Directions: Please finish reading A Doll House, Act I and comment on the text. Focus on characterization. What are your initial impressions of the characters? What do you think Ibsen is setting up for Act II? What questions do you have for our class discussion?
Just as a doll house gives toys specific roles, which typically follow stereotypes of what a family is, the first lines of dialogue establish “A Doll’s House” as a typical and ordinary family of the 1800s. You have Torvald Helmer, the businessman and provider of the home, Nora, the doting wife, and their happy children. They’re all cookie-cutter characters. However, as the story goes on, the audience can see that there is far more at play. Nora is revealed to be a more complex character through different interactions with Helmer, Mrs. Linde, and Krogstad. With her husband, she jokes and maintains an odd banter with Helmer. Around Helmer, Nora seems to be a typical wife. However, when Mrs. Linde pays a visit, Nora is revealed to be very responsible, independent, and hardworking. She is proud of her actions, because through them “It was [Nora] who saved Torvald’s life”. This is a stark contrast to the titles of “spendthrift” and “silly girl” that Helmer calls Nora. Through these two encounters, it is obvious that Nora is putting up an act. Going into Act II, I imagine that Ibsen is going to put Nora under more stress. Towards the end of Act I, you could already tell that it will be difficult for Nora to help Krogstad and pay off the rest of her loan. The story should capitalize on Nora’s revelation.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you made the comparison between an actual doll house and the setting of the play. I agree that the household is very stereotypical of the time, with Torvald, the breadwinner, Nora, the ideal wife, and a bunch of happy children.
DeleteAct 1 of A Doll House revealed a significant amount of information about the main characters. Ibsen aims to focus on the characterization of the characters in order to help his audience easily understand them as people. A character that particularly stood out to me was Nora. When Nora has conversations with different people in the act, she seems to develop a completely different attitude based on who she is talking to. For example, when she talks to her husband Torvald, she takes on a childlike role. Torvald acts as almost a father, being condescending about her lavish spending. When he criticizes her for being a “spendthrift”, she says that it is a “shame to say that. [she] really saves all that [she] can”. By reacting to Torvald in this way, Nora leaves the impression of a superficial woman who aims to please her husband. When Torvald asks her if she has had any sweets, she states that she “should not think of going against your wishes. However, when Nora is talking with Rank, she comes off as rather intelligent, explaining how she is keeping the dress she ordered a secret, saying that “Torvald mustn’t know about it”. This change in her character indicates that she is a complex one, as she shapes her identity based on her surroundings. This can show that she might bring some surprises in the future of the play. With this changing nature of Nora’s personality, the audience is led to initially think that Nora is some oblivious woman but later on, we see that there is more to her than we thought. I really like Ibsen’s writing style, as it is very descriptive when explaining his characters and their actions. I am interested to see Nora’s interactions with other people later in the story.
ReplyDeleteNothing beats a good stereotype to set the tone of a play before anything has even been established. In literature archetypes help to set a narrative about characters through speech, dress, class and views of the world, however, the more interesting take is always the way that those archetypes are then broken and remolded through literature. Literature has a tendency to dissect stereotypes of real people in character form in this way. With Henrik Ibsen, he does this by putting characters, often in a literal box of society like a house, and forcing them to cope with everyday problems beyond the pre-concepts that society tends to idealize about certain situations like home life. A Doll House thus far has looked at the idea of a household dynamic, with men leading the financial side and women caring for the home side. However, Nora, the perfect mother and caretaker stereotype with a tendency to “overspend,” proves this stereotype false as she discloses her part in the money spent to save her husband. While people think of her as a careless spender and simple woman with simple cares like her children and vanity, her disclosures prove how it’s all a facade to keep the people she cares about unknowing about the potential peril of her position with Krogstad and the borrowed money. Henrik Ibsen often questions the idea of women in society, like in Hedda Gabler where Hedda is forced to suicide rather than continue in the game of propriety she’s stuck in after marrying for marriage's sake. Yet, with Nora, we see a more optimistic view but again this idea of being stuck in a role with no room for escape.
ReplyDeleteNora drew my attention more than any other character. At the beginning, she seems selfish, and rather childish. You could even believe she was a teenager. But as time goes on, we learn more about her past. We learn that she cares a lot about her children and her husband. We also learn that she is very drastic. She was sure that a long trip was very important when it came to her husband's health, so she took out a loan without telling him and forged her father’s signature to do it. Slowly paying back the loan shows determination, but now the character is faced with the consequences of forging her father’s signature. She is afraid that the fraud will affect her children, she is afraid that her husband will find out. I’m looking forward to following her character arc and seeing what happens.
