Directions: Revisit A Doll House by Henrik Ibsen. View the film below if you would like another full review. For this blog post, set aside 30-40 minutes and compose a response to one of the following prompts. I included a list of 20 important quotations, below, to help you compose your piece. Edit your response and post it, here, on the blog to share with your classmates. This will act as a rough draft of a formal piece, so pout in your best effort.
Prompts:
1972. In retrospect, the reader often discovers that the first chapter of a novel or the opening scene of a drama introduces some of the major themes of the work. Write an essay about the opening scene of a drama or the first chapter of a novel in which you explain how it functions in this way.
1975. Unlike the novelist, the writer of a play does not use his own voice and only rarely uses a narrator's voice to guide the audience's responses to character and action. Select a play you have read and write an essay in which you explain the techniques the playwright uses to guide his audience's responses to the central characters and the action. You might consider the effect on the audience of things like setting, the use of comparable and contrasting characters, and the characters' responses to each other. Support your argument with specific references to the play. Do not give a plot summary.
1977. In some novels and plays certain parallel or recurring events prove to be significant. In an essay, describe the major similarities and differences in a sequence of parallel or recurring events in a novel or play and discuss the significance of such events. Do not merely summarize the plot.
1983. From a novel or play of literary merit, select an important character who is a villain. Then, in a well-organized essay, analyze the nature of the character's villainy and show how it enhances meaning in the work. Do not merely summarize the plot.
1992. In a novel or play, a confidant (male) or a confidante (female) is a character, often a friend or relative of the hero or heroine, whose role is to be present when the hero or heroine needs a sympathetic listener to confide in. Frequently the result is, as Henry James remarked, that the confidant or confidante can be as much "the reader's friend as the protagonist's." However, the author sometimes uses this character for other purposes as well. Choose a confidant or confidante from a novel or play of recognized literary merit and write an essay in which you discuss the various ways this character functions in the work. You may write your essay on one of the following novels or plays or on another of comparable quality. Do not write on a poem or short story.
1993. "The true test of comedy is that it shall awaken thoughtful laughter." Choose a novel, play, or long poem in which a scene or character awakens "thoughtful laughter" in the reader. Write an essay in which you show why this laughter is "thoughtful" and how it contributes to the meaning of the work.
1997. Novels and plays often include scenes of weddings, funerals, parties, and other social occasions. Such scenes may reveal the values of the characters and the society in which they live. Select a novel or play that includes such a scene and, in a focused essay, discuss the contribution the scene makes to the meaning of the work as a whole. You may choose a work from the list below or another novel or play of literary merit.
2002, Form B. Often in literature, a character's success in achieving goals depends on keeping a secret and divulging it only at the right moment, if at all. Choose a novel or play of literary merit that requires a character to keep a secret. In a well-organized essay, briefly explain the necessity for secrecy and how the character's choice to reveal or keep the secret affects the plot and contributes to the meaning of the work as a whole. You may select a work from the list below, or you may choose another work of recognized literary merit suitable to the topic. Do NOT write about a short story, poem, or film.
2005. In Kate Chopin's The Awakening (1899), protagonist Edna Pontellier is said to possess "That outward existence which conforms, the inward life that questions." In a novel or play that you have studied, identify a character who outwardly conforms while questioning inwardly. Then write an essay in which you analyze how this tension between outward conformity and inward questioning contributes to the meaning of the work. Avoid mere plot summary.
2007, Form B. Works of literature often depict acts of betrayal. Friends and even family may betray a protagonist; main characters may likewise be guilty of treachery or may betray their own values. Select a novel or play that includes such acts of betrayal. Then, in a well-written essay, analyze the nature of the betrayal and show how it contributes to the meaning of the work as a whole.
2008. In a literary work, a minor character, often known as a foil, possesses traits that emphasize, by contrast or comparison, the distinctive characteristics and qualities of the main character. For example, the ideas or behavior of a minor character might be used to highlight the weaknesses or strengths of the main character. Choose a novel or play in which a minor character serves as a foil for the main character. Then write an essay in which you analyze how the relation between the minor character and the major character illuminates the meaning of the work.
2012. “And, after all, our surroundings influence our lives and characters as much as fate, destiny or any supernatural agency.” Pauline Hopkins, Contending Forces
Choose a novel or play in which cultural, physical, or geographical surroundings shape psychological or moral traits in a character. Then write a well-organized essay in which you analyze how surroundings affect this character and illuminate the meaning of the work as a whole.
Film Adaptation:
Act I
1. That is like a woman! But seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt. We two have kept bravely on the straight road so far, and we will go on the same way for the short time longer that there need be any struggle.
2. No, indeed; I only feel my life unspeakably empty. No one to live for any more. (Gets up restlessly.) That is why I could not stand the life in my little backwater any longer. I hope it may be easier here to find something which will busy me and occupy my thoughts. If only I could have the good luck to get some regular work--office work of some kind—
3. Do you still think I am of no use? I can tell you, too, that this affair has caused me a lot of worry. It has been by no means easy for me to meet my engagements punctually….. Well, then I have found other ways of earning money. Last winter I was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do; so I locked myself up and sat writing every evening until quite late at night. Many a time I was desperately tired; but all the same it was a tremendous pleasure to sit there working and earning money. It was like being a man.
4. However wretched I may feel, I want to prolong the agony as long as possible. All my patients are like that. And so are those who are morally diseased; one of them, and a bad case, too, is at this very moment with Helmer—
5. The matter never came into court; but every way seemed to be closed to me after that. So I took to the business that you know of. I had to do something; and, honestly, don't think I've been one of the worst. But now I must cut myself free from all that. My sons are growing up; for their sake I must try and win back as much respect as I can in the town. This post in the Bank was like the first step up for me--and now your husband is going to kick me downstairs again into the mud.
6. Just think how a guilty man like that has to lie and play the hypocrite with everyone, how he has to wear a mask in the presence of those near and dear to him, even before his own wife and children. And about the children--that is the most terrible part of it all.
Act II
7. Do you think so? Do you think they would forget their mother if she went away altogether?
8. Come what will, you may be sure I shall have both courage and strength if they be needed. You will see I am man enough to take everything upon myself.
9. Do you think he is the only one - who would gladly give his life for your sake?
10. When I was at home….I always thought it tremendous fun if I could steal down into the maids' room, because they never moralized at all, and talked to each other about such entertaining things.
