Category: A Doll’s House

I’ve rewritten this introduction 3 times. None of them correctly reflect how I feel. In one iteration of this opener, I described my feelings as uncomfortable. In another, I said that I was angry. Why can’t I put my emotions for A Doll’s House into words? I slowly realized that the reason I was so confused and conflicted was that I saw myself in Nora. And even now I don’t like that concept. New questions were raised, about myself, about Nora, about my friends and family, and I didn’t want to think about them. I’d seen how A Doll’s House unfolded, and I had created this barrier between myself and the content. Here, I’ll try to explain how I feel, how I resemble Nora, and how that is a sickening thought.

Nora and I are both, non-confrontational people pleasers. Nora has a tendency to turn to pleasing Torvald instead of standing her ground, or being direct with what she wants, “Nora: If your little squirrel asked you ever so prettily, for just one thing–? / Helmer: Well? / Nora: Would you do it? / Helmer: I’d need to know what it is first, naturally. / Nora: Your squirrel would run about and do tricks, if you were nice and gave in to her” (p. 146). This act of entertainment comes from the fear of disapproval or essentially any negative action from Torvald. Knowing I act the same way; Nora has already weighed all the options, considered all the outcomes, and decided that this is the path that will cause the least amount of damage to Torvald, and raise her chances of him agreeing. And while Nora is not incredibly smart or educated, we know that she is knowledgeable enough to consider these kinds of things. In her conversation with Kristine, we find evidence for this,

“MRS LINDE: And you’ve not confided in your husband since?  NORA: No, for heaven’s sake, how can you think that? When he’s so strict on the issue of borrowing! And besides, just think how awkward and humiliating it would be for Torvald – with his manly self-esteem – to know he owed me something. It would upset the entire balance of our relationship; our beautiful, happy home would no longer be what it is.” (p. 122).

She worries so much about what other people will feel, and the consequences of their emotions that she forgets that their own emotions and needs are equally important to anyone else’s.

This connection with Nora was very disconcerting. I didn’t like it, I didn’t like seeing aspects I didn’t like about myself in a book. So I refused to acknowledge it, or even think about it. I read the book in a very distant manner. But now, writing this PR, I need to face some of the questions that A Doll’s House brought up for me through Nora. Do people only show me love because I act as they want? If I unmasked, showing my “true self” (whatever that is) would my friends and family still stay? Or would they act like Torvald, furious at the change? Unconditional love is what I hope the people that surround me feel, no requirements are needed from me for them to enjoy my presence. But I honestly don’t know. Nora said, “I realized that the man I’d lived here with for eight years was a stranger and that I’d borne him three children -” (p. 187). That other side of people, the unknown conditions of their love, is something you can never truly know. Nora thought she knew Torvald, was married to him for eight years and knew him before then too. Yet she never thought that he would treat her in such a way that would reveal his conditional love for her. To relate to Nora’s tendencies automatically opens up the terrifying thought that the same might happen to me.

Out of everything we have read in class this year, A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen is not my favourite. This is not to say it was a bad play, it wasn’t. If anything, I found it great but very unsettling. From the very first sentence on the first page to Nora slamming the door on Torvald in the last, I couldn’t shake the odd feeling of the play.   Both Torvald and Nora’s characters annoyed the everliving daylights out of me at the beginning of the play. Oh my gosh. I had never been so annoyed by two characters so much in my life. When we first started reading, I genuinely wanted nothing more than for them to stop talking. Every time Torvald started his sentence it felt like nails on a chalkboard. Plus, the casual objectification of his own wife definitely threw me off a bit. But I think it was more the way he spoke to her in general. He treated her as though she was a child, and was incapable of understanding things on her own. For example, when Nora is talking to Dr. Rank about his job and Torvald says

“I say, my little Nora talking about scientific investigations!”

And again when he says

“Now my little skylark is talking as though it were a person.” (pg.172)

Once again implying that Nora is something to be owned and possessed and that she is incapable of understanding complicated topics, such as a “scientific investigation”. Speaking of, Nora’s character was not much better than Torvald’s at first. When we read the first scene in the play she just irked me so much. I didn’t like the way she spoke or the way she acted so immature. Like she would do anything for just the smallest amounts of money. I believe that part of why Torvald treats her as a child is because she enables it. She always searches for his approval, and never stands up for herself throughout their marriage (at least not until the very end). This makes Torvald look as more of a father figure towards Nora, rather than a husband. The dynamic between them was more similar to that of a father and child.

