Category: A Doll’s House

In the literary works A Room of One’s Own by Virginia Woolf, A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen, and Diary of a Madman by Lu Xun, each protagonist struggles to achieve personal freedom from a confining and oppressive situation. Two of the protagonists represent females who attempt to realize their dreams, ambitions, and sense of self direction during the heavily sexist social mores and parochial way of life that dominated much of the late 19^th and early 20^th century.

The third protagonist is a revolutionary minded male, living in China during the revolutionary period of the early 20^th century. All three works exude the pristine quality of a historical document in which no detail has been expunged, manipulated, or updated. All three are very much documents of their time, and as such, give readers magnificent insight into long dead social and political eras, and how they affected the human beings on the ground that lived through them.

In Chapter Three of Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own, the protagonist attempts to make sense of the nonsensical elements of female history, namely, how it could be that “in Athena’s city, where women were kept in almost Oriental suppression as odalisques or drudges, the stage should yet have produced figures like Clytemnestra and Cassandra Atossa and Antigone, Phedre and Medea, and all the other heroines who dominate play after play of the “misogynist” Euripides…where in real life a respectable woman could hardly show her face alone in the street, and yet on the stage woman equals or surpasses man” (Woolf 20).

Woolf’s protagonist is a wildly intelligent and scholarly woman cursed with indefatigable powers of logic. The absence of women from the history books coupled with their paradoxical treatment at the hands of artists and scholars throughout the ages drives her almost to distraction. “A very queer, composite being thus emerges.

Imaginatively she is of the highest importance; practically she is completely insignificant…Some of the most inspired words, some of the most profound thoughts in literature fall from her lips; in real life she could hardly read, could scarcely spell, and was the property of her husband” (Woolf 20).

For thinking women, personal freedom took on a different meaning in a time when women were not expected to possess the same brain power as their male counterparts. In essence, the protagonist of A Room of One’s Own seeks personal freedom not only from the gender politics indicative of her age, but also from her own obsessive need to understand them.

“It was disappointing not to have brought back in the evening some important statement, some authentic fact. Women are poorer than men because – this or that. Perhaps now it would be better to give up seeking for the truth” (Woolf 20).

In Henrik’s Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, the main character, Nora, differs from the protagonist of A Room of One’s Own significantly. Nora is not an intellectual, and spends no time scouring books or libraries or trying to make sense of her situation. She does however feel the double standard that exists between herself and Helmer, as evidenced herein:

HELMER: I would gladly work night and day for you, Nora – bear sorrow and want for your sake. But no man would sacrifice his honour for the one he loves.

NORA: It is a thing hundreds of women have done.

HELMER: Oh, you think and talk like a heedless child.

NORA: Maybe. But you neither think nor talk like the man I could bind myself to. As soon as your fear was over – and it was not fear for what threatened me, but for what might happen to you – when the whole thing was past, as far as you were concerned it was exactly as if nothing at all had happened…I was your little skylark, your doll…so…fragile. Torvald – it was then it dawned upon me that for eight years I had been living here with a strange man, and had borne him three children – Oh! I can’t bear to think of it! I could tear myself into little bits! (Ibsen 112).

Nora’s disillusionment resembles the “waking up” moment for women in similar oppressive situations, those of Nora’s time who realized they were locked in a role, locked in a doll’s house, with each move they made scripted by custom, sexism, and the implicit entitlement of a traditional marriage. At the end of the play when Nora leaves, she takes a revolutionary step forward for all the women of her time.

In Diary of a Madman by Lu Xun, the main character becomes obsessed with the notion that his neighbors and members of his family have set about to eat him. Cannibalism, in Diary of a Madman, largely symbolizes the repressive quality characteristic of Chinese Confucianism in the days before the revolution in China.

In Diary of a Madman, the religious culture as exemplified by the main character’s neighbors resembles a “man-eating” civilization, wherein the dominant members of the community prey on its weaker elements.

Since the main character lives in a disordered state as a result of his mental illness, he feels decidedly vulnerable. “In ancient times, as I recollect, people often ate human beings, but I am rather hazy about it. I tried to look this up, but my history has no chronology, and scrawled all over each page are the words: “Virtue and Morality.” Since I could not sleep anyway, I read intently half the night, until I began to see words between the lines, the whole book being filled with the two words—”Eat people.” (Lu Xun 4).

Diary of a Madman reflects the spirit of revolution from the perspective of a revolutionary. The main character’s drive to save himself from his neighbors, while still simultaneously setting himself apart from them, echoes the progressive atmosphere indicative of any era of great reform, at the political, personal and social levels.

The story resembles an ironic tale, given that the main character seeks personal freedom from his illness itself, since it has given him insight into his oppression which may not have been available, had he been in his right mind.

The three pieces detailed in this essay, A Doll’s House, A Room of One’s Own, and Diary of a Madman, represent classic works that reflected the honest experience of protagonists caught in oppressive social systems or political regimes. Each protagonist’s struggle for personal freedom is different; yet, their defiance toward and ultimate rejection of the roles assigned to them by their society remains the same.