11. Most of us think of (suicide) at first. I did, too - but I hadn't the courage.
12. You should have let it alone; you must prevent nothing. After all, it is splendid to be waiting for a wonderful thing to happen.
Act III
13. When I lost you, it was as if all the solid ground went from under my feet. Look at me now - I am a shipwrecked man clinging to a bit of wreckage.
14. Twenty-four hours have elapsed since then, and in that time I have witnessed incredible things in this house. He must know all about it. This unhappy secret must be enclosed; they must have a complete understanding between them, which is impossible with all this concealment and falsehood going on.
15. At the next fancy-dress ball I shall be invisible.
16. Do you know, Nora, I have often wished that you might be threatened by some great danger, so that I might risk my life's blood, and everything, for your sake.
17. Does it not occur to you that this is the first time we two, you and I, husband and wife, have had a serious conversation?
18. When I was at home with papa, he told me his opinion about everything, and so I had the same opinions; and if I differed from him I concealed the fact, because he would not have liked it. He called me his doll-child, and he played with me just as I used to play with my dolls. And when I came to live with you… I was simply transferred from papa's hands into yours….You and papa have committed a great sin against me. It is your fault that I have made nothing of my life.
19. I have other duties just as sacred…..Duties to myself.
20. The most wonderful thing of all?
A Doll House (1973) with Anthony Hopkins
Important Quotations:
Act I
1. That is like a woman! But seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt. We two have kept bravely on the straight road so far, and we will go on the same way for the short time longer that there need be any struggle.
2. No, indeed; I only feel my life unspeakably empty. No one to live for any more. (Gets up restlessly.) That is why I could not stand the life in my little backwater any longer. I hope it may be easier here to find something which will busy me and occupy my thoughts. If only I could have the good luck to get some regular work--office work of some kind—
3. Do you still think I am of no use? I can tell you, too, that this affair has caused me a lot of worry. It has been by no means easy for me to meet my engagements punctually….. Well, then I have found other ways of earning money. Last winter I was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do; so I locked myself up and sat writing every evening until quite late at night. Many a time I was desperately tired; but all the same it was a tremendous pleasure to sit there working and earning money. It was like being a man.
4. However wretched I may feel, I want to prolong the agony as long as possible. All my patients are like that. And so are those who are morally diseased; one of them, and a bad case, too, is at this very moment with Helmer—
5. The matter never came into court; but every way seemed to be closed to me after that. So I took to the business that you know of. I had to do something; and, honestly, don't think I've been one of the worst. But now I must cut myself free from all that. My sons are growing up; for their sake I must try and win back as much respect as I can in the town. This post in the Bank was like the first step up for me--and now your husband is going to kick me downstairs again into the mud.
6. Just think how a guilty man like that has to lie and play the hypocrite with everyone, how he has to wear a mask in the presence of those near and dear to him, even before his own wife and children. And about the children--that is the most terrible part of it all.
Act II
7. Do you think so? Do you think they would forget their mother if she went away altogether?
8. Come what will, you may be sure I shall have both courage and strength if they be needed. You will see I am man enough to take everything upon myself.
9. Do you think he is the only one - who would gladly give his life for your sake?
10. When I was at home….I always thought it tremendous fun if I could steal down into the maids' room, because they never moralized at all, and talked to each other about such entertaining things.
11. Most of us think of (suicide) at first. I did, too - but I hadn't the courage.
12. You should have let it alone; you must prevent nothing. After all, it is splendid to be waiting for a wonderful thing to happen.
Act III
13. When I lost you, it was as if all the solid ground went from under my feet. Look at me now - I am a shipwrecked man clinging to a bit of wreckage.
14. Twenty-four hours have elapsed since then, and in that time I have witnessed incredible things in this house. He must know all about it. This unhappy secret must be enclosed; they must have a complete understanding between them, which is impossible with all this concealment and falsehood going on.
15. At the next fancy-dress ball I shall be invisible.
16. Do you know, Nora, I have often wished that you might be threatened by some great danger, so that I might risk my life's blood, and everything, for your sake.
17. Does it not occur to you that this is the first time we two, you and I, husband and wife, have had a serious conversation?
18. When I was at home with papa, he told me his opinion about everything, and so I had the same opinions; and if I differed from him I concealed the fact, because he would not have liked it. He called me his doll-child, and he played with me just as I used to play with my dolls. And when I came to live with you… I was simply transferred from papa's hands into yours….You and papa have committed a great sin against me. It is your fault that I have made nothing of my life.
19. I have other duties just as sacred…..Duties to myself.
20. The most wonderful thing of all?
It is in our human nature to judge others. Almost every person has formed a false opinion without having sufficient information. This happens quite frequently, as first impressions are almost always misleading. In A Doll House, by Henrik Ibsen, this concept is thoroughly explored. There are many initial misconceptions that are formed because from the introductory scenes. Through this, a main theme that the novel revolves around is the idea that first impressions are misleading, particularly with Nora, Torvald, and Krogstad.
ReplyDeleteIn the opening scene of a novel, we see a playful interaction between Nora and Torvald. Immediately, the audience feels uneasy because although Nora and Torvald are married, their interactions seem like a father daughter relationship. This brings to question the intelligence of Nora, as she appears to be quite childish and immature. Expressing her concern over christmas gifts, she explains to Torvald “You haven’t any idea how many expenses we skylarks and squirrels have” (act 1). She is referring to herself as a skylark, an immature nickname that Torvald calls her. This pet name implies that she is a quick spender, always wasting money without a concept of its worth. This interaction causes the audience to think that Nora is a childish woman that heavily relies on her husband’s finances. Talking to him as if he is in charge of her, Nora gives an impression of an immature adult. Later in the novel, this idea is tested as more information is discovered about Nora. It is discovered that she has borrowed a great deal of money in order to save Torvald’s life. She did this without his knowledge and is currently repaying the money that she borrowed. This situation shows that Nora is more intelligent than was initially thought. Explaining what she did to a friend, she exclaims how “painful and humiliating it would be for Torvald, with his manly independence, to know that he owed me anything” (act 1). She knows that Torvald values his ego and therefore, does everything in her power to keep this secret. Nora is quite witty, as she has the ability to hide this. Independently thinking and managing a financial burden on her own, it is discovered that she is not the woman who was introduced in the beginning of the novel. The initial appearance of Nora was false because she is not a childish woman.
