nora and Dr. Rank. I was unsure how to react to this because Nora's vocabulary greatly expanded and she seemed less of a child and more mature and sophisticated.
I agree 100% that Nora is like Torvald’s puppet or doll and I find it so interesting that he controls her in what she eats and what she buys almost as if she is his doll or action figure, what the boys prefer to call the dolls they play with. The fact that when Torvald leaves the room Nora treats everyone else around her like her own puppet or doll. For example, her children are human beings, yet she plays with them as if they are her own collection of dolls that she can do whatever she wants with them. She is treating the people around her like the way she is being treated. In a way it is immature and childish and I think that is why she gives off this goofy, childish behavior. She is acting like a pure child in situations that are more on the serious side. It is also kind of wrong in a way because our parents told us that we should treat others how we want to be treated and I feel Nora acting this way and doing certain things is a cry for help and that she wants to freed from whatever/whoever is holding her down.
As we read on into Act One we get further and further into the life revolving around Nora and her life and the secrets that she hides behind each door. As my group started where we left off we realized a couple of things that didn’t stand out that much from where we left off. A couple of things especially about Nora started to reveal themselves to us. Nora starts to act more and more like a child in the scene where her, Mrs. Linde, and Dr. Rank are all in the living room chatting before Dr. Rank headed out. Nora says, “Something I’d love to say in front of Torvald.” and Dr. Rank asks”The why can’t you?” and Nora says, “No, I daren’t. It’s not very nice.” she then proceeds to say, “I would simply love to say: ‘Damn’. (I. 20). She says this word as if it is the worst thing to say around these older adults. Helmer walks in shortly after this and asks why she is so jumpy. It is almost like she is afraid to say this word around Helmer because he has so much control over her and it would not be good if she said that in front of him, because just like a child and their parents, if they said a bad word, they would immediately get punished for saying such a terrible word. Another thing that I noticed about Nora’s innocence, right after the men left the house and Mrs. Linde left along with them, was that she acted like a child around her very own children and she was playing with them almost like they were her own toys or dolls that she could continuously play with and she could still act young. It stood out to me and it seemed unusual for a mother to act this way with her children and the reason she probably acts this way is because of a certain secret that she keeps telling Mrs. Linde about but won’t actually reveal the mystery. As Nora is playing with her children, one of the men comes back to the house, Krogstad. He talks to her as if he has something on her that nobody else knows about. She seems confused and frightened throughout the conversation that he had found out one of her many secrets. For example, she uses dialogue like, “...what are you doing here?” and “What do you want?” (I. 23.). This gives off the persona that she knows what kind of dirt Krogstad has on her and she just wants to get it over with and wants to know how he is going to use it to blackmail her. Nora can act very innocent but I feel also has a stronger tone to her, even though she acts like a child 80% of the time.
I definitely agree with your points! I think that to some degree, Nora is a hybrid of two characters, because she seems to act different around different individuals. In front of her husband, she acts like a child, laughing and lying to him about the sweets, much like a child would to avoid getting in trouble. In front of Krogstad, though, there is a significant shift in her character, with an edge of seriousness replacing her usual merry disposition. I believe that Nora is more than capable of living her life without her husband based on her qualities of keeping household finances and her serious approach to different matters, but I believe that her husband has so much control over her that those positive qualities and seriousness are repressed until she can take charge into her own hands. This dual approach to her own life is something that I think we can all relate to, seeing as most of us can agree that our tone, posture, and even word choice changes based on the company which we keep. For instance, if I am giving a presentation, my voice tends to get quieter, higher, and slightly more pleasant to the ear, while my regular voice does not represent any of those things. Talking to friends calls for a simplified vocabulary, while talking to adults may lead you to use words that may seem more interesting or impressive. In this way, we all act a little bit like Nora does, the solitary difference being that for us, this process is situational, while for Nora, this constant shift between one persona and the next is her life.
I think there has been a lot of discussion about Nora’s character in this blog group so far, so I think that for today’s post, I’d like to talk about Krogstad. While we do not know much about the character of Krogstad, we do know that he is not necessarily a very pleasant man, which is shown by the fact that he casually strolls into the Helmer home when no one lets him in, as well as by the description provided by Dr. Rank, “A person called Krogstad- nobody you would know. He’s rotten to the core” (Act I, page 18). While usually, the phrase “nobody you would know” would have more of a negative connotation with me because it sounds as if Dr. Rank is saying that Nora cannot know anyone outside of the circle of female friends that she may have, in this line I do not believe that to be the case. By saying “nobody you would know,” Dr. Rank gives us insight into how poor Krogstad’s reputation truly is. If he is truly so vile a character, Rank is implying that he is considered to be so low on the social scale that no one even remotely respectable would try to associate with him, which then begs the question: If he is considered to be so terrible, how did Nora find him and ask for a loan from him specifically? While Krogstad works at the bank with Torvald, it seems as if Krogstad is too low on the social scale to be considered to be a friend of the household. We learned back from the scintillating powerpoint on Victorian manners how if an individual did not abide by the rules of society, they would be shunned, and would be seen as the lowest rank. This seems to be in line with the description and general emotion behind the character of Krogstad, as he is shown to be too crude and of such poor rank to be in any way associated to Nora. In addition to that, when Krogstad enters her home with permission, Nora mentions that she “is not afraid anymore” (Act I, page 25), which implies that at a certain point in the past, she feared him, which once again strengthens the mystery as to why Nora would go to Krogstad of all people to beg for money.
What do you think about the way he, and other characters, were introduced? Krogstad was introduced as a nobody, which does have a negative connotation as you mentioned, but this is the only face value introduction I've seen. Nora was introduced as happy-go-lucky, with Ibsen writing, "Enter Nora, humming a tune and in high spirits," (Act I, page 1). Helmer's first line is "Is that my little lark twittering out there?" (Act 1, Page 1) Mrs. Linde is introduced as "dejected and timid," (Act I, scene 6). None of these introductions seem consistent with who they are; they all seem very fake. This takes me back to an idea we talked about in class: even though Krogstad is an unlikable character, he may be the only one who acts according to who he is. This was very unusual during the Victorian era because they were all very shady.
Reply #1; Our group predicts that Nora has had some sort of relationship or affair with Krogstad. Nora accidently says his name without his title, showing that they’re on a first-name basis, and says to Kristine, “His marriage wasn’t a very happy one, I believe,” suggesting that she knows a bit about his personal life (Ibsen 17). When Krogstad asks to speak with her, Nora says, “Today? But it isn’t the first of the month yet…” and, “What do you want? Today I can’t possibly…” (23). Throughout their whole tense conversation, Krogstad seems to be in control because he has some knowledge - illegitimate children - that could ruin Nora’s life, and seems to be threatening her with that.
I think that Kroggy’s position and reputation would have made him the best possible person for Nora to get a loan from; He works at the bank and he’s known for being a shady character, having already broken many rules or expectations of Victorian Society, I think Nora would have been thinking that he’d be willing to break more of those rules and expectations. Kroggy seems to have broken very similar rules of conduct that Nora intended to, as it is revealed in the first act, Krogstad had been forging signatures and committing fraud for other undesirables. This follows not only that Kroggy would seem the best possible option for Nora to save her husband but also, because of her admitted fear of Kroggy originally, that Nora wasn’t always so deceptive out of her desperate straining for some freedom. It might also reveal some complexity in Nora’s naivete- if she hadn’t planned to forge her father’s signature before meeting up with Kroggy for the loan- for thinking that her misdeeds in the eyes of Victorian society- using some financial powers that she shouldn’t have without her husband- were comparable to Kroggy’s- from the way it’s talked about, it seems that Kroggy has committed multiple forgeries and associated with other undesirables in the eyes of Victorian society.
I just saw these comments, so I think I will try to answer them all in one response. I think that the way the characters were introduced was very peculiar, but I think it actually is the direct opposite of the real people hiding behind those characters. Nora, for instance, as Olivia said, is introduced as happy-go-lucky, but in Act III, we see that it is definitely not the case. The same goes for Krogstad, who is introduced as a very vile character, but when all is considered, he is simply collecting money that is owed to him, and is trying to save his job for his own life and children. I think this play is setting the audience up with the traditions that we are expecting from those times, all for the goal of shattering those expectations in the end. Nora turns out to be very unhappy in her marriage, and Krogstad isn't that bad of a guy. Helmer was introduced calling Nora different pet names, which seems to have a good connotation in theory, but in the end is revealed to be a candidate for the worst husband ever. As for the idea of the affair, I think that it is more of a issue of translation than it is a suggestion towards an affair. I know that my book was fairly straightforward, but during certain parts, Lydia's version of the book had some lines that were phrased in a much more suggestive way than mine were. So, while I do see where that idea stems from, I would suggest looking into the translations, and how they affect the overall impact of the play. Finally, in regards to Maya's point, I agree that he was the most accessible candidate to be a money lender, but he seems so unimportant in the end of Act III aside from being Kristine's love interest, that I think that my initial question was not as important as I made it out to be. It could have been any other person on the street, really, because while the initial conflict introduced in the play is Nora's forged signature, the true and underlying conflict is her being trapped in her marriage with Torvald, which has nothing to do with Krog.
Blog #2: Another motif in Act 1 is self-contradiction, shown repeatedly in Nora’s and Dr.Rank’s words and actions. When introduced to Kristine, Dr.Rank lies and says, “A name I’ve often heard mentioned in this house,” (Ibsen 18). But then when Nora introduces Kristine to Torvald, Torvald says, “Kristine…? You must forgive me, but I don’t think I know…” which clearly shows that Kristine’s name was NOT often mentioned in the house (20). When talking to Krogstad, Nora says, “Oh, I think I can say that some of us have a little influence now and again,” but when Krogstad asks Nora to use her influence on his behalf Nora says, “But, Mr.Krogstad, I have no influence.” (24-25). Krogstad, like Kristine but UNLIKE Dr.Rank and Torvald, refuses to accept Nora’s bs and says, “Haven’t you? I thought just now you said yourself…” (25). When Krogstad leaves, Helmer asks, “Anybody been?” to which Nora instantly replies, “Here? No.” (30). Helmer doubts her and asks, “That’s funny. I just saw Krogstad leave the house,” and and Nora immediately changes her answer and says, “Oh? O yes, that’s right. Krogstad was here a minute.” (30). Nora’s constant lies show her lack of trust in everyone around her, which is not surprising because she is monitored and “cross-examined” by everyone around her, showing that no one trusts her either. Ibsen’s use of the motif of self-contradiction develops the theme of acting childish to get what you want or to get out of trouble, which he shows through characterization and use of rhetorical questions in the characters’ speech.
Blog 2 We talk about our maxims, and even though they are not universally known, I found it significant that so many of these were seen throughout Act I. For example, one of the maxims writes, “It’s never just disease.” Nora’s father, husband, and doctor are all diseased, and because they are all shady people, this can be interpreted as a moral disease. The doctor even says, “That is the sentiment that is turning society into a sickhouse,” (Act I, page 15) showing that Victorian era societies are corrupt. Another of our maxims is that seasons matter. In one quote, Nora says, “And, think of it, soon the spring will come and the big blue sky!” (Act I, page 13). Spring is symbolic of rebirth, but because Nora uses childish diction when referring to the sky, it makes me think that she is a romantic, or that she is naive, for believing that life will be better then. The third maxim that struck me occurred earlier in Act 1. Nora is constantly referred to as a bird by Helmer, whether it’s a spendthrift or a lark. The maxim there is, “Flight is freedom”. Usually when a character is referred to as a bird it is because they have been freed from something, physical or, more often, emotional. However, Nora is not emotionally or physically free, so I think the significance of comparing her to a bird in this context is ironic because she is called a bird by the person who oppresses her the most, her husband.
Comment #1 I noticed Ibsen's use of our literary maxim's too! One maxim I would also say is being used here is the "when people eat together it's communion." It seems like Nora's around food pretty much all the time, whether she's secretly hiding macaroons from Torvalt, or just playing around with her stove (which she usually goes to when she's feeling stressed like right after Krog first walked in). And yet there hasn't been a single meal scene...except for when she forced Rank and Kristine to eat macaroons just so that she could have one! It seems like Ibsen is using this maxim ironically to suggest that Nora is unable to eat (have communion) with anyone unless her husband gives her his blessing. Nora being unable to have communion shows that her husband does not want her to be part of a community. So to cope with this, Nora satisfies her hunger for community by forcing it on anyone around her: like when she shoved those macaroons into Rank and Kristine's mouths, or when she opened up to her distant friend about her dangerous secret.
Blog #2 In my first blog post I talked about how Nora coped with her husband's condescending attitude by reflecting that same trait when talking to her friend Kristine. In yesterday's reading, to cope with her husband's controlling tendencies (being the sole provider of her money and monitoring what she buys and eats) she took a freakishly active role in her children's playtime. Playing with your kid is fine, but Ibsen specifically did not write any lines for the children to show that it was really her mom who was controlling what they did together; Nora also refers to her kids as her "little dolls," portraying them as inanimate objects that she can play with, as opposed to the living kids they really are. Again, Nora does this to cope with how her husband treats her--much like how Nora reflected the tendencies of her husband when talking with Kristine. Ibsen does this to blur the lines between what, or more importantly, who is really morally wrong.
Ibsen does the same thing with the use of disease. Dr Rank and Mr Helmer have both been touched my disease. These two characters are both obviously in the wrong when it comes to how they treat their peers, what's surprising however, is that Mrs. Linde is also mentioned to be afflicted with something: Dr. Rank: "Ah, a slight touch of the internal rots, eh? Mrs. Linde: "More a case of exhaustion actually" It's very very interesting that Rank uses something as sinister as "internal rots" to explain why Mrs. Linde had trouble walking up the stairs to Nora's apartment. Perhaps this off-handed comment is meant to foreshadow Linde's lack of moral character and the consequences it will have as the story progresses. Or perhaps it's just meant to characterize Rank as a pessimist...after calling society a "sickhouse" that would make sense. Whatever the case, yesterday's reading characterized Nora as more like her husband then she'd may admit; as well as introducing possible foreshadowing for Linde's character and Rank's pessimism.
Your discussion of sickness is very interesting, I hadn’t originally thought about it’s use in the play through the lens of our maxim, but I think it becomes very likely what Ibsen was intending when you look at some of Torvald’s lines (“Because such an atmosphere of lies infects and poisons the whole life of a home. Each breath the children take in such a house is full of the germs of evil”). This is an interesting idea and really shows the importance of our maxims in the kind of literature we study in IB English, we recognize our maxims as such because they are so widely utilized by authors.
Ok, so…. My group is a little behind, and we have yet to start Act II, so I’ve just read a couple of pages in the beginning, making sure to read it closely and with the same attention to delivery and context that I would had I read it aloud in my group in class. The thing that stood out to me most in the beginning of Act II were the drastic changes in setting as well as in Nora’s mannerisms and speaking parts, these changes, made apparent by the opening stage directions and the following speaking parts. Some notable examples of this are in descriptions of Nora “walking about uneasily”, screaming when she hears someone at the door, most concerningly, Nora asks “Do you think they would forget their mother if she went away altogether”, referring to herself and suggesting that she is thinking of deserting her family or killing herself (Ibsen 29-30). This makes clear Nora’s unraveling and creates a tone of greatly increased tension and stress at the prospect of Nora’s secrets coming out and potentially leading to some violent climax of her conflict with Victorian era values. The second act is a continuation of the stress ramping up from the first act, yet to be resolved, but, interestingly, the tone of increasing rapidity and agitation in such is not reflected in the stage design; The setting instead can be taken to represent the disintegration of Nora’s mental state. An interesting example of this is the Christmas tree, described as “stripped of its ornaments and with burned-down candle ands on its disheveled branches”, it brings a new possibility for what it may symbolize in the play by its reflection of Nora’s mental state (29). We’ve established in class that the Christmas tree is a symbol for the outward projection of beauty and other generally positive things, and it has been made clear by references to Nora’s dedication to making ornaments that Nora is very concerned with outward appearances, as is Victorian society generally; But by likening Nora to the Christmas tree, it also becomes clear that Nora’s projections of normalcy and respectability (in the context of Victorian society) are only that, projections, all it takes is one misstep to show that they are projections, lies.
