In The Doll’s house by Henrik Ibsen I noticed that Nora was called Nora throughout the book while other characters were called or named differently maybe for the purpose of creating a respectful tone. For example Helmer was called Torvald which was his first name and Mrs.Linde was called Kristine which is also her first name. Seeing this I thought that it really defined these three characters as Mrs.Linde/Helmer as either a dominant role or a respected elegant role. Nora was being defined as a character that might be a little on the air head controlled side. This book was also set in winter during christmas foreshadowing possible debt between Nora and Helmer through the line “I went and borrowed a thousand crowns today and you went and spent it all over christmas”(The Doll’s House Pg 2). This shows how Nora has a spending problem and does not think about debt and borrowing money even when her husband who works for a bank tells her it is a bad thing to do. I believe Debt will become an issue in the future because of the fact that Nora lies to her husband shown through her hiding the macaroons from him. I believe that Nora may take out a massive debt and hide it from her husband for christmas or for herself.
In the beginning of the first act of A Doll’s House the main characters are introduced. In this first scene Henrik Ibsen utilizes stage directions and pet diction to characterize the characters. The first example of this is in the very beginning where Nora is being introduced. Ibsen makes use of stage directions to set up a small conflict later in this Act, “She takes a bag of macaroons out of her pocket and eats one or two;” (I.i.1). This explains how Nora has started to snack on macaroons but as soon as her husband comes onto the set she puts them away to hide them from her. Later, she even lies to her husband by denying that she snacked on some macaroons displayed by when Helmer states,”Didn’t go nibbling a macaroon or two?” (I.i.5) and Nora replies,”No, Torvald, honestly, you must believe me…!” (I.i.5) This displays how Nora does have a manipulative side to her by lying to her own husband. Ibsen also makes use of pet diction to show a level of disrespect to her wife, Nora. This is exhibited when Helmer says,”Is that my little squirrel that is frisking about?” (I.i.5). By Helmer saying this, he shows a great disrespect to his wife by using animals to describe and talk to her. Whereas, Nora when speaking to Helmer, calls him Torvald. This presents a greater respect towards Helmer by calling him by his first name.
I completely agree with what you said about Isben characterizing Nora as disrespected compared to Helmer. I found it weird that all Helmer did was dehumanize her by relating her to different animals like a squirrel and a bird. By doing this Isben really shows just how much gender roles played a role in this time period and how different it is compared to today. You also mentioned that Nora was manipulative of her husband Helmer through her lieing about macaroons. I agree with you and kind of think that Nora may be playing dumb in front of people but in reality she is smarter than she appears. Though I am not quite sure about this and think that I need to read more of the play to be sure.
In the first act of A Doll’s House, many different names and nicknames are used, particularly pet names between Nora and Torvald. Torvald repeatedly refers to Nora as “my little sky-lark” (I.i.1), “my little squirrel” (I.i.2), “my pretty little pet” (I.i.4) and “my pretty little song-bird” (I.i.5). These multiple examples of pet diction directed at Nora are demeaning. Helmer uses this as a way to assert his dominance and superiority over his wife. Along with the ways Helmer refers to Nora, the manner in which the play itself refers to the characters is with a purpose. The characters are referred to as “Helmer” (instead of his first name, Torvald), “Nora” (as opposed to Mrs. Helmer) and “Mrs. Linde” (as opposed to Kristine). The use of Helmer instead of Torvald shows that Torvald is the head of the family and that his image represents the Helmer name. This gives him a sense of superiority over Nora, who is referenced by her first name to give her less power and a more approachable impression. Mrs. Linde is not referred to by her first name in the character labels because she is seen as a quiet and respectable woman in this first scene. She seems intelligent, independent and she has the official and professional name/title to fit her personality. Another example of the importance of names is how the porter is only referred to by his title, giving him a lesser importance in the grand scheme of the story. The most startling of Ibsen’s name choices is that of Dr. Rank. The word rank typically has a very negative connotation, including its synonyms like putrid, disgusting and nauseating. The entire encounter with Dr. Rank in the first part of the first act is very vague and inconclusive. The connotations of his name combined with this mysterious atmosphere create prospective problems and conflicts. The few pages of A Doll’s House which we have read left multiple examples of foreshadowing and Dr. Rank’s name choice is one of them.
In the first act and scene of the play written by Ibsen titled A Doll’s House, the main characters of the play are introduced. Nora and Torvald (Torvald however is referred to as Helmer in the actual writing of the play). A theme that was common and that I found interesting was the respect gap between Nora and her Husband Torvald. When this play was written in the Victorian age, women were much less of than men and that has already been demonstrated. Even in just naming the characters, Ibsen refers to Torvald as Helmer, his last name, and Nora just as Nora and nothing more. Not only are the names introduced differently but then Torvald goes on to display distrust for his wife when he was accusing her of going to a candy/bakery shop. Torvald says “Look me straight in the eye”. Nora looks at him and then he goes on to claim that she went to a candy store. “Little miss sweet tooth did not make a detour down to the patisserie?” (I.i.16). This dynamic that is shared between them is very obviously not a trustworthy one if Nora feels that she must lie about something so miniscule. It is also very disrespectful how he refers to her as “little miss sweet tooth” (I.i.16) on many different occasions as well as many other pet names-- most referring to actual animals. Calling someone names of animals seems like it is a way of telling that person that they are less than what they are. It is dehumanizing, but it also sounds playful and fun at the same time so it is the perfect insult; an insult that can be thrown around many times without sounding too serious. Perhaps, it could be an insult to Nora’s intelligence as well, giving insults that can be taken as a joke. He could be making it a point to give insults that could just also be fun banter as a way to say “Ha-ha Nora, you are a stupid woman and will not be able to understand this insult”.
In the first third of A Doll’s House, Ibsen subtly alludes to the superficial nature of the Helmer’s lives. The very name of the play, “A Doll’s House”, suggests that, like a doll house, the Helmers merely pretend to enjoy their lives. In Ibsen’s first setting description, he utilizes a string of contradictory descriptions, such as “tastefully but not expensively furnished”, the piano and china plates combined with the repeated description of use. Through the contradictory statements, Ibson expresses that the characters are living a double life. They try to live a rich, sophisticated life, as evidenced by the piano and china, but to not have the funds to do so. Ibson furthers the idea of the Helmer’s double life with Nora’s spending habits. Nora spends as though the Helmer’s were much more affluent. Nora symbolizes the superficial appearance of wealth, while Helmer’s attitude represents their true wealth. Ibson furthers the idea that things aren’t as they seem through the use of Nora’s deception. First, when questioning his wife if she went to the baker, Helmer asks, “Hasn't she even nibbled a macaroon or two?”(Ibson, 5) to which Nora replies “No, Torvald, indeed, indeed!”(5). Without the utilization of dramatic irony, the fib might’ve been believable, but Ibson purposefully included “Taking from her pocket a bag of macaroons, she eats one or two. Then she goes on tip-toe to her husband's door and listens”(1) to subtly foreshadow future deception. In the conversation between Nora and Helmer, the reader learns that the past few have been a struggle for the couple, but then when talking to her “friend”, she says, “Oh, the last eight years have been a happy time, I can tell you”(8). Here, Ibson explicitly portrays that the couple’s happiness is completely superficial.
Within the first act, it was apparent that Nora was a character which would be constantly belittled throughout the play, I felt. The animal-like diction, as well as the condescendingly teasing tone, seemed to me as foreshadow used in order to draw Nora as a childish and subordinate character. A theme which was outlined within the first act which also exemplified Nora’s inferiority is the topic of names; Torvald is labelled by his family name, which is much more respectful than being addressed by one’s first name, as Nora is. However, while she personally calls him by his first name, he displays his superiority by calling her his little pet. She often responds with short and straightforward sentences, which is expected of children when conversing with adults. This theme is also continued when Mrs. Linden appears. Nora calls her by her first name and speaks in lengthy and frivolous sentences. She expresses her adoration of wealth and materialistic items to her long time friend. This use of language represents a hierarchy of respect when comparing characters; Nora is in the middle while she idolises her husband and nearly disrespects Christine. As I previously mentioned, Nora’s obsession with possession is another important factor to consider when characterising her. She seems impulsive and careless, while continuing to present childlike behaviour. She wishes to spend money as soon as their family is no longer in a state of financial strain. Overall, she comes off to me as someone who has an inch and takes a mile, while also displaying immature characteristics.
In the beginning of the first act of A Doll’s House, the main focus is on Nora. Henrik Ibsen characterizes Nora by using dramatic irony and stage direction. In the beginning, Nora is already shown as secretive when she hides the macaroons she is eating. The stage direction shows how she “sneakily” walks around and hides them. The deception isn’t just with Nora as her husband has a secret “study.” The interaction between him and the doctor is shrouded in this first scene so the readers are kept in the dark. Ibsen uses a lot of dramatic irony because the stage direction lets the readers in on clues that the other characters don’t know about. For example, when Nora hid the macaroons, she lies to her husband about not eating them. If Shakespeare had wrote this, there would be no stage direction so the readers would never have known she ate them. The diction that Ibsen uses is also very realist. Everything is straightforward unlike the symbols and metaphors of shakespeare. A lot of backstory is given like this with Nora blatantly spewing out information about her husband's past and her money situation. This in turn gives insight into her own character as well since she prioritizes her own problems over others.
I like how you mentioned Shakespeare when discussing Ibsen’s abundance of stage direction in A Doll’s House. I think it’s interesting we are studying two very different playwrights with two very different and individual styles right after one another. While the two are very different, I believe there are some similarities between the two. A slight comparison I found between Ibsen and Shakespeare are their selective use of names. Like you mentioned, Nora is secretive and doesn’t tell her husband she has eaten sweets. This reminded me of a white lie that a child would tell to their parents when asked if they ate all the cookies/brownies/cake/candy/other things kids lie about eating. This is significant because Nora is always addressed by her first name, as a child would be. However, her husband Torvald is referred to by his family name, Helmer. This is a much more respected way to be referred to. Ibsen has thought out how his characters are named and referred to, much like Shakespeare and his many “-io” names versus the simple servants who were of less importance like Curtis. It will be interesting to see if there are any more similarities besides the importance of names or the theme of deception between the two plays.
In the second portion of the first act of A Doll’s House, there is an abundance of characterization of Nora. Nora reveals to Mrs. Linde that she earned all the money needed to take her husband on their trip to Rome, and that she lied to him about her father gifting her the money. These actions reveal that Nora is capable of blatantly lying to her husband. She thinks she is doing the right thing and that there will be no repercussions or consequences of her actions. Nora spends long periods of dialogue explaining her ultimate sacrifice of “never spending more than half” (I.i.15) of the money that Torvald gave her. She believes she is a hero for not spending all the allowance Torvald gives her to spend on clothes and other things to keep up her appearance and false facade of a luxurious lifestyle brimming with opulence. Even the way she phrases her “humble explanation” is snobby: “It’s a blessing most things look well on me, so Torvald never noticed anything. But sometimes I did feel it was a bit hard, Kristine, because it is nice to be well dressed, isn’t it?” (I.i.15). I thought Nora couldn’t get any more childish, but I was wrong. When explaining to Kristine other ways she earned money, she said that working and having an actual job was “almost like being a man” (I.i.16). She contributes to gender discrimination by saying that working regularly is only what men do. Yes, this was the most common situation in the Victorian era, but as Mrs. Linde has shown, even in those times, a woman can work hard to make her keep and be able to support of herself. This is also shown because Mrs. Linde is looking for a job at Mr. Helmer’s bank. Overall, Nora’s words and actions during this section of the act characterize her as childish, deceptive and unable to perceive/read situations correctly.