Nora’s financial burden was a weight to carry, mainly because another character wanted something in return for his loan. When we are introduced to Krogstad, he leaves an impression on the readers that he is evil, threatening to expose Nora’s secret to Torvald. When he is talking to her about exposing the secret, he explains that “it is because you haven’t the will; but I have means to compel you” (act 1). It appears that Krogstad is pressuring Nora because he wants to keep his job. It is shown that he is using Nora in order to keep his job at the bank. He wants to use the leverage of Nora’s financial situation to keep his job at the bank. The way in which he seems to be blackmailing Nora makes him come off as an evil man, exploiting Nora’s troubles for his advantage. However, he is not trying to destroy Nora and Torvald’s marriage or life, he only wants to keep his job. He is a struggling man that does not have enough money to support himself without a job. First appearing evil, Krogstad later says “I want to rehabilitate myself, Mrs. Helmer; I want to get on; and in that your husband must help me” (act 2). He is only doing this so that he can keep his job. He is asking for help and does not want to hurt Nora. Krogstad does not care for blackmailing Nora and Torvald, he only wants to keep his job at the bank. He also says “I shall only preserve it — keep it in my possession. No one who is not concerned in the matter shall have the slightest hint of it” (act 2). Krogstad tells Nora that he does not plan on exposing her secret. He does not have malicious intentions when he tells Nora that he would expose her secret. Our initial impression of Krogstad was inaccurate, as he is a kind man that only wants to support himself and find happiness.
DeleteA recurring theme that the novel focused on was the idea of misleading first impressions. With Nora and Krogstad, we discover that they are not the people that they were initially shown as. Nora was first seen as a childish woman who greatly relies on her husband. Later in the novel, it is revealed that she is an independently minded figure that carries a lot of responsibility. Krogstad is first seen as an evil, manipulative man who wants to benefit himself. Throughout the story, it turns out that all he wants is to keep his job and support himself. First impressions can be misleading, as they are an inaccurate judgement of who people are. It is important to get to know others because it is impossible to understand their true identity without multiple interactions. A Doll House explains this idea through their main characters while leading the readers to understand the true intentions of the novel.
1992:
ReplyDeleteOften times in literature, authors may create a character that although may not seem important, is actually essential for the story. This is the case with Christine in ‘A Doll’s House,’ by Henrik Ibsen. Christine is originally introduced to the story as a childhood friend who comes back to town and comforts Nora when she is in need of a sympathetic listener. As they rekindle their friendship, Nora feels she can confide in Christine and reveals the big secret that drives the rest of the story. Over the course of the play, Christine not only brings out important elements in Nora’s character, but she acts as a catalyst that pushes the plot to an unexpected resolution.
When Christine is introduced, it is evident that she contrasts Nora greatly. The reader learns early on that Christine had married her husband, who has passed, for the sake of money to support her ill mother and her two brothers. She has come back to town in order to search for “something which will busy me and occupy my thoughts.” As Christine expresses her interest in working, Nora states that it’s “so frightfully tiring” and she should instead just relax. This interaction highlights Nora’s simplistic and privileged life, as she does not work, has little responsibility, and gets money from her husband when she asks for it. From understanding Christine’s responsibilities in life, especially as a single women living on her own, one is able to learn a lot about Nora’s character. Who Christine resembles in act one will eventually become crucial in the resolution, as it contributes to Nora’s radical decision at the end of the play.
Later in their talk is when the reader sees how Christine acts as the role of the confidante. When Christine asks about the year she spent in Italy, Nora feels that she can confide in her about the true purpose of the trip and proceeds to tell her it was for the benefit of Torvald’s health. This is when Christine learns about the borrowed money, but it is not until later that she learns that Nora forged a signature in order to get said money. While Nora believes this was something to be “proud and glad of,” Christine suggests she's been “a little bit imprudent.” This interaction is fundamental for the resolution of the play, as Christine foreshadows that there will be inevitable consequences for Nora’s actions.
DeleteArguably Christine’s most important role in the play is her contribution to the resolution. Christine had promised she would speak to Krogstad about taking back the letter in which he exposes Nora’s secret to Torvald. Instead, she tells Krogstad to keep the letter and states, “this unhappy secret must be enclosed.” To compromise, Krogstad writes an additional letter to Torvald in which he promises to stop threatening Nora. When Torvald reads the first letter, he is outraged, claiming Nora ruined everything for him. The second letter calms him down and he then acts as if everything can go back to normal. By this point, Nora finally realizes the true state of her life and marriage. She tells Torvald, “you don’t understand me, and I have never understood you either — before tonight.” In addition to this, she proclaims, “It is your fault that I have made nothing of my life” and that she's truly “never been happy.” These realizations lead her to leave Torvald and finally discover who she truly is and what it means to be her own person. Nora now wants the freedom and responsibilities that was originally seen in Christine in act one.
It is clear that Christine represents a women who is more free from the strict gender roles and Nora represents one who is constructed based off the standard women’s role in society. But by the end of the play, Nora breaks away from these gender roles, stating, “I must stand quite alone, if I am to understand myself and everything about me.” Christine has played an immensely important part in Nora’s decision. Christine had the power to change the course of the play if she had advised Krogstad to remove the letter, thus setting up a completely different resolution for Nora’s character. Furthermore, without Christine’s talk to Krogstad, Krogstad would not have written a second letter. This second letter offered Nora an opportunity to go back to her simplistic life with her husband, but instead, she refused to do so, setting off on a journey of self discovery instead.
Society is built around men. While men are expected to be breadwinners, financially supporting the family, a woman’s role in the world is diminished to only remaining home to care for the children and serve the needs of her husband. In the play A Doll House, Henrik Ibsen details the life of a traditional, married couple: Nora and Torvald. On the surface, it appears that the household illustrates a very nuclear, stereotypical family of the time. There is Torvald Helmer, the businessman, and Nora, the ‘perfect’ wife, taking care of the children. However, as the play progresses, it is revealed that Nora is much more independent and hardworking than first characterized. Throughout the novel, Torvald resists Nora’s independence while belittling those around him. He objectifies Nora, as he dresses her up like a doll and grotesquely makes unwanted, sexual advances towards her. Ultimately, Ibsen portrays Torvald as a villain, highlighting a man’s ego and the social, gender roles of the time.
