In A Doll's house I found the diction between Nora and Helmer very interesting. Page 2 says, "is that my little squirrel frisking about?" I found the word choice of this dialogue very interesting. Helmer compares Nora to a squirrel and skylark. The words squirrel and skylark have a very positive connotation. I feel like this almost too positive for this passage. The next few lines or dialoge between Nora and Helmer are not nearly as positive and create almost an intense tone when they are arguing about money. This makes the relationship between Nora and Helmer seem very shallow when they use that playful language in the midst of a serious situation. This gives a superficial, fake tone. I feel like it could almost forshadow the future relationship between this couple and the rest of the play. When Nora leaves in the end of the play, it can all he traced back to the shallow relationship between her and Helmer and the diction in Act 1.
I agree with your statement that both squirrels and skylarks would both be considered pleasant animals. These nicknames are clearly signs of affections. I also thought that these are both small creatures, and thus making Nora feel small, or not as important or significant as Helmer sees himself.
I agree with both of your ideas! I think the purpose of calling her "my little squirrel" and all those other "pet names" (literally) is to make her feel insignificant, just like a squirrel's mindless frisking. Nora's actions are underappreciated and by giving her these backhanded complements, Helmer constantly undermines Nora's authority (or lack of). I also agree that its superficial, and I like that it could be a foreshadowing!
In A Doll's House, my group discussed the interesting diction Nora used between Trevor and Mrs. Linde. Nora changes diction as she talks to different people, while talking with Trevor, she proves to the readers that she likes money, although she says to him, "Yes, yes, I'll see that it does. But come over here, I want to show you all the things I've bought. And so cheap!" (I. pg. 3) trying to make him see that she is not just about buying expensive things. Also showing Irony because she doesn't mean the things are cheap, she want expensive things. Although, when her friend Mrs. Linde comes visits her she is showing off all the money she has, and will have, "...he's getting a big salary and lots of commission... We'll do just what we want... I must say its lovely to have plenty of money and not to have to worry." (I. pg. 9). Showing an entire different diction with her friend than the diction she uses with her husband.
In the first part of Act 1 of A Doll's House, the usage of doors is interesting, "The front door-bell rings in the hall; a moment later, there is the sound of the front door being opened." (Ibsen, 1). Nora is seen to be happy when she comes in from the outside. However, when she comes inside, she behaves excessively excessively cheerful. This alludes to the fact that she is attempting to hide her unhappiness and lack of fulfillment. The use of doors and the inside of the house represent the confines of society, and outside represents escaping society's norms. This portrays Nora's lack of satisfaction with living a traditional life, and foreshadows how she will eventually break free.
i like you idea! I also think that Nora is unaware that without her husband, she would have no source of moeny, which seems to be the only thing that she is concerned about. How will Nora live the life she dream without her husbands money.
I don't think that she correlates money with freedom because she leaves without taking any money at all, she also needs money to pay back her debt. But I guess she does spend money without thinking much about it, buying macarons when she could be saving it to help pay for the debt.
In the beginning of A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, what already strikingly stands out to me is the interesting diction/metaphors chosen for Helmer's dialogue in regards to addressing his wife, Nora. Sprinkled throughout the first couple of pages of the story are pet names for her. The usual association of this name-calling is with endearment and fondness. However, its appearance in this particular context creates a tone of patronization and objectification. With lines such as, "When did my little squirrel get home?" (2) "There, there! My little singing bird mustn't go drooping her wings, eh?" (3) and, "My pretty little pet is very sweet, but it runs away with an awful lot of money. It's incredible how expensive it is for a man to keep such a pet" (4) the reader gets the sensation that Helmer views his wife almost like a helpless little animal that he feels obligated to provide shelter and food for. Furthermore, the line, "My little sweet-tooth surely didn't forget herself in town today?" (5) is accompanied by a stage direction suggesting for Helmer to wag his finger at Nora as if she were some child or pet in need of reprimanding. His repetitive usage of such animalistic and objectifying words instills a sense of superiority and ownership for himself and a sense of weakness and submissiveness for Nora, illustrating the prevailing gender roles of the Victorian era.
This is a really good point. Do you think that this is why she tries to control other people as well, because she is controlled by Torvald as a doll, so she tries to do the same to others?
In A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen, it is interesting how Nora’s diction changes in regards to the topic of money. For example, Nora says, “ Ten shillings--a pound--two pounds! Thank you, thank you Torvald; that will keep me going for a long time.” (I, pg 3). This line shows how excited Nora is when she receives money. Her tone of voice is happy and bubbly. However, when her and her husband are not talking about money, Nora’s spark and excitement slowly dies. On page 4 she says, “I should not think of going against your wishes.” This shows that she is not as excited or interested when Torvald is talking about macaroons or other things. These passages can infer that Nora is only interested in money and does not really love Torvald. But in my group we also talked about how Nora does really love Torvald. The reason she is so interested in money is because she wants to pay back the money she borrowed in order to save her husband’s life. Nora is really looking out for Torvald.
I found it interesting in A Doll’s House how Helmer treats and talks to Nora. Helmer places Nora as a lower being through the use of various nicknames such as, “little squirrel”, “little song-bird”, and “little spend thrift”. The repetition of the word ‘little’ adds to the personality of Helmer as the audience learns how much an independent man Helmer thinks he is. Henrik Ibsen uses dramatic irony to the effect that the audience knows how Nora actually is more independent than Helmer would be comfortable with. This fact gives the audience reference to how society was during this time period. It was the norm and courtesy that Nora keep her selfless actions to herself so she could be less of a person than Helmer.
Boice! I completely agree with your analysis and I think its really great that you pointed out the fact that he uses "little"" a lot. This gives characterization toward Helmer and gives the audience the theme of women's roles during this time. I think Helmer refers to Nora as "little" so much to show his male dominance. Also this is why he calls her a "song-bird" and "squirel" to assert dominance over her, and set that feeling for the audience or reader.
During our in class discussion, my group talked about the significance of Nora’s diction. Nora seems really constricted in her house and wants to gain freedom. When Mrs. Linde enters Nora’s house, Nora says a lot compared to Mrs. Linde, as shown by the big paragraphs (9 in Faber and Faber edition). After talking for a little bit, the stage direction states that Nora suddenly stops and looks serious. Nora then says, “I am so thoughtless, sitting here chattering. Dear, good Kristine, can you forgive me?” (9). This shows Nora’s natural tendency to act selfish and draw attention to herself, and realizes that in order to fit the society’s norms, she must not do that, but instead, show interest towards others. In this small example, we see that Nora is living a very unnatural, almost oppressive life. She wants to live an independent life, without her husband’s strict control over the family. But because of the culture of the Victorian era, appearance was crucial, and she knew that she couldn’t act different than what was expected of a woman of that era. This foreshadows how Nora will later break free from her husband’s dominance over the household and live an independent life.
I feel the same about Nora because she seems like she's faking it around her husband by the way she acts like she's innocent and overly enthusiastic. But her husband doesn't know that she's hiding something big since she is so good at concealing her secrets and lies and cover them up with her sweet and innocent behavior.