Works Cited

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Rockville, Maryland: Serenity Publishers LLC, 2009. Print.

Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One’s Own. Susan Gubar, ed. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, 2005. Print.

Xun, Lu. “Diary of a Madman.” Selected Stories of Lu Hsun. Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1960. Print.

Henrik Ibsen’s play ‘A Doll’s House’ explores the issue of change in the 19^th century Norwegian society. Ibsen’s Women characters are discriminated and trivialized to the extent that they feel empty and helpless. This triggers a gradual struggle that leads to their liberation.

Within the play, various characters undergo transformation. Ibsen uses symbols effectively to show how transformation is gradual rather than a radical process. Therefore, through Nora, Ibsen portrays how education leads to enlightenment and the eventual transformation of women.

The role of Women is restricted as compared to role played by men. Women are restricted to domestic chores where they are largely subordinated to men. Women are also forced by circumstances to sacrifice their own freedom and comfort for the sake of their families, and as such suffer in silence.

Miss Linde regrets that “… a wife cannot borrow without her husband’s consent” (Ibsen, 1889). As such, Nora cannot reveal to Torvold that she is currently struggling to repay a loan she had acquired by forging her father’s signature, since women are not allowed to engage in such transactions without their husband’s knowledge and consent.

Thus, she suffers in silence. This leads her to contemplate suicide because of the guilt she feels when blackmailed by Krogstad for forging her father’s signature on the bonds she committed to acquire a loan, “It was I that wrote papa’s name” (Ibsen, 1889).

This exposes the challenge in their marriage. Whereas Nora is presented as a loving and caring wife, Torvald, on the other hand, views her as a helpless person. As such he refers to her as “my little caged song bird” (Ibsen, 1889). Reference to small and physically weak creatures amplifies male dominance and superiority.

It is such an attitude towards Nora that leads her to revolt and leave her husband. Furthermore, Mrs. Linde sacrificed her love for Krogstad, to marry a richer man so as to support her mother and siblings. However, after the death of her husband she feels free to reunite with Krogstad who forgives her and delights on the boost this development will have on his social standing.

Gender roles are also reflected through education. Education is meant to be a means of empowerment for individuals. Despite the fact that Ibsen’s female characters are educated, they are not empowered to utilize their knowledge and skills.

The society does not allow women to work, especially the married. Mrs. Linde doesn’t get a chance to meaningfully utilize her education until after the death of her husband. Nora, on the other hand has to work secretly against her husband’s will (Marker, 1989).

Ibsen uses a number of symbols to highlight how the themes are portrayed through characterization. One of the symbols used is the door. Nora closes the door whenever she wants to talk.

This signifies that she is s secretive person. Ironically, the last door she closes ushers her to freedom. This signifies the change in gender roles (Durbach, 1991). Furthermore, the direction of light in the play also signifies changes, especially in gender roles.

While in some scenes the lights are turned off, towards the end of the play the intensity of light increases especially when Nora is talking to her husband. This illuminates the gradual enlightenment of women as a result of the education they have already attained, in school and through real life experiences.

Contrary to popular opinion, Nora’s development is gradual and not radical. At the beginning of the play, Nora is portrayed as a harmless child-like wife. However, her change in character is gradual and is reflected through her manner of expression.

Gradually, Nora expresses her anxiety and the desire to be free (Templeton, 1997). This is escalated towards the end of the story and culminates in her slamming the door on her husband. Slamming the door signifies the beginning of her freedom (Abcarian and Klotz, 2002).

Initially women are portrayed as dolls. However, with time they are transformed to become more vocal members of the society. This is symbolized through Nora who rebels from her husband’s enslavement. She largely lacks a grasp of her immediate environment outside the house.

Nora has been misguided and overruled by her dominating husband who limits her to mere doll. However when she experiences a reawakening, she questions the social ideals (Markotic, 1998). By the end of the play she emerges a stronger woman psychologically. Thus,’ A Doll’s House’ is a conscious reawakening play.

List of References

Abcarian, R. and Klotz, M. (2002). Ibsen, Henrik A Doll’s House. Literature: The Human Experience. Boston: Bedford.

Durbach, E. (1991). A doll’s house: Ibsen’s myth of transformation. Boston: Twayne Publishers.

Ibsen, H. (1889). A doll’s house. London: T Fisher Unwin.

Marker, F., and Marker L. (1989). Ibsen’s lively art: a performance study of the major plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Markotic, L. (1998). Epiphanic transformations: Lou Andreas- Salome’s reading of Nora, Rebecca and Ellida. Web.

Templeton, J. (1997). Ibsen’s women. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Background

A Doll’s House drama has been regarded as a composition whose performance in art has a social significance of mapping out life’s issues. It presents an in-depth development of emotional themes which realistic characters are going through. These characters are trying to deal with dramatic experiences in their lives.