ReplyDeleteTorvald is a product of his society. While he madly loves his wife, he fails to listen to her needs, as he mistreats and teases her. For instance, in the beginning, Torvald often ridicules Nora, asking “was my little spendthrift been making the money fly again?” Through his remarks, Nora is perceived as the doting, dependent wife. However, she yearns true independence. Nora expresses her frustration by explaining that she “could not stand the life in my little backwater any longer. [she] hopes it may be easier here to find something which will busy me and occupy my thoughts.” Although she wants to have a career and find a sense of pride in work, Torvald is the villain ultimately preventing her from true happiness. After Torvald impugns her work ethic, she questions “Do you still think I am of no use?” while reiterating how she has “found other ways of earning money. Last winter [she] was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do…” Ultimately, through describing Nora’s misery, Ibsen is able to effectively demonstrate Torvald’s villainy. By limiting her potential, Torvald is acting as a villain, ruining the life of his dear wife.
As more is revealed about Nora, specifically about Torvald’s sickness, the characterization of Nora drastically changes from the expected wife to independent woman. 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 a man named Krogstad. Through Nora’s bits of independence, Torvald is further shown to be the villain. Despite saving Torvald from himself, he still treats Nora as if she were a doll. As a woman, Nora feels as if she has been objectified, by both her father and husband. She dictates that “[Papa] called me his doll-child, and he played with me just as I used to play with my dolls. And when I came to live with you… I was simply transferred from papa's hands into yours….It is your fault that I have made nothing of my life.” As Nora illustrates, her life and yearning for independence were essentially ignored. Torvald effectively ruined her life, as he suppresses her rights and disregards her wishes.
DeleteWhile Torvald patronizes Nora at home, often treating her as if she was property, he also disregards the livelihoods of those who work with him at the bank. For instance, Torvald is removing Krogstad, the man Nora borrowed money from, from his job. Nora is fearful that Krogstad, who manages leverage over her because of the money and forged papers, will tell Torvald of her secret loan. In spite of futile efforts by Nora to convince Torvald otherwise, he refuses to give Krogstad his modest job back, explaining how he does not want the appearance that his wife is influencing him. Although Krogstad announces that he is not pursuing Torvald after the secret is revealed, he does explain how his “post in the Bank was like the first step up for [him]--and now [Torvald] is going to kick me downstairs again into the mud.” Therefore, not only is Torvald devastating the life of Nora, but also a modest man who works hard at the bank.
Torvald is used to authority. He has authority over his wife at home and authority at the bank. Despite Nora’s wishes to be more independent and Krogstad’s pleas for mercy, Torvald ignores them and follows through on his wants. Therefore, Ibsen was able to effectively illustrate a villain in Torvald, through describing his torment of others. Although Torvald is extreme, he mistreats all those around him and is a valid symbol of social, gender expectations of the time.
From a novel or play of literary merit, select an important character who is a villain. Then, in a well-organized essay, analyze the nature of the character's villainy and show how it enhances meaning in the work. Do not merely summarize the plot.
ReplyDeleteIn Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House, good and bad is shown to not be black and white. Those who start out seeming like villains are shown to actually be more than just one-sided evil people. One of the most shocking transformations of the audience’s perception of a character over the course of this play is through the character Krogstad. Although Krogstad starts out seeming to be a villain, over the course of the play, we find out that there is more to his villainy than it seems, and at the end of the play we realize that he has unwittingly become our protagonist’s aid in escaping the true villainy of societal expectations.
When Krogstad first appears at Nora’s home and blackmails her for his job, we immediately cast him as the villain. However, when he arrives a second time, he tells Nora that she doesn’t have to worry about him leaking the letter. He simply wants to use it to force Torvald into giving him his job (that he was fired from for no valid reason) back. He further checks up on Nora to make sure she is not planning to run away from home or commit suicide. Although Krogstad is still willing to blackmail others to keep his job, in the second act we see he is not quite the soulless villain we cast him as in the first act. There is an even steeper transformation in the third act, where we learn that Krogstad and Christine used to love each other, and that it was only after Christine had broken up with him, that Krogstad committed the fraud. Once Christine gets back together with him, Krogstad is ready to demand back the letter from Torvald, and leave Nora and Torvald alone even without getting his job back. It is only Christine’s pleas that stop him from doing that, and he instead writes a second letter stating he will not tell anyone about Nora’s fraud. In this act, we see what seems to us as a dramatic transformation of character. However, it is really only a dramatic change in circumstances. In this act, we realize that Krogstad was really a decent person all along, but was forced to this path because of his children. Once Christine entered his life, and he wasn’t as desperate for the income and respect of a job, he showed his true colors by trying to undo his actions.
Along with him showing himself as not a true villain, Krogstad ended up as a strange aide to Nora in act 3. Throughout the play Nora believes that Torvald is a great husband who will sacrifice his honor for her. It is not until Krogstad’s letter arrives that Nora finds out how selfish and cowardly Torvald is, and it is this realization that gives Nora the courage to set out to find her own way in the world. What we initially saw as a manipulative blackmail, ironically turned into the catalyst for Nora’s discovery of the truth about her husband, and the gender roles imposed by society in general. We further see in this act, that it is these imposed gender roles that have been the true culprit in making Nora so unhappy, and that Krogstad, by giving Nora the push to break through these gender roles, unwittingly becomes a sidekick to Nora against the true villain of the story.
DeleteThe transformation of Krogstad’s role from a seeming villain to a good character greatly enhances the play by giving it further meaning than it would have otherwise. By showing a character who at first glance seems to be pure evil, but as we dig deeper becomes less and less so, Ibsen shows us that we cannot judge a person by the few fragments of information that we know about them. Although this idea is present in other ways throughout this play, most notably through Ibsen’s championship of feminism, which among other things says that we should not make assumptions about someone just based on the fact that they are women, Krogstad is the tool through which this idea is displayed most explicitly.
Krogstad’s villainy seems obvious at first, but the more we learn about Krogstad, the less villainous he seems. Ibsen uses Krogstad very effectively to present the point that we shouldn’t make judgements about people without knowing their whole story.
1983. From a novel or play of literary merit, select an important character who is a villain. Then, in a well-organized essay, analyze the nature of the character's villainy and show how it enhances meaning in the work. Do not merely summarize the plot.
ReplyDeleteIt’s easy to fall into the patterns of villainy, creating an ultimate evil to put your protagonist against. Often, in return, this creates an ultimate good in the protagonist, absolving the character of all possible guilt. In “A Doll House” by Henrik Ibsen, this is not the case, all characters are human, thus, all characters are intrinsically flawed. From the beginning, though a clear problem is established, in the end, that problem is not the real underlying issue. However, the people are not blamed for their circumstances, simply held accountable for their actions in response.