I agree with how Nora contributes to gender roles and is the definition of a women stariotype of that time period. I was surprised at how stupid Nora was to forge her fathers signature on the loan paperwork putting a date on the paper after her father died. Nora's personality is really being focused on in this act and I believe will continue to be that way throughout the play because her actions are probably going to be the cause of most of the conflict on the play.
I agree that Nora thinks she is doing the right thing for her family. She becomes so enveloped in her own personal mission to save her husband that she forgets about her husband. In this era, the man is the leader of the household, and she blatantly disregards this with her "mission." I also agree that Mrs. Linde is shown as the right way to be a strong woman in this era. Nora doesn't see this and immediately dismisses Mrs. Linde's situation as below her own and proudly states how she saved her husband. Your conclusion of Nora being characterized as childish is only reinforced by the scene where her kids get home. She starts berating them with questions and plays games with them. This can be seen as being a mother, but the way Ibsen doesn't give the kids any lines show that this is all Nora. The kids are playing with their mother, not the other way around.
When reading more into act one of A Doll’s House Nora is shown as disieving when talking to her friend Mrs.Linde.”You’re just like the rest of them. You think i’m useless when it comes to anything really serious…(Act one Page 12) This line Nora says to Mrs.Linde gave me the tone of mystery making me think that their might be more to Nora than she is letting on. I also was surprised to find that Nora owed money to Krogstad for her husband's expensive injury and forged her father's signature on the paperwork. I did not expect for Nora to pull something like that and believe that the fact that she wrote a date on the paper after his death shows just how mindless she can be. Overall I think that Krogstad will manipulate Nora or blackmail her throughout the book and her husband Helmer will find out about her debt. (To add in I also noticed how Nora called her kids dolls and think this is going to become an important part of the play later on.)
Based on that what do you think Ibson's comment on Victorian gender-roles are? Nora had to circumvent the law just to save her husband's life, and to top it off, can't even tell him because it would be too "embarrassing." Do you thinkmen's constant need to assert their dominance, in a way, represents an inherent fragility?
In the half of the first chapter, Ibson cements the importance of surface layer appearances in the Helmer’s lives. When Kristine asks Nora if she will ever confess her secret to Torvald she replies, “Good heavens! What can you be thinking of of? Tell him when he has such a loathing of debt And besides- how painful and humiliating it would he for Torvald, with his manly self-respect, to know that he owed anything to me!”(15). Ibson makes clear to the reader that cultural norms dictate that men must provide for the family. Informing her husband that she, a woman, saved his life and provided for him would devastate her husband. Intentionally or not, the situation also presents a sense of irony because men, the supposedly strong and resilient sex, cannot withstand being helped by a woman. Throughout the chapter Ibson presents numerous references to society’s perceived fragility of women, but through man’s delicate pride, Ibson highlights that men, too, are weak. Not only is the perceived appearance of care important to men, but the wife’s literal appearance itself. On the same page when discussing when she might divulge their debt, she says, “Yes, some time perhaps- many, many years hence, when I'm- not so pretty. You mustn't laugh at me! Of course I mean when Torvald is not so much in love with me as he is now; when it doesn't amuse him any longer to see me dancing about, and dressing up and acting”(15). Helmer doesn’t love Nora for her personality but rather for her looks. Nora wants to keep her heroics hidden until the day that her looks do not suffice for his love. Therefrom, Ibson comments on the superficial nature of marriage itself, highlighting that couples did not marry out of love. In modern society we would like to think that we’ve evolved from these barbaric cultural norms, but in reality, modern retains many remnants of these two characteristics. Although a lot of progress has been made, many men still feel embarrassed if they can’t say pay for the check or provide for the needs of their wife. And for as much of an emphasis as our society places on love, there is just as much of one on lust.
In this portion of A Doll’s House, not only did the character development of Nora and Torvald continue, but so did characters that were not even much in this section-- the children. The children play as a substantial symbol of this part of the play. Often, children are associated with a comfortable and inviting home, laughter, love, and a couple that is madly in love as the parents. On page 38 when Nora is playing a game with the children, there is a multitude of stage directions and Nora speaking, but none of the kids speaking whatsoever. For example, Nora says “Yes mommy will dance with bobby too! What? You played snowballs? Oh, I wish I’d been there. You go off now, Anna Marie, you look half frozen. The nurse goes into the room on the left...” (I.i.38). This is only a fraction of the 16 lines of Nora “talking” with the children. Back to the symbolic role the children play. The children not talking whatsoever leaves the impression that they are not cared for, and are unwanted. This is symbolic because Nora and Helmer care about materialistic items and people’s views on them so much, but deep down that sort of thing does not matter at all to them. Just like owning expensive things, other people see it and form an impression but deep down, more often than not, they are just THINGS that do not hold much significance, other than the ability of causing people to be in awe or jealous. This large block of Nora and the kids also can be foreshadowing to a psychotic break down or crazy decision on Nora’s part. Perhaps she falls ill later on and hears voices. This is all demonstrated by the clever children play time, which really just made her sound like she was insane, talking to herself and acting childish.
One part I found very interesting in Act 1 was when Nora plays with the kids. Nora says “Have you had a nice time? That’s splendid. And you gave Emmy and Bob a ride on your sledge? Did you now!” (Act 1 page 22). This “back-and-forth” goes on for what seems like forever, it was honestly so awkward to read. But, it was completely intentional for Nora to sound like she was talking to herself. Nora chattering to herself gives the impression of playing with dolls. This is important because it’s almost like Nora is acting like a child playing with toys and it’s because she’s almost seen as one, especially by Helmer. For example, earlier in the play Helmer says to Nora “what do we call my pretty little pet when it runs away with all the money?” (Act 1 page 4). Nora gives into how Helmer thinks she should be because she believes he loves her for it. An example of this would be when Nora is talking to Mrs. Linde. “What I mean of course is when Trovald isn’t quite so much in love with me as he is now, when he’s lost interest in watching me dance, or get dressed up, or recite” (Act 1 page 15). Nora is feeding into what Helmer wants because it gives her the illusion of his love.
The next “section” of the first act of Doll’s House finally broke away from the constant narration of Nora’s past and characterization. There is still the conversation about Paris with Nora and Kristine, but it is interrupted by the introduction of the mysterious Dr. Rank and Mr. Krogstad. A big theme of the first act so far is the secrecy hidden behind the characters. Each character in the play has their own secrets. Some are obvious like Nora not wanting her husband to know about her macaroons, but others are secrets that are not shared with the reader. Torvald’s study represents secrets that are not shared with the reader as the conversations behind the closed door are hidden for now. Not much is disclosed about the past of the other characters other than basic descriptions. Nora knows Krogstad, but she’s not supposed to and she throws Kristine into her lie. All we know about Krogstad is that he is from the bank and that Dr. Rank says that he is not a respectable person. This source may not be fully reliable as Dr. Rank’s backstory is pretty mysterious as well. He is said to be a family friend that shows up to talk to Torvald in private quite often. The most mysterious of all the characters has to be the children. We are introduced with their names which are absent from the character list in the beginning, but that’s all we get. The children don’t get any lines and they make Nora act like a child herself. Also, Torvald doesn’t pay much attention to his kids at all. He leaves right as they arrive and says,”This place now becomes unbearable for anybody except mothers.” I don’t think Torvald is as healed as Nora thinks he is, but she’s too focused on her own secrets to pay attention to anyone else's.
I definitely see where you point out how Ibsen keeps secrets from the audience, but I also think that a few secrets are revealed within the first act. For example, the stage directions give the audience an insight into how Nora eating macaroons or anything sweet is disapproved by Helmer. This early in the play though, Ibsen does allow some of these secrets to be up for interpretation. The audience does not know exactly why Helmer does not like Nora eating macaroons but they definitely know there is a secret behind them.
In act one of Doll’s House Nora Helmer is introduced. Throughout the act she remains constantly present interacting with each character. Henrik Ibsen uses Nora’s stage direction and various levels of mature diction to characterize her and the relationships she builds. Initially when she is in conversation with her husband ‘Helmer’ her directions are very submissive and childish, she is described to be “ toying with his coat buttons …”, “Shrieking” and “hums and smiles quietly and happily”. Her diction is also very childlike when speaking with Helmer, she even talks in the third person, when admitting to spending too much money, “I know, I know, we call it a spendthrift…”. This creates a patriarchy type dynamic between the two as she is much more light and acts thoughtless, while helmer is much more reprimanding and in-charge. There is a slight shift in her when she is speaking with her old school friend Mrs.Linde. Nora is much more put together, still holding an air of light headedness but speaks much more boastful, and dramatic, “No you start. I won’t be selfish. I must think only about you affairs today. But there’s just one thing I must tell you…” . The biggest shift is when Nora is around Krogstad, when Krogstad arrives she is first described as “tense” and she “speaks in a low voice”. This is the first time that she is not acting bubbly dramatic, this speaks on the relationship between the two and the secrets kept.
Reading further into Act One the play begins to unfold and the characters’ true personalities are revealed. In this, it has been revealed that Nora has a big list of lies that is starting to catch up to her. A quote that I found interesting was, “A fog of lies like that in the household, and it spreads disease and infection to every part of it.” (I.i.33). I found this quote to be really interesting because of the dramatic irony of the situation. Here, Helmer is explaining to Nora how the wife has a big influence on the house and the children. Essentially, whenever the wife tells a lie, the children take from this and learn from their mom. I find this quote interesting because Helmer does not know that he is spot on in saying this because Nora has a big list of lies that she has to keep track of. These lies include things like eating macaroons and borrowing money from Krogstad. Nora has even committed the same offense that Krogstad did to Helmer. Nora forged her father’s signature when signing the form from Krogstad to get the money. Ironically, Krogstad forged a signature for Helmer, and this is one of the big reasons Helmer dislikes Krogstad and wants to fire him from the bank.
Helmer- “My dear little Nora , there is a considerable difference between your father and me. Your father’s professional conduct was not entirely above suspicion. Mine is. And I hope it’s going to stay that way as long as I hold this position”(the doll’s house Act 2 Pg 42) This line said by Helmer really demonstrates how Helmer feels about dishonesty and suspicious activity. Knowing this makes you think just how angry he will be at Nora and Surprised when he learns about her debt. Also I notice that Nora’s father plays a big role in this play through the main characters speaking about him. When reading this line I wondered if Nora’s father and Helmer got along very well because of Helmers reaction to being compared to him. Finally agian you see Helmer downplay Nora by calling her “little” when in reality she is doing things that are a huge issue like getting herself into debt.
In the final portion of Act 1, Nora reveals how she views her responsibilities as a wife and a daughter. She questions “isn’t a daughter entitled to try and save her father from worry and anxiety on his deathbed? Isn’t a wife entitled to save her husband’s life? I might not know very much about law, but I feel sure of one thing: it must say somewhere that things like this are allowed” (I.i.29). Nora utters this quote to Krogstad when trying to justify her forgery. She says that she was entitled to forge her father’s signature in order to save her father from worry and her husband from becoming sicker. Unfortunately, Nora sees little to no issue in the felony that she has committed. The part of this quote that stuck out to me was Nora’s use of the word “entitled”. She didn’t say obligated, meaning she felt responsible to do this for the sake of her father and her husband’s health, but she used the word entitled. Entitlement has connotations of authority. This shows that she is bluffing. In the past, she has lied and said that she has authority, but as soon as Krogstad asks her to use this authority to put in a good word for him, she claims she has no sway in Helmer’s work. Nora believes she has the right and the authority to break the law to help her family. This, along with the latter part of the quote, demonstrate Nora’s limited knowledge of the law and her naivete.