Yeah I completely understand your point of view. There seemed to be a lot of foreshadowing in the first act to show that Nora is not as innocent as she appears to be. I wonder if perhaps Nora is jealous of Christine? Possibly because Christine got to live her own life and survive on her own and Nora wants to do that. Christine on the other hand seems like she would gladly switch positions with Nora. I think she is sick of struggling to make ends meet.
In the very beginning of the play, the layout and setting of the house involves lots of descriptions involving left and right, “...a second door on the left leads to Helmer’s study… In the middle of the left wall… In the right wall…” (1) and it continues on throughout the rest of the play via stage cues, “...these, she lays on the table to the right” (1). These different sides are symbols of the different choices available to Nora throughout her life in the play. Her actions have her tending towards the right side of the stage, “...she walks over to the table, right” (1) and are reflective of her role in the play.
In theatre, stage left is considered the open side of the stage, where the character exits towards open possibility. Exiting stage right indicates the character is leaving to enter a scenario where personal choices are limited. At the beginning of the play, Nora is staying on the right side of the stage. Perhaps this is to symbolize her lack of free will inside of the house?
In Doll's House, the character of Nora seems to be a very self centered and conceded person despite her outer appearance and her over bearing attempts at selflessness.. We see through her conversation with Mrs. Linde that she likes to brag about her money and her life even when she insisted that she didn't want to talk about her self, yet she does so for three pages. She also says things like " thanks heavens any clothes look well on me"(19). We also see her passionate materialism through her over bearing desire for money and materialistic objects. We also see that Nora is a compulsive lair. She never seems to tell the truth and shows through her conversation with Mrs. Linde that she is so proud of her own trickery. This shows that she is unhappy in her life and wants more. Unfortunately she does this only to acquire more money.
I like your analysis! I think that Nora believes that money equates with freedom. She is trying to increase the quality of her life through spending more money.
In "A Doll's House," Nora seems like a very puerile character. During a conversation with Helmer, Nora says, "Oh yes, Torvald, surely we can afford to be just a little bit extravagant now, can't we? Just a teeny-weeny bit." (2) To which Helmer says, "Yes, after the New Year. But it's going to be three whole months before the first pay cheque comes in." And then Nora says, "Pooh! We can always borrow in the meantime." This conversation shows Nora's childish attitude towards money. It is evident later on that they had gone through some financial problems in the past so it is very naive of her to act like this. At one point in Act I, Helmer scolds Nora about buying sweets. He says: "[wagging his finger at her]. Hasn't Miss Sweet Tooth been breaking rules in town today?... Hasn't she paid a visit to the confectioner's?... Not been nibbling sweets?... Not even taken a bite at a macaroon or two?" (4). When he says these lines, it sounds like he's talking to a child, not his wife, which shows how he looks down on Nora and doesn't see her as his equal.
I found very similar ideas to what you have as well! Helmer also will often refer to Nora as a "little pet" which initially comes off as just a nickname but he also calls her an "it" implying that she's not a person. But rather, something beneath him.
Throughout the play, 'A Doll's House', Ibsen skillfully characterizes the two main characters: Nora and Helmer. Throughout the group discussions, the students seemed to be more compelled by Nora's character rather than Helmer's because she is portrayed as a weaker companion, a fragile yet intuitive wife. It is important to note Helmer's characteristics as he is a major component of the play. He is very driven by materialistic components of life as he describes his glorious feelings of 'knowing that you've got a safe job and good fat income"(6). As describes by his statement, Helmer appreciates his job and the income that it provides far more than his wife and his children. What's more interesting is the fact that Helmer never mentions his kids or expressed interest towards their well-being. He doesn't make an attempt to possibly predict how his kids and their future will be affected by this grandiose salary as he is too busy focusing on himself and his merits. Not only does he display traits of arrogance but he is also very patronizing towards Nora. He urges her not to 'strain her little eyes , and work those dainty little fingers to the bone"(6). Helmer describes Nora's eyes as 'little' and her fingers as 'dainty' because he believes to be superior as he is the breadwinner in the family. In reality, both of their eyes and fingers are the same size as differentiation isn't necessary in order to display dominance. Helmer portrays his wife as a fragile being who isn't capable to survive on her own. Such ideals are common amongst men who lived back then as society saw women as incapable of taking care of their own self.
I found some interesting quotes that illustrate the gender roles during the Victorian time period. One of the few examples of how women didn’t have as much freedom as men is portrayed when Mrs. Linde said “Well, a wife can’t borrow without her husband’s consent…” Nora: “Is it rash to save your husband’s life?” Mrs. Linde: “I think it was rash to do anything without telling him…” (pg. 14). Mrs. Linde is more like a type of person who would conform in a social situation and behave as society expects. She thinks that getting the husband’s consent should be the primary thing to do and things like saving the husband’s life can be done later. Nora’s characteristic is the opposite, because she does what she feels is right, even if it doesn’t follow the social norms of that time. She is more of a person to take risks and she seems proud of what she’s doing, even if she knows that there’ll be consequences if her husband finds out.
I definitely agree with you! I also find it interesting how Nora is constantly trying to please her husband and get his approval. It seems that she really doesn't believe what she is doing is right but she does it to please him. I think that she wants to be like Mrs. Linde and have the freedom to do whatever she wants, even though she does not say it directly.
After reading the first 15 pages of the book, It was interesting that what Nora said and what she did were rarely the same thing. On page 5 she says "I would never dream of doing anything you didn't want me to" to her husband. This is clearly a lie because she bought the macaroons even though he didn't want her to, and she went and borrowed money which he wouldn't have liked either. Nora later says to Mrs. Linda "I must think only about your affairs today" (8). But then, Nora spends the next 2 pages just talking about herself the entire time. This use of irony shows that Nora may not always be the most honest character, and suggests that the reader take whatever she says with a grain of salt.
I think that Nora is like this because she is so caught up in the lie that she has been telling that the way she is dealing with it is by non stop talking about thing/herself. She is so on edge and nervous about what is going to come next that she is all over the place. I feel like talking about herself is a cover up of the lie and she is trying to avoid talking about it so she just talks about herself. But then ends up telling her so I am not exactly sure why she is like this.
In "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen, it starts with an interaction between Nora and Helmer, a married couple with a child. Throughout the entire conversation that takes place in the first several pages of the play, Helmer's diction towards Nora is interesting as he is very condescending and possessive. "What do we call my pretty little pet when it runs away with all the money" (Helmer 4). He refers to Nora as HIS pet and objectifies her by referring to her as an "it". It is also shown through this quote that there is a lack of trust between them as he refuses to trust Nora with a substantial amount of money, fearing she'll run off with it. This verbal abuse is reflected in Nora's own diction when speaking to others. "They were just trivialities. I haven't told you about the really big thing." (Nora 12) After attempting to be humble, she finds herself bragging about her accomplishments in an attempt to prove Mrs. Linde that she's wrong about Nora being coddled. This type of transition from humble to selfish occurs multiple times in the first few pages which leads me to believe it's a superiority complex that she's had all her life but has been pushed to the extreme with her marriage to Helmer. She can't argue with the man of the house so she vents these feelings to a fellow woman, Mrs. Linde in this case.