The clear conflict presented from the first Act through to the end is the money owed by Nora, the character one would typically label as a protagonist, to a “villainous” Mr. Krogstad. Krogstad is painted as greasy and underhanded-- doing sly crime without consequence except for the blows he takes from his actions to his reputation among society. Nora, on the other hand, is characterized almost immediately as thoughtless and childlike, frivolously flaunting about her husband and spending his money without care. While she isn’t the most responsible, she is seen as typical of a wife for the time. Between the two they have the perfect protagonist-antagonist archetype, but yet Ibsen digs deeper.
Nora, as the play progresses, begins to dissolve, cracking through her archetype and seeing that, outside of the one set house, there is a life for her. The reader watches her confide in these other characters, each with lives and stories as complicated as her own, seeing her mind reel and cope with her predicament. However, in concern to a villain, the same idea of the criminal Krogstad begins to break down as the complexities of Nora’s home life unravel. Truly the turning point for the two is when discussing their children, an important value that is explored in the play. When Nora tells Krogstad to think of her children, Krogstad replies to think of his own, thus breaking the perfect inhuman quality often given to a true villain. In the play, children play a pivotal role in how the characters look at their life-- the generational handoff of values and of women. It’s clear that Nora would do anything for her family, risking her reputation to borrow from Krogstad in order to save her husband, but it’s never considered the lengths taken by Krogstad to save his own children until this turning point.
This established idea of a villain is simply unrealistic and has been challenged so many times in modern literature. Thinking of characters like the wicked witch of the west and the musical “Wicked,” clearly, there has been a shift in how characters are thought about, trying to make them human rather than imitations of how humans ideally are-- good or bad, hero or villain. Nora is not perfect and has made her own mistakes and Krogstad, while flawed, had good intentions just like any person hopes to. In “ A Doll House” a villain is not a finite definition for a character; a character becomes a person who has real problems and decisions that have to be solved. In the end, Nora could just as easily be the villain of Krogstad’s story as Krogstad is the villain of Nora’s and that is seen in this play.
2005. In Kate Chopin's The Awakening (1899), protagonist Edna Pontellier is said to possess "That outward existence which conforms, the inward life that questions." In a novel or play that you have studied, identify a character who outwardly conforms while questioning inwardly. Then write an essay in which you analyze how this tension between outward conformity and inward questioning contributes to the meaning of the work. Avoid mere plot summary.
ReplyDeleteThe deep-set stereotyping in societies, when written into novels or plays, create a polarization of inside of characters, forcing them to struggle between what they are and what society thinks they should be. In the play “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, many characters go through this problem. The most notable example is the main character Nora.
At first, the audience sees Nora only as she is outwardly: a wife and mother. She is seen as irresponsible with money, nieve, and frivolous. She asks her husband for money, which he is reluctant to give her, calling her a “spendthrift”, and saying that she often wastes it.
However, as the play continues on, we see that Nora is not what she looks like. Nora is much smarter than her husband, who, even though he is the head of the house, is actually quite childish. Her husband fires a man, Krogstad, because Krogstad always calls him by his first name. Her husband, Helmer, is also unaware to his best friend’s, Dr. Rand’s, fading health, and does not seem to care about it when it is brought up. Nora, on the other hand, is very able to understand Dr. Rand’s condition, and has much more meaningful conversations than Helmer could ever have.
Even though Nora is smarter than Helmer, she plays the role society gives her. Around her husband she pretends to be frivolous, dimwitted, and perky all the time. In the second act, Nora puts on this dance, pretending not to know how to do it, just so Helmer can teach her. She goes to great lengths to keep these societal roles, even going to great lengths to keep it a secret that she saved her husband’s life (and breaking the law to do it), so he would not have to feel beholden to her. It is her job to be reliant on him, not the other way around.
At the end of the play, when the secret is revealed that Nora saved Helmer’s life, she expects him to take all the blame onto himself, to help her just like she helped him. She thinks that Helmer will actually play his role, that the husband is supposed to look after his wife. Instead, he gets angry with her, screaming how could she break the law like she did, and telling her that even her suicide would not make things any better.
It is at this moment when Nora truly begins to question her outward existence. She always assumed that her husband really was the perfect husband role, and that she was the role of his wife. But now, she learns that her husband is not what he appeared to be, which makes her realize that neither is she. She refers to herself as a doll, that is being played, first by her father and then by her husband. She says she realizes that she has never expressed any real opinions or made any real decisions on her own. She questions who she is, and she decides that, until she figured that out, she cannot raise her children and she cannot live with her husband. The end of the play signifies the beginning of her questioning. She leaves her life, mirroring the way Edna Pontellier does in The Awakening. Instead of suicide, she just leaves, she walks out on her husband and her children, saying she has “other duties just as sacred… Duties to myself”.
2005
ReplyDeleteAs humans, we naturally aim to fit in with our surroundings. Conforming to society’s expectations is done without hesitation, to avoid any actions that may disagree with molded standards. In A Doll House, by Henrik Ibsen, Nora demonstrates this idea of conformity based off her husband’s expectations. Throughout the play, she is seen to obediently act in response to satisfy Helmer’s desires. In all aspects covering finances, social interactions, and entertainment, Helmer sets the rules; this immediately exhibits the imbalance between their relationship and emphasizes the superiority he possesses over his wife. As the plot unfolds, Nora begins to feel inwardly conflicted about the conformity in her actions and surrounds herself with self doubt. The sudden consciousness she experiences sparks courage to confront her husband and to finally receive the answers regarding the inward life she has confronted all along.
Helmer is immediately presented as a dominant and self-made figure in the household. Following the stereotypes of a “perfect, typical family,” Helmer is the main provider of the house and dictates all of the logistics that may follow. In Act I, Helmer is having a conversation with Nora regarding finances, which conveys his entitlement and ignorant view towards financial aid, “No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt…” Helmer’s indisputable comments recall to Nora as she borrows money from an acquaintance, and creates guilt knowing that she had “broken the rules” in efforts to save her husband. However, adjusting to Helmer’s expectations, she keeps quiet. This contradiction inflicts self doubt on Nora and leaves her questioning if she had made the right decision after all.