On page 19, within part two, Nora says “Oh, if I dared go out. If only nobody would come. If only nothing would happen here in the meantime. Rubbish; nobody is coming. Only not to think. What a delicious muff! Beautiful gloves, beautiful gloves! To forget- to forget! One, two, three, four, five, six- [With a scream.] Ah, there they come.” Although my group hadn’t gotten to this part in the play yet, it is still an easily analysable quote when it comes to characterising Nora. At this point in the story, Nora has been exposed by Krogstad for her forgery and fraudulent behaviour. This explains her finicky and paranoid thoughts and feelings. She is afraid Krogstad will come and tell Helmer about how he loaned her money- loans being his least favourite thing in the world- and would then ruin her new, perfect life. This quote displays a lack of control over restraining her thoughts and further exemplifies the childish characterisation associated with Nora. Children biologically are not as developed as adults, obviously, and therefore the combination of the frontal cortex as well as the amygdala do not work in a mature manner within the brain of an adolescent. This means that children often are unable to process fears before acting on them. This quote demonstrates how Nora is nearly even biologically immature since she reacts impulsively and with a complete lack of control. Although most people act this way while anxious, I believe that this particular quote was included in order to emphasise her immature mindset and childish behaviours.
An important quote from the very beginning of act two that was found to be quite interesting is on page 53. It is Christmas day, and, thanks to the stage directions, the scene is set up to have a depressing and dark tone. “The Christmas tree is stripped of its ornaments and has burned-down candles on tattered branches...” (II.i.53). Using the diminishing and run-down diction allows the reader to understand that this is not a happy Christmas day, which is somewhat of an oxymoron because Christmas always has had the merry and bright connotations involved. The nurse finally found the fancy dress Nora was going to wear to the ball and she informs Nora that it is in bad condition. This quote from Nora further develops her crazy undertones and how she is very reactive, and it also includes possible foreshadowing to her ruining something--perhaps her perfect materialistic looking, image loving, family? “I’d love to tear it into a thousand little pieces” (II.i.53). This quote may not seem like much, but sometimes the most simplistic turn out to be grand components into the development of the story. Another literary device in this quote is hyperbole. Obviously it is an exaggeration for dramatic effect to say she is willing to tear a dress into a thousand pieces. Including this exaggeration demonstrates how she may have issues with being reactive or crazy--something that resonates with being a child and immature, a recurring role for Nora. This quote is very significant because it shows that something has turned in Nora. No longer does she want that fancy, beautiful dress for Torvald. She is okay with breaking away and doing what she wants for herself-- something she has not been okay with in the past since she lets Torvald push her around. She has turned a new leaf, and this small, perhaps overlooked quote represents that.
“[goes to meet him]. I’ve been longing for you to be back, Torvald, dear.”(II. 40). The above quote stood out to me because it embodied the entire theme of the past act. Right before telling Helmer about how she wished he was home she told Christina “Christina-! [Listens.] Hush! There's Torvald coming home. Do you mind going into the nursery for the present? Torvald can't bear to see dressmaking going on.”(II.40). She does not want Torvald home because she wishes to speak to Christina about her problem, but despite her chagrin, she lies to her husband and makes him feel important. After her past sting of lies, the above is the icing on the proverbial macaroon. First, the quote cements the superficial nature of their relationship. As per Victorian gender roles, the wife is to stay at home and eagerly await the arrival of her husband, like a dog awaiting the arrival of their owner. Nora, however, does not long for Torvald presence as evidenced by her longing to say damn and her inability to speak to him about her friends. All her “longing” is just an act to flatter Torvald and conform to societal standards. Second, Torvald’s disinterested response portrays the man’s stoic role to apathetically bask in the adoration of his spouse. Overall, Ibson manages to summarize cultural standards into one statement.
The quote I found intriguing was in Act two page 39 when Nora says “A man’s better at coping with these things than a woman...” This is interesting because it’s not logical to think men and women are so different. People in the modern world know that women aren’t so fragile as to not be able to hear even a curse word, but thinking down of women in that time period was the norm. But what really makes you think is when Nora says next “Nonsense! [Stops.]” (Act two page 39). The quote there is important because we see Nora have a change in thought. If Nora really believed men were more capable, then Nora wouldn’t continually try to fix the situation or she wouldn’t have gotten into it in the first place. I think that Nora has been brainwashed to know her place in society, which is frequently reinforced by her husband, but I aldo think she doesn’t want to be just a “homemaker.” We see this through her actions, which counter society views of a woman like eating the macaroons behind Torvald’s back, forging her father’s signature, and lying.
Towards the end of act one Nora begins to shift from the confident boastful bubbly homemaker. Her exterior slowly crumbles after Krogstad threatens blackmail in order to keep his position at the bank. In Nora’s second meeting with Mrs.Linde she says, “I have to get myself out of that other business. That’s behind his back. I must get myself out of that.”. Previously when she spoke with her, she was rather boastful about her secret, telling Mrs.Linde that she does in fact have struggles but she strong and fortunate enough to rise above them. Now Nora seems to be swallowing her words. This shift in her behavior makes the reader/audience member question whether or not Nora is truly as submissive and dainty as Torvald makes her out be, or if the stronger, independent side shown by her willingness to lie is her true identity.
As Henrik Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House’ progresses and Nora’s secret forgery scandal is out she becomes increasingly determined to hide this from her suspicious husband, Torvald. While Nora has been depicted as a bumbling air head she begins to prove her reputation wrong. Torvald uses many examples of childlike and pet-like diction towards her, he consistently belittles her and proves his ownership. She begins to play on these traits, strategically distracting him. Towards the end of act one on pages 31 and 32 the couple is discussing Krogstad and his dim future at the bank but Nora quickly shifts the focus to her incredible helplessness asking Torvald to dress her, “Please Torvald I never get anywhere without your help”(32). Later she demonstrates similar pet-like diction while asking a favor of Torvald, “If your little squirrel were to ask ever so nicely…?” “Please if only you would let it do what it wants, it’d scamper about and do all sorts of marvellous tricks!”(41). Later in addition to tracing his ways Nora tricks Torvald with false aberration and incompetence. She is frantic to keep him from seeing the letter from Krogstad in the mailbox so she completely botches the dance Torvald taught her. Here he falls into the trap she set for him, promising to do nothing but teach her all night, he even exclusively mentions he will abstain from getting the mail, “NORA: Yes, you seen how necessary it is. You must go on coaching me right up to the last minute. Promise me, Torvald? HELMER: You can rely on me.” (59). These accounts are the first times that Nora exhibits any true intelligence or purposeful action, her character continues to grow as the show progresses.
I agree with your analysis of this section of A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen. I especially agreed with your section about pet diction and the belittling and demeaning manner in which Torvald treats his wife Nora. While Torvald does most of the name calling, the quotes you have selected are some of the most notable when it comes to Nora referring to herself as a squirrel and sometimes as “it”. I think that Nora has as big a role in belittling herself as Torvald does. Though she seems to do so in a playful and lighter way, she is still submitting to Torvald’s superiority, giving him all the power.
In act 2 of “A doll’s house” Nora has a moment with Dr.Rank letting the reader know through his confession that he loves Nora saying “ Nora- do you think he is the only one-?... The only one who would gladly give his life for your sake.”(Act 2 Page ) Reading this surprised me especially through Nora’s response. Nora Teases Dr.Rank in a way and this really defines her and Helmers relationship is a lie and further describes her as a character. Dramatic irony was also used in this act through Nora saying “Oh,you wouldn’t understand. Go into them, I will come in a moment. (Mrs.Linde goes into the dining-room.Nora stands still for a while a little while, as if to compose herself. Then she looks at her watch.) Five o’clock. Seven hours until midnight; and then four-and twenty hours until the next midnight. Then the Tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live”.(Act 2 Page 61) Tarantella is a rapid whirling dance originating in italy. This scene gives dramatic Irony because we know that Nora is going to run away through her conversation with Krogstad before and her husband Helmer does not. I believe that Dr.Rank will play a role in her escape in my opinion because of him confessing to her at such a perfect moment stating he would risk his life for her right when she may need someone to do that for her.
I totally agree with your analysis on the whole situation with Dr. Rank and Nora. I think that Nora’s response to Dr. Rank flirtatious comments contributes to her bag of lies. Her first response is more angry than it is accepting. I think contributes to the lies because on the surface she is pretending reject Dr. Rank for the sake of her relationship, but deep down she may have some sort of feeling for Dr. Rank. I also agree with the part of the conversation between Krogstad and Nora. I think there may be some significant foreshadowing here.
I agree that this section of A Doll’s House greatly characterized Nora in a bad light. Her flirtatious banter with Dr. Rank showed the extent of Nora’s deception and web of lies. This is exemplified even further when she constantly flips sides of flirting back with Dr. Rank or rejecting his advances for the sake of her marriage. I think your prediction of Dr. Rank helping Nora run away is accurate and I agree with it. The signs are all there: she has flirted with him, he cares for her and he wants her to be protected.
The suspense has began to rise after finishing act two. Many significant events have taken place in this act. These events range from the Dr. Rank feeling sorrow for himself because of his “tuberculosis of the spine” to Krogstad threatening Nora with blackmail. One of the most interesting things that happened in this scene was when Nora says, “Which I am!” (II.i.53). While this may come of as sarcasm, there is a deeper meaning. Nora by saying this to express her true feelings. Nora says this in response to Krogstad when he says, “...if you happen to be thinking of running away…” (II.i.53). Nora is literally saying here that she may run away from all that she has. Figuratively, I think she is expressing her feelings towards her family and just her life in general. I think that she wants change in her life and she is using this line as a metaphor to exemplify this change. She compares the want of change to running away, which is a very strong way to make this point. She wants to “run away” from the life she has and start fresh. The use of this metaphor by Ibsen allows the suspense to build in the play and keep the audience engaged.
Towards the end of Act II, Ibson begins to incorporate an awful lot of death diction to perhaps foreshadow Nora’s death. The first and most obvious appears in Nora’s conversation with Krogstad when he says, “Under the ice, perhaps? Down into the cold, black water? And next spring to come up again, ugly, hairless, unrecognisable-” (II. 54). Diverging from the character’s indirect way of speaking, Krogstad clearly makes a threat on her life, establishing the idea of someone’s death. Not only does Krogstad allude to her demise, but when talking to Christina, Nora does as well when she says, “ NORA. It's the miracle coming to pass. MRS. LINDEN. The miracle? NORA. Yes, the miracle. But it's so terrible, Christina; it mustn't happen for all the world”(II.56). In the ominous exchange, Nora hints at some drastic action, and when combined with the symbolic falling out of her hair, it leaves the reader to suspect the worst. But as we saw in the stocking scene, Ibson often leads the reader to anticipate an ending, but right before the climax, stops, thus leaving the reader constantly second guessing him/herselves. These bait-and-switch plotlines often reveal an integral insights to his characters while keeping the reader always wanting more. Perhaps Nora won’t take her own life, but rather destroy the doll’s house she made for herself, metaphorically ending it all. Overall, Ibson clearly toys with his readers, keeping them engaged while at the same time divulging key themes.