In A Dolls House By Henrik Ibsen we are immediately introduced to a Woman Nora. She is woman of her household. I found her character the most intriguing (Like many of you). The diction and language that she uses creates an internal struggle for the reader as we can’t decide if she is a good person (Do we like her?) What struck me as most interesting was Nora encounter with Mrs.Linde in the very first Act. Mrs.Linde is sharing her misfortune with Nora, then Nora says “How dreadfully sad that must be. I have three lovely children…”(Pg. 7, Act 1) this struck me as very odd. Mrs.Linde explains that her husband died and she was left with no children. A good friend would grieve and be sad with her in most cases, however Nora begins to brag. During this part Nora says how she doesn’t want to talk about herself but then throughout their entire conversation she is the center. Their conversation sets multiple tones throughout the first act. Prideful, arrogant, entitled and self pity.
Nora’s interactions between Mrs. Linde during the first act seem to be focused on controlling her mentally and bringing pity on herself. Mrs. Linde is explaining her situation to Nora saying, “My poor dear mother doesn’t need me any more, she’s passed away. Nor the boys either…”(Ibsen, 11). Nora responses with, “What a relief you must find it….”(11). Nora’s reply lacks any empathy for a person who considers herself an old friend. Instead of assisting Mrs. Linde in her difficulties, Nora attempts to make their lives into a competition. This fight over difficulties continues for most of their conversation. This competitive nature could be cause by the the bond the two women have with each other. Similar behavior occurs between siblings and close friends at young ages and they could be defaulting back to their old relationship. Another possible reason for Nora’s need to be the leader is that she feels suppressed by her husband. This would be fairly normal in a family in the Victorian Era where the father is seen as the dominant figure of the family. She is not able to control her family due to social normalities and so she attempts to control other women.
Travis, I completely agree. Nora and Mrs. Linde have a peculiar dynamic for so-called "old friends," but there's an air of formality that is characteristic of the Victorian era. Rather than being a situation of competition, I thought that they were acting like that because it was expected of them. On the contrary, I don't think that Nora says, "What a relief you must find it..." with any lack of empathy, because she's referring to the fact that Mrs. Linde's children and mother no longer need to depend on her, which means she doesn't have to work as hard (11). While I agree completely that they have an odd relationship by society's standards today, I think it's a matter of courtesy, not a form of control. What's also really interesting is that Mrs. Linde, a widow, is still referred to as "Mrs. Linde," whereas Nora, a married woman, is referred to by her first name. Nora calls Mrs. Linde "Kristine," so why doesn't the play also refer to the character as "Kristine?" It'd be interesting to get your opinion, Travis.
One thing that I found very interesting is in the primary paragraph, the one that we analyzed in class. I noticed that in the description, all the furniture is pushed back against the walls, and the decorations are pretty sparse. In fact, the only decorations mentioned are the small china dolls. Everything else is in perfect order, but yet there is nothing in the middle. I think this could be a metaphor for Nora's character and her relationship with Helmer. While she seems to be the perfect housewife and they seem to have the ideal relationship, there really isn't anything meaningful in the middle. Its all a front for society. Nora uses her subservience to Helmer to get what she wants (money for the repayments) but continues to lie and cover it up, acting frivolous and silly. Nora and Helmer's interactions are filled with pet names, "When did my little squirrel get home?" (2) which don't really say anything about Nora's importance to Hemler. Its like a backhanded complement, pretty from the outside, but lacking true kindness upon further inspection. Nora also lies to Torvald saying "I would never dream of doing anything you didn't want me to" (5) when he asks her about the macaroons. She appears to be the perfect housewife, but just like the empty room, lacks real substance in their relationship.
Something interesting my group discussed was how Nora replicates her husband's actions toward Mrs. Linde as well as herself. For an example on page 8 when she's talking to Mrs. Linde she says, "No, you start. I won't be selfish today. I must think only about your affairs today" and then she goes on and talks all about herself. It seems like she is repeating what her husband when she starts criticizing Mrs. Linde's life. Additionally, when she first sees Mrs. Linde she acts controlling. Ibsen writes, "You are not cold, are you? [helps her] There now! Sit down here in comfort beside the stove. No, here, you take the armchair, I'll sit here on the rocking chair.[takes her hands]" (Ibsen 9). This shows how controlling she is to her friend. She places her where she wants and controls her. Perhaps it's because she is always controlled, she feels like she has to take control when she can.
I was not in class on Friday to read this with my group, which I think has lead me to have some unique perspectives on this play, at least so far. I went in to reading this play with an open mind, trying to think about it within the context of Victorian society, but by the fifth page I had realized that this play was going to be all about sex. I had noticed the peculiarity of the opening line where Nora tells the maid, “Hide the Christmas-tree carefully, Ellen; the children must on no account see it before this evening, when it's lighted up” (1). Although I had brushed aside the peculiarity of a Christmas tree being hidden, the dialogue between Nora and Torvald convinced me that this line was Ibsen’s way of telling the audience what this play was truly going to be about. The line of dialogue where I was convinced that sex was going to be a significant motif in this play was when Torvald tells Nora, “…We two have held out bravely till now, and we are not going to give in at the last” (2). Once again, Ibsen is not explicit in his implication of sex here; he merely suggests it through diction that appears incredibly out of place. The phrase “held out bravely” is an odd way to characterize two people not spending their money, and the couple seems fairly comfortable spending money on Christmas, suggesting that spending money was not seen as something sinful during Victorian times. What Ibsen does here is hint heavily at long withheld sexual tension between the two. Also, the fact that Nora sees the Christmas tree, often a symbol of happiness and one of pleasure being given, as something that needs to be hidden further suggests that they are very guarded about expressions of their sexuality. It will be interesting to see whether all of this sexual tension breaks at some point in the play, or whether it will continue to shade the interaction between these two characters, and I will definitely be watching the dialogue between the two to see what happens.
In "A Doll's House", my group discussed the language between Nora and Helmer. From the beginning of the play, it is evident that Helmer thinks inferior of Nora as he repeatedly gives her demeaning nicknames such as "Squirrel" or "little lark" (Act 1. pg 7). These nicknames suggest that Helmer thinks of Nora as something small, delicate, and fragile, yet also naive. By comparing her delicate innocence to that of a witless chirpy animal, one can imply that Nora is like a young child in which she must look up to Helmer in order to guide her. When Nora asks Helmer for money, Helmer calls her a "spendthrift" (Act 1, pg. 9) and furthermore, Helmer accuses Nora of visiting the confectioner by wagging his finger at her and saying, "hasn't Miss Sweet-Tooth been breaking rules in town today?" (Act 1, pg. 10). These quotes further confirm the views of Nora as a young child and Helmer as her guardian. Nora asks Helmer for money and furtively hides the macaroons she know's she's not supposed to buy, much like how a child would act around a parent. The language spoken between Helmer and Nora demonstrate the perspective of the relationship between them as one of a parent-child one, lacking in equality and mutual codependency.