In addition to financially, Nora feels as if she has conformed socially. Based on her actions with other characters, Nora appears to have very limited social interactions and experience. Act II reveals a private conversation between her and Krogstad, in the midst of their risque encounter, which reveals Nora’s inward curiosity and the desire to simply do different things, “I always thought it tremendous fun if I could steal down into the maids' room… they never moralized at all, and talked to each other about such entertaining things.” This concept is illuminated deeper in Act III, where Nora confronts Helmer and raises the point that they have never had a substantial conversation between each other, never mind playful nor lighthearted. Here, it is evident that Nora’s social life is hindered by her daily influence and that she must tip toe in conversation, or else she might mess up and anger Helmer.
As it is evident that Helmer has control over the major components of Nora’s life, she finally gains clarity in Act III and confronts him. Nora is honest with herself and Helmer, and reveals a hard truth that delivers the point across to Helmer, “if I differed from [my father] I concealed the fact, because he would not have liked it… And when I came to live with you… I was simply transferred from papa's hands into yours….You and papa have committed a great sin against me. It is your fault that I have made nothing of my life.” The bold comparison that Nora makes with her father and Helmer is extremely telling of her past, and the freedom she has never truly experienced with living.
1983
ReplyDeleteThe best literary works are the ones that established traditional and character or plot dynamics, and then flip them around on the reader or add a twist into the mix. This betrayal of convention makes things much more interesting as the reader must consider why they automatically expect certain things from fiction and what that means about our society. The play “A Doll House” by Henrik Ibsen does just this with the character Krogstad. Krogstad’s role of the antagonist in this drama is interesting to examine more closely because though readers initially view him as the “villian,” in the end there truly isn’t much that separates him and his motivations from the “heroes.”
Right from the beginning, Krogstad is established as a man lacking moral character, one to be avoided at all costs if one wishes to live a clean life. What terrible thing has he done to earn such a reputation? As Torvald puts it, “he forged someone’s name” and “got himself out of it by a cunning trick.” Allegedly for this, he is being prepared to be terminated from his job at the bank. However, as readers learn there is more to Krogstad because of his history with the play’s protagonist Nora. He discovered that she had once forged a bank loan and is prepared to bring this information to her husband in order to pressure him into returning him to his post at the bank. At first the reader may find their self disgusted by such threats and blackmail. However, this reaction is exactly what Ibsen was hoping for his readers to consider. In the end, what separates the protagonist from the antagonist? Both of them are guilty of forgery and trickery. Both of them are only looking out for their own self-interest. It’s easy to overlook Krogstad’s point of view simply because he is at odds with Nora. But in his own words, “Have you and your husband thought of [my children]? Every day Krogstad returns to a home with mouths to feed like everyone else. He has the same responsibilities as Nora and Torvald and every other character in his play. He has no motivation in “holding Nora hostage” besides getting back his job and continuing to go about life as normal.
The beauty of this character comparison is that it causes the reader to re-examine what led them to read into Krogstad as such a villain in the first place. Important questions emerge. Is it wrong to follow the rule “the enemy of my friend is my enemy?” And should the protagonist really always be such a “friend?” Who says the main character of a work of fiction has the moral authority to pass judgement on others. To what extent do one’s flaws render them unable to criticize another’s? Through this lens, Ibsen allows the reader to re-examine the concept of villainy altogether. Krogstad is only the villain as long as the story follows Nora’s perspective as it does. If the story was flipped, and was told from his point of view, it seems clear that Nora and Torvald would come across as stark villains.
DeleteIn the end, villainy is relative to point of view. A Doll House serves as a reminder to viewers to be considerate to the perspectives of all characters when engaging with a story. One should not immediately pass judgements just because the character that one meets on the first page does. Sometimes, we have to read between the lines.
1977
ReplyDeletePeople often dance around words. In Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House, the tarantella dance exposes the emotions and intentions of a repressed housewife named Nora who tries to keep her secret deals from her husband Torvald. In one scene, Nora begs Torvald to help her practice the Tarantella, keeping him away from Krogstad’s letter that exposes her secret. Although it is Torvald who instructs Nora through the tarantella, Nora is actually in control, using the dance in place of words as the first steps out of her dollhouse.
Torvald looks down at Nora and coaches her through the steps, treating her as if she has the knowledge and capabilities of a doll. Dr. Rank offers to play the piano in place of Torvald to which Torvald agrees since he feels “then [he] can instruct her better.” Torvald doesn’t instruct Nora in a respectful way, instead barking orders for the simplest of steps. Torvald exercises his control over Nora and is frustrated when she doesn’t make corrections since he is used to having Nora comply to his orders whether he fully realizes it or not. During this time, it was normal for wives to align to their husband’s demands. Nora says “I’ll dance for you now” when she is practicing, trying to show her Dad the importance of a new dog to you. What Torvald doesn’t realize is Nora is purposely not making the corrections, causing more of a delay before looking at the letter. Even though Nora draped the practice scarf over her shoulders earlier, when Torvald starts teaching academics, he drapes the scarf over her shoulders for her, as if she is a doll unable to dress herself. Torvald is excited to watch Nora perform at the party, showing he likes Nora for her superficial qualities like looks. However in Nora’s mind she knows she is not a real doll, Torvald has become a version of a doll which she can somewhat control through the reveal of her secret. In this way, she can step out of the dollhouse.
With Nora not listening to Torvald’s corrections on her tarantella, Nora is beginning to exercise her free thinking and individuality in a more open manner for her husband to see, even if he doesn’t understand her calculated intentions. The dance is supposed to be alluring and sensual yet Nora settles for a more more manic and violence, dancing more widely when she is correct and allowing her hair to fall from its updo. The tarantella was named after the tarantella spider whose bite used to be mistakenly caused by “tarantism” or the uncontrollable urge to dance wildly. The cure was to dance until exhaustion, which is what Nora is willing to do as long as she prevents Torvald from reading the letter. Scientists now think histerica caused the disorder since during that time, people faced an immense amount of oppression and use dance to express their emotions. Torvald believes Nora can’t correct her own body but Nora is actually manipulating him from form reading the letter.
The tarantella practice scene also houses an immense amount of foreshadowing in Nora’s future intentions of suicide that Torvald doesn’t catch. At the beginning, Torvald exclaims, “[n]ot so violently, Nora!” to which she says, “[t]his is the way it’s got to be.” Throughout the rest of the practice, Torvald continues to comment on Nora’s violent-style of movement yet Nora doesn’t change it, showing her devotion to a violent ending of her life once Torvald reads the letter. He also tells Nora to “dance as if [her] life depended on it,” not registering Nora reply of “it does,” indicating Nora truly sees the dance as a way of saving her life and being able to leave her secrets in the dollhouse behind her.