The one thing I did truly enjoy in this play was Act 3. When Nora finally wakes up from the almost trance-like state she has been in for the past 8 years of her life, and she finally leaves Torvald. Trust me when I say I had been waiting for this moment since Act 1. The complete 180 flip of Nora’s character was something I didn’t really expect, but enjoyed a lot. I think it was the perfect ending to the play as it sort of leaves us with the question “What happens after Nora slams the door?” There have been many adaptations that all give a different answer, but I like the idea of the ending being left up to one’s imagination. While it was not my favourite thing we have read thus far. Overall I would say I pretty thoroughly enjoyed this play, it left me with some very mixed emotions and it was definitely something new for me.

“A Doll’s House” written by Henrik Ibsen is a play that raises questions about what a healthy relationship looks like. When analyzing Torvald’s and Nora relationship it resembles the relationship of a father and child because of the pet names, controlling behaviour, and comparison between fathers and husbands. I am disgusted by the relationship between Nora and Torvald but it also raises many questions. 

Torvald treats Nora like a child and Nora’s actions subside to Torvald’s view of her. Torvald’s pet names for Nora like “sky lark” and “little squirrel” are very childish. They make Nora out to be so fragile and innocent.  They prove that he sees her like a child that is incapable.

“My spending-bird is sweet but it uses up an awful lot of money. It’s incredible how expensive it is for a man to keep a spending-bird” (p.112).

In this particular example Torvald is referring to Nora as something that he owns and is responsible for. In the movie one scene that really stuck out to me was when Nora wants to convince Torvald for a favour she uses the pet names to her advantage.

“Your squirrel would run about and do tricks if you were nice and gave in to her” (p.146)

  Nora states while acting like a squirrel. Similar to how a child will guilt their parents into buying them ice cream. The pet names and Nora acting like animals stuck out to me because I was disgusted by it. 

The second thing that I did not like about the relationship between Nora and Torvald was Torvald’s controlling behaviour and consequently Nora’s need for Torvald’s approval. The main example of this is that he does not allow Nora to eat macarons because he does not want her to ruin her teeth. When he catches her eating macarons her response is

“it would never occur to me to go against you” (p.113).

Another example is when Nora says

“ I’ll think of something that will charm him, that’ll capture his approval” (p.119).

It revolts me that Torvald treats and sees Nora as a child. What’s worse is that she not only does not stop him from controlling her but gives into his ways by seeking his approval. 

Lastly the most convincing piece of evidence that Nora and Torvald’s relationship is like a father and child is that Nora constantly makes comparisons between Torvald and her own father.  When Nora comes to the conclusion to leave Torvald she says

“I’ve been greatly wronged Torvald. First by daddy and then by you”(p.182).

This comparison of Nora’s at the end of the play confirms that their marriage was never a true marriage. It was a relationship between a controlling father and an innocent child. I did not enjoy watching or reading this book because their relationship is sickening. However, this play does raise questions such as what does a healthy marriage look like?  

 

As I began reading A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen, I really disliked it. it wasn’t the time or place of the play that bothered me nor was it the way it was written. I specifically hated the characters. Torvald felt like a pushover, he pleased Nora and just sat in his study otherwise. Krogstad was a stereotypical antagonist to a banker, and every time Nora spoke I felt like skipping past it. I saw her as a naïve brat who would do your every bidding if you taunted her with a 50 dollar bill. The video made this even more excruciating because her voice was much too fitting of a songbird. But as I flipped past the last page of the book and had time to reflect, I realized I had in fact enjoyed it. So, I asked myself, why? how in the world did I enjoy a book that I had just previously felt like walking through syrup when reading.

For starters I began to like Krogstad midway through the book because he was smart and realistic. Scenes with him involved felt much more purposeful and genuinely interesting. An example I can think of is his first negotiation with Nora. He lead her around getting answers he needed like details on Christine and her position with ease. This interaction where he agreed with my opinion on Nora and even calls it out, showing her the consequences of forging a letter, helped me sympathize with him. But at the same time this made me hate Nora more. The next step towards my switch of opinion towards the play was when Christine also noticed the naivety of the other characters.