ReplyDeleteThe introduction of “A Doll House” emphasizes the characters’ relationships with each other, which in return reflects a full image of how each character functions as an individual. Nora and her husband Torvald have a relationship much resembling a father-daughter relationship rather than a husband-wife relationship. Torvald treats Nora as if she is not as capable of taking care of and thinking for herself, talking down to her and focusing on her health when his health and thinking is not always in the best condition. Somehow, Torvald speaks profound truths and wisdom between the lines that he speaks to Nora,, telling her that, “[t]here can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt” when she is excited about spending more money due to their new financial situation. Torvald’s refusal of “borrowing and debt” is ironic since he works as a banker, showing the friction between what he believes and his occupational obligations. When Nora’s friend Chistrine visits, Nora confesses that she paid for her husband’s medical bills by working and borrowing money from friends, showing her ability to act against her husband’s beliefs for his benefit. In ways, this makes her stronger, braver and smarter than Torvald. This makes Nora a person unlike the one Torvald thinks he is married to. Around him, she acts submissive and allows him to treat and speak to her as he wishes. Around Christine, she acts much more powerful and successful. At the end of the first act, Torvald explains the importance of telling the truth to Nora, unaware that she is dealing with Krogstad in secret following a threat of a false signature. I feel Ibsen has set up Nora’s ability to morph her personality depending on situations to be important in the upcoming acts as the effects of her actions continue to unfold.
ReplyDeleteOn the surface, it appears that the household illustrates a very nuclear, stereotypical family. There is Torvald Helmer, the businessman and breadwinner, and Nora, the ‘perfect’ wife, taking care of the children. However, as the play progresses, we learn that Nora is much more independent and hardworking than first characterized. In the beginning, Torvald often ridicules Nora, asking “was my little spendthrift been making the money fly again?” Through the remarks of Torvald and the characters around Nora, we perceive her as the doting, dependent wife. As we learn more about her, specifically about Torvald’s sickness, the characterization of Nora drastically changes. For instance, when doctors suggested that Torvard take a trip down south to Italy, Nora collected the money herself. While she told most people that she borrowed the money from her father, she truly wanted to be independent, so she got a loan from some undisclosed person. By doing this, Nora is portrayed as hardworking and much more independent than we initially thought. Also, Nora was able to protect Torvald’s pride, for she also has never told him where she got the money. When Krogstad arrives, the mood become much tenser in the room. Ultimately, Ibsen is likely setting up more action between Krogstad and between Torvald and Nora later in act II.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Act 1, the distinct and unique characterization that the author imposes upon each character is clear. From the beginning, it seems as if Nora lives a happy, carefree life, in which her priorities in life are simple. It is clear that her husband holds an authoritative or superior position to her, evident in the way Nora responds to him: “As you please, Torvald.” Torvald is someone who clearly values his status or reputation and he views himself superior to his wife. It is apparent that money is important in these characters lives. Nora seems to love spending/receiving money while Torvald is more conscious, believing in having “no debt and no borrowing.” Later in the story though, Nora reveals to have had borrowed money in order to bring her husband to Italy to help save his life. This made me think of Nora in a different perspective, as she was willing to do what was necessary to save her husband. She states that borrowing the money was “something to be proud and glad of,” emphasizing the pride and importance she feels. This gives her character a lot more meaning then from when she was first introduced, as she continuously breaks away from the naive, oblivious girl seen in the beginning of the act. My first thoughts on Mrs. Linde was that she contrasted Nora in many ways. For one, Mrs. Linde is someone who is willingly to work and has a lot more responsibilities in life compared to Nora. My first impression on Krogstad was that he cares a lot about his reputation and is willing to do anything to keep what he has left of it (“if I lose my position a second time, you shall lose yours with me”). I think the ending of Act 1 is foreshadowing the possible repercussions to Nora’s crime of forging the signature. I think Act 2 will also highlight the worries presented to Nora at the end of Act 1 (“deprave my little children? poison my home?”), forcing her to admit to her crime.