Seeing as this play is set in the Victorian era, I assumed that we would see characters with Puritan masks to disguise sinful desires or actions. In the first conversation between Nora and Torvald, after Torvald scolds his wife for wanting to borrow, Nora's dejected mood is quickly replaced by excitement and eagerness when Torvald pulls some money out of his pocket and gives it to her. Because of this initial interaction, the audience is left with an obvious impression that Nora is someone who disguises her greed behind her "love" for her husband, which sets up an instance of disguise in "A Doll's House." However, we later find that Nora borrowed Krogstad in order to save her husband's life, and that she purposely deceived her father and her husband in order to keep them happy, which she thought was the best course of action. Nora tells Mrs. Linde, "I began dropping hints about how nice it would be if I [she] could be taken on a little trip abroad, like the other young wives. I wept, I pleaded. I told him he ought to show some consideration for my condition, and let me have a bit of my own way..." (14). After her lengthy dialogue, the audience realizes that, yes, Nora was deceiving her husband, but not how one might have originally thought. Tracing her actions back to her excitement when Torvald gave her money, she might have been so happy because it was more money to pay off the loan she had to take from Krogstad. Torvald's comment that Nora "runs away with an awful lot of money" also confirms the idea that she is actually taking money away from Torvald in order to pay Krogstad (4). I thought this was really interesting because it casts Nora in a different light. There were two "layers of deception," which makes the audience wonder if there is even more to be found later in the play. Nora's motives behind deceiving her husband and friends are definitely worthy of attention.
One thing I found interesting from the reading we did in class was the relationship between Nora and Helmer. Nora seems so far like a woman who has great self-esteem issues and has a bad habit for compulsively buying things. Not to mention her Husband, Helmer, belittles her and treats her with utter disrespect. In the First 20 pages we read in class Helmer called Nora “ Pretty Pet” “Poor little Nora“ (pg.6&9), both of which are very condescending and power assertive ways of describing a wife. This diction ties in with the time period of the book being in the Victorian Age and the culture of the man having an authoritarian stance in the relationship. Another thing I found interesting in this section was the way Nora reflects her Husbands personality onto her “friend” Mrs. Linde, by belittling her as well. My group found this very interesting and thought it might be a coping mechanism of Nora’s. Overall in this book so far, there are many intriguing relationships!
One idea that my group talked about was the contradiction of Nora in the beginning of the play where she states, “I would never dream of doing anything you wouldn’t want me to” (5). This scene is between Helmer and Nora when talking about spending the money on things that Nora does not need. My group found this statement interesting considering that Nora has previously gone behind Helmer's back to barrow money. We know that Helmer would never want her to barrow simply from his line where he says, “Seriously though, Nora, you know what I think about these things. No debts! Never borrow!” (3). This gives us the sense of uncertainty and uneasiness towards Nora, knowing that she lies to her husband which is the one person who she should be the most up front with. This also foreshadows what is soon to come in the play with the irony of her statement.
During our discussion, my group talked about the setting and what it could symbolize. We found that the room described in the beginning of the play seemed to be very sparsely furnished, which could be symbolic of many things. The first symbol that comes to my mind is cold, or emotionless. This would make sense seeing as this play is about a doll's house, where the people are literally plastic and fake. The room's lack of furniture seems to also possibly foreshadow the relationships that characters will have with each other, hinting that they might be less emotional and genuine. So far, Helmer and Nora have a very flirty, loose relationship, but it has been very disingenuous, and almost feels forced. I am curious to see how the characters relationships will unfold.
In the first 10-15 pages of A Doll's House we learn are introduced to the characters in the play. The characterization of the main character, Nora is something I found to be very interesting. When we are first introduced to Nora she seems to be a simple poised woman. The way she interacts with Helmer shows that very clearly. She is shown to spend a lot of money on clothing and presents and not know much of business. Helmer treats her like she is very simple minded and does not understand anything and she responds to his commands. This gives the audience the feeling of standard role of a woman and characteristics of woman during this time period. We think that it is just a normal little family and normal situation. Yet later on when Nora is talking with her friend Mrs. Linde, the audience receives so much more about Nora's character. We learn of her intelligence and independence. Henrik Ibsen characterizes Nora in these two ways while she is around different people for a reason. He does this to make the role of woman and their husbands prominent. This makes the character, Nora, more intriguing and gives the story more depth. Ibsen's characterization makes the audience see both sides of Nora. It gives us the feeling of the relationships between Nora and Helmer as well as reveals information about Nora's past, creating more room for Characterization of Nora.
Throughout the first act, my group found the relationship between Nora and Torvald to be the epitome of marital relationships during the Victorian Era. In the first couple pages Torvald addresses Nora as a pet, bird, and squirrel. Torvald states, "What do we call my pretty little pet when it runs away with all the money?' (Page 4). He also refers to her as little or small. Torvald does this because he views her as an object and is very dehumanizing to women because during the Victorian Era they were viewed as pets or objects for their husbands. The women were supposed to be submissive and the subordinates. When he calls her animal names, the ones he usually calls her are weak and annoying. This could reflect on his opinions of her. Torvald might not be intentionally calling her weak and annoying but that was the social norm. It was normal for husbands to poorly treat or call theirs wives names during this time and lots of wives were so used to it, they did not think anything of it. It could later cause wives to try and rebel and think that they could have the power to control other things, which is shown through Nora's actions later throughout the play.
In the first act of A Doll's House, Henrik Ibsen uses diction, sentence structure, and ironic foreshadowing to introduce Nora's motivations and social strategies, revealing a high level of self-control and manipulative ability. The portrayal of Nora in the opening scene is especially interesting in that it shows how convincingly Nora plays on her husband's assumptions. As the reader initially believes that Nora is as innocent as she seems, Torvald's attitude can be, to a certain extent, understood. In Nora's first conversation with Torvald, Ibsen uses frequent questions, interjections and "echoes" of Torvald's words to depict Nora's wifely persona as frivolous and simple; Nora agreeably adopts her husband's charming yet clearly patronizing terms of endearment, exclaiming "Ah, if only you knew how many expenses the likes of us sky-larks and squirrels have, Torvald!" (I, 4). However, it must be noted that many of Nora's most forceful exclamations (especially "Who cares about them! They are only strangers!" in response to Torvald's concerns about debt) dismiss the very issues that Nora is later revealed to have struggled with for many years (I, 2). The fact that Nora presents herself as exaggeratedly naïve with regard to financial matters in particular could be considered a form of foreshadowing – though it may seem to lead the reader in the wrong direction, Nora's strongest outbursts of false happiness may instead be intentional irony on her part.
In A Doll's house I found the diction between Nora and Helmer very interesting. Page 2 says, "is that my little squirrel frisking about?" I found the word choice of this dialogue very interesting. Helmer compares Nora to a squirrel and skylark. The words squirrel and skylark have a very positive connotation. I feel like this almost too positive for this passage. The next few lines or dialoge between Nora and Helmer are not nearly as positive and create almost an intense tone when they are arguing about money. This makes the relationship between Nora and Helmer seem very shallow when they use that playful language in the midst of a serious situation. This gives a superficial, fake tone. I feel like it could almost forshadow the future relationship between this couple and the rest of the play. When Nora leaves in the end of the play, it can all he traced back to the shallow relationship between her and Helmer and the diction in Act 1.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that both squirrels and skylarks would both be considered pleasant animals. These nicknames are clearly signs of affections. I also thought that these are both small creatures, and thus making Nora feel small, or not as important or significant as Helmer sees himself.