Krogstad: “I shall demand my letters back” Christine: “No, no” Krogstad: “But of course…he’s not to read it.” Christine: “No…” Krogstad “…wasn’t that really why you set up this meeting with me?” Christine “Yes, in the initial panic, but a whole day has passed now, and the things I’ve witnessed in that time, here in this house, have been unbelievable. Helmer must know everything…”

It was as if the characters were all gradually waking up from a dream. In act 3 after Torvald yells, finds the paper saying he’s in the clear then apologizes. at this moment, Nora too wakes up.

“Yes but what you said (when yelling at her) was very right. I’m not up to the task. Theres another task that must be solved first. I must bring myself up … I must stand totally alone, if im to get an understanding of myself and of everything outside.”

Nora’s realization of her own naivety and determination to solve it is admirable. and the self understanding the book had with the problem I had was fascinating. It was a truly amazing plot twist that not only switched up the story but also my opinion on it. And in the end, only Helmer remains on my list of “characters I dislike in A Doll’s House” as he never woke up.

A Doll’s House, by Henrik Ibsen is my favorite text we have read during the duration of this course. Despite its age, it remains relevant through its depiction of relations between men and women. Further, the roles of men and women in a marriage and society are explored throughout.

An example of the exploration of roles of men and women in a marriage can be found in the third act, on page 182,

“We have been married for eight years now. Doesn’t it occur to you that this is the first time, the two of us, you and I, man and wife, are talking seriously together?…He called me his doll-child, and he played with me, just as I played with my dolls.”(pg. 182)

Nora expresses her disgust towards her eight-year marriage because she realizes that her and her partner have never understood each other. This evokes a sense of newfound relief in Nora. She reflects on her life, which has been filled with mistreatment and objectification at the hands of men who were meant to love and protect her. The men in her life treated her as a “doll”. They did not respect her opinions, disregarded her feelings, and used her to fulfil their needs before her own. As a result, she feels used by those she trusted and loved. As a result, Nora realizes her need for independence of a life that was crafted for her,

“You’re crazed! You are not permitted! I forbid you!”

“It’ll be no use forbidding me anything from now on. I’ll take with me what belongs with me what belongs to me. From you I want nothing, either now or later”

Nora acknowledges that throughout her life, she possessed little control over each detail of her own life. As a result of this acknowledgment, Nora realizes to free herself from the dependent and fated life she lives is to abandon those who orchestrated it. Through rejection of her husband’s forbiddings, condemnations, and eventual pleas to provide her with aid, she shatters the barriers created by her father and husband that were designed to keep her dependent and complacent. Nora’s newfound independence and parting with all she has known is essential to her coming self-actualization. Her enthusiastic embrace of the unknown is the driving force in the escape from the oppressive life she has lead.

I have a great admiration for Nora. She recognized that those who were supposed to love her and risk life and limb to protect her planted barriers that inhibit her freedoms and will. I admire her for her courage to free herself from a conventional and safe, for the bold, free life which she comes to desire. In this day and age, the world needs more people who are willing to risk everything in order to access the freedoms they have been denied. Any action can be the first domino in one’s path to self-actualization. Personally, I cannot relate to Nora’s struggles, however, I hold a deep admiration and respect for the choice she made. In my own life, I can not only assist those who are stuck in unwilling, restrictive situations, but also apply the courage of Nora in my own life. By doing so, I can address the factors and situations that hold me back as a person, and confront the barriers that inhibit my own self-actualization.

I did not connect with Doll’s House. Maybe I am not old enough, or the issues it talked about were not relevant to me, but I never unintentionally thought about its ideas. I had to force myself to think about what is the relationship between men and women and how to do love and money-related. It seems like a child’s book, like the problems is so simple to solve. If there was a little trust and some communication, the story would be over. To me, a doll’s house is a story about a flawed relationship falling apart. Maybe something went over my head. But I can’t think of how this applies to the modern day. The problem they encounter in this story is step one in a relationship make sure you can communicate and trust each other. The problems of this relationship may have been major problems in 1879 when this book was written, but not now. The issue of men and women in a relationship will always be an issue. It will never be solved ever. So I thought of this book as more of a history of Norway in 1879 and the social problem they had at that time. In that time, this was the problem with relationships, just as a book today will become the new idea of what is right with relationships.
Another idea I found was obvious “Do we inherit traits from our parents?”
As children, we first take our ideas from our parents, our favorite color, and our favorite food, and this is how we define ourselves as children. We then look for answers in different places, other people, and places and think this all is put together to produce a person who can walk and talk like any other but is different from what information they have seen and experienced, including the ideas and traits of our parents. As a small boy, I would imitate the groans of my grandfather when he would get up from his seat, as that is what I thought you did when you got up from your chair. We are the sum of the people we spend time with, especially when we are young, so our parents or gardians and the experiences we encounter. Maybe I am missing something major, but this book was not that gripping for me.