Reply #2: Another thing that highlights Nora’s agitation is the fact that she talks to herself whenever she is distressed, and that her self-talk is full of denial and avoidance. Nora has no one to confide in, no one to comfort her, because no one understands her or relates to her. Nora tries to distract herself with, “pretty gloves, pretty gloves,” but she doesn’t seem to be able to put it out of her mind until Kristine (Ibsen 36). Kristine’s arrival in itself seems to save Nora because Nora is forced to put on her merry, childish disguise, which is what she uses to hide from her problems. Though we think of the Christmas tree and Victorian era fakeness negatively, it almost seems to help Nora, as she is able to escape from her miserable life and at least pretend to be happy without being judged for her disguise.
I agree that Nora seems stressed at the beginning of Act 2 because of Krogstad knowing about the forgery. Having her repeat her insecurities over and over again kind of gives us a tell tale about how she is worried about breaking the law, but then again I believe that she didn’t think that she was doing anything wrong. So when she finds out that what she did was wrong then she starts to worry more and more. And her distress doesn’t seem to completely disappear until Kristine comes to visit. So again she has the childish persona that shows us that she always have to be around people or she would go mentally crazy. She always has to be preoccupied with something to get her mind off of what is really going on in her life or anything that is really serious. The Christmas time also helps relieve some of the stress so that she can behave like more of a joyful person, also bringing out her childish behavior. This time allows her to hide her secrets farther under and away from everyone else in the story, including Helmer. If Helmer found out, Nora believes that it would be the end of her and her freedom.
Blog #3: A lot of our blogs and discussions are about how awful Nora is, or how none of us would want to spend time with her, and yet every single character in the play so far seems to like her, not excluding Krogstad. Nora is treated with motherly - but often patronizing - affection, almost like a family pet. Several characters use maternal and possessive but belittling diction when speaking to Nora, such as Anne Marie, who says, “My poor little Nora,” Mrs.Linde, who says, “My dear Nora,” and, of course, Torvald, who says, “My sweet little Nora,” (Ibsen 33-37). Even with her suffocating attention, “the children keep asking so nicely if they can come in and see Mummy,” and are disappointed when she doesn’t play with them (34). While none of the characters treat Nora as an equal or a friend, none of them treat her with particular dislike, as Krogstad is treated. And even though the main conflict and tension is centered around Nora, none of the characters take her seriously enough to notice, and everyone seems to have bigger things to worry about. Interestingly, though, even though Nora herself seems to be deprived of attention, several characters demand Nora’s attention and ask for her help. Isn’t it ironic that Mrs.Linde and Krogstad ask for Nora’s help but then immediately afterwards tell her how silly and foolish and childish she is, and how little she knows, and how useless she is? Mrs.Linde says, “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 life,” even though Nora has been clearly more successful at taking care of herself (or getting someone to take care of her) than Mrs.Linde (12). Krogstad, similarly, asks Nora, “to see that I keep my modest little job at the Bank,” and then shortly afterwards says, “you don’t understand much about business,” (25-26). Though we often see Nora as a pitiable, manipulative, and self-seeking liar, she is not inherently evil and doesn’t get in anyone’s way. In fact, she is very much like doll; neutral, easily influenced, and can be maneuvered by other’s hands.
I totally agree that Ms. Linde and Krogstad are belittling Nora after revealing their feelings to her. I think that people go to Nora and discuss certain matters with her because they know that she won't tell anyone about their conversations. Because Nora has the mannerisms of a child, she is somewhat incapable of adult emotions. I do believe that Nora is so consumed by her own thoughts, stuck in her own little world, just waiting for her thoughts and feelings to explode, that she pays no attention to those around her. When Nora has conversations with adults she seems uneasy and restless, like a child becoming impatient.
I agree that Nora is clearly belittled and discouraged and I think it’s interesting to bring up the idea of her childish mannerisms limiting or showing her inability to healthily express her emotions like what is expected of adults. I definitely don’t agree, though, that Nora is incapable of experiencing adult emotions, I think she is just stuck in this very childish headspace in which she was never taught or allowed to express the intense stress she’s under in a healthy way, something that really isn’t uncommon, even among so-called ‘mentally-healthy adults’ even today, the image-focused nature of the Victorian era would have further prevented healthy expression. The question is then placed on the differences between her and the typical Victorian woman, also socially conditioned for emotional repression by the same kind of stereotypes and attitudes that shame women for expressing negative emotions today. I think that Nora is really just mean to serve as hyperbole for the typical Victorian woman, to show how truly destructive gender roles are.
As we have seen, there have been many instances where Nora's character has come into question. In one scene in particular I have noticed that Nora behaves and acts differently when her husband is not present. "Hasn't a daughter the right to protect her dying father from worry and anxiety? Hasn't a wife the right to save her husband's life? I don't know much about the law, but I'm quite certain that it must say somewhere that things like that are allowed" (Ibsen ). Nora knows what she is capable of, but struggles to grasp the understanding that her actions will eventually result in a negative consequence. However, what Nora doesn't realize is that what she has done broke the law. Upon hearing that Krogstad could turn her in to her husband for fraud, Nora acknowledges that she has little understanding of Victorian law, assuming that there is some way for her to escape this. sSe makes it seem as though she was only trying to look after her father, as well as her husband; I seem to think otherwise. I understand that Nora has some difficulties understanding how a society like the one she lives in is very strict on family roles, but I do believe that part of Nora's reasonings for committing fraud is partially because she needed the excitement in her life. Nora is so strictly controlled by Torvald that she so desperately wants to control any small part of her life. For instance, when she begins playing with her children, she treats them as her own personal dolls. She undresses them and speaks to them in a controlling manner, seeming as though she wields all the power. As we are reading deeper and deeper into A Doll's House, I begin to see the different sides of Nora. I imagine her putting on a mask as she speaks to different individuals throughout the scenes. When she is with Torvald i picture her dressed like a porcelain doll, with a simple mask, hiding all of her imperfections. As the play continues, her conversations with Krogstad seem more and more intense. I believe she puts up a front when speaking with Krogstad, somewhat pretending to understand what he is speaking about. The growth of Nora's vocabulary throughout this conversation suggests that Nora's knows a little more than she would care to show off.
I definitely agree with what you wrote about Nora being simultaneously smothered by Victorian sexism and manipulative and dramatic in an effort to find some semblance of power or stimulation in her domestic confines. I also agree with your way of imagining Nora, as a porcelain doll, as well as your comparison of Nora’s children to her dolls to be controlled by her, like a little mesocosm of her surroundings, one in which she has actual power. I’m not sure, however, what you mean when you reference the growth of Nora’s vocabulary as a sign of her knowing more than she may initially reveal. I can understand that Nora’s speech, throughout her conversations with Krogboi, reflects her nervousness as it is very limited by her anxiety, but I can’t see exactly how it progresses into anything more than that. That was an overly wordy (gotta meet that word count, sorry) was of asking what you mean by those last couple of sentences.
Great post! I agree with both of your points with her vocabulary being seemingly more mature when she is talking to Krogstad than when she is talking to Torvald. I think that when it comes down to it, it's actually her tone that is creating that illusion instead of her words. While using the same words, Nora plays off her actions with Torvald by acting and talking with the tone of a child, while her discussion with Krog is where a we can see her getting more intense and seeming more like a creature to fear unlike her usual self. So, I suppose I can agree both with the idea that Nora seems more grown up when she is talking to Krog, but also with Maya's point that it's not due to the vocabulary.
At the end of Act 1 and the beginning of Act 2 is where I found things started to shift slightly, almost as if things seemed to starts to fall apart. Nora starts to talk to herself which is a bit childish in a way and starts to deny that things are happening and that things are starting to uncover themselves. For example Nora says, “Nonsense! It can’t be. It’s impossible. It must be impossible.” and, “Corrupt my children…! Poison my home? It’s not true! It could never be true!” (I. 34.) She uses diction like “Nonsense” and “Impossible” like she is almost accusing of Krogstad that what he is doing can not be done and it is almost “impossible” to actually going through with the black mail. It is the denial that intrigues me. It amazes me that she is trying to reassure herself that what she did, by forging those documents of her fathers, was not at all illegal and it was the right thing to do. Again it is something that a child would do to assure themselves that they won’t get in trouble after accidentally breaking a lamp on the bedside table. She says these things as if Torvald won’t find out or if he does, he will not believe Krogstad. Also Nora sensing someone trying to destroy her perfect little home and her perfect little family has set off some warning bells inside of her brain and she keeps repeating the same worry in a frenzy as if she is trying t0 reassure herself that nothing will be messed up and her little perfect life will go on just fine. Even in today's world, people believe that if you say things over and over again, you, yourself, will eventually start to believe it. Nora believes that if you destroy her perfect little home in any way than all of her other secrets will come rushing out and then there will be no other way of stopping this flood of secrets. But also the fact that there is worry shows us, the readers, that Nora is in fact hiding more than we could imagine and that her flawless little doll image is nothing more than a cracked old doll with dirty old red string as hair. We already knew Nora came from a tough background but what we don’t know is why her life was so rough back then. What I wonder is who truly is Nora? And why does she have so much to hide?
This weekend, I had the pleasure of being surrounded by over 100 individuals who are caring and passionate, all because of Key Club. But while surrounded by this positive energy, I realized how difficult life is without it. For Nora, her whole life is lived without any positive reinforcement, instead with her husband constantly nit-picking all of her actions until Nora is forced to ask as he wants her to. In Act II, Nora says to Kristine, "Hush! Here comes Torvald now! Look, you go and sit beside the children for the time being. Torvald can't stand the sight of mending lying about.." (Act II, page 40). While this line seems to address only Torvald's clear dislike of mending, it also holds a much more significant meaning: That Nora's own practices are only met with a negative attitude. Throughout the play, Torvald has been noted to dislike spendthrifts, mending lying about, and, surprisingly, his own children.Every time, we hear these statements come about in a negative manner, and we learn that each of these statements were shown to Nora. As I sat in the room full of positive smiles and shining faces, I could not help but think how it must feel to lack this support system. This, in itself, creates the issue of dependency, as Nora now feels dependent upon the views and acceptance of others to explain her own actions. We have discussed so far the issue of dependency through financial terms, and through gender roles, but we have never discussed a mental dependency. For so many people in the world, we remain dependent on others because we are too scared to do something that is seen to be out of the social norms. You all have probably felt this when you wear an outfit that is a bit too risky, or when you feel like that guy is totally staring at you because you look hideous today. For us, it's just an issue of comfort, but for Nora, there are more serious implications. Because of this feeling, Nora now remains dependent on her husband in many more ways than one, and even though she showed cleverness in her actions with Torvald's health, she is still nothing but the puppet dangling from her strings.
I love your analysis of the quote and I agree that Nora relies on the views and acceptance of others in society! Do you think there could be another side of her though? While she's definitely not a strong, independent female character, she does seem to be very passive aggressive and self aware in a way that allows her to manipulate others. I think she knows that she is playing the role of the doll, in a way this awareness about her situation makes Nora her own support system. I agree that this would be a very lonely life, but in a way, at least she has herself?
Hey, Olivia! Sorry for replying so late, but I do think that Nora is her own support system, as you said. Sometimes, when no one is there to support you, you just have to support yourself. Nora seems to have a great way of doing that especially with how she finally takes charge of her own life in the end of Act III. She went from being a very flat character who seems to be obsessed with macaroons to being one of my (if not first) favorite characters of all time.
Act 2, Blog 3 Today I want to talk about a quote said by Mrs. Linde to Nora: “But, my dearest Nora, how do you know anything about such things?” (Act II, page 31) To give you a little bit of context, Nora and Mrs Linde are talking about Dr. Rank’s syphilis oops I mean tuberculosis of the spine and Mrs Linde is surprised that Nora knows so much about this “disease”. The literary device I want to discuss in this quote is diction. The use of the word “dearest” is demeaning and condescending towards Nora because it is a word used to address children, and because in other situations Nora and Mrs Linde would/might be considered more or less equal, this is very intentional of Mrs Linde. The effect of treating Nora as a child can show different views of Nora based on your interpretation. One possible effect is that it shows how Nora is manipulative because she gets people to think she’s childish and innocent when she’s really not, and so the reader might look at their own manipulative behaviors. Another possible interpretation is that growing up in a misogynistic society that does not value the opinions or abilities of women has allowed Nora to be childish, and this would cause the reader to look at ways society has influenced them in their lives. The reason that I chose this quote is because I think Nora’s level of self-awareness has a dramatic impact on the interpretation of this play, as seen above. In this quote, Nora is treated as a child who can’t think, act, or learn things by herself, when clearly she can and does. Self-awareness means being conscious of what you are doing and feeling, and this doesn’t always mean that other people can tell. I think that Nora has a high level of self-awareness because of the way she interacts with Mrs Linde and Torvald is very different than the way she approached Krogstad, and when you acknowledge your behaviors you can change them around certain people to manipulate them in a certain way. Additionally, I think that because Nora has no support system, as Julia said, she is forced to rely on herself and in many cases this causes people to look inward.
Reply #3: I also think that Nora is very aware of and intentional about the way she acts. If not for the Krogstad conflict, do you think she would be happy? Do you think she minds acting childish and playing the role of a pet-like wife? Even though some of her happiness is faked, I think that she is genuinely happy when playing with her kids and dancing for Torvald. It seems like it makes her feel useful and needed, where in other situations she is utterly helpless. Everything in the play that has made her unhappy are things that she was not supposed to do - forge her dad’s signature, talk to Krogstad, spend time alone with Dr.Rank. Even though it seems like a miserable life to us today, I think Nora would have had a relatively good and happy life had she not diverted from her innocent, childish facade.
Reply #2 It seems to me as well that Nora finds a lot of pleasure in satisfying her husband and playing with her kids. It gives her a certain happiness only attainable when you make those around you happy. However, I don't think that it is those actions that make her feel needed in the house. Torvald often tells her that the things she does aren't important at all; one example of this would be the the work Nora spent on her christmas-tree decorations--Torvald told her all it served to do was bore him that whole month. I think what makes her feel needed in the family are the secrets that she keeps to herself and the knowledge that if she told Torvald, he would know how important she really is. I do not think Nora would be happy if not for Krogstad and the secret loan she took out, she would only be bored.
This kind of discussion brings up a really interesting question, similar to ones relevant to discussion of Taming of the Shrew, to what extent are the main characters hiding their true identities and simply projecting a disguise that’s more socially acceptable. Looking at the two plays through this lens, I think, draws a close link between Bianca and Nora (closer than Katherina and Nora, because of how unapologetically Katherina rails against her circumstances in the beginning of the play). Both characters hold in their shrewishness but live in disguises for their own entertainment and fulfillment, save their misbehavior until they can be safe enough to let it out, both are bored and fed up with the sexist restrictions of their respective eras. Each’s penchant for deception and manipulation is also a similarity. How do we know which actions from either are genuine and which are a front? I’m really not sure.