I did not even notice the death diction so that was a great observation. I do not know if Nora is going to die but the use of this definitely could foreshadow to it. Something else that supports this is that her foil, ms. Linde is a widowed wife, so if Nora passes away and leaves her husband that would further how her and ms. Linde are opposites of eachother. I thought of the ice being something fragile and frail, representing Nora and her psychotic state-- able to break at any moment but I see your interpretation great!
After taking a closer look into the framing and setting of A Doll’s House, I was reminded that so far, the entirety of the play has taken place in this one room which was so extensively described in the opening stage direction of the first act. I had gotten caught up in the play and the events unfolding before me that I overlooked the very limited setting of the play. The realist aspect of the play is emphasized by it taking place in just one room. Though there seem to be scenes in other rooms or locations, they are simple spoken of in this one room. This reminded me of the device used in Taming of the Shrew when Grumio described Kate falling off her horse to Curtis. Though the event wasn’t actually happening in the play, it was being discussed, introducing an important aspect of realism when the play can only take place in this one room. Without these descriptions and hints at the outside world, the reader would have no idea what has happened outside the four walls of the room. The fact that the entire play thus far has taken place in this one room also contributes to the motif of dolls and a doll house. The limited setting of just one isolated room reminds the reader of an actual doll house. Doll houses are usually a cross section of a house with multiple stories and multiple rooms per story. Each room is typically relatively closed off from others and has recognizable furniture to convey its purpose (i.e. bathroom having a sink and a toilet, kitchen having a stove and refrigerator). These isolated rooms are metaphors for the setting/framing device of the play, furthering the significance of the title.
Something intriguing in this next portion of act two in the Ibsen play A Doll’s House is the further character development and use of irony to further the storyline along. At this point, Nora is very seriously contemplating running away from her husband and children (that seem to not be important), and she is very nervous because Krogstad-- who loned Nora money, now knows of her signature forgery and wrote a letter to Torvald explaining the lone and the lie Nora committed, two of his least favorite things. While trying to distract him from going into his study and reading the letter that was left for him, she exclaims that she needs to further her practicing of the Tarantella dance. The Tarantella is an Italian folk dance that starts with a quick tempo and increases to an even faster one. It also stems from an old tale of people getting bit by a venomous spider and the only cure is to dance wildly, which is essentially what Nora is doing. Her practicing this dance and going very fast and wild despite Torvalds instructions demonstrates her upcoming freedom and how she is “getting rid” of Torvald’s venom that he has poisoned her with to be an obedient victorian wife. The use of dramatic irony is exemplified when she acts nervous because of the dance, and Torvald thinks that, but the audience knows that she is actually nervous for Torvald to read the letter from Krogstad. This occurs on page 83 when Nora says “I cannot dance tomorrow if I don’t rehearse” Torvald replies with “Are you really so nervous about it?” and she confirms the nervousness. However, the readers, audience and anyone but Torvald knows why she is truly nervous, and it is not for the dance.
One striking thing about Act two is how the reader starts to see a new side of Nora. Obviously, I knew Nora was deceiving after learning that she had forced a signature and lied about a loan, but in the end of Act two, Nora is toying with Torvald. Desperately, Nora tries to stall Helmer into not looking at Krogstad’s letter. Nora pretends to be helpless, needing Torvald for anything she can think of. Nora says “you must go on coaching me right up to the last minute. Promise me, Torvald?” (Act two page 59). Until now, I have been debating on whether Nora had truly been innocent and dependent on her husband because that’s how society raised her, or if Nora had different thoughts about her roles as a woman while she played a part. I think this scene really shows that Nora consciously knew exactly how she must act as a woman. Consciously knowing her place rather than brainlessly believing she was actually inept at everything. And through Act two, the reader sees Nora as undoubtedly deceptive while she’s playing the act Torvald wants to see so that she can get what she wants.
In Act 3 of “a doll’s house” Helmer has found out about Nora’s secret of taking out a loan from Krogstad to pay for his treatment when he was sick. Helmer reacted as if the world was ending because his reputation was in jeopardy by saying “Now you have ruined my entire happiness, jeopardized my whole future. It’s terrible to think of. Here I am, at the mercy of a thoroughly unscrupulous person”(act 3 page 76) Reading this scene really shows just how selfish Helmer is as a person in this play. Even though Nora made a mistake she did it with good intentions in mind to save her husband from an illness. Reading further into this scene I was shocked at Nora wanting to leave her husband and family in order to think things over for herself. “Yes very easily. It was tonight, when the miracle didn’t happen. It was then I realized you weren’t the man I thought you were.”(act 3 page 84) The miracle Nora speaks of is Helmer taking the blame for her mistake and saving her. I found this to be very self centered of Nora expecting someone to save her from her own issues she caused. Act three really defined Helmer and Nora’s personalities and just how similar they are in selfishness.
Yes, I also was shocked that she could easily just leave to “think over things”. Especially in that time period. One side of me is proud of her for standing up for herself and leaving because then she is finally free from her husband’s controlling nature. However, at the same time, it was very selfish, like you said, that she could easily leave her whole family to think after a mistake that SHE made.
While I understand your position, I completely disagree. In these times, women were expected to sacrifice everything for men. Every single female character has given everything for a man. Starting with the nurse, she gave up her own CHILD because her husband left her. Christina left her true love to marry a rich man to support her sick family. Nora sacrificed her name to save her husbands life. And then Torvald, a man who just prior boasted to wanting to sacrifice everything for her, cowers when given an opportunity to do so. Sure, she was selfish, but Ibsen expresses that everyone is selfish, but women are expected to sacrifice themselves for men who do nothing in return.
Although quite shocking, the ending of a doll’s house was almost predicted through Ibsen’s use of foreshadowing throughout the play. During the play, he used foreshadowing that lead audience to believe that perhaps Nora will go crazy or do something insane. He foreshadowed on page 80 when Nora says “If I should lose my mind- no, it could easily happen!” and Linde replies with “Nora! You are out of your mind!” (II.i.80). This is not even the end of the play, but still informs the readers that something could actually be a little bit off about Nora. As a woman in this time period, it was very unheard of and taboo to leave your husband and kids, especially since a duty of a woman back then is to be a mother and an obedient wife. So, even though by the end she did not go completely psychotic, she still did something extremely unforgiving and “wild”. It was interesting how Ibsen included the macaroons in the beginning of the play for the foreshadow of how lying plays a role in the play. Nora lying about something so small demonstrates that she is a liar and will be lying more often, because if she was so willing to lie about something that, in the grand scheme of things, does not really matter, then what else is she willing to lie about? Apparently a lot of things. Also, the use of stage direction in this play aided in the foreshadowing as well. The first paragraph of stage direction examines how their house and items in it just show that on the outside they are the perfect “doll” and victorian family, but on the inside, there are many dark secrets and scandals. This was a great play and the way he wrote it, you almost root for, and against Nora’s decision in the end.
I agree with your analysis. I too think that this was the ending which we all expected. Though she wants to be nothing but a mother to her children and a wife to her husband, the drama surrounding her past mistakes caught up to her and she can't deal with them any longer. While it may have been somewhat surprising that she didn't stay to raise her young children, as you said, Ibsen incorporated many uses of foreshadowing to hint at her leaving the family. I also agree with your mention of the importance of stage direction in this play. Stage direction is often overlooked and we can all agree that it has a crucial role in this play.
Blog Post #5 Retrospectively, the most telling foreshadowing of the ending came from the Tarantella dance. After researching the dance, I found it is an erratic dance that has its roots in 14th century Italy. At the time, there was an “epidemic” of tarantism. The disease that caused uncontrollable dancing was said to have been caused by the bite of a tarantula. Modern psychologists like Luigi Chiriatti argue that tarantism was, “an expression of this marginality: a way for these women to manifest their social suffering,.” Knowing the origin of the dance, Ibsen compares the repressed and frustrated women to Nora. When “practicing” for her dance, Ibsen writes, “HELMER. [Playing.] Slower! Slower! NORA. Can't do it slower! HELMER. Not so violently, Nora. NORA. I must! I must! HELMER. [Stops.] No, no, Nora- that will never do” (II.58). Even though she’s dancing erratically on purpose, through the dancing, Ibsen reveals that like the women in Italy, Nora desperately needs to express herself. The very first indication of her resistance appeared in the very first act when Nora says, “I would simply love to say: ‘Damn’.” (I.20). The dance and the previous quote reveal the frustration of living like a doll.When Torvald says, “Not so violent” it gives the reader insight to her desire to take her own life. The more and more erratic dancing expresses her mounting amount of resentment, and ultimately foreshadows her chosen departure.
I agree with you on how the tarantella was a very important foreshadowing throughout this play. I can see where you get that Nora is trying to express herself in the scene of her dancing in front of Helmer and Dr.Rank. I saw this scene as Nora trying to hold on to the threads that are the remain of her normal life with Helmer. Nora wants nothing more than for Helmer to never read the letter Krogstad left in his mail box. She is seen as being very distorted over the whole ordeal becoming very stressed over the subject. Nora told Mrs.Linde that if Helmer found out about her lie “If I should go mad….which might easily happen…”(Act 2 Page 55) this gives the reader the impression that Nora will lose everything if he finds out supporting that Nora is doing everything in her power to stop the inevitable from happening or creating her own “miracle”.
After the discussion and questions we answered after class, I became aware of the importance of light in the play. Overall, the lamp, or light in general, symbolize Nora’s state of awareness. The significance of light is introduced in the play when Nora is speaking with Dr. Rank after he announces that he is dying soon. Nora becomes flirty in hopes that he will offer her money. She says, “Of course, it’s dark here now, but tomorrow... No, no, no, you can only look at the feet. Oh well, you might as well see a bit higher up, too” (II.i.47). The darkness signifies Nora’s clouded judgement, and it is only when efforts at seducing Rank for money fail, and instead he confesses his deep feelings for her. Nora is then shocked out of her little game. Later in the conversation she says, “I must say, you are a nice one, Dr. Rank! Don’t you feel ashamed of yourself, now that the lamp’s been brought in? (II.i.49). Nora feels that the darkness shields her from consequences, and that now that the light is turned on, her reality is back to the “perfection” she is trying to mirror. Nora criticizing Dr. Rank for acting inappropriately in the darkness and saying that he should be ashamed of himself is very hypocritical when she was doing just the same. Light is a common symbol for clarity, rebirth, and honesty. However, while Nora receives more clarity with the lamp, it seems that things are more honest in the dark. The light also symbolizes being open and seen to the public, and in this age, maintaining a strong reputation with no faults was a high priority for families like Nora’s. When the light is on, Nora is compelled to behave and speak the way she should, and secrets are to be kept to herself.