According to Butler and Watt, characters in the play are facing myriads of conflicts that are arising from among themselves, the natural phenomena and society at large (181). Those themes include corruption, violence against women, class division, sexuality and moral dilemmas. Numerous examples of key themes, expression of character and practice have been clearly depicted in the drama A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen.

The position of a person based on the established sacred institutions usually indicates an individual’s status in a social group. In addition, social mobility describes the ability of an individual to comfortably fit among the popular people in society. This paper analyses the position of a woman in society, the aspect of social life as well as the importance of responsibility in the drama A Doll’s House.

A brief overview of A Doll’s House

Henrik Ibsen was born in March 1828 in a family of six children (Ibsen 5). His birth took place in skien, Norway. At the age of 23 years, he began working in theatres. By this time, he had written Catiline which was his first five-act tragedy play (Ibsen 15). In 1866, he wrote more dramas such as the Brand and Peer Gynt. In 1878, he wrote the Doll’s House which portrayed the classical tragedies of marriage and marriage institutions, human rights and particularly women’s rights.

It is imperative to note that Henrik Ibsen’s three-act play A Doll’s House is a significant drama which tends to critique the marriage norms and attitudes that were very popular during the 19^th century. The drama was composed by Ibsen in 1878. It has characters and themes reflecting the occurrence of tragedies during that period (Ibsen 55). He was drawn by the gender bias that explained the inability among women to stand out in society that was male-dominated.

Standard conventions and adaptations of the time

Gender stereotype in society has been in existence for a long time. In the 19^th century, the position of a woman on the male dominated society, her roles and duties in marriage depicted how low they were regarded compared to men. According to Butler and Watt, this was due to the intensively conventional practices and persuasively convincing reference to what the society saw as acceptable at the expense of others (108).

Though these stereotypes were adopted by majority of the people during this period, Ibsen felt that it was wrong. Having married and treated his wife on an equal platform, he felt that such a culture was supposed to be discouraged as it was highly generalized and it gave wrong perceptions on women and discouraged full capacity building among women (Butler and Watt 108).

They are greatly adoptive in different regions of the globe. During the 19^th century, the differences between men and women in the society were very critical and the act of marriage was defined in terms of their roles and position in marriage and society (Calasanti and Slevin 16).

In this historic time, the events in the play are relevant to the occurrences in society. According to the events taking place in the life of Nora, she is a feminine gender who has been socially disregarded in society compared to men (Ibsen 65). She was considered to be inferior and thus unable to hold major positions in leadership and even perform any vital role in the community.

Besides, established institutions of this time gave less regard to women in society and denied them chances to head or participate in any major decision making procedures in their communities or marriages. The roles of women as exemplified in the play were described and determined in their absence since they were not allowed to hold major positions in the leadership structures (Ibsen 35). This factor prompted them to sacrifice their roles, a consideration that men could not undertake.

This would assist in saving their marriages and become economically stable. Currently, majority of the third world countries still give preference to male children with the females being denied chances to get better education and facilities. Until recently, reports showed that the practice is still practiced because land and other types of property ownership in certain areas of the world has been a reservation for men only as opposed to women (Calasanti and Slevin 16).

The author’s intent

In their publication, Butler and Watt argue that art has been widely used for artistic purposes as well as for social purposes such as education and acquisition of general knowledge in life skills (67).

Drama has been one of the media being massively used as the key tool in promoting positive attitudes towards different gender while denouncing the stereotypical behaviors. As indicated earlier, Ibsen’s describes a society that was marred by gender issues and conventions that sidelined and oppressed women (Ibsen 45). Male dominance and institutions played the greatest role in spreading stereotypes in society due to its great availability and massive persuasive and convincing power.

Ibsen’s intention was to use his work to shed light on these issues and also educate the society on the importance of treating women in a fair manner. His drama A Doll’s House highlighted several negative attitudes towards women’s roles and the negative outcomes of the gender stereotypes (Ibsen 45). He aimed at showing both sides of the story, the feelings of the womenfolk and the menfolk with regards to their positions and pointed towards the society making informed decision.

Reception of his work and change

One of the key significances of Ibsen’s work of the A Doll’s House is that he wrote it in the middle of the gender issues and appeared to criticize the systems of the that era. His work received varied receptions with many critiquing its role in fighting institutions of marriage.

Over the years, analysts have sought to establish the best method of addressing resistance to change in behavioral studies. In their argument, Butler and Watt pointed out that most plays and drama aimed at changing societal behavior were defined on the basis of the received response strength (47). Response of individuals is often measured through analysis of aspects such as the willingness to adapt to change demands and flexibility.

It is notable that the play received sharp criticism from his community and some analysts who suggested that actual response to change should be used as the correct measure of the employed mechanism. As time passes by, the drama has become widely accepted due to the calls for change by institutions that fight for human and women’s rights.

Besides, democracy as described in the classical theories of change has been a major pillar towards equating the roles of women to those of men. It has acted as a major platform for total participation in all developments in the society. Increasing democratic space for women in various decision making activities and work has been widely accepted as the call of the drama A Doll’s House. This has massively changed the earlier perception that men are unique and hold positions of advantage than women.