Blog #4: Dr.Rank: “Who else? No point in deceiving oneself. I am the most wretched of all my patients, Mrs.Helmer. The last few days I've made a careful analysis of my internal economy. Bankrupt! Within a month I shall probably be lying rotting up there in the churchyard.” (Ibsen 45).
This quote tells us a lot about Dr.Rank’s character and circumstances. Dr.Rank uses hopeless, miserable, and self-pitying diction, words like “wretched,” “bankrupt,” and “rotting,” which perhaps suggests that he was born with his disease, and was passed on to him as a baby from his father’s mistresses. When describing his body’s condition, Dr.Rank desensitizes himself by referring to it as his “internal economy,” taking out any emotional connection to his own body. This monetary allusion shows Dr.Rank’s superficial view on people, as money often symbolizes frivolousness and shallowness. This allusion may also show that wealth is defined differently by different people, and what we value is relative to the individual. Perhaps Dr.Rank is saying that his health, his body, and his life are the most valuable things to him, and if he loses his health then he is “bankrupt,” which is probably a very different definition of bankruptcy than Nora’s. It is interesting to note that only a short while before, Nora and Mrs.Linde were discussing how rich Dr.Rank is, and Nora seemed like she was about to ask him for money. I chose this quote because it characterizes Dr.Rank and brings up the motif differing definitions of wealth.
This is a very interesting interpretation of Rank’s character and agree, definitely. However, something I hadn’t noticed in my reading of Act II was how Rank referred to Nora as Mrs. Helmer. This is very interesting as it breaks a pattern that had been enforced since Nora’s first introduction, she is ‘Nora’ and only ‘Nora”, and is even referred to simply as that in how Ibsen recorded speaking parts in the script. Upon rereading my copy, I have noticed how overly formally the two address each other, Nora calls him ‘Doctor Rank’, it doesn’t make all that much sense to me at all. Why would Rank call a woman he has such a flirty and intimate relationship with by the name she shares with his best friend? What I first associated with the overly formal names was playing house, pretending to be adults, this is very much in line with Nora’s character and supports the idea that her relationships are really just constructed for her own entertainment.
Blog #3 Near the end of Act 2, Dr. Rank's passion for Nora caught me very off guard. Looking back, however, I definitely should have seen it coming. Dr. Rank is often described as being practically a member of Nora's house, one example of this is when Nora says, "he's my good friend...Dr. Rank's almost a part of the house" (Ibsen 144). Dr. Rank seems to have more of a place in the Helmers' home than their own children. These lines that specifically describe Rank as part of the house are meant to foreshadow his love for Nora, a member of the house it seems he wants to become a part of. But what I really wanted to blog about was Nora's response to Dr. Rank basically saying that he loved her. After confessing his feelings, something the two had been playing around with all night but nobody had yet explicitly described, Nora says "Oh my dear Doctor Rank that was really horrid of you...that you should go and tell me...that was absolutely unnecessary..." (Ibsen 155). This quote really connects back to the culture of the Victorian Era Doll's House takes place in; it was seen as rude to talk about anything of real seriousness. But even with Nora's culture taken into consideration, the way she dealt with Rank's admittance of love shows us that she cares far more about the drama surrounding her, than the feelings of those closest to her.
I agree with your understanding of Dr. Ranks love for Nora. And now that you mention it I can see how Dr. Rank has thoroughly involved himself in the house that the Helmers live in. I think the way Ibsen writes him in the play to be so involved with the family from the very beginning can foreshadow the fact that Dr. Rank will admit his love to Nora like a Nicholas Sparks movie. And I think that is why I was so shocked when he finally told her that she could confide in him. Because I really didn’t see that coming and I didn’t read between the lines all that much. I mean c’mon! He was always over there checking up on Torvald. I mean he has been more in the play than Nora’s children have. If that didn’t say falling in love, I don’t know what love is anymore. I agree with you in the fact that back then, during the Victorian Era, people cheated on their partners all the time but never really addressed the situation in verbal confirmation. Because that was socially unacceptable you see.
After reading through Acts 1 and 2 I noticed a slight change in Nora's behavior. She becomes agitated and frantic as her conversations begin to unravel. Throughout Act 1 Nora acts as the perfect wife, making herself out to be a porcelain doll, succumbing to Torvald's every beck and call. As we have already read in Act 1, Nora lies like a child would lie to draw attention away from a question she was asked. She may believe that lying is the only way to escape the consequences she would receive if Torvald ever found out. Because she has the mind of a child, Nora is not aware of the underlying consequences of her actions. In Act 2 many scandalous scenes made me question Nora's character a little bit. She is almost sort of leading Dr. Rank on in the stocking scene. showing off her bare ankles. However, I don't think Nora quite understands what she is doing because she still acts as a child. Nora's secrets begin to unravel, like a ball of yarn rolling across the floor. On a complete;y different note, at the end of Act 2 the stage directions tell us that Nora, Kristine (Mrs. Linde), Torvald, and Dr. Rank are all gathering at the table toe at together. I am very interested to see how all of this unfolds in Act 3. In my opinion, I think that someone is going to arrive at the home unexpectedly (Krog) and tell Torvald of everything that Nora has done, including forging a signature for a loan to save her husband. I think that in the end, because Nora is somewhat of a child, she will be excused for what she has done, but Torvald will disown her, causing Nora to commit suicide. I am interested in what you guys are predicting for Act 3.
At the end of Act 2 we find out some very interesting things and some of them blow me out of the water! I was utterly shocked when Dr. Rank confessed his love to Nora. My mind was blown because all I was imagining was Tom Hanks confessing his love to Carey Mulligan. That sent uncomfortable shivers down my spine let me tell you. What I find the most disturbing about this scene is that Nora just minutes before hand was flirting along with him teasing him and teasing him into thinking that he had a chance with her. Dr. Rank fell for it too! That is LOW Nora, not cool. Dr. Rank says, “I swore to myself you would know before I went. I’ll never have a better opportunity. Well, Nora! Now you know. And now you know too that you can confide in me as in nobody else” (Ibsen 48). I think it was at this moment that my heart broke for Tom Ha- I mean Dr. Rank. It was after this scene that Nora fetches her Maid to fetch a lamp for her, “Helene, bring the lamp in, please. Oh, my dear Dr. Rank, that really was rather horrid of you.” (Ibsen 49). I know what you're wondering, why would Nora ask her Maid to bring in a lamp from the other room? That is so random! But see here, the significance of the lamp might intrigue you more. The lamp simply signifies the light. Since this conversation was happening in the dark (or so we assume), the lamp brings brightness into the dark room, which is basically ending the conversation about Dr. Rank’s feelings. Because you can say things in the dark that you wouldn’t mutter a word in the light. At this point Nora is freaking out that Dr. Rank has fallen in love with her and she doesn’t know what to do because for once in her life, her perfect little world/doll house is falling apart with just one simple confession. And she doesn’t know how to react to it, let alone resolve it. I predict that after this confession things start to go down into a spiral and secrets start to tumble out and then people start turning on other people. Soon or later this perfect little world that Nora has created for herself will just be one giant broken mess.
Danielle, I wholeheartedly agree with your post! You described the relationship between Nora and Rank very eloquently, and I thought that your explanation for the use of the lamp in the room was spot on. I would also like to add to that point, if I may. As with the lamp, the Helmer household seems to have several household item to which each character gravitates to (or away from). For instance, whenever Nora is uncomfortable, she seems to move closer to the stove, which we have heard of, but never had witnessed it being used. For Torvald, his household "item" is his study, which he retires to when he wants to be alone (always). We also see Torvald deviating away from other household items such as mending, and, while these are not items, he also seems to stay away from the children. I think this shows the importance of those everyday objects in "A Doll's House," as no any item appears without a use. With this, I think your justification for the use of the lamp is very well explained, and fits into that theory.
“That’s exactly what gave me wrong ideas. I just can’t puzzle you out. I often used to feel you’d just as soon be with me as with Helmer” (Act II, page 50).
In Act II, what stood out to me the most is that for a second time in the play, Nora’s actions are finally catching up with her. First, it was her forgery of her father’s signature, which was understandable. But her second fault, by openly flirting with Dr. Rank, is not quite so innocent. Instead of doing something for her own survival, Nora is acting openly for her own amusement. While she does appear to be surprised by Dr. Rank’s revelation at first, her scandalous move with revealing her whole leg to Rank while showing off her new silk stockings is nothing but pure foolishness. At that point, Nora is simply fooling around with the feelings of another person, which adds to our understanding of her character. Instead of ushering him out or addressing the subject, Nora skillfully avoids it by bringing up a new topic (her silk stockings) almost as a child would, but all the while continues to tease Dr. Rank by showing her leg (which is considered to be way past scandalous at the time). While prior, I believed that Nora was simply just raised to act as a child, this scene was a turning point for me, because it was here that I realized that Nora was playing a part, and that she enjoyed living in chaos, and often forced it upon herself and her family.
I'm so glad you talked about this because this scene in the play just made me so sad. Poor Dr Rank sounds like a character out of a Nicholas Sparks book! I do have to play Devil's Advocate for Nora, however. She is trapped in loveless marriage, and she gets little to no attention from her husband, so I think she is just seeking male approval. Unfortunately, she got a lot more than she was hoping for. I think this happens in our society today, where people lacking a strong male or female role model in their life who cares about them end up seeking attention from other males or females to gain their approval. Then again, Nora, being the manipulator that she is, was also messing with the stockings to get money from Dr Rank. Ugh
After reading Act III, I feel like such a fool about my previous posts. This one, for instance, can so easily be explained by the end of Act III. My interpretation at the end of the play was that Nora was just waiting for some attention from anyone. In fact, I think what she was trying to do by showing Rank her leg was egg him on! She just had a man express how much he loves her, which we have never seen Torvald even mention, even though she brings it up quite a lot. She said in Act III that she was simply waiting for a miracle, and I think that when Rank told her that he loved her, she just wanted him to take it to the finish line, and in order to do that, she brought up the classic scandalous event. She wanted him to take action of some sort, but all Rank ended up doing was what Torvald would have done, which was to ignore her. That is why, even when Rank says that he could have been as good to her as Torvald was, Nora sees that they are two sides of the same coin, and that she will have no better a chance with Rank than she had with Torvald.
Can I just say, before I started IB English I thought that "blogging every night" meant, like, about my life and how my day was. HAHA silly me. Anyway... For my blog post today I want to talk about the scene between Nora and Helmer where Nora is begging him for the second time not to fire Krogstad. I feel as though Ibsen villanizes Helmer for refusing to fire Krogstad and not listening to Nora's pleas. However, from Helmer's point of view, Nora is not pleading for something that really effects her (especially since he doesn't know about Krog's threat). If Nora were pleading him to get a dog or take out the trash, that would understandably be a matter where we would hope Helmer would treat Nora as his equal partner and discuss with her (well, not discuss the trash. He should just do that). While Helmer IS very condescending about how he addresses Nora in this conversation, saying, "...if only this obstinate little person can get her way!" (Act II, page 35), he is justified in firing Krogstad despite his wife's objections. Ibsen uses language to villainize Helmer. For example, Helmer says, "Do you think I am going to make myself ridiculous before my whole staff, to let people think I am a man to be swayed by all sorts of outside influence?" (Act II, page 35) He sounds very egotistical and self-centered, but even today it would be unprofessional for a manager to listen to someone outside of the line of work regarding hiring decisions.
Reply #4: I agree that Ibsen seems to intentionally villainize Helmer, and it has a very profound effect on how we view Krogstad and Nora. Because Helmer is portrayed as selfish and intolerant, we empathize with Nora and Krogstad for having to deal with such a husband/boss. If we did not feel empathy towards Nora, and instead sided with Helmer, the ending of the play would not have been as powerful. We are generally wired to feel sorry for the weak, and the combination of portraying Nora and Krogstad as helpless and desperate and exaggerating Helmer’s control freakiness effectively makes us label Helmer as the “bad guy,” and root for Krogstad and Nora.
There’s just so much going on in this act, I really don’t even know where to start talking, this is the part in the play when the initial characterization and scene-setting is finished, this is now about plot, and everything’s getting so complicated and overwhelming. I think this is in large part due to the effectiveness in how Nora’s speaking parts and stage direction is written, all of her anxiety is just spilling off of the pages, it’s infectious, which is very notable and worthy of praise, I think, because she is shown to be such a flawed and manipulative character. This is one of the greatest goals of art in general, to make bridges between people, even if imagined (though we have learned that Nora was based closely off of a real person’s circumstances and actions from the questions for Act III), especially with those who we might find it hard to empathize with otherwise, and it isn’t hard to group Nora in with those kinds of unlikeable characters. To change topics a bit, the thing that I found interesting from last class’s reading is how Rank talks about himself on page 37: “”It is all up with me. And it can’t be helped… It is no use lying to one’s self. I am the most wretched of all my patients, Mrs. Helmer. Lately I have been taking stock of my internal economy . Bankrupt! Probably within a month I shall be rotting in the churchyard.” This is very interesting considering that he has already established that he thinks society is a ‘sickhouse’, which is clearly a reference to some kind of moral corruption, even if not applying our maxims to it, the language used is highly suggestive of that idea. It would seem that this quote was a confession of his excesses and flaws, but then this exchange happens on the next page: Nora: “...It is sad that all these nice things should take revenge on our bones {referring to Rank’s disease].” Rank: “Especially that they should revenge themselves on the unlucky bones of those who have not had the satisfaction of enjoying them.” This shows Rank completely avoiding culpability for his disease, syphilis, which was clearly contracted by him breaking the rules and expectations of Victorian society, by his flaws and excesses, his own sins. That Nora is so willing to participate in this self-deception is telling of Rank’s nature, that he is equally avoidant of reality and manipulative of the truth and others. This reads as social commentary, a criticism of the expectation of Victorian society pushing people to flat-out deny the reality of ‘inappropriate’ situations and simply put up the front of perfect respectability.
The most significant part of Act III is very hard to choose; Because of the nature of this play, each development in the plots and resolved character arc in this point of the play seems very sensationalistic and shocking. It’s like ahhhhh! Which is cool because I don’t typically consume all that much entertainment, books or movies or whatever, so centered on plot and being exciting or shocking or something of the sort. That being said, the thing that had me shook the most was the reveal that Krogboi and Mrs. Linde had previously been in a relationship. It gave a lot of depth to Krogstad’s character that I hadn’t expected the play to give. It was a pleasant to surprise, one that reinforces the overall ideas of the play: that everyone is equally capable and deserving of love and self-actualization (shown in how its characters denounce sexism and rigid Victorian rules as a cause of bizarre and destructive power dynamics, stress, and ignorance of reality). One of the most significant ways people are characterized in this play are in what they are called by the people around them, Nora’s sole first name has a near-infantilizing effect whereas her converse, Mrs. Linde, called only by the last name of her dead husband, shows that not only her more formal reputation because of her financial autonomy but that this only conditional and restricted because the name is not her’s but her dead husband’s. Amongst the men in the play, a last name has the weight of formality and reputation, Krogstad’s name has a lot of negative stigma attached to it. Krog being called by his first name, Nils, by Mrs. Linde, repeatedly, and Krog calling her by her first name, Christine, shows that the two have a close and equal-footed relationship and calling each other by first names is a recognition of this and and acceptance of each’s misdeeds, not simply a denial of reality. This contrasts the deception and denial Nora and Torvald’s relationship is built on, reflected in Torvald’s many dehumanizing nicknames for Nora. As for Christine and Nils, I ship it. Yep… that’s it.