In The Doll’s house by Henrik Ibsen I noticed that Nora was called Nora throughout the book while other characters were called or named differently maybe for the purpose of creating a respectful tone. For example Helmer was called Torvald which was his first name and Mrs.Linde was called Kristine which is also her first name. Seeing this I thought that it really defined these three characters as Mrs.Linde/Helmer as either a dominant role or a respected elegant role. Nora was being defined as a character that might be a little on the air head controlled side. This book was also set in winter during christmas foreshadowing possible debt between Nora and Helmer through the line “I went and borrowed a thousand crowns today and you went and spent it all over christmas”(The Doll’s House Pg 2). This shows how Nora has a spending problem and does not think about debt and borrowing money even when her husband who works for a bank tells her it is a bad thing to do. I believe Debt will become an issue in the future because of the fact that Nora lies to her husband shown through her hiding the macaroons from him. I believe that Nora may take out a massive debt and hide it from her husband for christmas or for herself.
ReplyDelete“Blog 1”
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the first act of A Doll’s House the main characters are introduced. In this first scene Henrik Ibsen utilizes stage directions and pet diction to characterize the characters. The first example of this is in the very beginning where Nora is being introduced. Ibsen makes use of stage directions to set up a small conflict later in this Act, “She takes a bag of macaroons out of her pocket and eats one or two;” (I.i.1). This explains how Nora has started to snack on macaroons but as soon as her husband comes onto the set she puts them away to hide them from her. Later, she even lies to her husband by denying that she snacked on some macaroons displayed by when Helmer states,”Didn’t go nibbling a macaroon or two?” (I.i.5) and Nora replies,”No, Torvald, honestly, you must believe me…!” (I.i.5) This displays how Nora does have a manipulative side to her by lying to her own husband. Ibsen also makes use of pet diction to show a level of disrespect to her wife, Nora. This is exhibited when Helmer says,”Is that my little squirrel that is frisking about?” (I.i.5). By Helmer saying this, he shows a great disrespect to his wife by using animals to describe and talk to her. Whereas, Nora when speaking to Helmer, calls him Torvald. This presents a greater respect towards Helmer by calling him by his first name.
I completely agree with what you said about Isben characterizing Nora as disrespected compared to Helmer. I found it weird that all Helmer did was dehumanize her by relating her to different animals like a squirrel and a bird. By doing this Isben really shows just how much gender roles played a role in this time period and how different it is compared to today. You also mentioned that Nora was manipulative of her husband Helmer through her lieing about macaroons. I agree with you and kind of think that Nora may be playing dumb in front of people but in reality she is smarter than she appears. Though I am not quite sure about this and think that I need to read more of the play to be sure.
ReplyDeleteIn the first act of A Doll’s House, many different names and nicknames are used, particularly pet names between Nora and Torvald. Torvald repeatedly refers to Nora as “my little sky-lark” (I.i.1), “my little squirrel” (I.i.2), “my pretty little pet” (I.i.4) and “my pretty little song-bird” (I.i.5). These multiple examples of pet diction directed at Nora are demeaning. Helmer uses this as a way to assert his dominance and superiority over his wife. Along with the ways Helmer refers to Nora, the manner in which the play itself refers to the characters is with a purpose. The characters are referred to as “Helmer” (instead of his first name, Torvald), “Nora” (as opposed to Mrs. Helmer) and “Mrs. Linde” (as opposed to Kristine). The use of Helmer instead of Torvald shows that Torvald is the head of the family and that his image represents the Helmer name. This gives him a sense of superiority over Nora, who is referenced by her first name to give her less power and a more approachable impression. Mrs. Linde is not referred to by her first name in the character labels because she is seen as a quiet and respectable woman in this first scene. She seems intelligent, independent and she has the official and professional name/title to fit her personality. Another example of the importance of names is how the porter is only referred to by his title, giving him a lesser importance in the grand scheme of the story. The most startling of Ibsen’s name choices is that of Dr. Rank. The word rank typically has a very negative connotation, including its synonyms like putrid, disgusting and nauseating. The entire encounter with Dr. Rank in the first part of the first act is very vague and inconclusive. The connotations of his name combined with this mysterious atmosphere create prospective problems and conflicts. The few pages of A Doll’s House which we have read left multiple examples of foreshadowing and Dr. Rank’s name choice is one of them.
ReplyDeleteIn the first act and scene of the play written by Ibsen titled A Doll’s House, the main characters of the play are introduced. Nora and Torvald (Torvald however is referred to as Helmer in the actual writing of the play). A theme that was common and that I found interesting was the respect gap between Nora and her Husband Torvald. When this play was written in the Victorian age, women were much less of than men and that has already been demonstrated. Even in just naming the characters, Ibsen refers to Torvald as Helmer, his last name, and Nora just as Nora and nothing more. Not only are the names introduced differently but then Torvald goes on to display distrust for his wife when he was accusing her of going to a candy/bakery shop. Torvald says “Look me straight in the eye”. Nora looks at him and then he goes on to claim that she went to a candy store. “Little miss sweet tooth did not make a detour down to the patisserie?” (I.i.16). This dynamic that is shared between them is very obviously not a trustworthy one if Nora feels that she must lie about something so miniscule. It is also very disrespectful how he refers to her as “little miss sweet tooth” (I.i.16) on many different occasions as well as many other pet names-- most referring to actual animals. Calling someone names of animals seems like it is a way of telling that person that they are less than what they are. It is dehumanizing, but it also sounds playful and fun at the same time so it is the perfect insult; an insult that can be thrown around many times without sounding too serious. Perhaps, it could be an insult to Nora’s intelligence as well, giving insults that can be taken as a joke. He could be making it a point to give insults that could just also be fun banter as a way to say “Ha-ha Nora, you are a stupid woman and will not be able to understand this insult”.
ReplyDeleteIn the first third of A Doll’s House, Ibsen subtly alludes to the superficial nature of the Helmer’s lives. The very name of the play, “A Doll’s House”, suggests that, like a doll house, the Helmers merely pretend to enjoy their lives. In Ibsen’s first setting description, he utilizes a string of contradictory descriptions, such as “tastefully but not expensively furnished”, the piano and china plates combined with the repeated description of use. Through the contradictory statements, Ibson expresses that the characters are living a double life. They try to live a rich, sophisticated life, as evidenced by the piano and china, but to not have the funds to do so. Ibson furthers the idea of the Helmer’s double life with Nora’s spending habits. Nora spends as though the Helmer’s were much more affluent. Nora symbolizes the superficial appearance of wealth, while Helmer’s attitude represents their true wealth. Ibson furthers the idea that things aren’t as they seem through the use of Nora’s deception. First, when questioning his wife if she went to the baker, Helmer asks, “Hasn't she even nibbled a macaroon or two?”(Ibson, 5) to which Nora replies “No, Torvald, indeed, indeed!”(5). Without the utilization of dramatic irony, the fib might’ve been believable, but Ibson purposefully included “Taking from her pocket a bag of macaroons, she eats one or two. Then she goes on tip-toe to her husband's door and listens”(1) to subtly foreshadow future deception. In the conversation between Nora and Helmer, the reader learns that the past few have been a struggle for the couple, but then when talking to her “friend”, she says, “Oh, the last eight years have been a happy time, I can tell you”(8). Here, Ibson explicitly portrays that the couple’s happiness is completely superficial.
ReplyDeleteWithin the first act, it was apparent that Nora was a character which would be constantly belittled throughout the play, I felt. The animal-like diction, as well as the condescendingly teasing tone, seemed to me as foreshadow used in order to draw Nora as a childish and subordinate character. A theme which was outlined within the first act which also exemplified Nora’s inferiority is the topic of names; Torvald is labelled by his family name, which is much more respectful than being addressed by one’s first name, as Nora is. However, while she personally calls him by his first name, he displays his superiority by calling her his little pet. She often responds with short and straightforward sentences, which is expected of children when conversing with adults. This theme is also continued when Mrs. Linden appears. Nora calls her by her first name and speaks in lengthy and frivolous sentences. She expresses her adoration of wealth and materialistic items to her long time friend. This use of language represents a hierarchy of respect when comparing characters; Nora is in the middle while she idolises her husband and nearly disrespects Christine. As I previously mentioned, Nora’s obsession with possession is another important factor to consider when characterising her. She seems impulsive and careless, while continuing to present childlike behaviour. She wishes to spend money as soon as their family is no longer in a state of financial strain. Overall, she comes off to me as someone who has an inch and takes a mile, while also displaying immature characteristics.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the first act of A Doll’s House, the main focus is on Nora. Henrik Ibsen characterizes Nora by using dramatic irony and stage direction. In the beginning, Nora is already shown as secretive when she hides the macaroons she is eating. The stage direction shows how she “sneakily” walks around and hides them. The deception isn’t just with Nora as her husband has a secret “study.” The interaction between him and the doctor is shrouded in this first scene so the readers are kept in the dark. Ibsen uses a lot of dramatic irony because the stage direction lets the readers in on clues that the other characters don’t know about. For example, when Nora hid the macaroons, she lies to her husband about not eating them. If Shakespeare had wrote this, there would be no stage direction so the readers would never have known she ate them. The diction that Ibsen uses is also very realist. Everything is straightforward unlike the symbols and metaphors of shakespeare. A lot of backstory is given like this with Nora blatantly spewing out information about her husband's past and her money situation. This in turn gives insight into her own character as well since she prioritizes her own problems over others.
ReplyDeleteI like how you mentioned Shakespeare when discussing Ibsen’s abundance of stage direction in A Doll’s House. I think it’s interesting we are studying two very different playwrights with two very different and individual styles right after one another. While the two are very different, I believe there are some similarities between the two. A slight comparison I found between Ibsen and Shakespeare are their selective use of names. Like you mentioned, Nora is secretive and doesn’t tell her husband she has eaten sweets. This reminded me of a white lie that a child would tell to their parents when asked if they ate all the cookies/brownies/cake/candy/other things kids lie about eating. This is significant because Nora is always addressed by her first name, as a child would be. However, her husband Torvald is referred to by his family name, Helmer. This is a much more respected way to be referred to. Ibsen has thought out how his characters are named and referred to, much like Shakespeare and his many “-io” names versus the simple servants who were of less importance like Curtis. It will be interesting to see if there are any more similarities besides the importance of names or the theme of deception between the two plays.
DeleteIn the second portion of the first act of A Doll’s House, there is an abundance of characterization of Nora. Nora reveals to Mrs. Linde that she earned all the money needed to take her husband on their trip to Rome, and that she lied to him about her father gifting her the money. These actions reveal that Nora is capable of blatantly lying to her husband. She thinks she is doing the right thing and that there will be no repercussions or consequences of her actions. Nora spends long periods of dialogue explaining her ultimate sacrifice of “never spending more than half” (I.i.15) of the money that Torvald gave her. She believes she is a hero for not spending all the allowance Torvald gives her to spend on clothes and other things to keep up her appearance and false facade of a luxurious lifestyle brimming with opulence. Even the way she phrases her “humble explanation” is snobby: “It’s a blessing most things look well on me, so Torvald never noticed anything. But sometimes I did feel it was a bit hard, Kristine, because it is nice to be well dressed, isn’t it?” (I.i.15). I thought Nora couldn’t get any more childish, but I was wrong. When explaining to Kristine other ways she earned money, she said that working and having an actual job was “almost like being a man” (I.i.16). She contributes to gender discrimination by saying that working regularly is only what men do. Yes, this was the most common situation in the Victorian era, but as Mrs. Linde has shown, even in those times, a woman can work hard to make her keep and be able to support of herself. This is also shown because Mrs. Linde is looking for a job at Mr. Helmer’s bank. Overall, Nora’s words and actions during this section of the act characterize her as childish, deceptive and unable to perceive/read situations correctly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how Nora contributes to gender roles and is the definition of a women stariotype of that time period. I was surprised at how stupid Nora was to forge her fathers signature on the loan paperwork putting a date on the paper after her father died. Nora's personality is really being focused on in this act and I believe will continue to be that way throughout the play because her actions are probably going to be the cause of most of the conflict on the play.