Tone, mood, pace and internal thoughts

The play A Doll’ House by Ibsen presents important moods and tones from its stage directions, settings and characters. Analysts indicate that Ibsen sets the moods of the characters in the play by using tones. The pacing and alternate agendas are clearly seen by the symbols such as the Christmas tree and the New Year’s Day, the settings of the residence and the chaos witnessed at the end of the play (Ibsen 45).

One of the attitudes seen by the lack of arguments is misunderstandings at the start and progress of the play. The jovial tones of the characters betray the coming pain and frustrations of gender problems faced by women.

One such expression of joy is witnessed in Nora when she receives the Christmas tree from a young man (Ibsen 75). She expresses happiness at the role of paying for the service given by the young man. According to Ibsen, the settings of this mood as well as the fact that all is well at the house of Helmer creates a cozy and warms feelings in the play (144).

Besides glee, the behavior which Torvald is referring to Nora as his pet or lark creates another mood of shock and disdain among the audience (Ibsen 95). Women are seen to be affected by this type of treatment from men and as such, fail to realize and exploit their main potential in society. In addition, social inequality is being brought out as the main source of internal conflicts.

The reflection of social inequality in the play as expressed by the institutions of marriage acts as a major source of disparagement and depiction of tones used when conversing.

Besides, the play reveals internal thoughts from different characters. One such character is Nora who ends Act One by thoughts that shows she feels she will poison her children by the lies she had been telling in order to save Torvald (Ibsen 65). The thought that Krogstad will reveal her lie to Trovald makes her think suicide thoughts in black water.

From the analysis of the drama, it can be concluded that the author was very keen and focused in addressing the needs and current occurrences in society. While the events in the plot of the play may not necessarily be revealing the extent to which human rights have been violated in society, it is still vivid that an equal platform has hardly be en brought into reality especially when addressing the rights of the female gender.

Annotated Bibliography

Butler, Tim and Paul. Watt. Understanding social inequality. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2007. Print.

The rising levels of inequalities in society present a major problem on the roles and development of women. The book highlights social disparities as a major problem that faced the communities that lived during the 19^th century. It raises the concerns that this practice denied women an opportunity to contribute and participate in economic and political matters. The authors lament that the problem may not end soon because certain communities still cling to this practice.

Calasanti, Tony and Kathleen, Slevin. Gender, social inequalities, and aging.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2001. Print.

This book outlines the emerging reality for many communities, families and households of the gender and social dissimilarities affecting society. The authors are of the perspective that this problem ha over the years been reduced through creation of a centralized consideration of ensuring equality for all genders. They also indicate that creating legislations as means of will act as good option in eradication inequalities.

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House (SparkNotes Literature Guide). Bloomsbury: Spark Publishing, 2002. Print.

The book by Ibsen presents a critical analysis of the drama A Doll’s House which carefully navigates readers’ minds on the occurrences in the lives of characters. Particularly, it effectively brings out the interconnectedness of the different characters in accomplishing their needs despite social imbalances. The author seek to provide the answers to serious social inequities issues by indicating that participation of women must be encompassed on a larger framework with an aim of giving all genders an equal platform in all levels.

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Rockville, Maryland: Serenity Publishing, 2009. Print.

This book A Doll’s House provides an inclusive review of the scenes of the play in both Act One and Act Two and the major settings, themes and moods of the play. Though written for readers who seek to read the play, it is highly valuable as it digs into historical underpinnings that define the period of the 19^th century.

Works Cited

Butler, Tim and Paul, Watt. Understanding social inequality. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2007. Print.

Calasanti, Tony and Kathleen, Slevin,. Gender, social inequalities, and aging.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2001. Print.

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House (SparkNotes Literature Guide). Bloomsbury: Spark Publishing, 2002. Print.

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Rockville, Maryland: Serenity Publishing, 2009. Print.

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House: Shmoop literature guide, Sunnyvale, BA: Shmoop University Inc., 2010. Print.

The notion that women cannot play a prominent role in family or society has existed for a long time. Although this trend began to change in the past two centuries, this gender stereotype continues to be very widespread. This paper is aimed at discussing such plays as Trifles written by Susan Glaspell and Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. These authors show how women can be victimized or discriminated in a patriarchal society.

By depicting family conflicts，Susan Glaspell and Henrik Ibsen show how women can be forced into subordination. More importantly, the writers show how women challenge the conventions that are imposed on them. There are several important similarities shared by both works. First, both works illustrate similar themes, namely the subordinate position of women and their response to this injustice.

A Doll’s House by Ibsen is a description of a woman who tries to break paternalistic relationship with her husband. Trifles written by Glaspell depict a despair of a woman who murders her husband. This similarity is one of the most important to focus on the structure of the narrative. In both plays, the main actions of the characters are not directly described by the authors.

They can be regarded as past events that help the readers understand the story. For instance, in Trifles, the murder is not depicted by Susan Glaspell. The larger part of the play shows how this murder is investigated. The audience is also introduced to the dialogue between two women who discuss about the possibility of Mrs. Wright having killed her husband. The approach to narrative is taken by Henrik Ibsen.