I agree with your point about how we learned more about Krogstad when we found out that we was in a relationship with Kristine some time ago. I mentioned this in an earlier comment, but I thought that Ibsen did an amazing job with setting us all up for failure. That sounds pessimistic, yes, but it's also true. Everything we were taught to believe about the characters was actually the opposite of who they really are. Nora was first introduced as a child, who cannot think for herself, but turns out to be the most self-aware (woke??) person of her circle. Krogstad is introduced as some terrible guy who is pestering and threatening Nora, but we learn in the end of Act III that he is simply trying to live his life and sustain his children, and can anyone really blame him for that? Helmer puts on the act of being a loving and caring husband, but is roasted by Nora in the end for being honestly the least attentive and helpful husband anyone could ask for. I could go on for a while, but this all goes to show that Ibsen is just setting up expectations so that later, he can come along and break them down.
While preparing for the fishbowl today, I realized a few things about Nora that I never considered before. To be honest, I never really bought the whole "She acts like a foolish child because she is looking for adventure" act that people were accusing her of. I think no one can say it better than Nora herself when she told Torvald that, "For eight years, I have been patiently waiting. Because, heavens, I knew miracles didn’t happen every day. Then this devastating business started, and I became absolutely convinced the miracle would happen. All the time Krogstad’s letter lay there, it never so much as crossed my mind that you would ever submit to his conditions. I was absolutely convinced you would say to him: Tell the whole world if you’d like. And when that was done...I was absolutely sure you would come forward and take everything on yourself” (Act III, page 84). This quote from Act III shows that what many of us wrote off as childishness was actually just a call for love and attention, and is that really something that is punishable? I don't know about all of you, but I think it's reasonable to expect love and attention from those who are supposed to be alongside you for the rest of your life. Nora isn't a child; She is a woman who wants and deserves attention from a man who treats her no better than any household item. He dresses her up for the fancy ball, controls her movements and actions by teaching her the tarantella, and even restricts her in her macaroon intake. Moreover, those "childish" traits that we attribute to Nora are actually the result of her home environment. She tells Torvald at the end of Act III that he, “arranged everything to your tastes, and I acquired those same tastes. Or I pretended to…” We can tell that Nora acts like a child mostly only around her husband, because that is how he treats her, and, in an effort to appease him and give him a way to present her with such a miracle, she aligns herself to his wishes in the hope that being complacent and obedient will hasten this "miracle" that she is awaiting. We see these cues so many times throughout the play, and we seem to categorize them all into her "childishness," whereas it truly is more of a call for help. For instance, back in Act I, Nora asks Helmer for money, saying, "You could always give me money, Torvald. Only what you think you could spare. And then I could buy myself something with it later on." At that point in the play, it sound to me like Nora was begging almost as a child would when asking for funds, but in fact, Nora is doing something much, much sadder. She is asking Helmer for money, and is phrasing it in such a way that she is hoping that he will suddenly spring up and offer her all of the money in the world for her happiness, but instead, he simply calls her a spendthrift. I am sure that if I go through the play once again, more of these cues will come up, where Nora isn't looking for money or adventure, but is simply looking for genuine human connection.
Blog #5: Towards the end of Act 3, when Nora makes her decision to leave, Nora and Helmer switch roles: Helmer begs Nora to stay, whereas at the beginning of the play, Nora would beg Helmer for money. This is especially interesting because one of the main reasons for Nora leaving is feeling helpless and dependant on Torvald, and now Torvald admits that he is just as dependant on Nora for his happiness. Nora has finally realized that her freedom is worth more than anything Torvald can give her, and that “he who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security” (Taylor Chiotti cough sorry Benjamin Franklin). This switching of roles shows that all humans are equally dependant on one another and need help at one point in their lives, and, under the fragile social status shell, all of us are weak alone. Helmer tries to use his higher status by saying, “you think and talk like a stupid child,” to which Nora responds to with, “you neither think nor talk like the man I would want to share my life with,” showing that the hierarchy is simply an abstract idea that humans have imposed upon themselves: shallow, easily breakable, and yet taken too seriously by those who can use it to their advantage (Ibsen 84). Ibsen juxtaposes Nora’s newfound maturity, independence, and clarity of perception with Helmer’s sudden desperation and childishness to emphasize the often ignored interdependence between people of seemingly different social ranking.
While everybody is blogging about the end of Act 3 I am going to be talking about the beginning really. And it’s going to be a throwback to Taming of the Shrew really quickly. The relationships that are finally uncovered towards the end of this play shocked me. From Dr. Rank falling in love with Nora, to Mrs. Linde and Krogstad getting BACK together made my heart melt at all the romance that was unfolding. But I would like to point out these two relationships especially. Helmer and Nora vs. Mrs. Linde and Krogstad. The reason is because my group discussed how these two couple pairs are really… Foils of each other! Here let me explain. Helmer and Nora are not the perfect couple behind doors, I think we can all agree with that. Let me tell you why! Helmer treats Nora as if she were lower than hum, not as important to him, not EQUAL to him. Due to these relationship issues, Nora just up and leaves Helmer at the end of Act 3. This proves that equal status in a marriage is a key concept in a rewarding life with one another. On the other side of the spectrum, we have Mrs. Linde and Krogstad, who meet up with one another during the party. Mrs. Linde explains to Krogstad “I need someone to mother, and your children need a mother. We two need each other. Nils, I have faith in what, deep down, you are. With you I can face anything” (Ibsen 65). Can I also add that this statement gave me the romance chills?! And can I also add that she called him by his first name?! Ahhh! Anyways as you can see the two of them, Krogstad and Mrs. Linde, are both going through a tricky time in their life and right now they just fit together like two puzzle pieces. The reason that these two relationships are Foil’s is because one relationship doesn’t see eye to eye with each other, causing them to end the relationship by one of them walking out of their life, and the other seeing each other as equal and worthy of their love. Maybe that’s why I loved this part so much and the comparison between the two because I do love contrasting things!
After reading the first thirteen pages of “Doll’s House,” I must say that I enjoyed it a lot more I initially thought I would. When I first found out that we were reading “Doll’s House,” I thought it would follow the same depressing mood that the rest of the second semester works do, but so far, it is delightfully upbeat! With this thought, I started to consider the importance of image, either from the image that I had of this play when I first found out about it, or to the image that Nora tries to hard to uphold: That of a child. From her mannerisms to her verbal replies, we are able to see the child she tries so hard to portray, and how the people surrounding her only fuel that image.
ReplyDeleteNora’s mannerisms often reflect that of a child, which is seen more often when she is talking to Helmer more so than anyone else. Helmer, who treats her as one would a child, is often the second person in the conversation where Nora’s mannerisms most resemble a child. For instance, when Nora is talking about the presents that she bought for Christmas, she replies with “No, Torvald, you mustn’t see that till tonight!” (Page 3). She acts as a child, and the stage direction calls for this line to be “shrieked,” almost as a child would on Christmas morning. In addition that she, Nora shows another childlike mannerism when she lies to Helmer about not buying or eating any sweets. This most resembles a child whose parent found them doing something that they should not be doing, such as eating candy before dinner, or staying up at night.
Nora often uses childlike diction, with words such as “pooh,” and “teeny-weeny” to describe adult situations. While the common assumption is that Nora is in her late twenties due to her three children and the average age at the time of marriage, she still acts and speaks like a child. This supports the idea that Nora is playing her part in acting as someone much younger than she, as in the end of all things, the importance of a woman and a child at the time was more similar than that of a woman and man.
While Nora does a wonderful job of keeping character, we see that the people who surround her only treat her as even more of a child. On several occasions throughout the thirteen pages that I read, Helmer insists on calling her pet names, often adding “little” before the animal. This can be seen when he calls her “little sky-lark,” “little squirrel,” and “little spendthrift” (Page 1, 2, and 3, respectively. By constantly adding “little” to her pet name, Helmer takes on the role akin to a father figure to Nora instead of a husband, chiding her often for her spending and the use of her time. With this,it seems almost as if Helmer is forcing the role of a child upon Nora and creating the persona that she needs to be, which relates to the title of “Doll’s House,” as Nora is always forced to act as her husband desires.
I agree, I also think that there is immense significance in Nora’s positive responses to Helmer’s constant dehumanization and degradation. Having finished the book though, I don’t think it’s likely that Nora is playing a part, at least not entirely. Examples to support this can be found early in the play though, the distinctions between financially autonomous and dependent women are made clear in the first act in the differences in the names of the two female characters, Nora Helmer and Christine Linde, the former called by belittling terms and her first name and the latter referred to as Mrs. Linde, formally (but still disrespectfully as ‘Linde’ is likely the name of her deceased husband and not her own) and Christine in private talks between herself and Nora. Mrs. Linde is not referred to in such blatantly degrading terms as Nora is and she has shown herself to be a working, independent woman capable of her own thoughts and opinions, she is in some ways a foil to Nora. I think this shows that, like the play seems to suggest in a much broader sense, that a person’s traits are learned and that Nora has the potential to raise herself up beyond the stifling, male-dominated environment she has spent her life in and grow into a strong, independent woman.
DeleteBeing new to the Southridge community, I am excited to begin reading and discussing "A Doll's House" with my fellow classmates. Having never experienced this type of assignment, I'm a little bit hesitant and unsure how this should go, so I will try my best. I have never read "A Doll's House", but after reading the stage directions I was intrigued by how proper everything was. It made me sit back and ponder the significance of the household decor.
ReplyDeleteNora appears to have a child-like character, since she is only referred to as Nora, while others are referred to as a Mr. or Mrs. I feel as though Nora is not well respected. When she speaks, her vocabulary is found to be lacking. All this may explain why she chooses to buy a dollhouse and porcelain doll for her daughter, as this purchase may actually be a window into her own life.
Torvald Helmer is somewhat selfish and feels the need to control what goes on in his household. He doesn't care much for his children and treats his wife, Nora, as though she is a child. For example, one time after Nora eats a macaroon, he attempts to coax a confession out of her. He belittles her and treats her like a child, caring for her just as he cares for his children. He also coaches her on how to manage the money he gives to her and what her diet should consist of. Finally, in his efforts to control his wife's daily activities, he completely disregards her efforts to design Christmas ornaments instead of spending time with him.
Hello, Cassie! It's so nice to have you in our class! I don't think I've had the chance to meet you yet, but I look forward to seeing you in class :). After each of our posts, we usually go back and comment on the post of another student, based on how we feel about their arguments. I particularly like your point about how Nora buys a doll house and a doll for her daughter! I did not notice that while reading, but I agree with those being indicative of more than simply objects, and those toys are another way for the reader to see into Nora's current role in the household. Nora is, essentially,the same as the doll that she bought for her daughter, a beautiful toy for someone to play with and then leave behind, much like Helmer acts with Nora. In addition to that, I believe the doll house acts like the home which is described in the stage directors on the first page, because doll houses are known to have cheap furniture and are usually scarcely furbished, just as described in the stage directions.
DeleteThis is an interesting idea, when I first heard the title, I got excited because I thought we would be able to look into the idea that we’re all really dolls being controlled by some giants in the sky, similar to Simulation theory. When I was like 10, I remember having this really meta thought that I was really just a doll being controlled by some kind of weird sky-giant, and that essentially meant that all my actions were predetermined and there was no such thing as free will. What was I saying again? I don’t really remember. But to change topics slightly, I feel as though this idea of a controlling puppeteer can have a very interesting mirror in this play, Nora being the puppet and her controllers being Victorian Era sexism focused through Helmer and the other men in her life.
DeleteI’d like to preface this by saying that I’ve already read the entire play, and writing this is very difficult, trying to tiptoe around spoilers, I’ve done so successfully, but additionally, everything I’ve written is a bit stilted and awkward. Oops.
ReplyDeleteThe part of Act I that stood out most to me was the characterization of Nora by way of mention of her father (on the fourth page of my book, but I don’t think that anyone else has my copy, so…). The reason this interested me is because it is the only notable time the play points out a non-gender related cause of Nora’s inability to save money. Before, and after this point in the novel, Nora is referred to in dehumanizing terms by Helmer, being called ‘squirrel’, ‘lark’, or ‘skylark’, and even ‘it’ in a couple of translated versions, and when showing her ‘spendthrift’ qualities and lack of knowledge surrounding money and business, Helmer remarks “That is like a woman!” (Ibsen 2). All of this points to the very clear association of femininity with lack of general knowledge as well as inability to handle financial autonomy, something held as truth in the Victorian Era. Bringing up Nora’s father as a person similarly bad with money may seem to weaken this theme, but the fact that he is a man and is seen as a major source of her character shows another common attitude of the time, an underpinning belief that women are rightfully lesser than and subservient to men. This shows another aspect of the dramatic separations of gender roles in the Victorian Era, the conceptualization of women as innately incomplete as people, as less than a man.
Helmer (to Nora): You are an odd little soul. Very like your father. You will always find a new way of wheedling money out of me, and as soon as you have got it it seems to melt in your hands. You never know where it has gone. Still, one must take you as you are. It is in the blood; for indeed it is true that you can inherit these things, Nora.
This quote introduces an interesting idea and theme (which may or may not be significant in the rest of the play…I don’t know…) of the play, that children are malleable by their early circumstances and influences. This brings up an interesting new lens through which to look at the actions of the characters, it gives a new weight and importance to the actions and expressed beliefs of parents like Nora and Torvald and allows the reader to better place themselves in the shoes of a person with a cultural background of the Victorian Era.
Furthermore, the characterization of Nora as childish, suggests that she is similarly malleable and that she has the potential to grow beyond her inabilities to stand alone, financially, socially, and emotionally. This can be generalized into a statement about the uselessness of gender roles in Victorian society by Ibsen, he frames them as something stifling and destructive to be transcended .
DeleteBlog #1:
ReplyDeleteFrom the very first page of the play, Ibsen uses characterization to develop several motifs and themes: the motifs of secrecy, lying, evasion, and the theme of using and hiding knowledge to manipulate people, to play on their curiosity, and to condescend them. Nora’s first line is, “Hide the Christmas tree away carefully,” and one of her first stage directions are, “she walks stealthily across and listens at her husband’s door,” (Ibsen 1). Ibsen’s use of secretive diction in Nora’s speech and actions suggests that Nora is the Abigail/ Daisy/ Curly’s wife/ Bianca of the play - she is hiding something from her husband under the guise of an ignorant, childish wife. Ibsen, as well as the other writers, all use this archetypical manipulative female character to create conflict as a form of mockery and satire. Ibsen characterizes Torvald as gullible, pompous, and even stingy, coming out of his study saying, “‘Bought,’ did you say?” (2). With her neediness and pity-seeking, Nora fits the desired personality of a fawning and dependant Wife, and builds Torvald’s feeling of self-importance and usefulness as a Man, all to further her own needs of getting money. Through these characters, Ibsen introduces the motif of secrecy and foreshadows conflict when the secret is revealed - we predict that Nora was/is a prostitute.