DeleteThrough the tarantella steps, Nora is able to practice self expression without having to say things flat out. In the practice scene, Nora’s confidence grows with her steps and she feels moments of raw emotion and freedom. Although many dolls are made up to be dancers, the tarantella practice shows Nora is far from a doll. She, like many others, uses forms of expression like dance to show how they really feel, a type of vulnerability and talent that has become more essential in our turbulent world where the suppression of people into doll-like objects still exists.
In Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House”, the story centers around the Helmer family. The play is set around the lives of Torvald and Nora, who are married and have children. As you read through the play, side characters like Ms. Linde and Dr. Rank are introduced. Though his appearances are especially brief, Dr. Rank’s role as a confidant is essential to the themes of the piece. Through his dialogue, Dr. Rank acts as a window into the roles and dysfunction of Nora and Torvald’s home. Besides their marriage, Nora and Torvald are tied together by their friendship with Dr. Rank. Upon his entrance into the play, Dr. Rank exposes the fact that Nora puts up an act. In the previous scene, Nora and Torvald have an odd banter of sorts. Its uncomfortable in how childish it all seems. When Dr. Rank and Nora are alone, however, this mirage fades. They discuss serious matters like Dr. Rank’s health and work. It is clear that Nora does not try to be herself around her husband. At one point, after Dr. Rank reveals his fatal condition, he declares “Helmer’s refined nature gives him an unconquerable disgust of everything that is ugly; I won’t have him in my sick-room...I won’t have him there. Not on any account. I bar my door to him”. Through this discussion, not only does the audience see how Nora is an actress, but also the immaturity of Torvald. Torvald can not handle anything grave or serious.
ReplyDeleteForm B. Often in literature, a character’s success in achieving goals depends on keeping a secret and divulging it only at the right moment, if at all. Choose a novel or play of literary merit that requires a character to keep a secret. In a well-organized essay, briefly explain the necessity for secrecy and how the character’s choice to reveal or keep the secret affects the plot and contributes to the meaning of the work as a whole.
ReplyDeleteDuring this time in society, women's roles were much less dominant compared to men. The women during this time were expected to be mere puppets for their husbands and were not expected to do any real tasks. In the play, A Doll’s House, by Henrik Ibsen, the main character Nora has kept a secret from her husband which by the end of the play is revealed and causes a shift in Nora's attitude towards her role with her husband.
Nora's husband, Torvald, at one point, is feeling ill and in so to make him feel better, Nora borrows a sum of money from Krogstad so the family can get away for a while. Nora also forged the signature of her father in order to borrow the money. This, however, during the time is illegal for women to do so, along with forging her fathers, who passed away, signature. Nora tries to keep up the act that entails their relationship but underneath it is hard for her to keep the guilt of the secret. She thinks about what would happen to her children if people found out she borrowed money and what it would do to the family name. She says “Do you think so? Do you think they would forget their mother if she went away altogether?” (Act 2). The secret is starting to change certain aspects of Nora and Torvald relationship.
However, once Torvald fires Krogstad from the bank, he threatens to expose the secret and eventually sends a letter to Torvald telling him what she did. When he found out he felt betrayed by her, even though she was doing it for him. He didn't see her as saving him and is more worried about his reputation if people find out. But once he finds out Krogstad is getting rid of the evidence he is immediately relieved. However, this is all Nora needed to see to understand how awful her marriage really was.
In the end, once the secret has been exposed and the two finally have a real conversation about their relationship, Nora decides it is better if she goes. It was also a very big thing for a woman to leave her family during the time period but the realization she had when Torvald treated her like a doll, just like her father did and that she wasn't going to be a part of that was a major moment in the play. Nora says "I have other duties just as sacred…..Duties to myself."(act 3). This is at the beginning of Act II where Nora is watching her children play and the secret of borrowing the money is on the brisk of coming out and she wonders if it is better if she leaves.
1972. In retrospect, the reader often discovers that the first chapter of a novel or the opening scene of a drama introduces some of the major themes of the work. Write an essay about the opening scene of a drama or the first chapter of a novel in which you explain how it functions in this way.
ReplyDeleteAct one opens with what many may believe is conversation between a father and a daughter. Torvald’s childish, and whimsical language, referring to his wife Nora as, “my little skylark [who should] not droop her wings,” asking if, “my little squirrel out of temper?” and then finally as if she were a child who just begged for a little money to go to the candy store, “([Takes] out his purse.) Nora, what do you think I have got here?”
Act one also reveals that for her entire marriage, Nora has based her decisions and happiness on what would reflect her husband’s best interest. When Torvald was supposedly dying from overworking, it was Nora that bravely bent the law and risked their family’s reputation to, “procured the money” to go south for Italy, as her, “Papa didn’t give [them] a shilling. Society 19th century was expected nothing less than lively, loyal wives, whose main priorities are strictly pleasing their husband and children.
The truth could potentially free her, and for almost a decade, the secret has trapped Nora in the the doll house with immense stress. However, she refuses on the behalf of Torvald’s ego and reputation in society, excusing her silence considering, “...how painful and humiliating it would be for Torvald, with his manly independence, to know that he owed me anything!” and frets that their “...beautiful happy home would no longer be what it is now”
In Act 2 Nora attempts to mimic the same language that Torvald uses on her, and project in onto Dr. Rank. Nora flirts about her undergarments, aggressively teasing Dr, Rank with comments, for example, “Flesh-coloured. Aren’t they lovely?” and, “No, no, no! you must only look at the feet. Oh, well, you may have leave to look at the legs too.” Because of Dr. Rank’s true and genuine character, he can no longer give into her flirtatious games and admits thats Torvald is not the, “The only one who would gladly give his life for your sake” Nora, instead with empathy, reacts with disapproval, “to go and tell me so. There was really no need —.” By actually confessing his emotions, he terminates his role as Nora’s doll, the fun and games are over, he is going to die.
In Act 3 Nora takes charge immediately. She confidently and seriously demands Torvald to, “Sit down here” You and I have much to say to one another. She rejects Torvalds advances towards his usual foolish language and questions if “it not occur to [him] that this is the first time...husband and wife, have had a serious conversation?”
“I have other duties just as sacred…..Duties to myself” In her childhood and now adulthood, Nora has been repressed in thoughts and ideas, willingly adhering to the opinions of a dominate male figure in her life. However, the surfacing of her secret brings out the entitlement she craves for herself to find her own way and create opinions based upon her own experiences and thought.