It should be mentioned that Nora was making debt repayments for almost a decade without the knowledge of her husband. It should be kept in mind that Nora obtained the first loan by forging the signature of her own spouse. In order to maintain peace in their marital life, Nora thought that it would be better for her not to tell her husband the entire truth. She did not want her husband to know that she was burdened with debts.

Thirdly, the supporting characters also play a key role in exposing gender dynamics that unfold throughout the plays. For instance, gender roles have been typically reversed in the A Doll’s House by other casts as well. Kristine Linde takes over the position of Mr. Krogstad. She proves to the audience that she is capable, highly efficient and independent-minded person in comparison Krogstad.

She does not need the assistance of men to secure a decent job. She even opts to work while her husband stays back home. Also in Trifles, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters find the truth about murder by investigating small details which called trifles by men. Finally both of them decide to hide evidence to protect their peer. These examples are important for showing that women can cope with the tasks and duties of men.

Additionally, both writers want readers to make their conclusion about the ending of two plays. Instead of providing detailed information about the later life of the characters, Ibsen and Glaspell prompt the audience to think about the possible ending of two plays. For instance, the readers of Susan Glaspell’s play do now know whether Mrs. Wright was acquitted or found guilty of her criminal trial.

Similarly, in A Doll’s House, Nora leaves her husband, but the author does not tell what happens to her in the future. Finally, both plays involve similar symbols that represent the female protagonists and the injustice that they have to struggle with. In Trifles, Mrs. Wright has been described as “kind of a bird herself” (Glaspell 1054) by Mrs. Hale.

Moreover, broken birdcage indicates that this woman could be confined in various ways. For instance, she could not attend any social event since she was made to wear shabby clothes by her husband. In the A Doll’s House, Nora is described as “little lark” and “squirrel” by her husband by Torvald (Ibsen 1259). The doll house is literary symbol of Nora’s life.

Just like what she said to her husband, Torvald: “Our home has been nothing but a playroom. I have been your doll-wife” (Ibsen 1259). Yet, one can also identify some important differences between these literary works. Both Mrs. Wright and Nora break the law, however, the reason is different. Mrs. Wright kills her husband to protect herself because she is afraid that her husband will eventually hurt her.

In contrast, Nora violates the establish behavioral norms in order to protect her husband. Just as she says:“Is a daughter not to be allowed to spare her dying father anxiety and care? Is a wife not to be allowed to save her husband’s life? I don’t know much about law, but I am certain that there must be laws permitting such things as that.” (Ibsen 1270).

Even though both protagonists challenge dominant gender roles, their value and attitudes of these people differ significantly. Mrs. Wright wants to cope with the conventional gender roles that are imposed on her. However, the cruelty of her husband prevents her from achieving this goal. To a great extent, she is forced to kill his husband.

In contrast, Nora seems to be quite different from that of Mrs. Wright. At the beginning, she is a happy mother with three children. Although she wants to pursue liberty, she still acts as a good wife who takes care of the family. Torvald’s reaction to secret makes Nora decide to leave her husband. At some point, it becomes cumbersome to predict the complex personality of Nora. Although she is expected to be ‘doll’ in her husband’s house, she refuses to accept that role.

Also, the writing technique has some difference. Instead of depicting main characters directly such as in A doll’s house, Glaspell uses indirect way to portray female protagonist. The main character Minnie does not enter the stage. This is another distinction that should be taken into consideration.

These literary works show how conventional gender stereotypes can be challenged. The authors demonstrate the liberation of the female protagonists who get rid of the bonds that are imposed on them. Thirdly, the writers focus on the conflicts within the family since these conflicts are driven by different perceptions of gender roles. Furthermore, the narratives in both plays are structured in a similar way.

For instance, the authors want to create suspense and prompt readers to think about the later life of the main characters. This conflict has been explored many writers living in the twentieth century (Schechet 61). The gender roles have been challenged in two main ways in both A Doll’s House and Trifles. It is common message that comes out clearly when both plays are presented to the audience or readers.

Traditional conventions are challenged not only by Nora and Mrs. Wright. Other characters also act in this way. For example, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hales solve the murder case and hide the evidence in effort to save Mrs. Wright. Mrs. Linde works for her family and persuade Krogstad to help Nora. By focusing on the actions of these people, the authors want to demonstrate that patriarchal view on family and society has been undermined.

These literary works are important because they explain the way in which women try to cope with gender discrimination and oppression. Susan Glaspell and Henrik Ibsen describe the experiences of women who struggle with this injustice. Most importantly, they writers show how they oppose to the tradition according to which only males can play a dominant role in family or society.

Works Cited

Glaspell, Susan. “Trifles.” The Compact Bedford Introduction to Literature. Ed. Michael Meyer. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009. Print.

Ibsen, Henrik. “A Doll House.” The Compact Bedford Introduction to Literature. Ed. Michael Meyer. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009. Print.