Act I
ReplyDeleteI don’t know if any of you are familiar with the documentary “Miss Representation”, but I spent my morning watching it and so I feel compelled to draw parallels between the Victorian era and modern American culture before getting into what compelled me about what we read in class because, well, feminism. “Miss Representation” is all about how the media influences our youth. Because men dominate almost all aspects of the media, including movie directing, advertising, news casting/producing, etc, both young men and women are exposed to an idealized world created by men. This leads to young women trying to focus their lives on what appeals to men since the media’s portrayal of what a women should be and should look like is determined by men. What does this have to do with “A Dolls’ House”? During the Victorian era, men were very much in control. As we discussed in class, the things that are important to men of social standing are money and power, including power over women (because if a man can’t control his wife, what can he control, amiright?). The result of this ideal men are striving for was the objectification of women. They were no longer human beings with thoughts, emotions, and potential; they were childbearers and trophies who needed men to operate. And, unfortunately, the reinforcement of this standard came from education, which was dominated by men. In school, young girls were taught how to be perfect examples of domestication. Similarly, girls who didn’t attend school were given a residential “governess” to learn the same domestic duties. Women that were considered role models were chosen by men in charge to teach young girls so they knew what a woman should look like. In the Victorian era, education was the driving force behind this incredibly sexist society that didn’t allow women to be their own people, the same way the media in our society promotes sexist content that discourages women from being anything more that someone men want to look at. This idea of gender roles is immediately identified in Act I of “A Doll’s House” in terms of both men and women. For example, Helmer uses pet names such as “little squirrel” and “songbird” to describe his wife, Nora, and those terms dehumanize her, showing the second class standing held by women. Additionally, Nora and Helmer do not have an equal partnership, as seen in the quote, “Certainly; that is to say, if you really kept the money I gave you, and really spent it on something for yourself” where it is clear that Helmer is in charge of the money, and because money was equated to power, he has the power (Act 1, Page 3).
Additionally, before I fall asleep, I want to talk for a moment about Nora’s bizarre story. We, as a class, seemed very convinced that her elaborate story was all made up, and I don’t doubt that. However, I am intrigued by the possible reasons WHY she would chose to say those things. The most plausible conclusion I drew was that Nora wanted to feel justified in her portrayed happiness to Kristina because Kristina is an independent woman. For example, after talking about how Kristina no longer has to work to support her mother and brothers, Nora says, “How free your life must feel!” as if she is jealous that Kristina doesn’t have to rely on anyone, or be relied on, the way Nora has to rely on her husband and is relied on by her kids (which was characteristic of the family structures at the time). Therefore, the story must have been created to make Nora look as if she had a purpose because she raised all the money for the trip to Europe that saved her husband’s life.
Ok, that’s all. See everyone tomorrow :)
I just had another thought (imagine that!). From a self aware perspective, if you will, this play is centered around Nora. Nora is our protagonist. I think that for Victorian era rhetoric, this is, in itself, very impressive. A story about a woman shows that they are not just one dimensional, because you can't write a story about a one dimensional character; no one would want to watch that play (I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but come one). Therefore, my initial grasp on Ibsen is that he has feminist intentions.
ReplyDeleteOk, goodnight for real this time.
On* not one
DeleteReading the first couple of pages of A Doll’s House really gave a lot away with the characters and the situations they are in. Even if you are just reading between the lines, you can tell what Nora is after or what she thinks is the most important in life, which is money. Throughout these first few pages, Nora speaks a lot with the other characters, Helmer and Mrs. Linde. You can very much tell that Nora is the main character of this play because she is almost always in the scenes with her opinion. Nora alone has a very interesting persona about her. She always seems to be talking about herself even when the people around her are going through rough times. For example Mrs. Linde visits Nora and tells Nora about how her husband has died and she still hasn’t found anyone. Mrs. Linde is very sad about it, yet Nora still finds a way to bring her life up and how her life is going. Nora asks Ms. Linde if she remarried or had children and all of her answers are no and then she goes on to brag about how her husband, Helmer, has just been given a promotion at the bank as a manager. This also kind of tells us about her personality and how she can act like a child in situations that are meant to be serious. Especially when Mrs. Linde is trying to be very serious and trying to look for comfort in a friend. Another give away that shows Nora acts like a child and is treated like a child is that she goes by her first name, Nora, and not by her last name or by miss like Mrs. Linde, Helmer, or Dr. Rank. It is like she doesn’t have the right to be called like that and that she is still just a immature women in this house, this seemingly perfect house that seems to be too perfect and could possibly be hiding secrets that are too dangerous and ugly to show to friends and the public.
ReplyDeleteBlog #1
ReplyDeleteLike many others have already noted, right off the bat "A Doll's House" introduces motifs of deception and condescension. Helmer, Nora's husband, often treats his wife as more of a pet than a human being; he refers to her as "my little songbird," "my squirrel," and even as his "pretty little pet." In the Victorian Era this kind of relationship between husband and wife, although backwards in today's culture, was more or less the norm. What's more surprising is how condescending Nora and her old friend Kristine are towards each other. When Nora brings up the fact that Kristine has been widowed, she treats the situation more like a child got a bruise on their knee; "Poor Kristine, you're a widow now, of course...oh, you poor thing..." Nora treats Kristine much like how her husband treats her. Everyone up until this point in the story has had a role in their relationships that they've been forced to maintain. Helmer treats his wife Nora like a pet, and in turn Nora treats her friend Kristine like a child: neither of those relationships have equal footing. In literature an author will often introduce important concepts early, these two relationships may foreshadows the ones to follow in the coming chapters; perhaps their is no equality when it comes to friendship or matrimony. One should watch for a relationship between two people who treat each other as equals, because that will be one to keep an eye on.
On the second day of reading “Doll’s House” in our groups in class, my group finally got to a respectable part in the first act (though we still have a long while to go to finish). Now that we’ve read more than the first couple of pages’ worth of surface characterization of Nora, we can now understand that Nora is a multi-leveled character, she is being very clearly manipulated and controlled by her husband, Torvald. But, seemingly to cope with this stifling domination, she turns around and manipulates and controls her children, whom she refers to as ‘dolls’. Once the background of her suppression by Torvald and its roots in Victorian Era sexism has been established, her secretly held pride in claiming some financial independence (and declaring that “it was like being a man”) sets a precedent for her true nature being more shapeless and restless than the rigid gender roles of the time would have her be. Her relationship with her kids is bizarrely one-sided (none of her children speak, as per Victorian expectations of children), and her hyperactive mannerisms are all the more amplified. The way she talks about her children reveals her to be not only coerced- as she is by Torvald- but also a coercer, in any way possible for her restricted position in society. This reveals the essentially unnatural and impossible job of forcing people into societal gender roles.
ReplyDeleteAlong with this, but kind of unrelatedly, is something I noticed a little earlier in my first read-through of the play, that Mrs. Linde and Nora seem complete opposites of each other, like foils. This became apparent to me looking at the contrasting mannerisms of the two characters, Nora is hyperactive, constantly manic and frazzled, whereas Mrs. Linde seems burnt out and physically depressed. It’s also shown in the two characters’ financial standing, independent contrasted with dependent, but both do still bear the same basic societal burdens coming with being a woman in the Victorian Era, the difference is how total domination has pushed Nora to express herself fully but concurrently intensely secretively.
The other thing that peaked my interest was Rank’s response to Mrs. Linde:
Linde: Still I think the sick are those who most need taking care of.
Rank: [shrugging his shoulders] Yes, there you are. That is the sentiment that is turning society into a sick house.
…
Like… What? Seriously?
I don’t think I can express how I feel about this without cursing a lot, I’m interested in other opinions. What do you think?
After reading through Act 1, I notice a dramatic change of character in Nora. Whenever she was around her husband, Torvald, she resorted to childish antics, obviously brought on by the manipulation and control of her husband. As we have discussed before, Torvald is somewhat of a control freak. He makes all decisions for his wife regarding what she buys and what she eats. The doll house and the doll imitate the life of a Victorian era household. The Helmer's house is set up with simplistic furniture and decor and Nora is the puppet.
ReplyDeleteOnce Torvald leaves, Nora's character makes a complete 180. When she speaks to others it is as though she is commanding that an action be done just as she asked. Her children, including the maid, are Nora's doll's; she has absolute control over their every move. Nora's outlet for escaping Torvald's endless reign of control is controlling the lives of her children. The children obey Nora, similar to the way Nora follows her husband's instructions. In this scene, Nora becomes a child herself, playing with her children and treating them like tiny china doll's. Because she is dominated by power almost every day of her life, the interpretation that Nora bought a doll house and and small doll for her daughter expose her own troubles.
After reading her conversation with Mrs. Linde, I became aware of the many "holes" in Nora's story. Why would she lie to a woman who she hasn't seen in 10 years? What surprised me the most was the heated conversation between Nora and Dr. Rank. I was unsure how to react to this because Nora's vocabulary greatly expanded and she seemed less of a child and more mature and sophisticated.
I agree 100% that Nora is like Torvald’s puppet or doll and I find it so interesting that he controls her in what she eats and what she buys almost as if she is his doll or action figure, what the boys prefer to call the dolls they play with. The fact that when Torvald leaves the room Nora treats everyone else around her like her own puppet or doll. For example, her children are human beings, yet she plays with them as if they are her own collection of dolls that she can do whatever she wants with them. She is treating the people around her like the way she is being treated. In a way it is immature and childish and I think that is why she gives off this goofy, childish behavior. She is acting like a pure child in situations that are more on the serious side. It is also kind of wrong in a way because our parents told us that we should treat others how we want to be treated and I feel Nora acting this way and doing certain things is a cry for help and that she wants to freed from whatever/whoever is holding her down.
DeleteAs we read on into Act One we get further and further into the life revolving around Nora and her life and the secrets that she hides behind each door. As my group started where we left off we realized a couple of things that didn’t stand out that much from where we left off. A couple of things especially about Nora started to reveal themselves to us. Nora starts to act more and more like a child in the scene where her, Mrs. Linde, and Dr. Rank are all in the living room chatting before Dr. Rank headed out. Nora says, “Something I’d love to say in front of Torvald.” and Dr. Rank asks”The why can’t you?” and Nora says, “No, I daren’t. It’s not very nice.” she then proceeds to say, “I would simply love to say: ‘Damn’. (I. 20). She says this word as if it is the worst thing to say around these older adults. Helmer walks in shortly after this and asks why she is so jumpy. It is almost like she is afraid to say this word around Helmer because he has so much control over her and it would not be good if she said that in front of him, because just like a child and their parents, if they said a bad word, they would immediately get punished for saying such a terrible word. Another thing that I noticed about Nora’s innocence, right after the men left the house and Mrs. Linde left along with them, was that she acted like a child around her very own children and she was playing with them almost like they were her own toys or dolls that she could continuously play with and she could still act young. It stood out to me and it seemed unusual for a mother to act this way with her children and the reason she probably acts this way is because of a certain secret that she keeps telling Mrs. Linde about but won’t actually reveal the mystery. As Nora is playing with her children, one of the men comes back to the house, Krogstad. He talks to her as if he has something on her that nobody else knows about. She seems confused and frightened throughout the conversation that he had found out one of her many secrets. For example, she uses dialogue like, “...what are you doing here?” and “What do you want?” (I. 23.). This gives off the persona that she knows what kind of dirt Krogstad has on her and she just wants to get it over with and wants to know how he is going to use it to blackmail her. Nora can act very innocent but I feel also has a stronger tone to her, even though she acts like a child 80% of the time.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your points! I think that to some degree, Nora is a hybrid of two characters, because she seems to act different around different individuals. In front of her husband, she acts like a child, laughing and lying to him about the sweets, much like a child would to avoid getting in trouble. In front of Krogstad, though, there is a significant shift in her character, with an edge of seriousness replacing her usual merry disposition. I believe that Nora is more than capable of living her life without her husband based on her qualities of keeping household finances and her serious approach to different matters, but I believe that her husband has so much control over her that those positive qualities and seriousness are repressed until she can take charge into her own hands. This dual approach to her own life is something that I think we can all relate to, seeing as most of us can agree that our tone, posture, and even word choice changes based on the company which we keep. For instance, if I am giving a presentation, my voice tends to get quieter, higher, and slightly more pleasant to the ear, while my regular voice does not represent any of those things. Talking to friends calls for a simplified vocabulary, while talking to adults may lead you to use words that may seem more interesting or impressive. In this way, we all act a little bit like Nora does, the solitary difference being that for us, this process is situational, while for Nora, this constant shift between one persona and the next is her life.
DeleteI think there has been a lot of discussion about Nora’s character in this blog group so far, so I think that for today’s post, I’d like to talk about Krogstad. While we do not know much about the character of Krogstad, we do know that he is not necessarily a very pleasant man, which is shown by the fact that he casually strolls into the Helmer home when no one lets him in, as well as by the description provided by Dr. Rank, “A person called Krogstad- nobody you would know. He’s rotten to the core” (Act I, page 18). While usually, the phrase “nobody you would know” would have more of a negative connotation with me because it sounds as if Dr. Rank is saying that Nora cannot know anyone outside of the circle of female friends that she may have, in this line I do not believe that to be the case. By saying “nobody you would know,” Dr. Rank gives us insight into how poor Krogstad’s reputation truly is. If he is truly so vile a character, Rank is implying that he is considered to be so low on the social scale that no one even remotely respectable would try to associate with him, which then begs the question: If he is considered to be so terrible, how did Nora find him and ask for a loan from him specifically? While Krogstad works at the bank with Torvald, it seems as if Krogstad is too low on the social scale to be considered to be a friend of the household. We learned back from the scintillating powerpoint on Victorian manners how if an individual did not abide by the rules of society, they would be shunned, and would be seen as the lowest rank. This seems to be in line with the description and general emotion behind the character of Krogstad, as he is shown to be too crude and of such poor rank to be in any way associated to Nora. In addition to that, when Krogstad enters her home with permission, Nora mentions that she “is not afraid anymore” (Act I, page 25), which implies that at a certain point in the past, she feared him, which once again strengthens the mystery as to why Nora would go to Krogstad of all people to beg for money.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about the way he, and other characters, were introduced? Krogstad was introduced as a nobody, which does have a negative connotation as you mentioned, but this is the only face value introduction I've seen. Nora was introduced as happy-go-lucky, with Ibsen writing, "Enter Nora, humming a tune and in high spirits," (Act I, page 1). Helmer's first line is "Is that my little lark twittering out there?" (Act 1, Page 1) Mrs. Linde is introduced as "dejected and timid," (Act I, scene 6). None of these introductions seem consistent with who they are; they all seem very fake. This takes me back to an idea we talked about in class: even though Krogstad is an unlikable character, he may be the only one who acts according to who he is. This was very unusual during the Victorian era because they were all very shady.
DeleteReply #1;
DeleteOur group predicts that Nora has had some sort of relationship or affair with Krogstad. Nora accidently says his name without his title, showing that they’re on a first-name basis, and says to Kristine, “His marriage wasn’t a very happy one, I believe,” suggesting that she knows a bit about his personal life (Ibsen 17). When Krogstad asks to speak with her, Nora says, “Today? But it isn’t the first of the month yet…” and, “What do you want? Today I can’t possibly…” (23). Throughout their whole tense conversation, Krogstad seems to be in control because he has some knowledge - illegitimate children - that could ruin Nora’s life, and seems to be threatening her with that.