ReplyDeleteThrough the personalities of a few characters, or dolls, Henrik Ibsen is able to communicate an idea of reality that reflects from humanity. Each character clearly exudes persona through small interactions and conversations, subtle resembling what individuals like ourselves might engage in on a daily basis. The introduction begins with Torvald Helmer and Nora, an ideal couple with a full family in the house. Helmer sets the tone of a charming and stable husband and is complemented by his vivacious wife. However, Nora’s character gets somewhat interesting once her friend Ms. Linde pays a visit. A friendship versus a companionship certainly have different limits in terms of boundaries, and the conversation between Nora and Ms. Linde exhibit this difference. Nora’s once “goofy,” and “sweet” personality with Helmer fades while catching up with Ms. Linde. Nora begins to grow hostile and desperate to “win each point,” or act superior, to Ms. Linde while chatting about their lives. When Ms. Linde hints at a few of Nora’s “spendthrift” habits, Nora immediately refutes these points with evidence of her hardworking persona. Going deeper in conversation, Nora’s personality turns 180º as she talks about her independence and journey to save money. Personally, I witness this same pattern of character in a few of my relationships with others. Humans naturally have the tendency to compete with others, if not in the most subtle way. Ibsen smoothly communicates this idea through the seemingly casual dialogue shared with Ms. Linde, which reveals more about humanity than what is seen on the surface. For Act II, I believe that we will learn more about the overarching web between the other characters. Furthermore, the audience will definitely learn more on Nora’s personal life as many aspects of her character were revealed through just the introduction.
ReplyDeleteSo far, my favorite character is Nora. Nora is a complex character. She is manipulative, eating sweets and lying that Christine brought them, and further using lies to get Christine a job. However, she has a good heart. Most of the things she has done, from getting Christine a job to taking out a loan to give Torvand a job, and even separating herself from her children -who we can tell from her previous reactions to them that she really loves, are things she does for other people. She doesn't feel bad for lying and doing "the wrong thing" because in her heart she knows she is doing it for the right reasons. This would be great, except that Nora is also very innocent in some aspects. She does not know it is a crime to forge someone's signature, admits to Christine that she doesn't actually know how much she owes and how much she is giving, and believes Torvand when he tells her that if she is a bad person her kids will automatically become bad people just by interacting with her. I think that this innocence, more than her manipulativeness or her selflessness, is what will end up causing problems for her as the play goes on.
ReplyDeleteThe world Henrik Ibsen has laid out in Act 1 of a Doll House is similar to an Oscar Wilde-esque society in that the people are rather disconnected from one another. Nora and Torvald are a good example of this because their relationship is clearly not the strongest. It seems like they try to act as if they are in love with each other but mostly just talk past each other. Torvald speaks to his wife as if she was a child like when he wags his finger at her, saying things like “Hasn’t Miss Sweet-Tooth been breaking rules in town today?” I find it odd that Nora goes along with this when she is clearly not the childish immature woman he thinks she is. Krogstad is characterized by the others as creepy and immoral. Initially, I suspected he may not be all they paint him out to be and his character would develop later in the play into a relatable one. However, he soon began throwing around threats like saying to Nora “if I lose my position a second time, you shall lose yours with me” and that certainly is not helping him appear friendly. I am interested to see where this stalemate between Nora and Krogstad is going to go in the following acts, for now things are very tense.
ReplyDelete(Repost) From stereotypes, there comes a new beginning in which to 'rotate' what is already understood. In the case of Russian Literature, it is fascinating how stereotypes of behaviour are subject to change in transformative ways, rendering what is a reflection upon the reader of one's own behaviour. The way that Ibsen forces the reader to redefine the foundation of makes a character, whose behaviour is deemed morally wrong, corrupt and deplorable, (such as Anna Karenina of Leo Tolstoy's novel of the same name) is not met with contempt but instead is seen with garnering sympathy, despite deserving of every kind of spite humanly possible. It is the shift from viewing these kinds of individuals as not merely one dimensional, but as real, emotional, three-dimensional selves that Ibsen allows self-reflection to occur and creating a piece of art that truly rehabilitates naturally.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading the first act of A Doll House, Nora had a lot of lines throughout the act and I felt that she was the character I most got to know. In the beginning, she comes off with a very positive attitude and talks about Christmas and all the gifts she bought for the kids. The more you read Nora’s real character comes into light and it becomes known that she is cunning when it comes to certain things and that she is not the “silly girl” Torvald thinks she is. Torvald almost seems like a fatherly figure to Nora, giving her money and calling her childish nicknames. I wonder where Nora’s character will potentially turn and what she will turn out being like. When Mrs. Linde comes in Nora almost seems to have to prove herself and the two women seem to throw comments about who has faced more hardships. I wonder what will happen to Nora in Act 2 with Krogstads threat.