Schechet, Nita. Narrative Fissures: Reading And Rhetoric, New York: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005. Print.

The play “A Doll’s House,” written by Henrik Ibsen, is an interesting piece from the perspective of people’s struggles in society. Their challenges are presented by the need to comply with the norms in terms of appearance and behavior while neglecting their own desires and motivation. Thus, in the story, the main theme, which is the sacrificial role of female characters, is supported by the conflict of societal standards and personal intentions alongside symbolic elements.

The narrative clarifies the necessity for women to be victims in certain ways when telling about the issues Nora and Mrs. Linde face. The latter claims that her existence is “unspeakably empty” since all she has to think about is her family needs while having no chance to be with the man she loves (Ibsen 12). In turn, the former says that the necessity to conform is determined by men’s opinions of her as “incapable of anything really serious” (Ibsen 13).

Both characters share the same conflict, which is the requirement to comply with societal norms while neglecting themselves, underpinned by symbols. For example, Nora saying “doll is taken away from you” means the specified attitude of her husband (Ibsen 95). When leaving him, she explains the impossibility of living with a person who does not respect her, and this ending proves that this comparison defines the general perceptions of females in this piece.

In conclusion, the relation between the described conflict and the theme can be viewed as the dependence of the position of victims on societal norms. These components are connected by the inclusion of dolls as the symbols speaking of men’s attitudes towards women. Thus, the play effectively presents all these elements intertwined in the narrative to portray the link between the individual and collective needs that cannot be balanced.

Work Cited

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Dodo Press, 2005.

In the literary work A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen, the protagonist, Nora, struggles to achieve her own personal freedom from a confining and oppressive situation. Written in 1879, A Doll’s House tells the story of a Norwegian housewife and mother who chooses to leave her husband and children rather than continue living in the “doll’s house” that her husband has built for her and expects her to stay in (Ibsen 3).

Nora represents the females of her time, those who attempted to realize their dreams, ambitions, and sense of self direction during the heavily sexist social mores and parochial way of life that dominated much of the late 19^th and early 20^th century.

A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen exudes the pristine quality of a historical document in which no detail has been expunged, manipulated, or updated; it is very much a document of its time, and as such, give readers magnificent insight into long dead social and political eras, and how they affected the human beings on the ground that lived through them.

Historically, many critics and readers alike have made the assumption that A Doll’s House is best read as a feminist manifesto in dramatic form; however, Henrik Ibsen himself did not consider the play to be about the rights of women per se. Rather, Ibsen understood the play to be about human rights (Forward 25).

According to critic Stephanie Forward, Ibsen addressed a crowd of suffragettes in 1898, members of the Norwegian Women’s Rights League, and “asserted firmly that he was not a member of the league and had no conscious aim of creating propaganda when he wrote A Doll’s House” (Forward 25). Ibsen admitted “I am not even quite clear as to just what this women’s rights movement is. To me it has seemed a problem of humanity in general” (Forward 25).

Nonetheless, the play is one of the first examples of a female protagonist that chooses to go forward on her own, without her children, and at the time of its premiere in Denmark, Nora’s action scandalized its audience. Appalled critics condemned Ibsen as an anarchist bent on abrading the fabric of society, and deemed his character Nora as “an unnatural woman for leaving her husband and children, because such behavior undermined and threatened the stability of society” (Forward 25).

The year before A Doll’s House hit the stage, Ibsen had observed in his journal that “a woman cannot be herself in the society of the present day, which is an exclusively masculine society, with laws flamed by men and with a judicial system that judges feminine conduct from a masculine point of view” (Forward 25).

In Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, the main character, Nora is not an intellectual, and spends no time scouring books or libraries or trying to make sense of her situation. She is not a suffragette, and does not follow any sort of political or social party, nor does she belong to any league of feminist minded women.

That said, Nora feels the injustice of her situation acutely. She bristles as her husband’s denigration of her intelligence when he “playfully” takes her by the ear and calls her his “same little featherhead” and “my little squirrel” (Ibsen 3). Nora experiences the double standard that exists between herself and Helmer, as evidenced herein:

HELMER: I would gladly work night and day for you, Nora – bear sorrow and want for your sake. But no man would sacrifice his honor for the one he loves.

NORA: It is a thing hundreds of women have done.

HELMER: Oh, you think and talk like a heedless child.

NORA: Maybe. But you neither think nor talk like the man I could bind myself to. As soon as your fear was over – and it was not fear for what threatened me, but for what might happen to you – when the whole thing was past, as far as you were concerned it was exactly as if nothing at all had happened…I was your little skylark, your doll…so…fragile.

Helmer – it was then it dawned upon me that for eight years I had been living here with a strange man, and had borne him three children – Oh! I can’t bear to think of it! I could tear myself into little bits! (Ibsen 112).

Nora’s disillusionment resembles the “waking up” moment for women in similar oppressive situations, those of Nora’s time who realized they were locked in a role, locked in a doll’s house, with each move they made scripted by custom, sexism, and the implicit entitlement of a traditional marriage.