I think that Kroggy’s position and reputation would have made him the best possible person for Nora to get a loan from; He works at the bank and he’s known for being a shady character, having already broken many rules or expectations of Victorian Society, I think Nora would have been thinking that he’d be willing to break more of those rules and expectations. Kroggy seems to have broken very similar rules of conduct that Nora intended to, as it is revealed in the first act, Krogstad had been forging signatures and committing fraud for other undesirables. This follows not only that Kroggy would seem the best possible option for Nora to save her husband but also, because of her admitted fear of Kroggy originally, that Nora wasn’t always so deceptive out of her desperate straining for some freedom. It might also reveal some complexity in Nora’s naivete- if she hadn’t planned to forge her father’s signature before meeting up with Kroggy for the loan- for thinking that her misdeeds in the eyes of Victorian society- using some financial powers that she shouldn’t have without her husband- were comparable to Kroggy’s- from the way it’s talked about, it seems that Kroggy has committed multiple forgeries and associated with other undesirables in the eyes of Victorian society.
DeleteI just saw these comments, so I think I will try to answer them all in one response. I think that the way the characters were introduced was very peculiar, but I think it actually is the direct opposite of the real people hiding behind those characters. Nora, for instance, as Olivia said, is introduced as happy-go-lucky, but in Act III, we see that it is definitely not the case. The same goes for Krogstad, who is introduced as a very vile character, but when all is considered, he is simply collecting money that is owed to him, and is trying to save his job for his own life and children. I think this play is setting the audience up with the traditions that we are expecting from those times, all for the goal of shattering those expectations in the end. Nora turns out to be very unhappy in her marriage, and Krogstad isn't that bad of a guy. Helmer was introduced calling Nora different pet names, which seems to have a good connotation in theory, but in the end is revealed to be a candidate for the worst husband ever. As for the idea of the affair, I think that it is more of a issue of translation than it is a suggestion towards an affair. I know that my book was fairly straightforward, but during certain parts, Lydia's version of the book had some lines that were phrased in a much more suggestive way than mine were. So, while I do see where that idea stems from, I would suggest looking into the translations, and how they affect the overall impact of the play. Finally, in regards to Maya's point, I agree that he was the most accessible candidate to be a money lender, but he seems so unimportant in the end of Act III aside from being Kristine's love interest, that I think that my initial question was not as important as I made it out to be. It could have been any other person on the street, really, because while the initial conflict introduced in the play is Nora's forged signature, the true and underlying conflict is her being trapped in her marriage with Torvald, which has nothing to do with Krog.
DeleteBlog #2:
ReplyDeleteAnother motif in Act 1 is self-contradiction, shown repeatedly in Nora’s and Dr.Rank’s words and actions. When introduced to Kristine, Dr.Rank lies and says, “A name I’ve often heard mentioned in this house,” (Ibsen 18). But then when Nora introduces Kristine to Torvald, Torvald says, “Kristine…? You must forgive me, but I don’t think I know…” which clearly shows that Kristine’s name was NOT often mentioned in the house (20). When talking to Krogstad, Nora says, “Oh, I think I can say that some of us have a little influence now and again,” but when Krogstad asks Nora to use her influence on his behalf Nora says, “But, Mr.Krogstad, I have no influence.” (24-25). Krogstad, like Kristine but UNLIKE Dr.Rank and Torvald, refuses to accept Nora’s bs and says, “Haven’t you? I thought just now you said yourself…” (25). When Krogstad leaves, Helmer asks, “Anybody been?” to which Nora instantly replies, “Here? No.” (30). Helmer doubts her and asks, “That’s funny. I just saw Krogstad leave the house,” and and Nora immediately changes her answer and says, “Oh? O yes, that’s right. Krogstad was here a minute.” (30). Nora’s constant lies show her lack of trust in everyone around her, which is not surprising because she is monitored and “cross-examined” by everyone around her, showing that no one trusts her either. Ibsen’s use of the motif of self-contradiction develops the theme of acting childish to get what you want or to get out of trouble, which he shows through characterization and use of rhetorical questions in the characters’ speech.
Blog 2
ReplyDeleteWe talk about our maxims, and even though they are not universally known, I found it significant that so many of these were seen throughout Act I. For example, one of the maxims writes, “It’s never just disease.” Nora’s father, husband, and doctor are all diseased, and because they are all shady people, this can be interpreted as a moral disease. The doctor even says, “That is the sentiment that is turning society into a sickhouse,” (Act I, page 15) showing that Victorian era societies are corrupt. Another of our maxims is that seasons matter. In one quote, Nora says, “And, think of it, soon the spring will come and the big blue sky!” (Act I, page 13). Spring is symbolic of rebirth, but because Nora uses childish diction when referring to the sky, it makes me think that she is a romantic, or that she is naive, for believing that life will be better then. The third maxim that struck me occurred earlier in Act 1. Nora is constantly referred to as a bird by Helmer, whether it’s a spendthrift or a lark. The maxim there is, “Flight is freedom”. Usually when a character is referred to as a bird it is because they have been freed from something, physical or, more often, emotional. However, Nora is not emotionally or physically free, so I think the significance of comparing her to a bird in this context is ironic because she is called a bird by the person who oppresses her the most, her husband.
Comment #1
DeleteI noticed Ibsen's use of our literary maxim's too! One maxim I would also say is being used here is the "when people eat together it's communion." It seems like Nora's around food pretty much all the time, whether she's secretly hiding macaroons from Torvalt, or just playing around with her stove (which she usually goes to when she's feeling stressed like right after Krog first walked in). And yet there hasn't been a single meal scene...except for when she forced Rank and Kristine to eat macaroons just so that she could have one! It seems like Ibsen is using this maxim ironically to suggest that Nora is unable to eat (have communion) with anyone unless her husband gives her his blessing. Nora being unable to have communion shows that her husband does not want her to be part of a community. So to cope with this, Nora satisfies her hunger for community by forcing it on anyone around her: like when she shoved those macaroons into Rank and Kristine's mouths, or when she opened up to her distant friend about her dangerous secret.
Blog #2
ReplyDeleteIn my first blog post I talked about how Nora coped with her husband's condescending attitude by reflecting that same trait when talking to her friend Kristine. In yesterday's reading, to cope with her husband's controlling tendencies (being the sole provider of her money and monitoring what she buys and eats) she took a freakishly active role in her children's playtime. Playing with your kid is fine, but Ibsen specifically did not write any lines for the children to show that it was really her mom who was controlling what they did together; Nora also refers to her kids as her "little dolls," portraying them as inanimate objects that she can play with, as opposed to the living kids they really are. Again, Nora does this to cope with how her husband treats her--much like how Nora reflected the tendencies of her husband when talking with Kristine. Ibsen does this to blur the lines between what, or more importantly, who is really morally wrong.
Ibsen does the same thing with the use of disease. Dr Rank and Mr Helmer have both been touched my disease. These two characters are both obviously in the wrong when it comes to how they treat their peers, what's surprising however, is that Mrs. Linde is also mentioned to be afflicted with something:
Dr. Rank: "Ah, a slight touch of the internal rots, eh?
Mrs. Linde: "More a case of exhaustion actually"
It's very very interesting that Rank uses something as sinister as "internal rots" to explain why Mrs. Linde had trouble walking up the stairs to Nora's apartment. Perhaps this off-handed comment is meant to foreshadow Linde's lack of moral character and the consequences it will have as the story progresses. Or perhaps it's just meant to characterize Rank as a pessimist...after calling society a "sickhouse" that would make sense. Whatever the case, yesterday's reading characterized Nora as more like her husband then she'd may admit; as well as introducing possible foreshadowing for Linde's character and Rank's pessimism.
Your discussion of sickness is very interesting, I hadn’t originally thought about it’s use in the play through the lens of our maxim, but I think it becomes very likely what Ibsen was intending when you look at some of Torvald’s lines (“Because such an atmosphere of lies infects and poisons the whole life of a home. Each breath the children take in such a house is full of the germs of evil”). This is an interesting idea and really shows the importance of our maxims in the kind of literature we study in IB English, we recognize our maxims as such because they are so widely utilized by authors.
DeleteOk, so…. My group is a little behind, and we have yet to start Act II, so I’ve just read a couple of pages in the beginning, making sure to read it closely and with the same attention to delivery and context that I would had I read it aloud in my group in class.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that stood out to me most in the beginning of Act II were the drastic changes in setting as well as in Nora’s mannerisms and speaking parts, these changes, made apparent by the opening stage directions and the following speaking parts. Some notable examples of this are in descriptions of Nora “walking about uneasily”, screaming when she hears someone at the door, most concerningly, Nora asks “Do you think they would forget their mother if she went away altogether”, referring to herself and suggesting that she is thinking of deserting her family or killing herself (Ibsen 29-30). This makes clear Nora’s unraveling and creates a tone of greatly increased tension and stress at the prospect of Nora’s secrets coming out and potentially leading to some violent climax of her conflict with Victorian era values. The second act is a continuation of the stress ramping up from the first act, yet to be resolved, but, interestingly, the tone of increasing rapidity and agitation in such is not reflected in the stage design; The setting instead can be taken to represent the disintegration of Nora’s mental state. An interesting example of this is the Christmas tree, described as “stripped of its ornaments and with burned-down candle ands on its disheveled branches”, it brings a new possibility for what it may symbolize in the play by its reflection of Nora’s mental state (29). We’ve established in class that the Christmas tree is a symbol for the outward projection of beauty and other generally positive things, and it has been made clear by references to Nora’s dedication to making ornaments that Nora is very concerned with outward appearances, as is Victorian society generally; But by likening Nora to the Christmas tree, it also becomes clear that Nora’s projections of normalcy and respectability (in the context of Victorian society) are only that, projections, all it takes is one misstep to show that they are projections, lies.
Reply #2:
DeleteAnother thing that highlights Nora’s agitation is the fact that she talks to herself whenever she is distressed, and that her self-talk is full of denial and avoidance. Nora has no one to confide in, no one to comfort her, because no one understands her or relates to her. Nora tries to distract herself with, “pretty gloves, pretty gloves,” but she doesn’t seem to be able to put it out of her mind until Kristine (Ibsen 36). Kristine’s arrival in itself seems to save Nora because Nora is forced to put on her merry, childish disguise, which is what she uses to hide from her problems. Though we think of the Christmas tree and Victorian era fakeness negatively, it almost seems to help Nora, as she is able to escape from her miserable life and at least pretend to be happy without being judged for her disguise.
I agree that Nora seems stressed at the beginning of Act 2 because of Krogstad knowing about the forgery. Having her repeat her insecurities over and over again kind of gives us a tell tale about how she is worried about breaking the law, but then again I believe that she didn’t think that she was doing anything wrong. So when she finds out that what she did was wrong then she starts to worry more and more. And her distress doesn’t seem to completely disappear until Kristine comes to visit. So again she has the childish persona that shows us that she always have to be around people or she would go mentally crazy. She always has to be preoccupied with something to get her mind off of what is really going on in her life or anything that is really serious. The Christmas time also helps relieve some of the stress so that she can behave like more of a joyful person, also bringing out her childish behavior. This time allows her to hide her secrets farther under and away from everyone else in the story, including Helmer. If Helmer found out, Nora believes that it would be the end of her and her freedom.
DeleteBlog #3:
ReplyDeleteA lot of our blogs and discussions are about how awful Nora is, or how none of us would want to spend time with her, and yet every single character in the play so far seems to like her, not excluding Krogstad. Nora is treated with motherly - but often patronizing - affection, almost like a family pet. Several characters use maternal and possessive but belittling diction when speaking to Nora, such as Anne Marie, who says, “My poor little Nora,” Mrs.Linde, who says, “My dear Nora,” and, of course, Torvald, who says, “My sweet little Nora,” (Ibsen 33-37). Even with her suffocating attention, “the children keep asking so nicely if they can come in and see Mummy,” and are disappointed when she doesn’t play with them (34). While none of the characters treat Nora as an equal or a friend, none of them treat her with particular dislike, as Krogstad is treated. And even though the main conflict and tension is centered around Nora, none of the characters take her seriously enough to notice, and everyone seems to have bigger things to worry about. Interestingly, though, even though Nora herself seems to be deprived of attention, several characters demand Nora’s attention and ask for her help. Isn’t it ironic that Mrs.Linde and Krogstad ask for Nora’s help but then immediately afterwards tell her how silly and foolish and childish she is, and how little she knows, and how useless she is? Mrs.Linde says, “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 life,” even though Nora has been clearly more successful at taking care of herself (or getting someone to take care of her) than Mrs.Linde (12). Krogstad, similarly, asks Nora, “to see that I keep my modest little job at the Bank,” and then shortly afterwards says, “you don’t understand much about business,” (25-26). Though we often see Nora as a pitiable, manipulative, and self-seeking liar, she is not inherently evil and doesn’t get in anyone’s way. In fact, she is very much like doll; neutral, easily influenced, and can be maneuvered by other’s hands.
I totally agree that Ms. Linde and Krogstad are belittling Nora after revealing their feelings to her. I think that people go to Nora and discuss certain matters with her because they know that she won't tell anyone about their conversations. Because Nora has the mannerisms of a child, she is somewhat incapable of adult emotions. I do believe that Nora is so consumed by her own thoughts, stuck in her own little world, just waiting for her thoughts and feelings to explode, that she pays no attention to those around her. When Nora has conversations with adults she seems uneasy and restless, like a child becoming impatient.
DeleteI agree that Nora is clearly belittled and discouraged and I think it’s interesting to bring up the idea of her childish mannerisms limiting or showing her inability to healthily express her emotions like what is expected of adults. I definitely don’t agree, though, that Nora is incapable of experiencing adult emotions, I think she is just stuck in this very childish headspace in which she was never taught or allowed to express the intense stress she’s under in a healthy way, something that really isn’t uncommon, even among so-called ‘mentally-healthy adults’ even today, the image-focused nature of the Victorian era would have further prevented healthy expression. The question is then placed on the differences between her and the typical Victorian woman, also socially conditioned for emotional repression by the same kind of stereotypes and attitudes that shame women for expressing negative emotions today. I think that Nora is really just mean to serve as hyperbole for the typical Victorian woman, to show how truly destructive gender roles are.
DeleteAs we have seen, there have been many instances where Nora's character has come into question. In one scene in particular I have noticed that Nora behaves and acts differently when her husband is not present.
ReplyDelete"Hasn't a daughter the right to protect her dying father from worry and anxiety? Hasn't a wife the right to save her husband's life? I don't know much about the law, but I'm quite certain that it must say somewhere that things like that are allowed" (Ibsen ).
Nora knows what she is capable of, but struggles to grasp the understanding that her actions will eventually result in a negative consequence. However, what Nora doesn't realize is that what she has done broke the law. Upon hearing that Krogstad could turn her in to her husband for fraud, Nora acknowledges that she has little understanding of Victorian law, assuming that there is some way for her to escape this. sSe makes it seem as though she was only trying to look after her father, as well as her husband; I seem to think otherwise. I understand that Nora has some difficulties understanding how a society like the one she lives in is very strict on family roles, but I do believe that part of Nora's reasonings for committing fraud is partially because she needed the excitement in her life. Nora is so strictly controlled by Torvald that she so desperately wants to control any small part of her life. For instance, when she begins playing with her children, she treats them as her own personal dolls. She undresses them and speaks to them in a controlling manner, seeming as though she wields all the power.
As we are reading deeper and deeper into A Doll's House, I begin to see the different sides of Nora. I imagine her putting on a mask as she speaks to different individuals throughout the scenes. When she is with Torvald i picture her dressed like a porcelain doll, with a simple mask, hiding all of her imperfections. As the play continues, her conversations with Krogstad seem more and more intense. I believe she puts up a front when speaking with Krogstad, somewhat pretending to understand what he is speaking about. The growth of Nora's vocabulary throughout this conversation suggests that Nora's knows a little more than she would care to show off.