The play written by Henrik Ibsen was like an emotional roller coaster. The plot filled with patriarchy, misogyny and the sacrificial role of women truly made me stop and think about feminism today.

Before and even as I was reading the play, I was really confused about the name of it. I couldn’t grasp why its name is “A Doll’s House” and had different theories of why that might have been the choice. At first I thought this was going to be related to the children of Nora, since I thought about dolls being connected to childhood, but this theory quickly became inexact because the play focuses on Nora itself. A “childish” woman.
As I got closer to the end of the book, everything made sense. I think the name choice was brilliant, we really get the sense of it when we get to the lines onp182

“When I was at home with Daddy, he told me all his opinions..He called me his doll-child, and he played with me..” “..I then went from daddy’s hand over into yours.”

As we watched the movie, I remarked how the actress barely said a word during the scene when Torvald finds out about the whole situation. The absence of words and emotions made a great impact because we are left with our own thoughts at this moment, and oh I felt so disappointed. We can only imagine how Nora felt in the moment, heartbroken? Crushed? Miserable? This reaction of Helmer wasn’t unexpected, but in the movie when Torvald slaps his wife, that was what left me in utter shock. I mean, the physical abuse of that time is not the shocker, it is rather the fact that it got down to it.

Needless to say, I was very intrigued when the scene of Nora and Torvald sitting down to have a “serious conversation, first time in 8 years of their marriage” came along. After all of this dreadful and hopeless amount of pages of misogyny, we are finally being rewarded with a grand finale.
Nora demands Torvald to sit down and not interrupt her as she speaks; shocked at her sudden loss of fear, this is probably the strongest moment in the whole play. I was practically cheering when she stated that she will leave and educate herself, and that she wants nothing from Torvald, making him take his wedding ring off too. That she will only take the things she owns, even though she owns very little, this shows how independent she is and will not tolerate any control over her any longer.

I did not enjoy this play as much as The Merchant of Venice despite the fact that this pay has an actual happy ending. Everything is resolved. Nora leaves her abusive husband and I believe will definitely have a bright future; as for comparison, the play by Shakespeare leaves us with so many questions left for us to decide on what is true to us. Cannot say if I like the author or not at this point, I will need to read a few more books by Henrik Ibsen in order to have a formed opinion of his oeuvre.

The plays we read this year – Oedipus, Antigone, and the Merchant of Venice are all plays that raise questions about society. Before reading the play, A Doll’s House, I was confused by the name of the play. I had completely no idea what the play is about, however, because of the confusing name of the play, it intrigued me more than the other plays did.

A Doll’s House, a thought-provoking play written by Henrik Ibsen, precisely describes the role of women in society. In the play, Nora, the housewife, always listens to her husband, Torvald. She does everything she could do to make her husband cheerful. She listens and obeys all his commands. This demonstrates the “expected trait” of women at the time of the play. Nora sacrifices herself for Torvald by borrowing money from Krogstad for Torvald for travelling to Italy to cure his sickness. She takes responsibility for everything because she uses to love him. On the contrary, Torvald thinks that everything Nora does is inevitable, and he is not grateful for that. He even prioritizes his reputation before Nora’s life. In Act III, which is the climax of the play, when Torvald finds out Nora lies to him and borrows money from Krogstad, his first reaction is to blame her for doing that and worrying about his reputation instead of asking Nora and try to understand the situation. His attitude changes significantly after Krogstad returns the IOU contract. “…Shame, shame!” (act III), he thinks what Nora does is a shame, despite the reason that action is to save Torvald’s life, to cure his sickness. From this scene, we can see the sacrificial role of women. Women are like a doll, a toy in play, when their owner is happy, it is treated nicely and respectfully; when their owner is in a bad mood, it is treated like a punching bag, who bears all his temper. 

One of the themes that derive from A Doll’s House is the influence of being honest with each other in a relationship. The conflicts in the play are all aroused by deception. Yet, the truth is always going to reveal itself. In Nora and Torvald’s relationship, deceit is a dominant part of it. Nora lies to Torvald and when the truth reveals, everything is irreversible. It reminds me to stay honest in every kind of relationship. No matter if it is romantic, family, or friends, being truthful to each other is essential. 