DeleteI agree with both of your ideas! I think the purpose of calling her "my little squirrel" and all those other "pet names" (literally) is to make her feel insignificant, just like a squirrel's mindless frisking. Nora's actions are underappreciated and by giving her these backhanded complements, Helmer constantly undermines Nora's authority (or lack of). I also agree that its superficial, and I like that it could be a foreshadowing!
DeleteIn A Doll's House, my group discussed the interesting diction Nora used between Trevor and Mrs. Linde. Nora changes diction as she talks to different people, while talking with Trevor, she proves to the readers that she likes money, although she says to him, "Yes, yes, I'll see that it does. But come over here, I want to show you all the things I've bought. And so cheap!" (I. pg. 3) trying to make him see that she is not just about buying expensive things. Also showing Irony because she doesn't mean the things are cheap, she want expensive things. Although, when her friend Mrs. Linde comes visits her she is showing off all the money she has, and will have, "...he's getting a big salary and lots of commission... We'll do just what we want... I must say its lovely to have plenty of money and not to have to worry." (I. pg. 9). Showing an entire different diction with her friend than the diction she uses with her husband.
ReplyDeleteIn the first part of Act 1 of A Doll's House, the usage of doors is interesting, "The front door-bell rings in the hall; a moment later, there is the sound of the front door being opened." (Ibsen, 1). Nora is seen to be happy when she comes in from the outside. However, when she comes inside, she behaves excessively excessively cheerful. This alludes to the fact that she is attempting to hide her unhappiness and lack of fulfillment. The use of doors and the inside of the house represent the confines of society, and outside represents escaping society's norms. This portrays Nora's lack of satisfaction with living a traditional life, and foreshadows how she will eventually break free.
ReplyDeletei like you idea! I also think that Nora is unaware that without her husband, she would have no source of moeny, which seems to be the only thing that she is concerned about. How will Nora live the life she dream without her husbands money.
DeleteGood point! I believe that Nora correlates money with freedom. This would justify her constant pining for money.
DeleteI don't think that she correlates money with freedom because she leaves without taking any money at all, she also needs money to pay back her debt. But I guess she does spend money without thinking much about it, buying macarons when she could be saving it to help pay for the debt.
DeleteIn the beginning of A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, what already strikingly stands out to me is the interesting diction/metaphors chosen for Helmer's dialogue in regards to addressing his wife, Nora. Sprinkled throughout the first couple of pages of the story are pet names for her. The usual association of this name-calling is with endearment and fondness. However, its appearance in this particular context creates a tone of patronization and objectification. With lines such as, "When did my little squirrel get home?" (2) "There, there! My little singing bird mustn't go drooping her wings, eh?" (3) and, "My pretty little pet is very sweet, but it runs away with an awful lot of money. It's incredible how expensive it is for a man to keep such a pet" (4) the reader gets the sensation that Helmer views his wife almost like a helpless little animal that he feels obligated to provide shelter and food for. Furthermore, the line, "My little sweet-tooth surely didn't forget herself in town today?" (5) is accompanied by a stage direction suggesting for Helmer to wag his finger at Nora as if she were some child or pet in need of reprimanding. His repetitive usage of such animalistic and objectifying words instills a sense of superiority and ownership for himself and a sense of weakness and submissiveness for Nora, illustrating the prevailing gender roles of the Victorian era.
ReplyDeleteYes! Absolutely! It's very demeaning. Good point, Diana! :)
DeleteMs. Ballard
This is a really good point. Do you think that this is why she tries to control other people as well, because she is controlled by Torvald as a doll, so she tries to do the same to others?
DeleteIn A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen, it is interesting how Nora’s diction changes in regards to the topic of money. For example, Nora says, “ Ten shillings--a pound--two pounds! Thank you, thank you Torvald; that will keep me going for a long time.” (I, pg 3). This line shows how excited Nora is when she receives money. Her tone of voice is happy and bubbly. However, when her and her husband are not talking about money, Nora’s spark and excitement slowly dies. On page 4 she says, “I should not think of going against your wishes.” This shows that she is not as excited or interested when Torvald is talking about macaroons or other things. These passages can infer that Nora is only interested in money and does not really love Torvald. But in my group we also talked about how Nora does really love Torvald. The reason she is so interested in money is because she wants to pay back the money she borrowed in order to save her husband’s life. Nora is really looking out for Torvald.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting in A Doll’s House how Helmer treats and talks to Nora. Helmer places Nora as a lower being through the use of various nicknames such as, “little squirrel”, “little song-bird”, and “little spend thrift”. The repetition of the word ‘little’ adds to the personality of Helmer as the audience learns how much an independent man Helmer thinks he is. Henrik Ibsen uses dramatic irony to the effect that the audience knows how Nora actually is more independent than Helmer would be comfortable with. This fact gives the audience reference to how society was during this time period. It was the norm and courtesy that Nora keep her selfless actions to herself so she could be less of a person than Helmer.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis! I think that Ibsen purposely uses words that emasculate Nora to show how inferior she was to her husband and the society.
DeleteBoice! I completely agree with your analysis and I think its really great that you pointed out the fact that he uses "little"" a lot. This gives characterization toward Helmer and gives the audience the theme of women's roles during this time. I think Helmer refers to Nora as "little" so much to show his male dominance. Also this is why he calls her a "song-bird" and "squirel" to assert dominance over her, and set that feeling for the audience or reader.
DeleteDuring our in class discussion, my group talked about the significance of Nora’s diction. Nora seems really constricted in her house and wants to gain freedom. When Mrs. Linde enters Nora’s house, Nora says a lot compared to Mrs. Linde, as shown by the big paragraphs (9 in Faber and Faber edition). After talking for a little bit, the stage direction states that Nora suddenly stops and looks serious. Nora then says, “I am so thoughtless, sitting here chattering. Dear, good Kristine, can you forgive me?” (9). This shows Nora’s natural tendency to act selfish and draw attention to herself, and realizes that in order to fit the society’s norms, she must not do that, but instead, show interest towards others. In this small example, we see that Nora is living a very unnatural, almost oppressive life. She wants to live an independent life, without her husband’s strict control over the family. But because of the culture of the Victorian era, appearance was crucial, and she knew that she couldn’t act different than what was expected of a woman of that era. This foreshadows how Nora will later break free from her husband’s dominance over the household and live an independent life.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same about Nora because she seems like she's faking it around her husband by the way she acts like she's innocent and overly enthusiastic. But her husband doesn't know that she's hiding something big since she is so good at concealing her secrets and lies and cover them up with her sweet and innocent behavior.