I definitely agree with what you wrote about Nora being simultaneously smothered by Victorian sexism and manipulative and dramatic in an effort to find some semblance of power or stimulation in her domestic confines. I also agree with your way of imagining Nora, as a porcelain doll, as well as your comparison of Nora’s children to her dolls to be controlled by her, like a little mesocosm of her surroundings, one in which she has actual power. I’m not sure, however, what you mean when you reference the growth of Nora’s vocabulary as a sign of her knowing more than she may initially reveal. I can understand that Nora’s speech, throughout her conversations with Krogboi, reflects her nervousness as it is very limited by her anxiety, but I can’t see exactly how it progresses into anything more than that. That was an overly wordy (gotta meet that word count, sorry) was of asking what you mean by those last couple of sentences.
DeleteGreat post! I agree with both of your points with her vocabulary being seemingly more mature when she is talking to Krogstad than when she is talking to Torvald. I think that when it comes down to it, it's actually her tone that is creating that illusion instead of her words. While using the same words, Nora plays off her actions with Torvald by acting and talking with the tone of a child, while her discussion with Krog is where a we can see her getting more intense and seeming more like a creature to fear unlike her usual self. So, I suppose I can agree both with the idea that Nora seems more grown up when she is talking to Krog, but also with Maya's point that it's not due to the vocabulary.
DeleteAt the end of Act 1 and the beginning of Act 2 is where I found things started to shift slightly, almost as if things seemed to starts to fall apart. Nora starts to talk to herself which is a bit childish in a way and starts to deny that things are happening and that things are starting to uncover themselves. For example Nora says, “Nonsense! It can’t be. It’s impossible. It must be impossible.” and, “Corrupt my children…! Poison my home? It’s not true! It could never be true!” (I. 34.) She uses diction like “Nonsense” and “Impossible” like she is almost accusing of Krogstad that what he is doing can not be done and it is almost “impossible” to actually going through with the black mail. It is the denial that intrigues me. It amazes me that she is trying to reassure herself that what she did, by forging those documents of her fathers, was not at all illegal and it was the right thing to do. Again it is something that a child would do to assure themselves that they won’t get in trouble after accidentally breaking a lamp on the bedside table. She says these things as if Torvald won’t find out or if he does, he will not believe Krogstad. Also Nora sensing someone trying to destroy her perfect little home and her perfect little family has set off some warning bells inside of her brain and she keeps repeating the same worry in a frenzy as if she is trying t0 reassure herself that nothing will be messed up and her little perfect life will go on just fine. Even in today's world, people believe that if you say things over and over again, you, yourself, will eventually start to believe it. Nora believes that if you destroy her perfect little home in any way than all of her other secrets will come rushing out and then there will be no other way of stopping this flood of secrets. But also the fact that there is worry shows us, the readers, that Nora is in fact hiding more than we could imagine and that her flawless little doll image is nothing more than a cracked old doll with dirty old red string as hair. We already knew Nora came from a tough background but what we don’t know is why her life was so rough back then. What I wonder is who truly is Nora? And why does she have so much to hide?
ReplyDeleteThis weekend, I had the pleasure of being surrounded by over 100 individuals who are caring and passionate, all because of Key Club. But while surrounded by this positive energy, I realized how difficult life is without it. For Nora, her whole life is lived without any positive reinforcement, instead with her husband constantly nit-picking all of her actions until Nora is forced to ask as he wants her to. In Act II, Nora says to Kristine, "Hush! Here comes Torvald now! Look, you go and sit beside the children for the time being. Torvald can't stand the sight of mending lying about.." (Act II, page 40). While this line seems to address only Torvald's clear dislike of mending, it also holds a much more significant meaning: That Nora's own practices are only met with a negative attitude. Throughout the play, Torvald has been noted to dislike spendthrifts, mending lying about, and, surprisingly, his own children.Every time, we hear these statements come about in a negative manner, and we learn that each of these statements were shown to Nora. As I sat in the room full of positive smiles and shining faces, I could not help but think how it must feel to lack this support system. This, in itself, creates the issue of dependency, as Nora now feels dependent upon the views and acceptance of others to explain her own actions. We have discussed so far the issue of dependency through financial terms, and through gender roles, but we have never discussed a mental dependency. For so many people in the world, we remain dependent on others because we are too scared to do something that is seen to be out of the social norms. You all have probably felt this when you wear an outfit that is a bit too risky, or when you feel like that guy is totally staring at you because you look hideous today. For us, it's just an issue of comfort, but for Nora, there are more serious implications. Because of this feeling, Nora now remains dependent on her husband in many more ways than one, and even though she showed cleverness in her actions with Torvald's health, she is still nothing but the puppet dangling from her strings.
ReplyDeleteI love your analysis of the quote and I agree that Nora relies on the views and acceptance of others in society! Do you think there could be another side of her though? While she's definitely not a strong, independent female character, she does seem to be very passive aggressive and self aware in a way that allows her to manipulate others. I think she knows that she is playing the role of the doll, in a way this awareness about her situation makes Nora her own support system. I agree that this would be a very lonely life, but in a way, at least she has herself?
ReplyDeleteThis was supposed to be a reply to Julia :)
DeleteHey, Olivia! Sorry for replying so late, but I do think that Nora is her own support system, as you said. Sometimes, when no one is there to support you, you just have to support yourself. Nora seems to have a great way of doing that especially with how she finally takes charge of her own life in the end of Act III. She went from being a very flat character who seems to be obsessed with macaroons to being one of my (if not first) favorite characters of all time.
DeleteAct 2, Blog 3
ReplyDeleteToday I want to talk about a quote said by Mrs. Linde to Nora: “But, my dearest Nora, how do you know anything about such things?” (Act II, page 31) To give you a little bit of context, Nora and Mrs Linde are talking about Dr. Rank’s syphilis oops I mean tuberculosis of the spine and Mrs Linde is surprised that Nora knows so much about this “disease”. The literary device I want to discuss in this quote is diction. The use of the word “dearest” is demeaning and condescending towards Nora because it is a word used to address children, and because in other situations Nora and Mrs Linde would/might be considered more or less equal, this is very intentional of Mrs Linde. The effect of treating Nora as a child can show different views of Nora based on your interpretation. One possible effect is that it shows how Nora is manipulative because she gets people to think she’s childish and innocent when she’s really not, and so the reader might look at their own manipulative behaviors. Another possible interpretation is that growing up in a misogynistic society that does not value the opinions or abilities of women has allowed Nora to be childish, and this would cause the reader to look at ways society has influenced them in their lives. The reason that I chose this quote is because I think Nora’s level of self-awareness has a dramatic impact on the interpretation of this play, as seen above. In this quote, Nora is treated as a child who can’t think, act, or learn things by herself, when clearly she can and does. Self-awareness means being conscious of what you are doing and feeling, and this doesn’t always mean that other people can tell. I think that Nora has a high level of self-awareness because of the way she interacts with Mrs Linde and Torvald is very different than the way she approached Krogstad, and when you acknowledge your behaviors you can change them around certain people to manipulate them in a certain way. Additionally, I think that because Nora has no support system, as Julia said, she is forced to rely on herself and in many cases this causes people to look inward.
Reply #3:
DeleteI also think that Nora is very aware of and intentional about the way she acts. If not for the Krogstad conflict, do you think she would be happy? Do you think she minds acting childish and playing the role of a pet-like wife? Even though some of her happiness is faked, I think that she is genuinely happy when playing with her kids and dancing for Torvald. It seems like it makes her feel useful and needed, where in other situations she is utterly helpless. Everything in the play that has made her unhappy are things that she was not supposed to do - forge her dad’s signature, talk to Krogstad, spend time alone with Dr.Rank. Even though it seems like a miserable life to us today, I think Nora would have had a relatively good and happy life had she not diverted from her innocent, childish facade.
Reply #2
DeleteIt seems to me as well that Nora finds a lot of pleasure in satisfying her husband and playing with her kids. It gives her a certain happiness only attainable when you make those around you happy. However, I don't think that it is those actions that make her feel needed in the house. Torvald often tells her that the things she does aren't important at all; one example of this would be the the work Nora spent on her christmas-tree decorations--Torvald told her all it served to do was bore him that whole month. I think what makes her feel needed in the family are the secrets that she keeps to herself and the knowledge that if she told Torvald, he would know how important she really is. I do not think Nora would be happy if not for Krogstad and the secret loan she took out, she would only be bored.
This kind of discussion brings up a really interesting question, similar to ones relevant to discussion of Taming of the Shrew, to what extent are the main characters hiding their true identities and simply projecting a disguise that’s more socially acceptable. Looking at the two plays through this lens, I think, draws a close link between Bianca and Nora (closer than Katherina and Nora, because of how unapologetically Katherina rails against her circumstances in the beginning of the play). Both characters hold in their shrewishness but live in disguises for their own entertainment and fulfillment, save their misbehavior until they can be safe enough to let it out, both are bored and fed up with the sexist restrictions of their respective eras. Each’s penchant for deception and manipulation is also a similarity. How do we know which actions from either are genuine and which are a front? I’m really not sure.
DeleteBlog #4:
ReplyDeleteDr.Rank: “Who else? No point in deceiving oneself. I am the most wretched of all my patients, Mrs.Helmer. The last few days I've made a careful analysis of my internal economy. Bankrupt! Within a month I shall probably be lying rotting up there in the churchyard.” (Ibsen 45).
This quote tells us a lot about Dr.Rank’s character and circumstances. Dr.Rank uses hopeless, miserable, and self-pitying diction, words like “wretched,” “bankrupt,” and “rotting,” which perhaps suggests that he was born with his disease, and was passed on to him as a baby from his father’s mistresses. When describing his body’s condition, Dr.Rank desensitizes himself by referring to it as his “internal economy,” taking out any emotional connection to his own body. This monetary allusion shows Dr.Rank’s superficial view on people, as money often symbolizes frivolousness and shallowness. This allusion may also show that wealth is defined differently by different people, and what we value is relative to the individual. Perhaps Dr.Rank is saying that his health, his body, and his life are the most valuable things to him, and if he loses his health then he is “bankrupt,” which is probably a very different definition of bankruptcy than Nora’s. It is interesting to note that only a short while before, Nora and Mrs.Linde were discussing how rich Dr.Rank is, and Nora seemed like she was about to ask him for money. I chose this quote because it characterizes Dr.Rank and brings up the motif differing definitions of wealth.
This is a very interesting interpretation of Rank’s character and agree, definitely. However, something I hadn’t noticed in my reading of Act II was how Rank referred to Nora as Mrs. Helmer. This is very interesting as it breaks a pattern that had been enforced since Nora’s first introduction, she is ‘Nora’ and only ‘Nora”, and is even referred to simply as that in how Ibsen recorded speaking parts in the script. Upon rereading my copy, I have noticed how overly formally the two address each other, Nora calls him ‘Doctor Rank’, it doesn’t make all that much sense to me at all. Why would Rank call a woman he has such a flirty and intimate relationship with by the name she shares with his best friend? What I first associated with the overly formal names was playing house, pretending to be adults, this is very much in line with Nora’s character and supports the idea that her relationships are really just constructed for her own entertainment.
DeleteBlog #3
ReplyDeleteNear the end of Act 2, Dr. Rank's passion for Nora caught me very off guard. Looking back, however, I definitely should have seen it coming. Dr. Rank is often described as being practically a member of Nora's house, one example of this is when Nora says, "he's my good friend...Dr. Rank's almost a part of the house" (Ibsen 144). Dr. Rank seems to have more of a place in the Helmers' home than their own children. These lines that specifically describe Rank as part of the house are meant to foreshadow his love for Nora, a member of the house it seems he wants to become a part of. But what I really wanted to blog about was Nora's response to Dr. Rank basically saying that he loved her. After confessing his feelings, something the two had been playing around with all night but nobody had yet explicitly described, Nora says "Oh my dear Doctor Rank that was really horrid of you...that you should go and tell me...that was absolutely unnecessary..." (Ibsen 155). This quote really connects back to the culture of the Victorian Era Doll's House takes place in; it was seen as rude to talk about anything of real seriousness. But even with Nora's culture taken into consideration, the way she dealt with Rank's admittance of love shows us that she cares far more about the drama surrounding her, than the feelings of those closest to her.
I agree with your understanding of Dr. Ranks love for Nora. And now that you mention it I can see how Dr. Rank has thoroughly involved himself in the house that the Helmers live in. I think the way Ibsen writes him in the play to be so involved with the family from the very beginning can foreshadow the fact that Dr. Rank will admit his love to Nora like a Nicholas Sparks movie. And I think that is why I was so shocked when he finally told her that she could confide in him. Because I really didn’t see that coming and I didn’t read between the lines all that much. I mean c’mon! He was always over there checking up on Torvald. I mean he has been more in the play than Nora’s children have. If that didn’t say falling in love, I don’t know what love is anymore. I agree with you in the fact that back then, during the Victorian Era, people cheated on their partners all the time but never really addressed the situation in verbal confirmation. Because that was socially unacceptable you see.
DeleteAfter reading through Acts 1 and 2 I noticed a slight change in Nora's behavior. She becomes agitated and frantic as her conversations begin to unravel. Throughout Act 1 Nora acts as the perfect wife, making herself out to be a porcelain doll, succumbing to Torvald's every beck and call. As we have already read in Act 1, Nora lies like a child would lie to draw attention away from a question she was asked. She may believe that lying is the only way to escape the consequences she would receive if Torvald ever found out. Because she has the mind of a child, Nora is not aware of the underlying consequences of her actions.
ReplyDeleteIn Act 2 many scandalous scenes made me question Nora's character a little bit. She is almost sort of leading Dr. Rank on in the stocking scene. showing off her bare ankles. However, I don't think Nora quite understands what she is doing because she still acts as a child. Nora's secrets begin to unravel, like a ball of yarn rolling across the floor.
On a complete;y different note, at the end of Act 2 the stage directions tell us that Nora, Kristine (Mrs. Linde), Torvald, and Dr. Rank are all gathering at the table toe at together. I am very interested to see how all of this unfolds in Act 3. In my opinion, I think that someone is going to arrive at the home unexpectedly (Krog) and tell Torvald of everything that Nora has done, including forging a signature for a loan to save her husband. I think that in the end, because Nora is somewhat of a child, she will be excused for what she has done, but Torvald will disown her, causing Nora to commit suicide. I am interested in what you guys are predicting for Act 3.
At the end of Act 2 we find out some very interesting things and some of them blow me out of the water! I was utterly shocked when Dr. Rank confessed his love to Nora. My mind was blown because all I was imagining was Tom Hanks confessing his love to Carey Mulligan. That sent uncomfortable shivers down my spine let me tell you. What I find the most disturbing about this scene is that Nora just minutes before hand was flirting along with him teasing him and teasing him into thinking that he had a chance with her. Dr. Rank fell for it too! That is LOW Nora, not cool. Dr. Rank says, “I swore to myself you would know before I went. I’ll never have a better opportunity. Well, Nora! Now you know. And now you know too that you can confide in me as in nobody else” (Ibsen 48). I think it was at this moment that my heart broke for Tom Ha- I mean Dr. Rank. It was after this scene that Nora fetches her Maid to fetch a lamp for her, “Helene, bring the lamp in, please. Oh, my dear Dr. Rank, that really was rather horrid of you.” (Ibsen 49). I know what you're wondering, why would Nora ask her Maid to bring in a lamp from the other room? That is so random! But see here, the significance of the lamp might intrigue you more. The lamp simply signifies the light. Since this conversation was happening in the dark (or so we assume), the lamp brings brightness into the dark room, which is basically ending the conversation about Dr. Rank’s feelings. Because you can say things in the dark that you wouldn’t mutter a word in the light. At this point Nora is freaking out that Dr. Rank has fallen in love with her and she doesn’t know what to do because for once in her life, her perfect little world/doll house is falling apart with just one simple confession. And she doesn’t know how to react to it, let alone resolve it. I predict that after this confession things start to go down into a spiral and secrets start to tumble out and then people start turning on other people. Soon or later this perfect little world that Nora has created for herself will just be one giant broken mess.