DeleteI agree that Nora thinks she is doing the right thing for her family. She becomes so enveloped in her own personal mission to save her husband that she forgets about her husband. In this era, the man is the leader of the household, and she blatantly disregards this with her "mission." I also agree that Mrs. Linde is shown as the right way to be a strong woman in this era. Nora doesn't see this and immediately dismisses Mrs. Linde's situation as below her own and proudly states how she saved her husband. Your conclusion of Nora being characterized as childish is only reinforced by the scene where her kids get home. She starts berating them with questions and plays games with them. This can be seen as being a mother, but the way Ibsen doesn't give the kids any lines show that this is all Nora. The kids are playing with their mother, not the other way around.
DeleteWhen reading more into act one of A Doll’s House Nora is shown as disieving when talking to her friend Mrs.Linde.”You’re just like the rest of them. You think i’m useless when it comes to anything really serious…(Act one Page 12) This line Nora says to Mrs.Linde gave me the tone of mystery making me think that their might be more to Nora than she is letting on. I also was surprised to find that Nora owed money to Krogstad for her husband's expensive injury and forged her father's signature on the paperwork. I did not expect for Nora to pull something like that and believe that the fact that she wrote a date on the paper after his death shows just how mindless she can be. Overall I think that Krogstad will manipulate Nora or blackmail her throughout the book and her husband Helmer will find out about her debt.
ReplyDelete(To add in I also noticed how Nora called her kids dolls and think this is going to become an important part of the play later on.)
Based on that what do you think Ibson's comment on Victorian gender-roles are? Nora had to circumvent the law just to save her husband's life, and to top it off, can't even tell him because it would be too "embarrassing." Do you thinkmen's constant need to assert their dominance, in a way, represents an inherent fragility?
DeleteIn the half of the first chapter, Ibson cements the importance of surface layer appearances in the Helmer’s lives. When Kristine asks Nora if she will ever confess her secret to Torvald she replies, “Good heavens! What can you be thinking of of? Tell him when he has such a loathing of debt And besides- how painful and humiliating it would he for Torvald, with his manly self-respect, to know that he owed anything to me!”(15). Ibson makes clear to the reader that cultural norms dictate that men must provide for the family. Informing her husband that she, a woman, saved his life and provided for him would devastate her husband. Intentionally or not, the situation also presents a sense of irony because men, the supposedly strong and resilient sex, cannot withstand being helped by a woman. Throughout the chapter Ibson presents numerous references to society’s perceived fragility of women, but through man’s delicate pride, Ibson highlights that men, too, are weak. Not only is the perceived appearance of care important to men, but the wife’s literal appearance itself. On the same page when discussing when she might divulge their debt, she says, “Yes, some time perhaps- many, many years hence, when I'm- not so pretty. You mustn't laugh at me! Of course I mean when Torvald is not so much in love with me as he is now; when it doesn't amuse him any longer to see me dancing about, and dressing up and acting”(15). Helmer doesn’t love Nora for her personality but rather for her looks. Nora wants to keep her heroics hidden until the day that her looks do not suffice for his love. Therefrom, Ibson comments on the superficial nature of marriage itself, highlighting that couples did not marry out of love. In modern society we would like to think that we’ve evolved from these barbaric cultural norms, but in reality, modern retains many remnants of these two characteristics. Although a lot of progress has been made, many men still feel embarrassed if they can’t say pay for the check or provide for the needs of their wife. And for as much of an emphasis as our society places on love, there is just as much of one on lust.
ReplyDeleteIn this portion of A Doll’s House, not only did the character development of Nora and Torvald continue, but so did characters that were not even much in this section-- the children. The children play as a substantial symbol of this part of the play. Often, children are associated with a comfortable and inviting home, laughter, love, and a couple that is madly in love as the parents. On page 38 when Nora is playing a game with the children, there is a multitude of stage directions and Nora speaking, but none of the kids speaking whatsoever. For example, Nora says “Yes mommy will dance with bobby too! What? You played snowballs? Oh, I wish I’d been there. You go off now, Anna Marie, you look half frozen. The nurse goes into the room on the left...” (I.i.38). This is only a fraction of the 16 lines of Nora “talking” with the children. Back to the symbolic role the children play. The children not talking whatsoever leaves the impression that they are not cared for, and are unwanted. This is symbolic because Nora and Helmer care about materialistic items and people’s views on them so much, but deep down that sort of thing does not matter at all to them. Just like owning expensive things, other people see it and form an impression but deep down, more often than not, they are just THINGS that do not hold much significance, other than the ability of causing people to be in awe or jealous. This large block of Nora and the kids also can be foreshadowing to a psychotic break down or crazy decision on Nora’s part. Perhaps she falls ill later on and hears voices. This is all demonstrated by the clever children play time, which really just made her sound like she was insane, talking to herself and acting childish.
ReplyDeleteOne part I found very interesting in Act 1 was when Nora plays with the kids. Nora says “Have you had a nice time? That’s splendid. And you gave Emmy and Bob a ride on your sledge? Did you now!” (Act 1 page 22). This “back-and-forth” goes on for what seems like forever, it was honestly so awkward to read. But, it was completely intentional for Nora to sound like she was talking to herself. Nora chattering to herself gives the impression of playing with dolls. This is important because it’s almost like Nora is acting like a child playing with toys and it’s because she’s almost seen as one, especially by Helmer. For example, earlier in the play Helmer says to Nora “what do we call my pretty little pet when it runs away with all the money?” (Act 1 page 4). Nora gives into how Helmer thinks she should be because she believes he loves her for it. An example of this would be when Nora is talking to Mrs. Linde. “What I mean of course is when Trovald isn’t quite so much in love with me as he is now, when he’s lost interest in watching me dance, or get dressed up, or recite” (Act 1 page 15). Nora is feeding into what Helmer wants because it gives her the illusion of his love.
ReplyDeleteThe next “section” of the first act of Doll’s House finally broke away from the constant narration of Nora’s past and characterization. There is still the conversation about Paris with Nora and Kristine, but it is interrupted by the introduction of the mysterious Dr. Rank and Mr. Krogstad. A big theme of the first act so far is the secrecy hidden behind the characters. Each character in the play has their own secrets. Some are obvious like Nora not wanting her husband to know about her macaroons, but others are secrets that are not shared with the reader. Torvald’s study represents secrets that are not shared with the reader as the conversations behind the closed door are hidden for now. Not much is disclosed about the past of the other characters other than basic descriptions. Nora knows Krogstad, but she’s not supposed to and she throws Kristine into her lie. All we know about Krogstad is that he is from the bank and that Dr. Rank says that he is not a respectable person. This source may not be fully reliable as Dr. Rank’s backstory is pretty mysterious as well. He is said to be a family friend that shows up to talk to Torvald in private quite often. The most mysterious of all the characters has to be the children. We are introduced with their names which are absent from the character list in the beginning, but that’s all we get. The children don’t get any lines and they make Nora act like a child herself. Also, Torvald doesn’t pay much attention to his kids at all. He leaves right as they arrive and says,”This place now becomes unbearable for anybody except mothers.” I don’t think Torvald is as healed as Nora thinks he is, but she’s too focused on her own secrets to pay attention to anyone else's.
ReplyDeleteI definitely see where you point out how Ibsen keeps secrets from the audience, but I also think that a few secrets are revealed within the first act. For example, the stage directions give the audience an insight into how Nora eating macaroons or anything sweet is disapproved by Helmer. This early in the play though, Ibsen does allow some of these secrets to be up for interpretation. The audience does not know exactly why Helmer does not like Nora eating macaroons but they definitely know there is a secret behind them.
DeleteIn act one of Doll’s House Nora Helmer is introduced. Throughout the act she remains constantly present interacting with each character. Henrik Ibsen uses Nora’s stage direction and various levels of mature diction to characterize her and the relationships she builds. Initially when she is in conversation with her husband ‘Helmer’ her directions are very submissive and childish, she is described to be “ toying with his coat buttons …”, “Shrieking” and “hums and smiles quietly and happily”. Her diction is also very childlike when speaking with Helmer, she even talks in the third person, when admitting to spending too much money, “I know, I know, we call it a spendthrift…”. This creates a patriarchy type dynamic between the two as she is much more light and acts thoughtless, while helmer is much more reprimanding and in-charge. There is a slight shift in her when she is speaking with her old school friend Mrs.Linde. Nora is much more put together, still holding an air of light headedness but speaks much more boastful, and dramatic, “No you start. I won’t be selfish. I must think only about you affairs today. But there’s just one thing I must tell you…” . The biggest shift is when Nora is around Krogstad, when Krogstad arrives she is first described as “tense” and she “speaks in a low voice”. This is the first time that she is not acting bubbly dramatic, this speaks on the relationship between the two and the secrets kept.
ReplyDelete“Blog 2”
ReplyDeleteReading further into Act One the play begins to unfold and the characters’ true personalities are revealed. In this, it has been revealed that Nora has a big list of lies that is starting to catch up to her. A quote that I found interesting was, “A fog of lies like that in the household, and it spreads disease and infection to every part of it.” (I.i.33). I found this quote to be really interesting because of the dramatic irony of the situation. Here, Helmer is explaining to Nora how the wife has a big influence on the house and the children. Essentially, whenever the wife tells a lie, the children take from this and learn from their mom. I find this quote interesting because Helmer does not know that he is spot on in saying this because Nora has a big list of lies that she has to keep track of. These lies include things like eating macaroons and borrowing money from Krogstad. Nora has even committed the same offense that Krogstad did to Helmer. Nora forged her father’s signature when signing the form from Krogstad to get the money. Ironically, Krogstad forged a signature for Helmer, and this is one of the big reasons Helmer dislikes Krogstad and wants to fire him from the bank.
Helmer- “My dear little Nora , there is a considerable difference between your father and me. Your father’s professional conduct was not entirely above suspicion. Mine is. And I hope it’s going to stay that way as long as I hold this position”(the doll’s house Act 2 Pg 42) This line said by Helmer really demonstrates how Helmer feels about dishonesty and suspicious activity. Knowing this makes you think just how angry he will be at Nora and Surprised when he learns about her debt. Also I notice that Nora’s father plays a big role in this play through the main characters speaking about him. When reading this line I wondered if Nora’s father and Helmer got along very well because of Helmers reaction to being compared to him. Finally agian you see Helmer downplay Nora by calling her “little” when in reality she is doing things that are a huge issue like getting herself into debt.
ReplyDeleteIn the final portion of Act 1, Nora reveals how she views her responsibilities as a wife and a daughter. She questions “isn’t a daughter entitled to try and save her father from worry and anxiety on his deathbed? Isn’t a wife entitled to save her husband’s life? I might not know very much about law, but I feel sure of one thing: it must say somewhere that things like this are allowed” (I.i.29). Nora utters this quote to Krogstad when trying to justify her forgery. She says that she was entitled to forge her father’s signature in order to save her father from worry and her husband from becoming sicker. Unfortunately, Nora sees little to no issue in the felony that she has committed. The part of this quote that stuck out to me was Nora’s use of the word “entitled”. She didn’t say obligated, meaning she felt responsible to do this for the sake of her father and her husband’s health, but she used the word entitled. Entitlement has connotations of authority. This shows that she is bluffing. In the past, she has lied and said that she has authority, but as soon as Krogstad asks her to use this authority to put in a good word for him, she claims she has no sway in Helmer’s work. Nora believes she has the right and the authority to break the law to help her family. This, along with the latter part of the quote, demonstrate Nora’s limited knowledge of the law and her naivete.