Ibsen ends the play with the powerful moment of Nora Helmer leaving her family home and closing the door firmly; in that action, she walks out on her husband Helmer and their three young children, and embarks on a life of her own, dedicated to discovering freedom on her own terms.

Women of the time who witnessed this moment in the play were profoundly moved by it: “How well I remember, after the first performance of Ibsen’s drama in London, with Janet Achurch as Nora, when a few of us collected outside the theatre breathless with excitement… We were restive and almost savage in our arguments. This was either the end of the world or the beginning of a new world for women. What did it mean? Was there hope or despair in the banging of that door?

Was it life or death for women? Was it joy or sorrow for men? Was it revelation or disaster?” (Forward 24). At the end of the play when Nora leaves, her step forward is one of revolution, and represents a firm and “revolutionary step forward for all the women of her time” (Forward 25)

Nora’s moment of enlightenment and her ensuing action is a breathtaking moment of personal freedom. As Forward explains, although “Nora does not know what the future will hold…she realizes that she requires space and freedom if she is to develop morally and spiritually. At the end of the play she resolves to withdraw from the game of Happy Families…and pursue her destiny, to be first and foremost a human being” (Forward 26).

In A Doll’s House, the moments of Nora’s quest for freedom detailed in this essay represent a classic work that reflected the honest experience of a protagonist caught in an oppressive social systems or political regime. As the protagonist, Nora’s struggle for personal freedom is unique to her situation and her marriage; yet, her defiance toward and ultimate rejection of the role assigned to her by her society remains the same for all oppressed souls.

Works Cited

Forward, Stephanie. “A New World for Women? Stephanie Forward Considers Nora’s Dramatic Exit from Ibsen’s A Doll’s House.” The English Review (2009): 24-27. Web.

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Clayton, DE: Prestwick House, 2005. Print.

The play A Doll’s House is the best play the audience is presented to. First premiered in 1879 in Denmark it still makes you want to watch it over and over again. Along with many productions of this play, I think, the best ones are those that reflect the nineteenth-century costumes and atmosphere. In order to achieve success in conveying this atmosphere, it is necessary to set up the right decorations. I love the picture above; this is a production that makes you feel cozy. It is clearly seen what age is presented on the scene from the chairs’ design and the protagonists’ outfits. Nora’s hair is combed the way women used to do their hair in the nineteenth century. I liked the way they dressed up the main actress, this reflects the way the author describes her as an elegant and graceful woman.

This is a new and contemporary view of the play. Of course, it is quite inappropriate trying to say the contemporary art is insulting, though it does turn over the way spectators are used to seeing the play. It is not that I am not ready for such minimalistic sets but this significantly complicates the way to indulge in the nineteenth-century environment. Besides, the actors must come up to the audience from behind the scenes because the viewer does not need to see the work of the director, decorators, costumiers, whereas this setting makes it available for the audiences’ eyes who and how is going to enter the doors. Therefore, richer elements of the decorations are also impossible to apply here because there are no walls or backgrounds to attach them to. It seems to me that the lights up on the ceiling are not enough to see the facial expressions of the actors, whereas such a small auditorium was surely meant to see everything closely. Moreover, the placement of the decoration items (chimney place, piano, table, etc) is too piled-up upon each other. The viewer does not particularly distinguish the various scenes, everything is too tightly located. I guess the actors’ play should make it all up.

This little image features Soutra Gilmour’s startling design that I would be amazed at if invited to such a play. This is a glasshouse that reflects the initial meaning of the play – the protagonists live in a transparent house though still remain blind to their marriage problems. The lights and colors of the setting are very appealing to the audience, I think. Namely, colors are calm which does not evoke extra attention to the details; rather the actors are in the spotlight. So, the element of the glasshouse is what strikes me the most in a good way. I would love to see it with my own eyes. It plays an important role in conveying the plot when you see the play for the first time and wonder why they chose this very decoration until you learn why in the end.

Introduction

As the play commences, Nora appears perfectly happy and she acts as if she was more of a child than wife to Torvald (Ibsen 2). She is apparently excited about the extra income that her husband’s job would bring to the family. In as much as she is treated as if she is a doll, it does not seem to bother her in the least. However, she is put in a difficult position when Krogstand blackmails her because of the laws she had broken to save her husband’s life and he realized he might be compromised.

In fact, he condemns her without regard to her efforts. She radically changes her nature and turns from a timid and submissive doll of a wife to a cold-hearted woman with bitterness enough to cause her to abandon her husband and children. The abandonment of the latter is even more unreasonable since they had played no role in the betrayal (Baseer, Alvi and Zafran 2). This begs the question regarding whether she was the architect of her problems or not.

In addition, it is relevant to ask whether she was a villain or victim of her circumstances. Given actions at the end of the play, she may appear to be a villain, but, in fact, she is a victim of her circumstances she was driven to her decision by the blackmail and betrayal of people whose actions she could not control.