DeleteYeah I completely understand your point of view. There seemed to be a lot of foreshadowing in the first act to show that Nora is not as innocent as she appears to be. I wonder if perhaps Nora is jealous of Christine? Possibly because Christine got to live her own life and survive on her own and Nora wants to do that. Christine on the other hand seems like she would gladly switch positions with Nora. I think she is sick of struggling to make ends meet.
DeleteIn the very beginning of the play, the layout and setting of the house involves lots of descriptions involving left and right, “...a second door on the left leads to Helmer’s study… In the middle of the left wall… In the right wall…” (1) and it continues on throughout the rest of the play via stage cues, “...these, she lays on the table to the right” (1). These different sides are symbols of the different choices available to Nora throughout her life in the play. Her actions have her tending towards the right side of the stage, “...she walks over to the table, right” (1) and are reflective of her role in the play.
ReplyDeleteIn theatre, stage left is considered the open side of the stage, where the character exits towards open possibility. Exiting stage right indicates the character is leaving to enter a scenario where personal choices are limited. At the beginning of the play, Nora is staying on the right side of the stage. Perhaps this is to symbolize her lack of free will inside of the house?
In Doll's House, the character of Nora seems to be a very self centered and conceded person despite her outer appearance and her over bearing attempts at selflessness.. We see through her conversation with Mrs. Linde that she likes to brag about her money and her life even when she insisted that she didn't want to talk about her self, yet she does so for three pages. She also says things like " thanks heavens any clothes look well on me"(19).
ReplyDeleteWe also see her passionate materialism through her over bearing desire for money and materialistic objects. We also see that Nora is a compulsive lair. She never seems to tell the truth and shows through her conversation with Mrs. Linde that she is so proud of her own trickery. This shows that she is unhappy in her life and wants more. Unfortunately she does this only to acquire more money.
I like your analysis! I think that Nora believes that money equates with freedom. She is trying to increase the quality of her life through spending more money.
DeleteIn "A Doll's House," Nora seems like a very puerile character. During a conversation with Helmer, Nora says, "Oh yes, Torvald, surely we can afford to be just a little bit extravagant now, can't we? Just a teeny-weeny bit." (2) To which Helmer says, "Yes, after the New Year. But it's going to be three whole months before the first pay cheque comes in." And then Nora says, "Pooh! We can always borrow in the meantime." This conversation shows Nora's childish attitude towards money. It is evident later on that they had gone through some financial problems in the past so it is very naive of her to act like this. At one point in Act I, Helmer scolds Nora about buying sweets. He says: "[wagging his finger at her]. Hasn't Miss Sweet Tooth been breaking rules in town today?... Hasn't she paid a visit to the confectioner's?... Not been nibbling sweets?... Not even taken a bite at a macaroon or two?" (4). When he says these lines, it sounds like he's talking to a child, not his wife, which shows how he looks down on Nora and doesn't see her as his equal.
ReplyDeleteI found very similar ideas to what you have as well! Helmer also will often refer to Nora as a "little pet" which initially comes off as just a nickname but he also calls her an "it" implying that she's not a person. But rather, something beneath him.
DeleteThroughout the play, 'A Doll's House', Ibsen skillfully characterizes the two main characters: Nora and Helmer. Throughout the group discussions, the students seemed to be more compelled by Nora's character rather than Helmer's because she is portrayed as a weaker companion, a fragile yet intuitive wife. It is important to note Helmer's characteristics as he is a major component of the play. He is very driven by materialistic components of life as he describes his glorious feelings of 'knowing that you've got a safe job and good fat income"(6). As describes by his statement, Helmer appreciates his job and the income that it provides far more than his wife and his children. What's more interesting is the fact that Helmer never mentions his kids or expressed interest towards their well-being. He doesn't make an attempt to possibly predict how his kids and their future will be affected by this grandiose salary as he is too busy focusing on himself and his merits. Not only does he display traits of arrogance but he is also very patronizing towards Nora. He urges her not to 'strain her little eyes , and work those dainty little fingers to the bone"(6). Helmer describes Nora's eyes as 'little' and her fingers as 'dainty' because he believes to be superior as he is the breadwinner in the family. In reality, both of their eyes and fingers are the same size as differentiation isn't necessary in order to display dominance. Helmer portrays his wife as a fragile being who isn't capable to survive on her own. Such ideals are common amongst men who lived back then as society saw women as incapable of taking care of their own self.
ReplyDeleteI found some interesting quotes that illustrate the gender roles during the Victorian time period. One of the few examples of how women didn’t have as much freedom as men is portrayed when Mrs. Linde said “Well, a wife can’t borrow without her husband’s consent…”
ReplyDeleteNora: “Is it rash to save your husband’s life?”
Mrs. Linde: “I think it was rash to do anything without telling him…” (pg. 14). Mrs. Linde is more like a type of person who would conform in a social situation and behave as society expects. She thinks that getting the husband’s consent should be the primary thing to do and things like saving the husband’s life can be done later. Nora’s characteristic is the opposite, because she does what she feels is right, even if it doesn’t follow the social norms of that time. She is more of a person to take risks and she seems proud of what she’s doing, even if she knows that there’ll be consequences if her husband finds out.
I definitely agree with you! I also find it interesting how Nora is constantly trying to please her husband and get his approval. It seems that she really doesn't believe what she is doing is right but she does it to please him. I think that she wants to be like Mrs. Linde and have the freedom to do whatever she wants, even though she does not say it directly.
DeleteAfter reading the first 15 pages of the book, It was interesting that what Nora said and what she did were rarely the same thing. On page 5 she says "I would never dream of doing anything you didn't want me to" to her husband. This is clearly a lie because she bought the macaroons even though he didn't want her to, and she went and borrowed money which he wouldn't have liked either. Nora later says to Mrs. Linda "I must think only about your affairs today" (8). But then, Nora spends the next 2 pages just talking about herself the entire time. This use of irony shows that Nora may not always be the most honest character, and suggests that the reader take whatever she says with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteGood point--but what else does that show? Why is she like that?
DeleteMs. Ballard
I think that Nora is like this because she is so caught up in the lie that she has been telling that the way she is dealing with it is by non stop talking about thing/herself. She is so on edge and nervous about what is going to come next that she is all over the place. I feel like talking about herself is a cover up of the lie and she is trying to avoid talking about it so she just talks about herself. But then ends up telling her so I am not exactly sure why she is like this.