ReplyDeleteOn page 19, within part two, Nora says “Oh, if I dared go out. If only nobody would come. If only nothing would happen here in the meantime. Rubbish; nobody is coming. Only not to think. What a delicious muff! Beautiful gloves, beautiful gloves! To forget- to forget! One, two, three, four, five, six- [With a scream.] Ah, there they come.” Although my group hadn’t gotten to this part in the play yet, it is still an easily analysable quote when it comes to characterising Nora. At this point in the story, Nora has been exposed by Krogstad for her forgery and fraudulent behaviour. This explains her finicky and paranoid thoughts and feelings. She is afraid Krogstad will come and tell Helmer about how he loaned her money- loans being his least favourite thing in the world- and would then ruin her new, perfect life. This quote displays a lack of control over restraining her thoughts and further exemplifies the childish characterisation associated with Nora. Children biologically are not as developed as adults, obviously, and therefore the combination of the frontal cortex as well as the amygdala do not work in a mature manner within the brain of an adolescent. This means that children often are unable to process fears before acting on them. This quote demonstrates how Nora is nearly even biologically immature since she reacts impulsively and with a complete lack of control. Although most people act this way while anxious, I believe that this particular quote was included in order to emphasise her immature mindset and childish behaviours.
ReplyDeleteAn important quote from the very beginning of act two that was found to be quite interesting is on page 53. It is Christmas day, and, thanks to the stage directions, the scene is set up to have a depressing and dark tone. “The Christmas tree is stripped of its ornaments and has burned-down candles on tattered branches...” (II.i.53). Using the diminishing and run-down diction allows the reader to understand that this is not a happy Christmas day, which is somewhat of an oxymoron because Christmas always has had the merry and bright connotations involved. The nurse finally found the fancy dress Nora was going to wear to the ball and she informs Nora that it is in bad condition. This quote from Nora further develops her crazy undertones and how she is very reactive, and it also includes possible foreshadowing to her ruining something--perhaps her perfect materialistic looking, image loving, family? “I’d love to tear it into a thousand little pieces” (II.i.53). This quote may not seem like much, but sometimes the most simplistic turn out to be grand components into the development of the story. Another literary device in this quote is hyperbole. Obviously it is an exaggeration for dramatic effect to say she is willing to tear a dress into a thousand pieces. Including this exaggeration demonstrates how she may have issues with being reactive or crazy--something that resonates with being a child and immature, a recurring role for Nora. This quote is very significant because it shows that something has turned in Nora. No longer does she want that fancy, beautiful dress for Torvald. She is okay with breaking away and doing what she wants for herself-- something she has not been okay with in the past since she lets Torvald push her around. She has turned a new leaf, and this small, perhaps overlooked quote represents that.
ReplyDelete“[goes to meet him]. I’ve been longing for you to be back, Torvald, dear.”(II. 40).
ReplyDeleteThe above quote stood out to me because it embodied the entire theme of the past act. Right before telling Helmer about how she wished he was home she told Christina “Christina-! [Listens.] Hush! There's Torvald coming home. Do you mind going into the nursery for the present? Torvald can't bear to see dressmaking going on.”(II.40). She does not want Torvald home because she wishes to speak to Christina about her problem, but despite her chagrin, she lies to her husband and makes him feel important. After her past sting of lies, the above is the icing on the proverbial macaroon. First, the quote cements the superficial nature of their relationship. As per Victorian gender roles, the wife is to stay at home and eagerly await the arrival of her husband, like a dog awaiting the arrival of their owner. Nora, however, does not long for Torvald presence as evidenced by her longing to say damn and her inability to speak to him about her friends. All her “longing” is just an act to flatter Torvald and conform to societal standards. Second, Torvald’s disinterested response portrays the man’s stoic role to apathetically bask in the adoration of his spouse. Overall, Ibson manages to summarize cultural standards into one statement.
The quote I found intriguing was in Act two page 39 when Nora says “A man’s better at coping with these things than a woman...” This is interesting because it’s not logical to think men and women are so different. People in the modern world know that women aren’t so fragile as to not be able to hear even a curse word, but thinking down of women in that time period was the norm. But what really makes you think is when Nora says next “Nonsense! [Stops.]” (Act two page 39). The quote there is important because we see Nora have a change in thought. If Nora really believed men were more capable, then Nora wouldn’t continually try to fix the situation or she wouldn’t have gotten into it in the first place. I think that Nora has been brainwashed to know her place in society, which is frequently reinforced by her husband, but I aldo think she doesn’t want to be just a “homemaker.” We see this through her actions, which counter society views of a woman like eating the macaroons behind Torvald’s back, forging her father’s signature, and lying.
ReplyDeleteTowards the end of act one Nora begins to shift from the confident boastful bubbly homemaker. Her exterior slowly crumbles after Krogstad threatens blackmail in order to keep his position at the bank. In Nora’s second meeting with Mrs.Linde she says, “I have to get myself out of that other business. That’s behind his back. I must get myself out of that.”. Previously when she spoke with her, she was rather boastful about her secret, telling Mrs.Linde that she does in fact have struggles but she strong and fortunate enough to rise above them. Now Nora seems to be swallowing her words. This shift in her behavior makes the reader/audience member question whether or not Nora is truly as submissive and dainty as Torvald makes her out be, or if the stronger, independent side shown by her willingness to lie is her true identity.
ReplyDeleteAs Henrik Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House’ progresses and Nora’s secret forgery scandal is out she becomes increasingly determined to hide this from her suspicious husband, Torvald. While Nora has been depicted as a bumbling air head she begins to prove her reputation wrong. Torvald uses many examples of childlike and pet-like diction towards her, he consistently belittles her and proves his ownership. She begins to play on these traits, strategically distracting him. Towards the end of act one on pages 31 and 32 the couple is discussing Krogstad and his dim future at the bank but Nora quickly shifts the focus to her incredible helplessness asking Torvald to dress her, “Please Torvald I never get anywhere without your help”(32). Later she demonstrates similar pet-like diction while asking a favor of Torvald, “If your little squirrel were to ask ever so nicely…?” “Please if only you would let it do what it wants, it’d scamper about and do all sorts of marvellous tricks!”(41). Later in addition to tracing his ways Nora tricks Torvald with false aberration and incompetence. She is frantic to keep him from seeing the letter from Krogstad in the mailbox so she completely botches the dance Torvald taught her. Here he falls into the trap she set for him, promising to do nothing but teach her all night, he even exclusively mentions he will abstain from getting the mail, “NORA: Yes, you seen how necessary it is. You must go on coaching me right up to the last minute. Promise me, Torvald? HELMER: You can rely on me.” (59). These accounts are the first times that Nora exhibits any true intelligence or purposeful action, her character continues to grow as the show progresses.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis of this section of A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen. I especially agreed with your section about pet diction and the belittling and demeaning manner in which Torvald treats his wife Nora. While Torvald does most of the name calling, the quotes you have selected are some of the most notable when it comes to Nora referring to herself as a squirrel and sometimes as “it”. I think that Nora has as big a role in belittling herself as Torvald does. Though she seems to do so in a playful and lighter way, she is still submitting to Torvald’s superiority, giving him all the power.
DeleteIn act 2 of “A doll’s house” Nora has a moment with Dr.Rank letting the reader know through his confession that he loves Nora saying “ Nora- do you think he is the only one-?... The only one who would gladly give his life for your sake.”(Act 2 Page ) Reading this surprised me especially through Nora’s response. Nora Teases Dr.Rank in a way and this really defines her and Helmers relationship is a lie and further describes her as a character. Dramatic irony was also used in this act through Nora saying “Oh,you wouldn’t understand. Go into them, I will come in a moment. (Mrs.Linde goes into the dining-room.Nora stands still for a while a little while, as if to compose herself. Then she looks at her watch.) Five o’clock. Seven hours until midnight; and then four-and twenty hours until the next midnight. Then the Tarantella will be over. Twenty-four and seven? Thirty-one hours to live”.(Act 2 Page 61) Tarantella is a rapid whirling dance originating in italy. This scene gives dramatic Irony because we know that Nora is going to run away through her conversation with Krogstad before and her husband Helmer does not. I believe that Dr.Rank will play a role in her escape in my opinion because of him confessing to her at such a perfect moment stating he would risk his life for her right when she may need someone to do that for her.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your analysis on the whole situation with Dr. Rank and Nora. I think that Nora’s response to Dr. Rank flirtatious comments contributes to her bag of lies. Her first response is more angry than it is accepting. I think contributes to the lies because on the surface she is pretending reject Dr. Rank for the sake of her relationship, but deep down she may have some sort of feeling for Dr. Rank. I also agree with the part of the conversation between Krogstad and Nora. I think there may be some significant foreshadowing here.
DeleteI agree that this section of A Doll’s House greatly characterized Nora in a bad light. Her flirtatious banter with Dr. Rank showed the extent of Nora’s deception and web of lies. This is exemplified even further when she constantly flips sides of flirting back with Dr. Rank or rejecting his advances for the sake of her marriage. I think your prediction of Dr. Rank helping Nora run away is accurate and I agree with it. The signs are all there: she has flirted with him, he cares for her and he wants her to be protected.
Delete“Blog 3”
ReplyDeleteThe suspense has began to rise after finishing act two. Many significant events have taken place in this act. These events range from the Dr. Rank feeling sorrow for himself because of his “tuberculosis of the spine” to Krogstad threatening Nora with blackmail. One of the most interesting things that happened in this scene was when Nora says, “Which I am!” (II.i.53). While this may come of as sarcasm, there is a deeper meaning. Nora by saying this to express her true feelings. Nora says this in response to Krogstad when he says, “...if you happen to be thinking of running away…” (II.i.53). Nora is literally saying here that she may run away from all that she has. Figuratively, I think she is expressing her feelings towards her family and just her life in general. I think that she wants change in her life and she is using this line as a metaphor to exemplify this change. She compares the want of change to running away, which is a very strong way to make this point. She wants to “run away” from the life she has and start fresh. The use of this metaphor by Ibsen allows the suspense to build in the play and keep the audience engaged.
Do you think Nora is better off being kept care of by Helmer, or do you think it's in her best interest to actually leave?
Deleteyes
DeleteTowards the end of Act II, Ibson begins to incorporate an awful lot of death diction to perhaps foreshadow Nora’s death. The first and most obvious appears in Nora’s conversation with Krogstad when he says, “Under the ice, perhaps? Down into the cold, black water? And next spring to come up again, ugly, hairless, unrecognisable-” (II. 54). Diverging from the character’s indirect way of speaking, Krogstad clearly makes a threat on her life, establishing the idea of someone’s death. Not only does Krogstad allude to her demise, but when talking to Christina, Nora does as well when she says, “ NORA. It's the miracle coming to pass. MRS. LINDEN. The miracle? NORA. Yes, the miracle. But it's so terrible, Christina; it mustn't happen for all the world”(II.56). In the ominous exchange, Nora hints at some drastic action, and when combined with the symbolic falling out of her hair, it leaves the reader to suspect the worst. But as we saw in the stocking scene, Ibson often leads the reader to anticipate an ending, but right before the climax, stops, thus leaving the reader constantly second guessing him/herselves. These bait-and-switch plotlines often reveal an integral insights to his characters while keeping the reader always wanting more. Perhaps Nora won’t take her own life, but rather destroy the doll’s house she made for herself, metaphorically ending it all. Overall, Ibson clearly toys with his readers, keeping them engaged while at the same time divulging key themes.