A summary and an analytical abstract

Stephen Forward talks about the book as a revolutionary step for women in the 19th century and suggests that the critics rightfully enquired if dramatic walking out of Nora from her home was the end of the world or the beginning of a new one (Forward 24). Nora is presented as a paradox of sorts. The audience is left wondering if she is displaying fundamental selfishness and intransigence or only trying to retake control of her life outside the familiar context.

At the end of the day, Forward argues that she is triumphant and expressive, brave and uncompromising, but, at the same time, immoral, self-destructive and irresponsible as a parent (Forward 24). Finney insists that the assumption that Nora’s argument is too radical and he cites the line “I would never dream of doing anything you did not want me to…”, (Ibsen 34).

Evidently, despite all indications to the simplicity and childishness of Nora, she was a complicated woman and despite her desire to include her husband in everything she did, circumstances forced her to conceal a great deal and later it results in the ultimate falling out. Rutledge, in The Marrying Kind suggests that Ibsen introduced Nora to the audience not based on who she was, but the condition under which she lived (Rutledge 70).

For example, in the opening scene, she is shown secretly eating snacks and this gives the impression that she cannot enjoy her pleasures openly without facing the condescension of her husband. The character Nora portrays to the world is not really her true one and deep down as she reveals later; she is a reflective and determined woman who is capable of making radical decisions a far from the doll her husband would have himself believe her to be.

Fodstad posits that she is subjected to the wiles of her husband, who seems to believe that the man should be in charge of all financial matters, as well as anything weighty in the family. The woman is no more than a mother (Fodstad 149), and a sexual object to satisfy his desires and raise his children. He buys her a sexual costume and even encourages her to dance the tarantella in public that is a manifestation of his objectification of her.

At the heart of A Doll’s House, there is a great deal of deception, which brings out the diverse reality between fiction and reality as Ibsen tackles social problem, such as marriage and family. The dichotomy is evidenced in the historical context underlined by the Victorian repression of individuality through the economic power struggle, which results in Nora’s good attributes being overshadowed by the need for money and the consequence that come about.

Ibsen portrays the society and environment in which Nora exists as one that is unfriendly to women in general and uses Nora to epitomize the difficulties of an intelligent woman trying to transcend the chauvinism and prejudices, which women have to content with.

Literary analysis

Literary analysis would help to critique and understand several aspects in the play (Roberts and Robert 23). Her efforts to save her husband require her to hide under a timid facade and even as she tries to gather money to pay back her debt, she has to do it secretly and this results in her husband’s perception of her as being extravagant. As Forward puts it, the fact that Nora walks out is an expression of a woman fed up with the condescension and finally condemnation seizing her freedom.

Although it has been argued that she was irresponsible as indeed she was, the question at hand is not on her morality, but the cause of her actions, which are undoubtedly motivated by the pressure she receives from her husband, the blackmailer, and society in general. She is aware that she will be judged harshly for her actions irrespective of the good intention.

Nora’s husband is the epitome of chauvinism that characterized men in his time, he is remarkably ungrateful considering that all the troubles Nora underwent were for his sake, and he did not waste a moment in condemning her in the vilest of terms. In addition, he shows himself to be a hypocrite when he suddenly wants to forgive her only because he has discovered there will be no consequences to him.

When Nora realizes that her husband is only willing to stand by her when he stands to lose nothing for his sake, a fact juxtaposed with her willingness to jeopardize her wellbeing, she is awake to their incompatibility. It dawns to her that she lives with someone who does not appreciate her love and he is only capable of loving her as his doll or mother and her decision to leave in light of this knowledge is hardly surprising.

The most overt proof of the circumstances that inform and in a way force her actions in combined “onslaught” from Krogstand and her husband, the former was supposed to protect her secret while the later was bound by the virtue of her relationship to stand by her.

In the play, Nora has no one to turn to in her hour of need, especially when her husband turns against her irrespective of her sacrifice. She is forced to accept the fact that her world will not see her as anything more than an object. Ultimately, she leaves it all behind and this justifies the assertion that circumstances outside her control largely motivated her decision to walk out.

Works Cited

Baseer, Abdul, Sofia Dildar Alvi, and Fareha Zafran. “The Use of Symbolic Language in Ibsen’s A Doll’s House: A Feministic Perspective.” Language in India 13.3 (2013). 1-5. Print.

Fodstad, Lars A. “Refurbishing the Doll’s House? The theatre programme as paratextual trace.” Ibsen Studies 6.2 (2006): 149-187. Print.

Forward, Stephanie. “A new world for women? Stephanie Forward considers Nora’s dramatic exit from Ibsen’s A Doll’s House”. The English Review 19.4 (2009): 24-30. Print.

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. London, United Kingdom: A&C Black, 2013. Print.

Roberts, Edgar and Zweig Robert. Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing, Compact Edition (5th Edition). London, United Kingdom: Longman Publishers, 2011. Print.

Rutledge, Cynthia. The Marrying Kind. New York, NY: Harlequin, 2011. Print.