ReplyDeleteIf it hadn't been for the character list, I would have taken much longer to come to the realization that Torvald and Nora were actually husband and wife. The way Torvald talks to her seems more like the interaction between a father and daughter, making their opening conversation seem creepy. Torvald enjoys calling Nora “small” and a “spendthrift”, teasing her constantly. Nora herself seems a bit clueless, like a stereotypical housewife would be portrayed at the time. It’s not until her conversation with Ms. Linde that Nora’s facade is revealed. Ms. Linde very comically calls out Nora for the lies she is making, like how Nils Krogstad was a “solicitors clerk” back in the day and he has greatly altered now that he is a lawyer, which he is not. I think that in act 2 Nora will get more and more paranoid about “poisoning her children and household with lies”. I also think Ms. Linde and Krogstad will have some interactions.
ReplyDeleteA doll house is a pcitureshce object, meant to look perfect, and very suitable to play with. And the characters are the dolls, none who I like so far, kinda stink. But these dolls put up a facade, they talk pretty, dress pretty, organize their house pretty. However, if eventually they can not handle the truth, this doll house is going to fall apart.
ReplyDeleteRight away Ibsen makes you cringe with the language Torvald uses to describe his daughter, I mean wife. I think if anyone had the nerve to refer to me as their inferior, their “skylark” or his “squirrel,” I would completely lose my marbles. This language, however, is normal for Nora, as she does not remark on her degenerate nicknames, or make any sort of notion to acknowledge them. The audience certainly does, and they are a little creeped out.
Similar to Oscar Wilde, Ibsen is able to poke fun at the ignorance of the upper class, specifically to their extreme fixation on money. Torvald obsessively scold and teases Nora for her money spending habits, when we learn, ironically, that it is what actually saves his life. When Nora greets Mrs. Linde, one of the first remarks she makes to the window is asking if Mrs. Linde’s husband left her very much money
In Act 1 Nora claims that her drastic measures to keep her load borrowing a secret from her husband is for his sake, but I believe as Act 2 unravels, so will her secret, revealing something much more dark and selfish then we were expecting. Eating a macaroon (oh the horror!) is Nora’s subtle way of restraining Torvalds constraints, but as the story continues, she will eventually break free from the loyal housewife stereotype, and perhaps do something desperate for her own happiness, instead of her husband's.
Initially I was quite shocked at the realization that Torvald and Nora were actually husband and wife. Torvald speaks to her as though he was her father; often making decisions for her and ignoring her wants and desires. It is almost seen as a relationship of incest. He enjoys calling her “silly girl”, teasing her quite constantly. Nora, herself, does a great job playing the role of the docile housewife. Although at times, she may not necessarily agree with Torvald she makes no objections to his demands. Her conversation with Ms. Linde reveals her true emotions. Ms. Linde very comically has no pretense in unveiling Nora’s actions. She reveals to the audience Nora’s actions. I believe that the characters as the play progresses will force Nora to critically analyze her own life. She will have to be faced with a decision on what to do in the future because arising predictions.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Nora plays into her husband's treatment of her, because it is all she knows from when she was a child. I too thought Nora was his daughter.
Delete
ReplyDeleteI can definitely say I agree with Cody, when he said if it weren't for the character list,I would not have known Torvald and Nora were husband and wife.Within the first scene it seems as if Torvald is talking to a small child or a daughter. Much like a father when his daughter is begging for money or sweets. This is especially visible when he calls her names like “ squirrel” or his “little skylark” he even wags his finger at her, and says “Hasn’t Miss Sweet-Tooth been breaking rules in town today?” It constantly seems as if he is belittling her. But my confusion lies, in why does Nora play along? She seems to be one of the more mature of the two. The there is Krogstad who is obviously characterized as the antagonist of this story, who is blackmailing Nora.However I feel as though it will not be as simple as it seems.
The first act of “A Doll’s House,” by Henrik Ibsen, reveals a lot of key information about the characters and helps lay a foundation for how the characters will evolve in further acts. We are first introduced to Nora and Torvald, husband and wife. The way in which Torvald speaks to Nora is somewhat degrading and he talks as if she is his child as opposed to his wife. He criticizes her for being a “spendthrift,” although she does not see this herself as she claims her wants are to fulfill Torvald and her children’s needs. As the act progresses we learn more about Nora and her demeanor changes as she meets Dr. Rank. She is less childish and more sweet and seems to carefully listen to and appreciate everything Rank is saying. Nora appears to be a different person when speaking to her husband and it seems as though the version she is with Dr. Rank is more authentic. As we read the rest of the play, I hope to learn more about Nora’s character and how she is going to continue to evolve.
ReplyDelete