ReplyDeleteDanielle, I wholeheartedly agree with your post! You described the relationship between Nora and Rank very eloquently, and I thought that your explanation for the use of the lamp in the room was spot on. I would also like to add to that point, if I may. As with the lamp, the Helmer household seems to have several household item to which each character gravitates to (or away from). For instance, whenever Nora is uncomfortable, she seems to move closer to the stove, which we have heard of, but never had witnessed it being used. For Torvald, his household "item" is his study, which he retires to when he wants to be alone (always). We also see Torvald deviating away from other household items such as mending, and, while these are not items, he also seems to stay away from the children. I think this shows the importance of those everyday objects in "A Doll's House," as no any item appears without a use. With this, I think your justification for the use of the lamp is very well explained, and fits into that theory.
Delete“That’s exactly what gave me wrong ideas. I just can’t puzzle you out. I often used to feel you’d just as soon be with me as with Helmer” (Act II, page 50).
ReplyDeleteIn Act II, what stood out to me the most is that for a second time in the play, Nora’s actions are finally catching up with her. First, it was her forgery of her father’s signature, which was understandable. But her second fault, by openly flirting with Dr. Rank, is not quite so innocent. Instead of doing something for her own survival, Nora is acting openly for her own amusement. While she does appear to be surprised by Dr. Rank’s revelation at first, her scandalous move with revealing her whole leg to Rank while showing off her new silk stockings is nothing but pure foolishness. At that point, Nora is simply fooling around with the feelings of another person, which adds to our understanding of her character. Instead of ushering him out or addressing the subject, Nora skillfully avoids it by bringing up a new topic (her silk stockings) almost as a child would, but all the while continues to tease Dr. Rank by showing her leg (which is considered to be way past scandalous at the time). While prior, I believed that Nora was simply just raised to act as a child, this scene was a turning point for me, because it was here that I realized that Nora was playing a part, and that she enjoyed living in chaos, and often forced it upon herself and her family.
I'm so glad you talked about this because this scene in the play just made me so sad. Poor Dr Rank sounds like a character out of a Nicholas Sparks book! I do have to play Devil's Advocate for Nora, however. She is trapped in loveless marriage, and she gets little to no attention from her husband, so I think she is just seeking male approval. Unfortunately, she got a lot more than she was hoping for. I think this happens in our society today, where people lacking a strong male or female role model in their life who cares about them end up seeking attention from other males or females to gain their approval. Then again, Nora, being the manipulator that she is, was also messing with the stockings to get money from Dr Rank. Ugh
DeleteAfter reading Act III, I feel like such a fool about my previous posts. This one, for instance, can so easily be explained by the end of Act III. My interpretation at the end of the play was that Nora was just waiting for some attention from anyone. In fact, I think what she was trying to do by showing Rank her leg was egg him on! She just had a man express how much he loves her, which we have never seen Torvald even mention, even though she brings it up quite a lot. She said in Act III that she was simply waiting for a miracle, and I think that when Rank told her that he loved her, she just wanted him to take it to the finish line, and in order to do that, she brought up the classic scandalous event. She wanted him to take action of some sort, but all Rank ended up doing was what Torvald would have done, which was to ignore her. That is why, even when Rank says that he could have been as good to her as Torvald was, Nora sees that they are two sides of the same coin, and that she will have no better a chance with Rank than she had with Torvald.
DeleteCan I just say, before I started IB English I thought that "blogging every night" meant, like, about my life and how my day was. HAHA silly me. Anyway...
ReplyDeleteFor my blog post today I want to talk about the scene between Nora and Helmer where Nora is begging him for the second time not to fire Krogstad. I feel as though Ibsen villanizes Helmer for refusing to fire Krogstad and not listening to Nora's pleas. However, from Helmer's point of view, Nora is not pleading for something that really effects her (especially since he doesn't know about Krog's threat). If Nora were pleading him to get a dog or take out the trash, that would understandably be a matter where we would hope Helmer would treat Nora as his equal partner and discuss with her (well, not discuss the trash. He should just do that). While Helmer IS very condescending about how he addresses Nora in this conversation, saying, "...if only this obstinate little person can get her way!" (Act II, page 35), he is justified in firing Krogstad despite his wife's objections. Ibsen uses language to villainize Helmer. For example, Helmer says, "Do you think I am going to make myself ridiculous before my whole staff, to let people think I am a man to be swayed by all sorts of outside influence?" (Act II, page 35) He sounds very egotistical and self-centered, but even today it would be unprofessional for a manager to listen to someone outside of the line of work regarding hiring decisions.
Reply #4:
DeleteI agree that Ibsen seems to intentionally villainize Helmer, and it has a very profound effect on how we view Krogstad and Nora. Because Helmer is portrayed as selfish and intolerant, we empathize with Nora and Krogstad for having to deal with such a husband/boss. If we did not feel empathy towards Nora, and instead sided with Helmer, the ending of the play would not have been as powerful. We are generally wired to feel sorry for the weak, and the combination of portraying Nora and Krogstad as helpless and desperate and exaggerating Helmer’s control freakiness effectively makes us label Helmer as the “bad guy,” and root for Krogstad and Nora.
There’s just so much going on in this act, I really don’t even know where to start talking, this is the part in the play when the initial characterization and scene-setting is finished, this is now about plot, and everything’s getting so complicated and overwhelming. I think this is in large part due to the effectiveness in how Nora’s speaking parts and stage direction is written, all of her anxiety is just spilling off of the pages, it’s infectious, which is very notable and worthy of praise, I think, because she is shown to be such a flawed and manipulative character. This is one of the greatest goals of art in general, to make bridges between people, even if imagined (though we have learned that Nora was based closely off of a real person’s circumstances and actions from the questions for Act III), especially with those who we might find it hard to empathize with otherwise, and it isn’t hard to group Nora in with those kinds of unlikeable characters.
ReplyDeleteTo change topics a bit, the thing that I found interesting from last class’s reading is how Rank talks about himself on page 37:
“”It is all up with me. And it can’t be helped… It is no use lying to one’s self. I am the most wretched of all my patients, Mrs. Helmer. Lately I have been taking stock of my internal economy . Bankrupt! Probably within a month I shall be rotting in the churchyard.”
This is very interesting considering that he has already established that he thinks society is a ‘sickhouse’, which is clearly a reference to some kind of moral corruption, even if not applying our maxims to it, the language used is highly suggestive of that idea. It would seem that this quote was a confession of his excesses and flaws, but then this exchange happens on the next page:
Nora: “...It is sad that all these nice things should take revenge on our bones {referring to Rank’s disease].”
Rank: “Especially that they should revenge themselves on the unlucky bones of those who have not had the satisfaction of enjoying them.”
This shows Rank completely avoiding culpability for his disease, syphilis, which was clearly contracted by him breaking the rules and expectations of Victorian society, by his flaws and excesses, his own sins. That Nora is so willing to participate in this self-deception is telling of Rank’s nature, that he is equally avoidant of reality and manipulative of the truth and others. This reads as social commentary, a criticism of the expectation of Victorian society pushing people to flat-out deny the reality of ‘inappropriate’ situations and simply put up the front of perfect respectability.
The most significant part of Act III is very hard to choose; Because of the nature of this play, each development in the plots and resolved character arc in this point of the play seems very sensationalistic and shocking. It’s like ahhhhh! Which is cool because I don’t typically consume all that much entertainment, books or movies or whatever, so centered on plot and being exciting or shocking or something of the sort.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the thing that had me shook the most was the reveal that Krogboi and Mrs. Linde had previously been in a relationship. It gave a lot of depth to Krogstad’s character that I hadn’t expected the play to give. It was a pleasant to surprise, one that reinforces the overall ideas of the play: that everyone is equally capable and deserving of love and self-actualization (shown in how its characters denounce sexism and rigid Victorian rules as a cause of bizarre and destructive power dynamics, stress, and ignorance of reality). One of the most significant ways people are characterized in this play are in what they are called by the people around them, Nora’s sole first name has a near-infantilizing effect whereas her converse, Mrs. Linde, called only by the last name of her dead husband, shows that not only her more formal reputation because of her financial autonomy but that this only conditional and restricted because the name is not her’s but her dead husband’s. Amongst the men in the play, a last name has the weight of formality and reputation, Krogstad’s name has a lot of negative stigma attached to it. Krog being called by his first name, Nils, by Mrs. Linde, repeatedly, and Krog calling her by her first name, Christine, shows that the two have a close and equal-footed relationship and calling each other by first names is a recognition of this and and acceptance of each’s misdeeds, not simply a denial of reality. This contrasts the deception and denial Nora and Torvald’s relationship is built on, reflected in Torvald’s many dehumanizing nicknames for Nora.
As for Christine and Nils, I ship it.
Yep… that’s it.
I agree with your point about how we learned more about Krogstad when we found out that we was in a relationship with Kristine some time ago. I mentioned this in an earlier comment, but I thought that Ibsen did an amazing job with setting us all up for failure. That sounds pessimistic, yes, but it's also true. Everything we were taught to believe about the characters was actually the opposite of who they really are. Nora was first introduced as a child, who cannot think for herself, but turns out to be the most self-aware (woke??) person of her circle. Krogstad is introduced as some terrible guy who is pestering and threatening Nora, but we learn in the end of Act III that he is simply trying to live his life and sustain his children, and can anyone really blame him for that? Helmer puts on the act of being a loving and caring husband, but is roasted by Nora in the end for being honestly the least attentive and helpful husband anyone could ask for. I could go on for a while, but this all goes to show that Ibsen is just setting up expectations so that later, he can come along and break them down.
DeleteWhile preparing for the fishbowl today, I realized a few things about Nora that I never considered before. To be honest, I never really bought the whole "She acts like a foolish child because she is looking for adventure" act that people were accusing her of. I think no one can say it better than Nora herself when she told Torvald that, "For eight years, I have been patiently waiting. Because, heavens, I knew miracles didn’t happen every day. Then this devastating business started, and I became absolutely convinced the miracle would happen. All the time Krogstad’s letter lay there, it never so much as crossed my mind that you would ever submit to his conditions. I was absolutely convinced you would say to him: Tell the whole world if you’d like. And when that was done...I was absolutely sure you would come forward and take everything on yourself” (Act III, page 84). This quote from Act III shows that what many of us wrote off as childishness was actually just a call for love and attention, and is that really something that is punishable? I don't know about all of you, but I think it's reasonable to expect love and attention from those who are supposed to be alongside you for the rest of your life. Nora isn't a child; She is a woman who wants and deserves attention from a man who treats her no better than any household item. He dresses her up for the fancy ball, controls her movements and actions by teaching her the tarantella, and even restricts her in her macaroon intake. Moreover, those "childish" traits that we attribute to Nora are actually the result of her home environment. She tells Torvald at the end of Act III that he, “arranged everything to your tastes, and I acquired those same tastes. Or I pretended to…” We can tell that Nora acts like a child mostly only around her husband, because that is how he treats her, and, in an effort to appease him and give him a way to present her with such a miracle, she aligns herself to his wishes in the hope that being complacent and obedient will hasten this "miracle" that she is awaiting. We see these cues so many times throughout the play, and we seem to categorize them all into her "childishness," whereas it truly is more of a call for help. For instance, back in Act I, Nora asks Helmer for money, saying, "You could always give me money, Torvald. Only what you think you could spare. And then I could buy myself something with it later on." At that point in the play, it sound to me like Nora was begging almost as a child would when asking for funds, but in fact, Nora is doing something much, much sadder. She is asking Helmer for money, and is phrasing it in such a way that she is hoping that he will suddenly spring up and offer her all of the money in the world for her happiness, but instead, he simply calls her a spendthrift. I am sure that if I go through the play once again, more of these cues will come up, where Nora isn't looking for money or adventure, but is simply looking for genuine human connection.
ReplyDeleteBlog #5:
ReplyDeleteTowards the end of Act 3, when Nora makes her decision to leave, Nora and Helmer switch roles: Helmer begs Nora to stay, whereas at the beginning of the play, Nora would beg Helmer for money. This is especially interesting because one of the main reasons for Nora leaving is feeling helpless and dependant on Torvald, and now Torvald admits that he is just as dependant on Nora for his happiness. Nora has finally realized that her freedom is worth more than anything Torvald can give her, and that “he who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security” (Taylor Chiotti cough sorry Benjamin Franklin). This switching of roles shows that all humans are equally dependant on one another and need help at one point in their lives, and, under the fragile social status shell, all of us are weak alone. Helmer tries to use his higher status by saying, “you think and talk like a stupid child,” to which Nora responds to with, “you neither think nor talk like the man I would want to share my life with,” showing that the hierarchy is simply an abstract idea that humans have imposed upon themselves: shallow, easily breakable, and yet taken too seriously by those who can use it to their advantage (Ibsen 84). Ibsen juxtaposes Nora’s newfound maturity, independence, and clarity of perception with Helmer’s sudden desperation and childishness to emphasize the often ignored interdependence between people of seemingly different social ranking.
While everybody is blogging about the end of Act 3 I am going to be talking about the beginning really. And it’s going to be a throwback to Taming of the Shrew really quickly. The relationships that are finally uncovered towards the end of this play shocked me. From Dr. Rank falling in love with Nora, to Mrs. Linde and Krogstad getting BACK together made my heart melt at all the romance that was unfolding. But I would like to point out these two relationships especially. Helmer and Nora vs. Mrs. Linde and Krogstad. The reason is because my group discussed how these two couple pairs are really… Foils of each other! Here let me explain. Helmer and Nora are not the perfect couple behind doors, I think we can all agree with that. Let me tell you why! Helmer treats Nora as if she were lower than hum, not as important to him, not EQUAL to him. Due to these relationship issues, Nora just up and leaves Helmer at the end of Act 3. This proves that equal status in a marriage is a key concept in a rewarding life with one another. On the other side of the spectrum, we have Mrs. Linde and Krogstad, who meet up with one another during the party. Mrs. Linde explains to Krogstad “I need someone to mother, and your children need a mother. We two need each other. Nils, I have faith in what, deep down, you are. With you I can face anything” (Ibsen 65). Can I also add that this statement gave me the romance chills?! And can I also add that she called him by his first name?! Ahhh! Anyways as you can see the two of them, Krogstad and Mrs. Linde, are both going through a tricky time in their life and right now they just fit together like two puzzle pieces. The reason that these two relationships are Foil’s is because one relationship doesn’t see eye to eye with each other, causing them to end the relationship by one of them walking out of their life, and the other seeing each other as equal and worthy of their love. Maybe that’s why I loved this part so much and the comparison between the two because I do love contrasting things!
ReplyDelete