Compare to Oedipus, Antigone, and the Merchant of Venice, which are the plays we read this year, A Doll’s House is the most straightforward, and the easiest to understand. The language in the play is informal with a simple and realistic plot. It is one of my favourite literature out of everything we read this year.

Prior to the introduction of, A Doll’s House, by Henrik Ibsen, we were given an introduction through a handout, introducing the characters and the theme of the book. The introduction helps us ease into a mindset to explore the topic of which the play addresses. The theme being the societal expectations and gender roles at its time (19^th century).

Although the women’s gender role for the time can be regarded as very domestic, meaning their role was largely in the house such as caring for the kids and cleaning, it was during the time of when the role of woman in the West began to make significant differences. We can see this change from Kristine Linde as she did multiple different jobs to sustain herself and her family. Although she did not really have another choice, Linde continues to work as she felt pleasure in working. This contrast between Linde’s progressive lifestyle and Nora’s traditional lifestyle highlights the gender equality of the 19^th century. However, I found it very interesting to explore the difference between the two women during a time of change.

When we finish the play, I found the ending hilarious as we see the hilarious duality of man, that is Torvald Helmer. For example, Helmer went against his philosophy by announcing, “Name me this miraculous thing,” (p. 188). Although I found it hilarious, Torvald’s character embodies both the societal expectations and the emotional vulnerability that is often hidden behind man. Initially, Torvald seems to be a one-dimensional character, the ending of the play reveals the complexity of his personality and the contradictions inherent in societal expectations of gender roles.

Artists of all sorts contrast form and content to increase the impact of their work on the audience. Here are some examples.

Ernest Hemingway, In Our Time:

They shot the six cabinet ministers at half-past six in the morning against the wall of a hospital. There were pools of water in the courtyard. There were wet dead leaves on the paving of the courtyard. It rained hard. All the shutters of the hospital were nailed shut. One of the ministers was sick with typhoid. Two soldiers carried him down stairs and out into the rain. They tried to hold him up against the wall but he sat down in a puddle of water. The other five stood very quietly against the wall. Finally the officer told the soldiers it was no good trying to make him stand up. When they fired the first volley he was sitting down in the water with his head on his knees.

Hemingway’s low-key, matter-of-fact description increases the horror of what he describes.

John Keats, “In drear-nighted December”: Here Keats uses a sing-songy rhythm that might be found in a nursery rhyme, but the content of the poem is tragic.

I
In drear-nighted December,
Too happy, happy tree,
Thy Branches ne’er remember
Their green felicity:
The north cannot undo them,
With a sleety whistle through them;
Nor frozen thawings glue them
From budding at the prime.

II
In drear-nighted December,
Too happy, happy Brook,
Thy bubblings ne’er remember
Apollo’s summer look;
But with a sweet forgetting,
They stay their crystal fretting,
Never, never petting
About the frozen time.

III
Ah! would ’twere so with many
A gentle girl and boy!
But were there ever any 
Writh’d not of passéd joy?
The feel of not to feel it,
When there is none to heal it,
Nor numbéd sense to steel it,
Was never said in rhyme.

Musicians can do similar things. Here is Stevie Wonder using a musical form from an 18th century European court—chamber music—to sing about the horrors of life in an urban ghetto in the 20th century:

And here is the Kronos Quartet using the instruments of chamber music to play Jimi Hendrix’s “Purple Haze.” (If you don’t know Hendrix’s original version, you should find it on YouTube before you listen to the Kronos Quartet’s version.)

So, what does all of this have to do with Henrik Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House? Plenty! Ibsen uses the comfortable, familiar form of a “well-made play,” a form that was immensely popular in the 19th century, just as TV situation comedies were immensely popular in the second half of the 20th century. Put very simply, the form involves typical, middle-class people; plot complications; and then a clever twist that puts everything right at the end. The characters were usually stereotypes.

Ibsen takes this form and puts into it radical, challenging ideas about women, marriage, money, sex, social hypocrisy, etc. A Doll’s House caused widespread outrage when it first appeared in the 1870s, and a good deal of that impact comes from Ibsen’s clever use of this old artist’s trick: using a form that leads the audience to expect one sort of thing, and then giving them something very different.