In the play “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, it is shown the simplicity of Nora’s character especially in the beginning. She is shown as complacent towards her husband, Helmer needs. In their household, he sets the rules while Nora simply conforms to his expectations thus creating an imbalance in their marriage. As the play progresses though, she is seen to question inwardly their marriage and quickly develops self- doubt of the nature of their relationship. It is because of this that she finally takes control of her thoughts and actions thus developing the courage to confront her husband.
ReplyDeleteAlmost immediately Helmer is presented as the dominant one in the family. Often he relays his frustration with Nora behaving as a “spendthrift” and often chastising her actions with money. He is shown as almost a father figure to Nora. When discussing financial issues with Nora, he states “No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt…” demonstrating his lack of tolerance towards financial aid. This strengthens the worry and guilt Nora feels because it is later mentioned that she had borrowed money to save her husband. Nora had broken her husband’s rule in the process of saving him from financial ruin. This calls into question whether or not she fulfilled her role as a wife. It forces her to question her role and actions as a wife, resulting a genuine feeling of guilt.
Although she demonstrates a noble act, her actions are exposed to Helmer. In order to save his “perfect” reputation, he is willing to allow her to take all of the blame. Almost immediately, we see the outward change with Nora. Instead of remaining complacent as she had done previously, she outwardly questions Helmer. She refers to and find similarities between her husband and her father, both which treated her as a doll. The bold comparison made with her father and Helmer is extremely telling o the freedom she has never truly experienced with living resulting in her present actions. It is not that she had never had thoughts of her own, but it had always been constrained and repressed by male figures in her life. This plays into the idea of the “A Doll House”. By the end of the play, it is no longer a doll house but instead a broken house, victim to expectations of perfection. Nora sacrifices her presence in her children’s and Helmer’s life when she states she has “other duties just as sacred… Duties to myself”.
Nora transitions from a docile and loving wife to a most conscious minded woman. With the sudden exposure of her actions, she is able to take control of her thoughts and actions. This secret that she made every desperate attempt to conceal results in her liberating her from society’s and her husband’s expectations.
2002, Form B. Often in literature, a character's success in achieving goals depends on keeping a secret and divulging it only at the right moment, if at all. Choose a novel or play of literary merit that requires a character to keep a secret. In a well-organized essay, briefly explain the necessity for secrecy and how the character's choice to reveal or keep the secret affects the plot and contributes to the meaning of the work as a whole. You may select a work from the list below, or you may choose another work of recognized literary merit suitable to the topic. Do NOT write about a short story, poem, or film.
ReplyDeleteIn Henrik Ibsen’s, “A Doll House,” society was very limiting towards women. Women had very little social roles, and there were unable to do many things that men could economically. In “A Doll House,” Nora Helmer breaks one of these laws and takes out a loan, something women can’t do. She had to do this in order to have enough money to help her husband Torvald recover from a severe illness. Nora decided not to tell Torvald as he would disapprove and condemn her. Throughout the play, Nora is struggling to keep this secret from Torvald. There are times where her secret is threatened to be revealed as blackmail and it becomes an interior conflict whether to reveal it or not. Her reasoning against it being revealed now is that it will embarrass Torvald and cast a shame on him, hurting his reputation. This truly shows how the social atmosphere at this time was, and the value that women had. Nora contemplated suicide, ending her life, before risking her husband’s reputation. At this time, Ibsen is trying to convey that in some instances a man’s reputation can be more important and valuable than a woman’s life. This conflict contributes to both the plot and the overall meaning of the work as a whole.
The main plot of the play is for Nora to decide whether to reveal her secret to Torvald or not, or what she should do if it were to be released. Throughout this conflict, we can see her insight on how she should act as a wife. She believes her husband comes first, and she will lie and torture herself over this rather than have her husband get exposed. This situation alone is a metaphor for how society was like as a whole. The woman should have to do what is best for her husband at all times, even if it is not in her best interest. At the end of the novel, after the secret is exposed, Nora decides it is best for her to leave Torvald. Finally, after all this, Nora makes a decision that is best for herself, and not her husband, completely flipping on the social standards. This brings to novel to a fulfilling end as the secret being released allows Nora to finally break out of the social standards.
2005.
ReplyDeleteOften times, we feel as though we need to conform to the expectations of those around us. Society assigns us a role we are expected to play and if we don’t perform to its standards, we can be subjected to ridicule. In “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, family matriarch Nora Helmer is a caretaker for her children and husband, and has almost no freedom to live the life she would like to. As the play progresses, the audience begins to witness Nora question her role in her society, and her actions show a desire to make her own decisions, as opposed to living in her husband’s shadow. She appears to have had enough of this treatment at the end of the play and decides to walk out on her family. Her husband Torvald’s conduct led to Nora’s outward conformity being taken over by her inward questioning, and finally making decisions for herself.
The title of the play describes Nora’s life perfectly: “A Doll’s House.” Beginning in her childhood with her father, Nora has been controlled by a male figure for the majority of her life. In the third act of the play, she talks about her inability to have her own thoughts as a child and that “when [she] was at home with papa, he told [her] his opinion about everything, and so [she] had the same opinions; and if [she] differed from him [she] concealed the fact, because he would not have liked it.” Not having the ability to express her feelings caused her to repress them and accept the fact that her opinions must match up with those of her father and Torvald. Growing up in a world where she was not able to convey her ideas caused Nora to bottle them and make reckless decisions later in her life. When Nora was in need of money for Torvald’s health, she borrowed a loan from a coworker of his and forged her father’s signature to retrieve it. This caused conflict between her and her husband when he later found out and he calls her a liar. This is ironic because she was told her whole life to keep her reputation clean and do everything in her power to keep those around her content. She was only doing what she believed would be best for husband’s happiness. Torvald appears to become upset due to the fact that she made a decision on her own, something a wife in this era was not to do. Nora’s actions go against what a “doll” would do, and her father and husband “played with [her] just as [she] used to play with [her] dolls.”
Nora questions the life she is living after being confronted by Krogstad and begins to think about her purpose. After realizing everything she has given to her family with nothing in return and being scolded at by Torvald, Nora realizes her worth and decides to leave everything she has ever known to begin a life on her own. She tells her husband “it is [his] fault that [she] have made nothing of [her] life.” While this may seem like a sudden decision to readers, her inner conflict has been boiling inside her for years and she is dismissing her outer conformity for the life she would prefer. Her actions show the strength she has possessed throughout the play and ability to breakout of the doll stereotype she was given by society.