DeleteIn "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen, it starts with an interaction between Nora and Helmer, a married couple with a child. Throughout the entire conversation that takes place in the first several pages of the play, Helmer's diction towards Nora is interesting as he is very condescending and possessive. "What do we call my pretty little pet when it runs away with all the money" (Helmer 4). He refers to Nora as HIS pet and objectifies her by referring to her as an "it". It is also shown through this quote that there is a lack of trust between them as he refuses to trust Nora with a substantial amount of money, fearing she'll run off with it. This verbal abuse is reflected in Nora's own diction when speaking to others. "They were just trivialities. I haven't told you about the really big thing." (Nora 12) After attempting to be humble, she finds herself bragging about her accomplishments in an attempt to prove Mrs. Linde that she's wrong about Nora being coddled. This type of transition from humble to selfish occurs multiple times in the first few pages which leads me to believe it's a superiority complex that she's had all her life but has been pushed to the extreme with her marriage to Helmer. She can't argue with the man of the house so she vents these feelings to a fellow woman, Mrs. Linde in this case.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn A Dolls House By Henrik Ibsen we are immediately introduced to a Woman Nora. She is woman of her household. I found her character the most intriguing (Like many of you). The diction and language that she uses creates an internal struggle for the reader as we can’t decide if she is a good person (Do we like her?) What struck me as most interesting was Nora encounter with Mrs.Linde in the very first Act. Mrs.Linde is sharing her misfortune with Nora, then Nora says “How dreadfully sad that must be. I have three lovely children…”(Pg. 7, Act 1) this struck me as very odd. Mrs.Linde explains that her husband died and she was left with no children. A good friend would grieve and be sad with her in most cases, however Nora begins to brag. During this part Nora says how she doesn’t want to talk about herself but then throughout their entire conversation she is the center. Their conversation sets multiple tones throughout the first act. Prideful, arrogant, entitled and self pity.
Why do you think we're not necessarily supposed to like her right away? (I like that you are mentioning tones!) :)
DeleteMs. Ballard
Nora’s interactions between Mrs. Linde during the first act seem to be focused on controlling her mentally and bringing pity on herself. Mrs. Linde is explaining her situation to Nora saying, “My poor dear mother doesn’t need me any more, she’s passed away. Nor the boys either…”(Ibsen, 11). Nora responses with, “What a relief you must find it….”(11). Nora’s reply lacks any empathy for a person who considers herself an old friend. Instead of assisting Mrs. Linde in her difficulties, Nora attempts to make their lives into a competition. This fight over difficulties continues for most of their conversation. This competitive nature could be cause by the the bond the two women have with each other. Similar behavior occurs between siblings and close friends at young ages and they could be defaulting back to their old relationship. Another possible reason for Nora’s need to be the leader is that she feels suppressed by her husband. This would be fairly normal in a family in the Victorian Era where the father is seen as the dominant figure of the family. She is not able to control her family due to social normalities and so she attempts to control other women.
ReplyDeleteTravis, I completely agree. Nora and Mrs. Linde have a peculiar dynamic for so-called "old friends," but there's an air of formality that is characteristic of the Victorian era. Rather than being a situation of competition, I thought that they were acting like that because it was expected of them. On the contrary, I don't think that Nora says, "What a relief you must find it..." with any lack of empathy, because she's referring to the fact that Mrs. Linde's children and mother no longer need to depend on her, which means she doesn't have to work as hard (11). While I agree completely that they have an odd relationship by society's standards today, I think it's a matter of courtesy, not a form of control.
DeleteWhat's also really interesting is that Mrs. Linde, a widow, is still referred to as "Mrs. Linde," whereas Nora, a married woman, is referred to by her first name. Nora calls Mrs. Linde "Kristine," so why doesn't the play also refer to the character as "Kristine?" It'd be interesting to get your opinion, Travis.
One thing that I found very interesting is in the primary paragraph, the one that we analyzed in class. I noticed that in the description, all the furniture is pushed back against the walls, and the decorations are pretty sparse. In fact, the only decorations mentioned are the small china dolls. Everything else is in perfect order, but yet there is nothing in the middle. I think this could be a metaphor for Nora's character and her relationship with Helmer. While she seems to be the perfect housewife and they seem to have the ideal relationship, there really isn't anything meaningful in the middle. Its all a front for society. Nora uses her subservience to Helmer to get what she wants (money for the repayments) but continues to lie and cover it up, acting frivolous and silly. Nora and Helmer's interactions are filled with pet names, "When did my little squirrel get home?" (2) which don't really say anything about Nora's importance to Hemler. Its like a backhanded complement, pretty from the outside, but lacking true kindness upon further inspection. Nora also lies to Torvald saying "I would never dream of doing anything you didn't want me to" (5) when he asks her about the macaroons. She appears to be the perfect housewife, but just like the empty room, lacks real substance in their relationship.
ReplyDeleteSomething interesting my group discussed was how Nora replicates her husband's actions toward Mrs. Linde as well as herself. For an example on page 8 when she's talking to Mrs. Linde she says, "No, you start. I won't be selfish today. I must think only about your affairs today" and then she goes on and talks all about herself. It seems like she is repeating what her husband when she starts criticizing Mrs. Linde's life. Additionally, when she first sees Mrs. Linde she acts controlling. Ibsen writes, "You are not cold, are you? [helps her] There now! Sit down here in comfort beside the stove. No, here, you take the armchair, I'll sit here on the rocking chair.[takes her hands]" (Ibsen 9). This shows how controlling she is to her friend. She places her where she wants and controls her. Perhaps it's because she is always controlled, she feels like she has to take control when she can.
ReplyDeleteI was not in class on Friday to read this with my group, which I think has lead me to have some unique perspectives on this play, at least so far. I went in to reading this play with an open mind, trying to think about it within the context of Victorian society, but by the fifth page I had realized that this play was going to be all about sex. I had noticed the peculiarity of the opening line where Nora tells the maid, “Hide the Christmas-tree carefully, Ellen; the children must on no account see it before this evening, when it's lighted up” (1). Although I had brushed aside the peculiarity of a Christmas tree being hidden, the dialogue between Nora and Torvald convinced me that this line was Ibsen’s way of telling the audience what this play was truly going to be about. The line of dialogue where I was convinced that sex was going to be a significant motif in this play was when Torvald tells Nora, “…We two have held out bravely till now, and we are not going to give in at the last” (2). Once again, Ibsen is not explicit in his implication of sex here; he merely suggests it through diction that appears incredibly out of place. The phrase “held out bravely” is an odd way to characterize two people not spending their money, and the couple seems fairly comfortable spending money on Christmas, suggesting that spending money was not seen as something sinful during Victorian times. What Ibsen does here is hint heavily at long withheld sexual tension between the two. Also, the fact that Nora sees the Christmas tree, often a symbol of happiness and one of pleasure being given, as something that needs to be hidden further suggests that they are very guarded about expressions of their sexuality. It will be interesting to see whether all of this sexual tension breaks at some point in the play, or whether it will continue to shade the interaction between these two characters, and I will definitely be watching the dialogue between the two to see what happens.
ReplyDeleteIn "A Doll's House", my group discussed the language between Nora and Helmer. From the beginning of the play, it is evident that Helmer thinks inferior of Nora as he repeatedly gives her demeaning nicknames such as "Squirrel" or "little lark" (Act 1. pg 7). These nicknames suggest that Helmer thinks of Nora as something small, delicate, and fragile, yet also naive. By comparing her delicate innocence to that of a witless chirpy animal, one can imply that Nora is like a young child in which she must look up to Helmer in order to guide her. When Nora asks Helmer for money, Helmer calls her a "spendthrift" (Act 1, pg. 9) and furthermore, Helmer accuses Nora of visiting the confectioner by wagging his finger at her and saying, "hasn't Miss Sweet-Tooth been breaking rules in town today?" (Act 1, pg. 10). These quotes further confirm the views of Nora as a young child and Helmer as her guardian. Nora asks Helmer for money and furtively hides the macaroons she know's she's not supposed to buy, much like how a child would act around a parent. The language spoken between Helmer and Nora demonstrate the perspective of the relationship between them as one of a parent-child one, lacking in equality and mutual codependency.
ReplyDeleteSeeing as this play is set in the Victorian era, I assumed that we would see characters with Puritan masks to disguise sinful desires or actions. In the first conversation between Nora and Torvald, after Torvald scolds his wife for wanting to borrow, Nora's dejected mood is quickly replaced by excitement and eagerness when Torvald pulls some money out of his pocket and gives it to her. Because of this initial interaction, the audience is left with an obvious impression that Nora is someone who disguises her greed behind her "love" for her husband, which sets up an instance of disguise in "A Doll's House." However, we later find that Nora borrowed Krogstad in order to save her husband's life, and that she purposely deceived her father and her husband in order to keep them happy, which she thought was the best course of action. Nora tells Mrs. Linde, "I began dropping hints about how nice it would be if I [she] could be taken on a little trip abroad, like the other young wives. I wept, I pleaded. I told him he ought to show some consideration for my condition, and let me have a bit of my own way..." (14).
ReplyDeleteAfter her lengthy dialogue, the audience realizes that, yes, Nora was deceiving her husband, but not how one might have originally thought. Tracing her actions back to her excitement when Torvald gave her money, she might have been so happy because it was more money to pay off the loan she had to take from Krogstad. Torvald's comment that Nora "runs away with an awful lot of money" also confirms the idea that she is actually taking money away from Torvald in order to pay Krogstad (4).
I thought this was really interesting because it casts Nora in a different light. There were two "layers of deception," which makes the audience wonder if there is even more to be found later in the play. Nora's motives behind deceiving her husband and friends are definitely worthy of attention.
One thing I found interesting from the reading we did in class was the relationship between Nora and Helmer. Nora seems so far like a woman who has great self-esteem issues and has a bad habit for compulsively buying things. Not to mention her Husband, Helmer, belittles her and treats her with utter disrespect. In the First 20 pages we read in class Helmer called Nora “ Pretty Pet” “Poor little Nora“ (pg.6&9), both of which are very condescending and power assertive ways of describing a wife. This diction ties in with the time period of the book being in the Victorian Age and the culture of the man having an authoritarian stance in the relationship. Another thing I found interesting in this section was the way Nora reflects her Husbands personality onto her “friend” Mrs. Linde, by belittling her as well. My group found this very interesting and thought it might be a coping mechanism of Nora’s. Overall in this book so far, there are many intriguing relationships!
ReplyDeleteOne idea that my group talked about was the contradiction of Nora in the beginning of the play where she states, “I would never dream of doing anything you wouldn’t want me to” (5). This scene is between Helmer and Nora when talking about spending the money on things that Nora does not need. My group found this statement interesting considering that Nora has previously gone behind Helmer's back to barrow money. We know that Helmer would never want her to barrow simply from his line where he says, “Seriously though, Nora, you know what I think about these things. No debts! Never borrow!” (3). This gives us the sense of uncertainty and uneasiness towards Nora, knowing that she lies to her husband which is the one person who she should be the most up front with. This also foreshadows what is soon to come in the play with the irony of her statement.
ReplyDeleteplease help me I can’t find that quote
Deleteplease help me I can’t find that quote
DeleteDuring our discussion, my group talked about the setting and what it could symbolize. We found that the room described in the beginning of the play seemed to be very sparsely furnished, which could be symbolic of many things. The first symbol that comes to my mind is cold, or emotionless. This would make sense seeing as this play is about a doll's house, where the people are literally plastic and fake. The room's lack of furniture seems to also possibly foreshadow the relationships that characters will have with each other, hinting that they might be less emotional and genuine. So far, Helmer and Nora have a very flirty, loose relationship, but it has been very disingenuous, and almost feels forced. I am curious to see how the characters relationships will unfold.
ReplyDeleteIn the first 10-15 pages of A Doll's House we learn are introduced to the characters in the play. The characterization of the main character, Nora is something I found to be very interesting. When we are first introduced to Nora she seems to be a simple poised woman. The way she interacts with Helmer shows that very clearly. She is shown to spend a lot of money on clothing and presents and not know much of business. Helmer treats her like she is very simple minded and does not understand anything and she responds to his commands. This gives the audience the feeling of standard role of a woman and characteristics of woman during this time period. We think that it is just a normal little family and normal situation. Yet later on when Nora is talking with her friend Mrs. Linde, the audience receives so much more about Nora's character. We learn of her intelligence and independence. Henrik Ibsen characterizes Nora in these two ways while she is around different people for a reason. He does this to make the role of woman and their husbands prominent. This makes the character, Nora, more intriguing and gives the story more depth.
ReplyDeleteIbsen's characterization makes the audience see both sides of Nora. It gives us the feeling of the relationships between Nora and Helmer as well as reveals information about Nora's past, creating more room for Characterization of Nora.
Throughout the first act, my group found the relationship between Nora and Torvald to be the epitome of marital relationships during the Victorian Era. In the first couple pages Torvald addresses Nora as a pet, bird, and squirrel. Torvald states, "What do we call my pretty little pet when it runs away with all the money?' (Page 4). He also refers to her as little or small. Torvald does this because he views her as an object and is very dehumanizing to women because during the Victorian Era they were viewed as pets or objects for their husbands. The women were supposed to be submissive and the subordinates. When he calls her animal names, the ones he usually calls her are weak and annoying. This could reflect on his opinions of her. Torvald might not be intentionally calling her weak and annoying but that was the social norm. It was normal for husbands to poorly treat or call theirs wives names during this time and lots of wives were so used to it, they did not think anything of it. It could later cause wives to try and rebel and think that they could have the power to control other things, which is shown through Nora's actions later throughout the play.
ReplyDeleteIn the first act of A Doll's House, Henrik Ibsen uses diction, sentence structure, and ironic foreshadowing to introduce Nora's motivations and social strategies, revealing a high level of self-control and manipulative ability. The portrayal of Nora in the opening scene is especially interesting in that it shows how convincingly Nora plays on her husband's assumptions. As the reader initially believes that Nora is as innocent as she seems, Torvald's attitude can be, to a certain extent, understood. In Nora's first conversation with Torvald, Ibsen uses frequent questions, interjections and "echoes" of Torvald's words to depict Nora's wifely persona as frivolous and simple; Nora agreeably adopts her husband's charming yet clearly patronizing terms of endearment, exclaiming "Ah, if only you knew how many expenses the likes of us sky-larks and squirrels have, Torvald!" (I, 4). However, it must be noted that many of Nora's most forceful exclamations (especially "Who cares about them! They are only strangers!" in response to Torvald's concerns about debt) dismiss the very issues that Nora is later revealed to have struggled with for many years (I, 2). The fact that Nora presents herself as exaggeratedly naïve with regard to financial matters in particular could be considered a form of foreshadowing – though it may seem to lead the reader in the wrong direction, Nora's strongest outbursts of false happiness may instead be intentional irony on her part.
ReplyDelete