ReplyDeleteI did not even notice the death diction so that was a great observation. I do not know if Nora is going to die but the use of this definitely could foreshadow to it. Something else that supports this is that her foil, ms. Linde is a widowed wife, so if Nora passes away and leaves her husband that would further how her and ms. Linde are opposites of eachother. I thought of the ice being something fragile and frail, representing Nora and her psychotic state-- able to break at any moment but I see your interpretation great!
DeleteAfter taking a closer look into the framing and setting of A Doll’s House, I was reminded that so far, the entirety of the play has taken place in this one room which was so extensively described in the opening stage direction of the first act. I had gotten caught up in the play and the events unfolding before me that I overlooked the very limited setting of the play. The realist aspect of the play is emphasized by it taking place in just one room. Though there seem to be scenes in other rooms or locations, they are simple spoken of in this one room. This reminded me of the device used in Taming of the Shrew when Grumio described Kate falling off her horse to Curtis. Though the event wasn’t actually happening in the play, it was being discussed, introducing an important aspect of realism when the play can only take place in this one room. Without these descriptions and hints at the outside world, the reader would have no idea what has happened outside the four walls of the room. The fact that the entire play thus far has taken place in this one room also contributes to the motif of dolls and a doll house. The limited setting of just one isolated room reminds the reader of an actual doll house. Doll houses are usually a cross section of a house with multiple stories and multiple rooms per story. Each room is typically relatively closed off from others and has recognizable furniture to convey its purpose (i.e. bathroom having a sink and a toilet, kitchen having a stove and refrigerator). These isolated rooms are metaphors for the setting/framing device of the play, furthering the significance of the title.
ReplyDeleteSomething intriguing in this next portion of act two in the Ibsen play A Doll’s House is the further character development and use of irony to further the storyline along. At this point, Nora is very seriously contemplating running away from her husband and children (that seem to not be important), and she is very nervous because Krogstad-- who loned Nora money, now knows of her signature forgery and wrote a letter to Torvald explaining the lone and the lie Nora committed, two of his least favorite things. While trying to distract him from going into his study and reading the letter that was left for him, she exclaims that she needs to further her practicing of the Tarantella dance. The Tarantella is an Italian folk dance that starts with a quick tempo and increases to an even faster one. It also stems from an old tale of people getting bit by a venomous spider and the only cure is to dance wildly, which is essentially what Nora is doing. Her practicing this dance and going very fast and wild despite Torvalds instructions demonstrates her upcoming freedom and how she is “getting rid” of Torvald’s venom that he has poisoned her with to be an obedient victorian wife. The use of dramatic irony is exemplified when she acts nervous because of the dance, and Torvald thinks that, but the audience knows that she is actually nervous for Torvald to read the letter from Krogstad. This occurs on page 83 when Nora says “I cannot dance tomorrow if I don’t rehearse” Torvald replies with “Are you really so nervous about it?” and she confirms the nervousness. However, the readers, audience and anyone but Torvald knows why she is truly nervous, and it is not for the dance.
ReplyDeleteOne striking thing about Act two is how the reader starts to see a new side of Nora. Obviously, I knew Nora was deceiving after learning that she had forced a signature and lied about a loan, but in the end of Act two, Nora is toying with Torvald. Desperately, Nora tries to stall Helmer into not looking at Krogstad’s letter. Nora pretends to be helpless, needing Torvald for anything she can think of. Nora says “you must go on coaching me right up to the last minute. Promise me, Torvald?” (Act two page 59). Until now, I have been debating on whether Nora had truly been innocent and dependent on her husband because that’s how society raised her, or if Nora had different thoughts about her roles as a woman while she played a part. I think this scene really shows that Nora consciously knew exactly how she must act as a woman. Consciously knowing her place rather than brainlessly believing she was actually inept at everything. And through Act two, the reader sees Nora as undoubtedly deceptive while she’s playing the act Torvald wants to see so that she can get what she wants.
ReplyDeleteIn Act 3 of “a doll’s house” Helmer has found out about Nora’s secret of taking out a loan from Krogstad to pay for his treatment when he was sick. Helmer reacted as if the world was ending because his reputation was in jeopardy by saying “Now you have ruined my entire happiness, jeopardized my whole future. It’s terrible to think of. Here I am, at the mercy of a thoroughly unscrupulous person”(act 3 page 76) Reading this scene really shows just how selfish Helmer is as a person in this play. Even though Nora made a mistake she did it with good intentions in mind to save her husband from an illness. Reading further into this scene I was shocked at Nora wanting to leave her husband and family in order to think things over for herself. “Yes very easily. It was tonight, when the miracle didn’t happen. It was then I realized you weren’t the man I thought you were.”(act 3 page 84) The miracle Nora speaks of is Helmer taking the blame for her mistake and saving her. I found this to be very self centered of Nora expecting someone to save her from her own issues she caused. Act three really defined Helmer and Nora’s personalities and just how similar they are in selfishness.
ReplyDeleteYes, I also was shocked that she could easily just leave to “think over things”. Especially in that time period. One side of me is proud of her for standing up for herself and leaving because then she is finally free from her husband’s controlling nature. However, at the same time, it was very selfish, like you said, that she could easily leave her whole family to think after a mistake that SHE made.
DeleteWhile I understand your position, I completely disagree. In these times, women were expected to sacrifice everything for men. Every single female character has given everything for a man. Starting with the nurse, she gave up her own CHILD because her husband left her. Christina left her true love to marry a rich man to support her sick family. Nora sacrificed her name to save her husbands life. And then Torvald, a man who just prior boasted to wanting to sacrifice everything for her, cowers when given an opportunity to do so. Sure, she was selfish, but Ibsen expresses that everyone is selfish, but women are expected to sacrifice themselves for men who do nothing in return.
DeleteAlthough quite shocking, the ending of a doll’s house was almost predicted through Ibsen’s use of foreshadowing throughout the play. During the play, he used foreshadowing that lead audience to believe that perhaps Nora will go crazy or do something insane. He foreshadowed on page 80 when Nora says “If I should lose my mind- no, it could easily happen!” and Linde replies with “Nora! You are out of your mind!” (II.i.80). This is not even the end of the play, but still informs the readers that something could actually be a little bit off about Nora. As a woman in this time period, it was very unheard of and taboo to leave your husband and kids, especially since a duty of a woman back then is to be a mother and an obedient wife. So, even though by the end she did not go completely psychotic, she still did something extremely unforgiving and “wild”. It was interesting how Ibsen included the macaroons in the beginning of the play for the foreshadow of how lying plays a role in the play. Nora lying about something so small demonstrates that she is a liar and will be lying more often, because if she was so willing to lie about something that, in the grand scheme of things, does not really matter, then what else is she willing to lie about? Apparently a lot of things. Also, the use of stage direction in this play aided in the foreshadowing as well. The first paragraph of stage direction examines how their house and items in it just show that on the outside they are the perfect “doll” and victorian family, but on the inside, there are many dark secrets and scandals. This was a great play and the way he wrote it, you almost root for, and against Nora’s decision in the end.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis. I too think that this was the ending which we all expected. Though she wants to be nothing but a mother to her children and a wife to her husband, the drama surrounding her past mistakes caught up to her and she can't deal with them any longer. While it may have been somewhat surprising that she didn't stay to raise her young children, as you said, Ibsen incorporated many uses of foreshadowing to hint at her leaving the family. I also agree with your mention of the importance of stage direction in this play. Stage direction is often overlooked and we can all agree that it has a crucial role in this play.
DeleteBlog Post #5
ReplyDeleteRetrospectively, the most telling foreshadowing of the ending came from the Tarantella dance. After researching the dance, I found it is an erratic dance that has its roots in 14th century Italy. At the time, there was an “epidemic” of tarantism. The disease that caused uncontrollable dancing was said to have been caused by the bite of a tarantula. Modern psychologists like Luigi Chiriatti argue that tarantism was, “an expression of this marginality: a way for these women to manifest their social suffering,.” Knowing the origin of the dance, Ibsen compares the repressed and frustrated women to Nora. When “practicing” for her dance, Ibsen writes, “HELMER. [Playing.] Slower! Slower! NORA. Can't do it slower! HELMER. Not so violently, Nora. NORA. I must! I must! HELMER. [Stops.] No, no, Nora- that will never do” (II.58). Even though she’s dancing erratically on purpose, through the dancing, Ibsen reveals that like the women in Italy, Nora desperately needs to express herself. The very first indication of her resistance appeared in the very first act when Nora says, “I would simply love to say: ‘Damn’.” (I.20). The dance and the previous quote reveal the frustration of living like a doll.When Torvald says, “Not so violent” it gives the reader insight to her desire to take her own life. The more and more erratic dancing expresses her mounting amount of resentment, and ultimately foreshadows her chosen departure.
I agree with you on how the tarantella was a very important foreshadowing throughout this play. I can see where you get that Nora is trying to express herself in the scene of her dancing in front of Helmer and Dr.Rank. I saw this scene as Nora trying to hold on to the threads that are the remain of her normal life with Helmer. Nora wants nothing more than for Helmer to never read the letter Krogstad left in his mail box. She is seen as being very distorted over the whole ordeal becoming very stressed over the subject. Nora told Mrs.Linde that if Helmer found out about her lie “If I should go mad….which might easily happen…”(Act 2 Page 55) this gives the reader the impression that Nora will lose everything if he finds out supporting that Nora is doing everything in her power to stop the inevitable from happening or creating her own “miracle”.
DeleteAfter the discussion and questions we answered after class, I became aware of the importance of light in the play. Overall, the lamp, or light in general, symbolize Nora’s state of awareness. The significance of light is introduced in the play when Nora is speaking with Dr. Rank after he announces that he is dying soon. Nora becomes flirty in hopes that he will offer her money. She says, “Of course, it’s dark here now, but tomorrow... No, no, no, you can only look at the feet. Oh well, you might as well see a bit higher up, too” (II.i.47). The darkness signifies Nora’s clouded judgement, and it is only when efforts at seducing Rank for money fail, and instead he confesses his deep feelings for her. Nora is then shocked out of her little game. Later in the conversation she says, “I must say, you are a nice one, Dr. Rank! Don’t you feel ashamed of yourself, now that the lamp’s been brought in? (II.i.49). Nora feels that the darkness shields her from consequences, and that now that the light is turned on, her reality is back to the “perfection” she is trying to mirror. Nora criticizing Dr. Rank for acting inappropriately in the darkness and saying that he should be ashamed of himself is very hypocritical when she was doing just the same. Light is a common symbol for clarity, rebirth, and honesty. However, while Nora receives more clarity with the lamp, it seems that things are more honest in the dark. The light also symbolizes being open and seen to the public, and in this age, maintaining a strong reputation with no faults was a high priority for families like Nora’s. When the light is on, Nora is compelled to behave and speak the way she should, and secrets are to be kept to herself.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete