Category: A Doll’s House

Ibsen’s implementation of female sacrifices in A Doll’s House brings to light the prominence of prescribed gender roles during nineteenth-century Norwegian society. Female sacrifices are one of the many ways that Ibsen conveys the realistic situations that women were facing during that time, such as gender discrimination, which were mainly supportive of men disallowing women basic rights. The distressing aspects of gender role distinction and how they came about are presented through these female sacrifices; personal opinions and desires, materialistic comforts, honour and dignity, and most importantly, identity and autonomy.

The first instance of female sacrifice is seen in Act 1 through the interaction between Torvald and Nora, where Nora sacrifices her opinions and desires to satisfy her husband. Nora puts on a submissive façade, whose characteristics are similar to a child. This is a result of the distinct gender roles where women are moulded to be submissive beings. Ibsen displays this through Torvald’s act of prohibiting Nora from eating certain foods such as macaroons, to which Nora responds, ‘I shouldn’t think of doing what you disapprove of’ (Ibsen, 8). Torvald frequently rebukes Nora and oversees her expenditures, shown through the line ‘Bought… all that? Has my little spendthrift been making the money fly again?’ (3). Ibsen uses this metaphor to profess Torvald’s ideals, in which he can only trust himself to manage his finance and that Nora just precariously spends it. This gives the audience the idea that women are incapable of being entrusted with important tasks. Ibsen uses explicitly the possessive pronoun ‘my’ and attributive noun ‘spendthrift’ in conjunction with each other to strengthen the distinction that Torvald is in control and that Nora is merely the possession of his. Torvald often belittles Nora, shown through pet names such as ‘little rogue’ (5), ‘sweet little lark’ and ‘little bird’ (6). Ibsen has used repetition of the diminutive diction ‘little’ to emphasize the father-daughter relationship and show the authoritative power gradients between the two genders. To illustrate the submissive and childlike façade of Nora, Torvald comments ‘A song-bird must never sing false notes’ (44). The utilization of metaphor in this phrase is used by Torvald as a subtle warning to Nora not to disobey him, this outlines the societal norm that the wife is to never do what the husband does not instruct. Ibsen uses the literary technique of symbolism to show the psychological state of Nora. The tarantella dance is symbolic as it reflects the way Nora carries herself; a bright and cheerful façade, while internally, she is afraid as to what her future holds. The poison imagery from the tarantella represents the secrets that Nora needs to reveal to Torvald, and shows her last attempt at saving the relationship ironically observed by Torvald in his response, ‘You’re dancing as if it were a matter of life and death’ (82). Therefore, the tarantella symbolizes Nora’s transformation out of the role of the submissive wife, which breaks many societal norms in nineteenth-century Norway.

Ibsen illustrates the sacrifice of Nora’s materialistic comforts to compensate for the loan that she covertly borrows from Krogstad. This sacrifice brings to light the female role where women are viewed as financially dependent beings. Ibsen implements this through Nora’s revelation of her precarious actions displayed between Nora and Mrs Linde’s dialogue. Nora had to make personal sacrifices such as reserving a portion of her allowance to reimburse Krogstad, ‘I never used more than half of it; I always bought the simplest things’ and ‘all I got for them, I spent on them’ (22). Ibsen uses adverbials such as ‘never’ and ‘always’ in conjunction with the personal pronoun ‘I’ to emphasize Nora’s daily situation, in which she must sacrifice many luxuries such as buying clothes in order to repay the loan. This gives the idea that women in nineteenth-century Norway were to prioritize their family before themselves. Ibsen emphasizes the financial imbalance women were given in society through the dialogue where Mrs Linde comments, ‘Why, a wife can’t borrow without her husband’s consent’ (19). This shows that women were not given much information about the outside world and that it was stereotypical for the husband to be the provider, while the wife takes care of household chores. Forbye, it was inevitable for Nora to make personal sacrifices to repay the loan she procured as she said, ‘It would utterly upset the relation between us; our beautiful, happy home would never again be what it is’ (21). The use of foreshadowing illustrates Nora’s innocence to the situation as she could not foresee the consequences of her actions. This gives the idea that women were oblivious to the events happening outside of their home, due to the restrictive laws put in place.

The concept where masculinity outweighs femininity is notably prominent in Nora’s case, where the sacrifice of her honour and dignity contrasts with Torvald’s to do the same. This brings to light the idea of sacrifice versus the reality of it. Nora’s action of sacrificing everything she has for love, in contrast with Torvald’s idealism of it versus his practical nature is shown through a conversation between them. Torvald comments ‘But no man sacrifices his honour, even for one he loves’ and Nora replies ‘Millions of women have done so’ (120). The hyperbole highlights the fact that Torvald is not prepared to make the sacrifice for love even though he admits he does, while Nora does because it is in her nature. The plural noun ‘women’ is used as a literary technique to display Nora as a representation of women in society. Ibsen’s purpose behind this dialogue is to depict the idea that women were expected in their nature to sacrifice everything for their family. Nora’s gesture of forging the signature underpins the act of sacrifice of her honour. However, Torvald becomes furious with Nora using denouncing names seen in the line, ‘a hypocrite, a liar, worse a criminal’ (107). The tricolon represents Torvald’s priorities, where he puts his career and reputation over Nora. The dramatic irony shows that while calling Nora ‘a hypocrite’, he is describing his hypocritical actions when he professes, he would give up everything for love, seen through Nora’s speech ‘You have never loved me! You only thought it amusing to be in love with me’ (113). Ibsen uses Torvald’s hypocrisy to show that in nineteenth-century Norway, men had careers, societal status, and were the breadwinner of the household. This meant that women were dependent on their husband for societal status, which further emphasizes the limited rights women had.

As the play progresses, Nora becomes aware of a vital element she has sacrificed due to the suppression of various men throughout her life. The sacrifice of her identity and autonomy. Ibsen uses doll imagery in the title A Doll’s House as a symbol representing Nora’s role in this play as Torvald is always controlling her. Nora realizes that she has been an object for men with the duty to enthral them, and her thoughts and opinions were sacrificed in place of her father and husband, causing her to lose her identity. She reminds Torvald through a dramatic dialogue, ‘I lived by performing tricks for you, Torvald’, ‘Our house has been nothing but a playroom’ (114). The past tense applications such as ‘lived’ and ‘has been’ represent Nora’s developed maturity, especially the rejection of her past reflecting her present. This shows that women were encaged to their homes and did not have the opportunity to express themselves. Furthermore, Nora uses the phrases; ‘I have other duties equally sacred’, ‘My duties towards myself’ (116-117). The possessive pronoun ‘my’ in conjunction with the personal noun ‘myself’ is now used by Nora as it represents that she is in full control of her life. Towards the ending of the play, Nora uses very firm diction, ‘I must stand quite alone to know myself…’ (115), ‘I must think things out for myself…’ (117), ‘I must make up my mind which is right – society or I’ (118). The repetition of the modal verb ‘must’ in conjunction with the personal noun ‘myself’ is used to portray Nora’s thinking process to the audience, in which she continuously reassures herself that she is making the right decision to leave everything behind. Ibsen uses this to profess his humanist ideals, where humans should be treated equally disregarding gender.

Ibsen’s purpose of using Nora’s sacrifices is to illustrate that an imbalance in gender roles between men and women can cause detrimental effects. On a personal level, it can ruin relationships as seen in Nora and Torvald’s marriage, and from a societal perspective, it can lead to financial issues and social discrimination. It was important for Ibsen to talk about female sacrifice in A Doll’s House as he is a humanist who supports equal rights for all humans. Furthermore, Ibsen saw the damaging effects that come from gender role imbalances. This play helped deepen my thinking by teaching me that there are many things in life that get sacrificed which do not get noticed enough.

All human beings have a sacred duty to themselves. A Doll’s House, a three-act play written by the profound Norwegian author Henrik Ibsen, challenges the entire fabric of marital relationships. The play originally written in Norwegian, was published in 1879 before being republished “of an anonymous, undated English translation published by Bartholomew House” (Ibsen, ii). Ibsen, born into the upper-middle class, reveals the scandalous effects of a deceitful relationship and sheds light upon the sacrosanct institution of marriage, in particular through his construction of the protagonist Nora. Ibsen employs dramatic irony and symbolism to effectively represent the marriage as a form of imprisonment for women; whereby the playwright challenges the stereotypical female identity as submissive wife within a patriarchal society. Ibsen achieves this first through his establishment of innocent women in the play, symbolic of the traditional attitudes towards a corrupted and loveless marriage. He also addresses the harsh reality and truth of women conforming to the naïve societal ideals and hence the concealment of marriage through his creation of literary elements.

Ibsen implements the banned macaroons to symbolise Nora’s act of deception in her insubstantial and shallow marriage. Additionally, they represent Torvald’s efforts to control his wife and to treat her like a child, again depicting their deceitful relationship. After Torvald questions if his “Miss Sweet Tooth been breaking rules” (Ibsen, 4), Nora lies suddenly with “no, certainly not” (4). Her dramatically ironic response not only portrays herself as a liar to the audience, but also creates the macaroons a symbol of defiance against her husband’s tyrannical authority. At the beginning of the play, Nora appears to be a dutifully obedient and honest wife, however it is immediately divulged that she is continuously telling lies, allowing the audience to be presented with a glimpse of her rebelliousness. Furthermore, in rebelling against her husband, she is rebelling against society. This is evident in the final scene when Nora “deserts her husband’s house” (71) and leaves her family, since divorce was greatly frowned upon. When Doctor Rank arrives, Nora offers him a macaroon and he instantly becomes confused because he “thought they were forbidden here” (16). After his epiphany, Nora quickly replies with another lie claiming that Christine gave her them. Once again, Nora’s stubborn personality is clearly illustrated by certain symbols, as well as her character’s development; demonstrated through her deliberate lying. There is a significant impact on the audience because Nora is keeping secrets from her husband, portraying many women’s deceitful relationships within a patriarchal society. Scene 1 reveals that Torvald is guilty of narrow-mindedness and stubbornness as he shows no respect for Nora’s adulthood by treating her like a child because he simply thinks sugary sweets will spoil her teeth. On the contrary, Nora lies to Torvald about eating macaroons because she feels the need to maintain her dignity, while catering to her own desires. Moreover, as Nora enters her house, she “then goes cautiously to her husband’s door and listens” (1), exhibiting her propensity to sneak earlier in the play. In this occurrence, definite characteristics of Nora’s secretive nature and contradicting actions highlight the facets of a marriage in which women play a dependent and subordinate role. As the play progresses, the audience begins to realise that Nora’s petty lies shift to far more serious deceptions.

The blackmail letter and letterbox are consequential symbols executed by Ibsen in his polemic work for irreversible truths. Although, Nora’s and Torvald’s fraudulent relationship is ironically progressed in a chronological manner. In act 2, her husband “can tell from [Nora’s] looks that there is a letter from [Krogstad]” (Ibsen, 49), demonstrating that Torvald can read Nora like a book after being together for 8 years. But, Nora’s unexpected reply “I don’t know” (49), essentially further contributes onto her countless lies. The letter was included by the playwright in order to create dramatic tension throughout, as it necessarily has the power to end the complex relationship between the couple. At the beginning of act 3, Torvald becomes concerned when he discovers “someone has been at the lock” (60), but shortly finds Nora’s “broken hairpin” (60), which is convincing evidence suggesting that Nora was tampering with the mailbox lock. Nevertheless, Nora “quickly” (60) puts the blame on her children, foregrounding her child-like behaviour, in comparison to when one lays the responsibility for something they did on their sibling/s. The derogatory play features the symbolic disposition of props, such as the key for the letterbox, which is only in Torvald’s possession, as confirmed by Nora when Mrs. Linde queries whether her “husband keeps the key” (47). Subsequently, Nora answered “yes, always” (47), allowing the readers to place substantial emphasis on the high modality language in order to understand how Torvald exerts control and dominance over Nora’s life. This enables the play to document revolutionary women in patriarchal Bourgeois society. Consequently, the letter acts as an inevitable revelation that ultimately undermines the sanctity of marriage. Similarly, it details to the audience about both the status and the role of Scandinavian women in the 19th century. Much of the truth in A Doll’s House is conveyed via letters, establishing that Nora’s and Torvald’s entire marriage is built on illusions and both characters are caught up in a web of deception and lies.

Ibsen’s controversial drama focused on the deceptive and restrictive marriage of Nora and Torvald. The tarantella dance serves as a symbol of Nora’s deep fear regarding Krogstad revealing the letter to Torvald. Also, the tarantella is believed to cure the bite of a tarantula spider where the victims danced hysterically for hours in order to remove the venom. As mentioned previously, the letter reflects upon the raw truths of women suffocating in unhappy relationships, thereby when Torvald wants to “see if any letters have come.” (Ibsen, 48), Nora begs “Torvald, please don’t” (48) and again lies that “there is nothing there” (49). The influential playwright provides the audience with an insight into how the wife persistently practises deception to save herself and her husband’s esteemed reputation. Additionally, in order to distract Torvald, Nora redoubles her efforts and desperately orders him to “sit down and play” (48) and for him to “criticize… and correct” (48) her fiery movements. This commanding tone showcases that Nora wants Torvald to “play”, like a child would with a doll, as opposed to when Torvald demands her to dance “not so violently” (48). His constructive criticism is ironical because Nora considers to commit suicide, clearly exemplifying how trapped and smothered women felt in 19th century married life. Despite her husband’s “frequent instructions” (48), “NORA dances more and more wildly” (48) and “as if [her] life depended on it” (48). These amorous comments further symbolise Nora’s desperation to escape from the extreme terror of the consequences of the loan being disclosed to Torvald. Her frantic manner and hurried rhythm both demonstrate the Tarantella being a physical manifestation of her desire to quell this morbid anxiety. Moreover, the rehearsing of the gestures and steps signifies Nora’s flee from traditional marriage and oppressive societal roles as she dances freely, ignoring Torvald’s advice of slowing down. Also, manifesting the final breaking point inside her as her inner turmoil increases. Thus, Ibsen characterises Nora as both a puppet and windup doll managed by others, meanwhile her protean relationship with Torvald is continuing to contaminate itself with deception and lies.

In conclusion, Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House boldly elucidates the flaws during the Victorian era in the rigid Norwegian society, in which women conformed to highly oppressed social expectations. Nora’s dishonesty was mainly motivated by these expectations and also her individual values. As evident through the forbidden macaroons, she asserts a stark sense of identity and exerts her willingness to be an independent human within a patriarchal society. The problematic play embodies female gender struggle for personal freedom from their restricted roles and reinforces the entrenched status of women, by implementing the decisive letter. In fact, the exiled dramatist employed dramatic irony and symbolism in order to represent the notion of constant deception in the character’s daily lives, with the true intention of definitively revealing how couples in an unsatisfactory marriage wore a blissful façade. Therefore, these choices are deliberately made to underline Ibsen’s egalitarian beliefs, which enables the audience to capture the essence of realism.

A Doll House by Henrik Ibsen is a play that primarily focuses on the relationship between Nora and her husband, Torvald Helmer. The play has three acts which all take place in the Helmer residence. Torvald just received news about a promotion at work. Nora, his wife, is excited by this news as she believes that the promotion would come with increased income for her husband and thus relieve most of the money problems they have had to deal with in the past. They have three young children and a nanny to care for them (Mays 816). Torvald is against the idea of his wife working as he believes her primary role is to care for the family. The ways he talks to her makes it evident that he sees her as a child with limited understanding of most adult concepts. The story is set during the Christmas time, and thus the family spends most of their time decorating and hosting parties. Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll House” suggests a patriarchal society in which the social role of women was limited to caring for their homes.

The main protagonist in the book, Nora, seems to be struggling with accepting the idea of the traditional roles expected of her as a woman. The society views women as nothing more than dolls, with limited functions as evidenced by the life of Nora in the play. Although Nora might need self-exploration and discovering who she is beyond being a mother and a wife, society barely allows her enough space. In the first act, Nora enters the room, excited after doing a little shopping and looking forward to sharing the excitement with her husband.

Torvald dismisses her, arguing that she should not be wasting money. Nora points out that with his promotion coming up, they can afford to be reckless. Torvald states that the salary is not due until later in the year, to which Nora argues that they could borrow for now. Torvald tells her that she is foolish when it comes to matters of money, which he believes to be typical of a woman. He states, “Nora, Nora, how like a woman! No, but seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debts! Never borrow! Something of Freedom’s lost-and something of beauty, too-from a home that’s founded us; and we’ll go right on like that the little while we have to” (Mays 814).

The way Torvald talks to his wife makes it evident that he looks down on her because she is a woman. He believes that she would not have anything logical to say when it comes to matters related to money. The book makes it evident that the place of women in the society was dictated by the men, and thus, their identity was limited to what the men stated. Nora does not have a life outside that of her husband (Mays 816). He talks to her like a child most of the time, and she barely ever takes the initiative to stand up for herself. This could be attributed to the fact that she views him to be superior to her, and thus her reluctance to ever say anything that he would not find agreeable.

When Torvald calls her foolish, she is upset. Torvald attempts to cheer her up by calling her affectionate pet names rather than apologizing for the demeaning comment he made. He opts to offer her money that she could use to continue with her Christmas shopping. She seems pleased by the idea and thanks him profusely for the money and his generosity. The act further shows how men treated women like children or dolls. The scene shows the place of women in a society that treats them like dolls whose primary function is to amuse and entertain the men while taking care of their homes.

Another important character in the play which helps show the place of women is Mrs. Linde. She comes to the house and informs Nora of her husband’s death, lamenting of the fact that he left her with no money and no children. Nora shares with Linde regarding the fact that she had to borrow money for their trip to Italy, where her husband was to undergo treatment. Ever since she had been working and saving secretly to pay back the money, although she might be partners with her husband, it is clear that they are not equal in the way that he treats her and how she acts around him (Mays 841). One would expect that borrowing money to cover her husband’s hospital bills is something typical and nothing to be ashamed of. However, Nora knows that her husband would not have approved of her actions even though he needed her help.

Linde responds to this by sharing the story of how she had to marry a man she did not love because he had money which would help her care for her siblings. However, when her husband died, her business collapsed, and yet again, she was left with nothing. She was forced to take up odd jobs as long as it guaranteed that she could care for her family. The scene makes it evident to the readers some of the typical sacrifices that women often had to make for their families (Mays 856). Mrs. Linde gives up so much in life to ensure that her siblings are well taken care of, evidenced by the fact that she gives up her happiness as long as her family is well taken care of. These sacrifices are not limited to a particular class but spread across different economic classes in society. Other than Mrs. Linde and Nora, the nanny who takes care of Nora’s children also makes sacrifices each day as she leaves her children at home to come to work. Irrespective of this, the nanny is still grateful as she believes that the jobs help ensure that she is in a better position to cater to her family needs.

The views of men towards women become even more apparent when Torvald finds out that Nora took a loan to clear his hospital bills. Nora took the loan and forged her father’s signature because she cared for Torvald and wanted to help whichever way she could. When Torvald finds out what she did, he is infuriated and goes to the extent of claiming that her actions were nothing more than an effort to end his happiness. Rather than be grateful, her husband is blinded by his pride and sees her actions as a punch on his manhood. His pride becomes clearer when Nora compares him to her father. He states, “My dear Nora, there is a notable difference between your father and me. Your father’s official career was hardly above reproach. But mine is; and I hope it’ll stay that way as long as I hold my position” (Mays 841). Torvald believes himself to be better than even her father, which is why he is so offended by the idea that she took a loan for him. As a man, Torvald is expected to provide for his family’s needs, and thus, why his ego is wounded by the idea that Nora took a loan to help him with his medical bills.

Overall, the different female characters in the book make it clear the place of women in a society dominated by women. The main protagonist in the book, Nora, barely has a life of her own and primarily focuses on ensuring that her actions make her husband happy. At the end of the play, Torvald reminds her that she has a duty as a mother and a wife. Nora makes it clear that she does not love him, which does not seem to bother Torvald as one would expect. He starts that he is willing to work hard to provide for her, but as a man, he cannot sacrifice for a woman who does not respect his honor. Nora opts to leave, which could be argued to be an indication of her decision to finally find her life beyond the life that she has had to live.

Works Cited

1. Mays, Kelly J. The Norton Introduction To Literature. 12th ed., Norton, 2017, pp. 812-71.

Henrik Ibsen’s 1879 play A Doll’s House is a domestic drama in which tension is built through the threat of Nora Helmer’s secret of having committed financial fraud being revealed to her husband, Torvald. It is set in nineteenth century bourgeois society, where the role of and expectations for women were clearly defined. A woman’s place was at home in the domestic sphere, where she was to be a wife and mother, self-sacrificing and passive. Her most sacred duty was to her husband and children. Respectable women were effectively barred from much of the public sphere, the world of work – instead, that was a masculine environment. A Doll’s House challenges the belief that women should fulfil a domestic role, using a variety of dramatic conventions to examine how the attitudes of patriarchal society impede women’s ability to act and think as their own person and showing how entering the public sphere can be a path to self-fulfilment. Nora’s dialogue, the counterplot of Mrs Linde’s relationship with Krogstad, and the symbolism of the play’s set and staging all serve to emphasise the damaging nature of restrictive female roles, challenging society by suggesting that women should instead be free to develop themselves as individuals and take up roles outside the behaviours expected of them by bourgeois society.

Dialogue is used to challenge the belief that women should only be wives and mothers and to examine how their individual development can be stifled when under male guardianship. The rejection of feminine roles is initially framed as a punishment. Upon learning that Nora has committed fraud, Torvald tells her that from now on, “you will not be allowed to bring up the children, I can’t trust you with them.” (p76) Nineteenth century bourgeois society valued women taking caring roles and being a good mother was seen as a path to happiness and fulfilment for women, so in the societal context, Torvald was insulting Nora in the greatest way he felt possible: not only would he not allow her to be fulfilled and happy, he could not even trust her to carry out a role she would have been thought to be biologically suited for. Nora challenges the value society places on this role when she describes her “duty to myself” (p82) as “a duty equally sacred” (p82) to the one she has to her husband and children. She uses this to justify leaving her family arguing her need to develop as an individual is strong enough that she is willing to give up her traditional female role when she says that leaving is “necessary for me”(p82) no matter the views of others about her actions. Torvald has earlier mentioned the idea of female individual development and education, representing the views of society when by saying “I shall give you all the advice and guidance that you need.” (p78) Education was not considered highly necessary for women in Norwegian society in 1879, and they weren’t even admitted to the upper levels of secondary schooling until 1882, three years after A Doll’s House was published. Married women were under the guardianship of their husbands until 1888. Their husband’s guidance was felt to be adequate education. Nora challenges this by telling her husband “if I’m ever to reach any understanding of myself and the things around me, I must learn to stand alone. That’s why I can’t stay here with you any longer.” (p81) By emphasising that she must be away from Torvald to understand herself and the world, she undermines his authority as a guardian and a source of wisdom. When Nora says that she must leave to “reach [an] understanding of [herself]”, she implies that doing that is not possible when she is under Torvald’s guardianship. This idea is also developed through Nora’s dialogue when she states that rather than developing her own thoughts and tastes, she has spent her life with those of her male guardians, first her father, than Torvald. She describes how she adopted her father’s beliefs and “if [she] thought differently, [she] kept quiet about it, because he wouldn’t have liked it.” Nora implies that if she had disagreed with her father, she would have faced his disapproval, heavily influenced by the prevailing attitude in society at the time that women were emotional rather than logical, potentially thought unable to be trusted to make serious decisions, or as Nora describes, form opinions on non-domestic manners. Nora says that she has “never made anything of [her] life” (p80) because of the way that she was expected to acquire the tastes of her father and husband. This shows that she does not feel fulfilled in her domestic role, despite having been involved in raising a child and being a wife – the two things that 19th century bourgeois society dictates are her life’s purpose and most sacred duty. Through Nora’s dialogue, Ibsen challenges the belief that women should fulfil their expected roles, showing that doing so doesn’t necessarily lead to self-fulfilment, but rather a loss of individual development.

The characterisation of Mrs Linde and counterplot of her relationship with Krogstad make an argument for self-determination being the path to satisfaction for women. Mrs Linde is consistently shown through dialogue to be unhappy and lonely without anyone to work for, describing her life as “unutterably empty. Nobody to live for any more… I couldn’t stand it” (p11). In her past, she has fulfilled the traditional female role of carer, and agrees with Nora, who suggests that she must be “proud when [she] thinks about what [she has] done for [her] brothers” (p13) and mother. Searching for “somebody and something to work for” (p64) she rekindles a relationship with Krogstad, suggesting that “us two castaways [join] forces.” (p64) Mrs Linde effectively proposes to Krogstad, and, through the words “[join] forces”, frames the relationship as a collaboration which would benefit them both, saying “two of us on one wreck surely stand a better chance than each on his own” (p64). This framing of a romantic relationship as an equal partnership is contrary to the idea in the societal context of the play’s production that marriage and similar institutions are hierarchical and patriarchal, with distinct roles for each sex. Mrs Linde acts on her own desires as an individual, and it is made clear that she would be loath to get involved in a relationship for any other reason – she says “there’s no pleasure in working only for yourself,” asking Krogstad to “give me somebody and something to work for.” (p64) Here, Mrs Linde is not motivated by a sense of duty or a feeling that she should adhere to society’s expectations of her. The use of the word “pleasure” shows that she is instead seeking a happiness that she feels is lacking in her life. This is consistent with her characterisation earlier in the play as unhappy because she is lonely and satisfied by working for others, but having no objection to working. She calls working “my one great joy”, challenging 19th century attitudes about the place of women as she has eagerly entered into the public sphere of employ rather than remaining in a domestic role. When Krogstad accuses her suggestion of a relationship of being “only a woman’s hysteria, wanting to be all magnanimous and self-sacrificing,”(p64) he implies that she is trying to act similar to the Angel in the House, wanting to forgo her own happiness for the sake of others she quickly contradicts him and later avows that “when you’ve sold yourself once for other people’s sake, you don’t do it again.” (p65) This unwillingness to “[sell herself]” shows that she is not self-sacrificing. Overall, the characterisation of Mrs Linde as active rather than passive and willing to be employed but also to care for others challenges conventional attitudes at the time the pay was produced about the role of women by suggesting that personal fulfilment for women can be found in the public sphere and that an then-unusually active role in marriage can be beneficial for them.

The symbolism inherent in the set and stage directions of A Doll’s House emphasises the restrictive nature of female roles in 19th century society and creates an association between the non-domestic world and individualism. The set of A Doll’s House is deliberately restricted. As the reader is told in the at-rise stage directions of Act One, the whole story takes place in “a pleasant room, tastefully but not expensively furnished” (p1) with several doors around its borders, including “a door on the left [which] leads to Helmer’s study.” (p1) Although characters come and go via these doors and at times hover in the doorways, the outside world is not fully revealed to the audience, nor is Helmer’s study. All the character interactions of the play take place in the central room in which Nora receives visitors. Visitors also arrive to talk to Torvald, but they are eventually directed into his study, to the left. Nora never enters Torvald’s study, associated with masculinity through its entryway being referred to as “[Nora’s] husband’s door”(p1) – it is possessed by a man and Nora’s exclusion from it is symbolic of female exclusion from the public sphere in the time in which the play was produced. This solidifies an association between Nora and the central room, and suggests it represents the feminine, domestic sphere. The restricted nature of the set suggests that the domestic sphere itself is claustrophobic, with a heavily restricted set of expected behaviours valued by society. The other characters, who are largely male, travel freely between the living room and outside in a way Nora does not in the play. All of the other characters are associated with work, with each male character having a job and being expected by society to engage in the public sphere, and Mrs Linde also about to enter the same sphere through her impending job at Torvald’s bank. This associates the world beyond the hall door with the public sphere and work. In the first act Nora is “happily humming” (p1) as she comes in through the hall door and immerses herself in the domestic world, where “she shuts the door” (p1), a gesture signifying her shutting out the outside and public sphere, the masculine domain. As the set symbolises the domestic sphere, this joyous behaviour upon her return home shows her contentedness with her role within the domestic sphere and rejection of the outside world. A Doll’s House culminates in Nora leaving her home and husband through the same hall door, deserting the domestic sphere. Again, she closes the door behind her – “the heavy sound of a door being slammed is heard from below” – but this time it serves as a symbolic rejection of the domestic sphere and her role as a wife and mother, which she has just denounced and renounced. The use of the word “slammed” has connotations of forcefulness and assertiveness, as if it, like the set and stage directions, are demonstrative of Nora’s progression from passive and domestic to active and seeking individual fulfilment as opposed to a role prescribed by the society in which A Doll’s House was produced.

A Doll’s House examines and challenges the role of women in the society in which it was produced, criticising the fulfilment of duty to husband and children at the expense of individual fulfilment and development. Through Nora’s dialogue, Ibsen demonstrates that male guardianship and being thought unsuitable to form opinions or take on responsibility can be harmful to women, potentially leading them to feel like they have made nothing of their life, even if they have fulfilled expected female roles. This is complimented by the implication that women can feel fulfilled when taking active roles in relationships and engaging with the public sphere. a rejection of the restrictive, feminine, domestic sphere is made clear through the staffing of the paly and it is suggested by Nora’s entry into the outside world and public sphere at the end of the play that individual development and fulfilment can be found for women outside a domestic environment – even if the 19th century society in which A Doll’s House was produced disagrees.

Introduction to Symbolism in A Doll’s House

Ibsen’s life and inspirations, along with the context of his writing during the 1800s was summarised during the Interactive Oral. Initially, I was only aware of the unequal treatment of women in terms of occupation restrictions. However, through learning about the domineering position by men over women in a traditional marriage during the 1800s, I now understand why the public outcry for A Doll’s House and its push for censorship was so significant.

When I learned about the inferior role of women in a marriage in Ibsen’s contemporary Norway, I felt that the expectations of women were beyond unfair. While I have now considered that many people were afraid that society would become unsustainable if the power status between men and women changed, it still concerns me that there was a lack of freedom for women. I was surprised to learn that in a traditional marriage, wives were not allowed to be aggressive or own property but had to be pure and quiet instead. This led me to consider the similar situation of women’s second-class treatment today, where pay wages are still unequal for women. Upon reflection, I now understand why Ibsen exposed and criticised the traditional marriage as it is undeniably important to uphold moral rights and values for justice and fairness for women.

Besides learning that Ibsen was a father of modern drama, I learned that his inspiration for A Doll’s House was based on a woman he knew, Laura Kieler, whose life resembled Nora’s. This deepened my understanding of how realistic this play was in the 1800s; the middle-class homes gave a successful impression of a stable society. Ibsen challenged the censorship system by dramatising hidden social conflicts and revealing the truth behind beautiful façades, such as confinement, betrayal and fraud. The Victorian values were supposed to construct a civilised society; however, it was being criticised instead. I have now gained a better insight into why the controversy initiated by A Doll’s House was intensified with outraged public outcries to push for censorship in 1891, the ‘Ibsen Year’.

I would like to further investigate the techniques utilised to portray the interactions of the characters within the household in the play. It is evident that the level of symbolism in the dialogue of the play reflects Nora’s shift in independence, which was controversial during the 1800s, and I am interested to know how the playwright achieves this.

Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, documents on the conflicts between the central couple in a household which epitomises the issues of power and inequality within the playwright’s contemporary Norway. Through the use of symbols in dialogue, Ibsen demonstrates the shifting dynamics in the relationship between Nora and Torvald, reflecting Nora’s growing independence. In the three-act play, Nora’s transition from dependence to independence is established through her changing responses to the dehumanising and infantilising language used by Torvald. The value of money is also significant in exploring Nora’s developing autonomy, as well as her act of rebellion when she eats the forbidden macaroons, showing a clear progression of this character’s evolving sovereignty throughout the play.

Bird Imagery as a Symbol of Nora’s Confinement

Ibsen uses the symbol of birds in Torvald’s dialogue to dehumanise Nora and enforce the unequal power between them. Following the dynamics of the 19th century Norwegian society, Torvald visualises Nora as an inferior being. Hence, he degrades Nora by chastising her that, “A songbird must have a clean beak to chirp with – no false notes!” (25) By using the symbol of the songbird to scold Nora, Torvald humiliates her; as a songbird’s main ability is to sing beautifully to attract mates, it is suggested that Torvald considers pleasing him to be Nora’s only purpose in the household. This similarly relates to the image of a caged bird and the metaphor of the doll’s house, making Nora a pet or a toy being held captive in a small, claustrophobic environment where their owner uses them for their own pleasure. This suggests that Nora is restricted by the expectations within both her marriage and in society. The moralistic diction of “clean” is highly connotative of religious purity, linking to how Nora is forbidden be “false” and reinforcing Nora’s inferior position within the household. This is evident when Torvald asks if his ‘little lark’ is ‘twittering out there’, with Nora replying that ‘it is’ (1). The onomatopoeia of the lark “twittering” relates to the “chirping” of the songbird; by calling herself “it” paired with the alliteration of his infantilising language, Ibsen suggests that Nora has internalised this perspective and adopted it herself. However, in depicting Nora’s agreement with her husband’s name-calling, Ibsen is suggesting that she acknowledges her lower power status. When Nora tries to bargain with Torvald, she calls herself a “skylark” that “would chirp about in every room” (34). Nora employs the symbol of a bird to dehumanise herself to fulfil Torvald’s sense of superiority. Only by doing so is Nora able to achieve what she wants, emphasising her dependence on Torvald, while alluding to how women had to defer to men in order to survive. It also introduces Nora’s willingness to manipulate that marks the beginning of her growing independence, foreshadowing her developing authority as the play progresses. As she begins to reject these associations to birds, Torvald attempts to reassert his control by telling his “frightened little singing-bird” to “calm down” (64). Torvald tries to continue belittling her by suggesting she is afraid and therefore needs protection; the use of “little” reinforces her inferiority. The inclusion of bird-related imagery is therefore linked to Torvald’s attempts to degrade his wife; Nora’s growth from dependence to freedom directly corresponds with her attitudes towards these pet names. Ibsen therefore uses this infantalising language and her character’s responses to map her developing autonomy and rejection of societal expectations.

Money as a Symbol of Power and Independence

Money is utilised by Ibsen as a symbol for Nora’s attempts to acquire power over her husband and gain independence. Conflict arises between Nora and Torvald through the topic of borrowing money and whether she should care if she “owed money or not” (2), leading to the use of a simile by Torvald to state that it “is like a woman” to be unaware of financial matters, demeaning Nora’s judgement and intellectual abilities. The comparison of a debt to a woman suggests that women are shallow; in reality, women were not expected to take charge of financial matters and did not have the education to do more than look after the house. Hence, the portrayal of Torvald’s anger makes it clear that he believes himself superior to Nora due to his gender and the knowledge given to him by a patriarchal society to ensure female dependence on men. Subsequently, Nora becomes upset by Torvald’s aggression, leading to him feeling the need to placate her by giving her “money” (2). In using money as a symbol of power and happiness, Ibsen suggests that Torvald has control over Nora’s emotions due to his ownership of their finances. However, there is also the implication that Nora can emotionally manipulate her husband into giving into her wishes. When Torvald asks Nora what Christmas present she bought herself, she admits that she did not get anything and suggests that “he might give [her] money” instead so that she “will buy something with it” (3). Nora’s request symbolises her yearning to make decisions herself, reinforcing her developing independence. In addition, Nora also considers money as a present due to its symbolic representation of power and independence, something that she receives rarely; her first taste of this is when she “saved Torvald’s life” (10), by procuring a sum of “two hundred and fifty pounds” (11) without his knowledge. Money here symbolises Nora’s developing power status in the household as she discretely helps her husband financially. Furthermore, the act of procuring money without her husband’s knowledge propels not only her independence, but also her ability to make her husband dependent on her. The monetary value of their relationship is summarised in the fact that in their “eight years” (66) of marriage, they never as “husband and wife, have had a serious conversation” (66). The couple only have conversations about money usage within the safety of the traditional gendered dynamic of the time; it is only once Nora develops autonomy that the two can speak as equals. Through the symbol of money, Ibsen shows his protagonist’s attempts to gain independence financially, as a woman, wife, and parent, as well as detailing the changing relationship between the husband and wife once Torvald can no longer treat Nora as inferior.

Macaroons as a Symbol of Nora’s Rebellion

Ibsen utilises macaroons as a final symbol for Nora’s defiance against Torvald’s jurisdiction. Behind the perfect façade of Torvald and Nora’s relationship, he is very controlling towards his wife as he believes that she is not capable of making good decisions. Torvald bans Nora from eating macaroons as “he is afraid they will spoil [her] teeth” (16). This symbolism reveals Torvald controlling his wife’s body for fear of her appearing unattractive. Despite the overwhelming power Torvald has over Nora, in deciding to disobey him she takes a step to gaining freedom. The image of Nora as she “puts the bag of macaroons into her pocket and wipes her mouth” (2), symbolises her rebellion against Torvald from the very beginning. Similarly, the repetitive imperative onomatopoeia of “Hush! Hush! Hush!” (16), when Nora silences Dr Rank and Mrs Linde as Torvald is about to enter the room, reveals Nora’s elevation of independence through her deceit. Her demanding tone while ordering someone to do something, highlights her shift in power dynamics. This is similarly depicted when Nora offers Dr Rank “a macaroon” despite him questioning if they are “forbidden here” (16). The repeated symbol of macaroons reflects Torvald’s power over Nora to the extent that outsiders are aware of his superiority in his household. However, Nora continues to eat the macaroon and lies that Mrs Linde had given them to her, emphasising another step towards independence for her character. The use of “forbidden” reflects Torvald’s control, and considering Dr Rank’s romantic interest in Nora, her increasing independence is recapitulated by in her interactions with another man. As the play progresses, Nora is unable to convince Torvald of Krogstad’s cause, leading to Nora’s request for “a few macaroons” (49); her distracted mentality culminates in an act of disobedience in front of Torvald, emphasising his growing lack of power over his wife as she ignores his desires to not “be so wild and nervous” (49). The connotations of “wild” imply that Nora is something to be tamed, reflecting his perceived superiority over her; it also relates to animals, reiterating that she is inferior in his eyes by dehumanising Nora once again. This turning point in the play portrays Torvald’s attempt to reassert power but fails due to Nora’s increased rebellion in search for independence. Therefore, through Ibsen’s implementation of macaroons as a symbol, he evidences the shift in power dynamics between Nora and Torvald, and her developing autonomy.

Conclusion: The Evolution of Nora’s Character Through Symbolism

Ibsen incorporates references to birds, money and macaroons throughout the dialogue of the play in order to represent Nora’s power and independence, which signals the fluctuating power dynamics between the couple. A clear development in Nora’s characterisation can be seen through her interactions with these symbols; while initially she is accepting of the patriarchal power that they represent, by the conclusion of the play they come to reflect her independence from her husband and household.

Works Cited

1. Ibsen, H. A Doll’s House. Translated by Anonymous, New York: Dover, 1992.

This essay will develop a brief critic and analysis of the play ‘A Doll’s House’, written by the playwright Henrik Ibsen. Ibsen wrote this play when he was in Rome and Amalfi in 1879 and he published it the same year. The play can be seen as a modern tragedy, as it has an unhappy ending and revolves around complex, problematic and sorrowful issues.

Now, let us have an expeditious look at the plot’s background to try and understand better Ibsen’s choice when it comes to the characters. ‘A Doll’s House’ is set up in Norway’s late-nineteenth-century capitalist society, a place where reputation and social status were more important than anything else. In the play, the portrayal of family life is strongly influenced by the power distribution in the drama. Nora’s marriage is a game in which Helmer holds all the control, a master-slave relationship approved by society. She compares the situation to her relationship with her children at the end of the drama: ‘I have been your doll wife.’ She states that her children became nothing more than toys for her, and in effect, she became Helmer’s toy, which existed mainly for power and “performing tricks”. The unequal division of power in marriage shows the disparity of family life in the play’s culture.

If we have a close look at the opening stage directions, we can see that those are crucial to explain the characters’ context, time period and background d. The directions begin with ‘A pleasant room, tastefully but not expensively furnished.” Such directions reveal that the play takes place in a house that has a middle-class family, that is well taken care of, but the people living in the house are not very affluent. In the first scene, the playwright is extremely precise. Every little detail about the room is explained, ‘Near the window a round table with armchairs and a small sofa.’ Much of the play takes place in a single room, and any little information regarding that space is described right from the beginning. There are also stage directions which are aimed right at the characters. Comments like ‘smiling’ and ‘quickly’ often show the way the characters are supposed to behave. These stage directions also illustrate how to interpret the main characters. Nora is depicted as anxious and follower, and because of his stage directions, her husband plays a more dominant part in the story.

The writer presents us with a good amount of characters. Even though in many version of the play Torvald is written as the first character, the true protagonist of the play is, instead, his wife Nora. As inserted at the beginning of Act I, she seems to rejoice in the comforts her middle-class life enables her. She is pleased to have a lot of money and she has nothing to worry about. However, Nora does have a more resourceful part. Before the beginning of the events told in the play, Torvald had been sick and he had to fly to Italy to recover. The family didn’t have enough money, so Nora took out a loan by copying the signature of her deceased father, successfully committing fraud to save the life of her husband. This side of Nora surfaces completely as the play develops, as she eventually discovers that her marriage was founded on social norms and that she is more than a mere doll for people to enjoy at their leisure time.

As we have already said, Torvald Helmer is Nora’s husband and the recently promoted manager at the local joint-stock bank. He constantly spoils Nora, pretending to be in love with her, but he tends to put her down and sees her just like a pretty doll. He calls her names, indicating that he finds Nora to be endearing but not equivalent to him. Nora has never really told him how she has received the funds for her medical travel to Italy. If he realised, he should have lost his pride. Moreover, Torvald respects appearances and professional formality. When Nora eventually leaves him, he makes her notice how shameful it is for a wife to desert her husband and children. Overall, he has a simplistic understanding of the universe and is incapable of coping with life’s unpleasantness.

The other characters are Dr. Rank, who is a rich family friend who considers Nora like an educated human being, unlike Torvald; Kristine Linde, one of Nora’s friend, who is in town searching for a job after her husband’s death; Nils Krogstad, who is an employee at Torvald’s Bank; Anne Marie, namely Nora’s former nanny (and the only mother- person Nora ever knew); and the Helmer’s three children: Ivar, Bobby and Emmy.

The play presents various interesting themes. One of the main themes is, of course, marriage. Indeed, the play focuses on the cessation of a marriage that does not reach the expectations of a happy marriage (namely, a union of equal people). The Helmers seem happy at first, yet the gap between them is growing more and more evident throughout the course of the play. Their union ends up falling down because of a total lack of comprehension. Nora and Torvald, together in wedlock, are unwilling to understand who they are as individuals.

Another very important theme is reputation. In fact, the men in A Doll’s House are obsessed with their reputations. Some have a strong reputation in their communities and will do anything it takes to maintain that; some others have damaged their good image and will do whatever it takes to have it back. While the play is set in a private residence’s living space, the public eye continuously peeks through the curtains.

Lies and deceit are also a crucial point. The basic suspense that flows across A Doll’s House derives from Nora’s apprehension of revealing her lie. Her utter horror of this revelation drives her to lie after lie. When she eventually tightens her network of lies around her, her marriage becomes too fragile to withstand the pressure.

Strictly connected to it is the theme of the importance of money, as every lie is told because of the loan Nora took out. But money is not only important because of that. Early in the play, in fact, the characters spend a lot of time worrying about their money, and the financial state of each character appears to be a defining characteristic.

Introduction to Ibsen’s Critique of Gender Roles

Henrik Ibsen, a prominent Norwegian playwright, is proclaimed to be the “Father of Modern Drama” for writing plays that exposed and challenged the social ideologies within the nineteenth-century Norwegian society through the illustration of everyday life. His naturalistic play, A Doll’s House, written in 1879, is no exception. Through his central characters and their function, Ibsen criticises the traditional gender roles both men and women are confronted with, in a society more concerned with propriety and reputation than human connections. Set in a comfortably furnished, middle-class household, the play revolves around the protagonist Nora, who represents the conventional middle-class wife, her breadwinner husband Torvald, and Nora’s childhood best-friend Christine Linde, who symbolises the subservient role held by women in their families. Through these characters and their function, as well as through Nora’s development from a naïve “doll” to an independent, liberated woman, Ibsen teaches the importance of self-liberation; of thinking “things out for [oneself]” and trying “to find [one’s] own answer” to participate in society in a meaningful manner, rather than accepting the roles set in place for oneself by tradition.

Nora: The Embodiment of the Traditional Bourgeois Wife

Ibsen deplores the entrapment of women in nineteenth-century Norway through the protagonist, Nora, who represents the traditional, bourgeoise wife. Initially, Ibsen depicts Nora as frivolous, irrational, and naïve. When she asks Torvald for money, her pleading tone “Can’t we? Just a little bit?” implies cajoling, echoing how a young child begs for a larger allowance. After having her request denied, Nora begins “sulking”, indicating her immaturity to deal with the issue appropriately as a responsible adult would. Torvald “taking out his purse” suggests his approval of Nora’s childishness and his infantilisation of her by treating her like an errant child. Ibsen implies Torvald’s ownership of Nora through his nicknames: “my squirrel … my little skylark … my little songbird”. The possessive “my” implies that Nora is Torvald’s property, and, in conjunction, with a noun that denotes an innocent, caged animal, Ibsen suggests that Nora is the pretty, entrapped creature that Torvald compares her to; reliant on her husband to survive. However, when Nora confesses “Nora isn’t as silly as you think”, Ibsen suggests she is merely playing her role as the traditionally frivolous, submissive wife. In a desperate attempt to keep Krogstad at the bank, Nora’s wheedling “suppose your little squirrel were to ask you ever so nicely” implies that she must reduce herself and emphasise her helplessness for him to even consider helping her. As Nora is unable to get what she wants without playing the role of the incapable wife, Ibsen criticises the entrapment of Nora and the bourgeoise wives she represents.

Torvald: The Pressure of the Male Breadwinner Role

Ibsen exposes the societal pressure on men to fulfil their traditional role as the breadwinner of the family through the character of Torvald. Nora’s confession “[Torvald’s] so proud of being a man … it’d completely wreck our relationship” implies that not only does Torvald feel he must solely provide for his family, but any help from Nora will cause him to feel threatened as it endangers his pride and masculinity. The verb “wreck” further suggests the fragility of their marriage which is fundamentally based on traditional gender roles in which the man must wholly support his wife. Moreover, through Torvald’s confession “if the rumour got about that [I] had allowed [my] wife to persuade [me]… I’d soon feel the consequences” Ibsen suggests the social mores embedded in the nineteenth-century Norwegian society; for a man’s authority and masculinity to remain unassailable, men must make all important decisions completely independently. When Nora’s borrowing is revealed, Torvald’s first thoughts are for his reputation: “I am condemned to humiliation and ruin simply for the weakness of a woman” which implies that Torvald is only concerned with how society will react to his family’s shame and, therefore, cannot appreciate the sacrifice Nora has made for him. Ibsen utilises Torvald’s dialogue “no man can be expected to sacrifice his honour” and Nora’s response “millions of women have done it” to suggest the deep-rooted traditional gender roles embedded in his society: that men must remain honourable and strong whilst women must act in deference to the male figures in their lives. Ibsen creates a moment of pathos for Torvald when he asks, “Did you expect me to drag you into all my worries?”. This implies that perhaps Torvald has been misguided in his view that, as a male, he must solely take on the responsibility of the household, which suggests, like Nora, Torvald is a victim of his social role. Thus, through the character of Torvald, Ibsen reveals the pressures on men to conform to their traditional gender roles.

Christine Linde: The Plight of Working-Class Women

Ibsen utilises the character of Christine Linde to censure the restrictions of working-class women within their subservient role. Upon reuniting with Nora, Christine is told that she looks “paler … [and] thinner” to which Christine responds with “And … Much, much older”, despite only being “a bit older” than Nora; implying that over the years Christine has tired and withered from the adversities of “trying to make ends meet, somehow”. While Nora has had a comfortable life with her husband, Christine gave up her poor love, Krogstad, and resorted to a loveless marriage to support her “helpless and bedridden” mother and her “two little brothers”, suggesting the only viable option for young women to provide for their families is to marry wealthy. As a widow, Mrs. Linde confides “one has to be continually sponging for jobs. One has to live” which implies the hardships of gaining financial security to survive, especially as a woman without a husband. In a conversation between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde, Ibsen employs Mrs. Linde’s dialogue “I had no choice” as an emblem for the limited options available to women in the era, implying that women either had to marry or work incredibly hard for financial security and even sacrifice their dreams. Hence, Ibsen utilises the character of Mrs. Linde and her plight to condemn the sacrifices and constraints of working-class women, in nineteenth-century Norway.

Symbolism and Nora’s Journey to Self-Liberation

Through the use of symbolism and Nora’s character development, Ibsen aids his central message of the importance of self-liberation from traditional gender roles. Whilst Nora is initially portrayed as a submissive, obedient wife, the macaroons symbolise Nora’s insubordination and her inner passions. When Torvald accuses Nora of indulging in macaroons, she responds with “No, Torvald – I promise … I could never act against your wishes” even though she has just concealed the “bag containing macaroons”. Ibsen creates dramatic irony through this act of defiance to imply that Nora is not as innocent or foolish as her gender role presumes. After eating the forbidden macaroons once more, Nora comments that she feels “really, really happy”, suggesting that Nora takes great pleasure in succumbing to her desires, deserting the compliance that is expected of her as a wife, and acting independently of her husband’s wishes. Similarly, through the symbol of the loan, Ibsen presents an element of independence and responsibility that lies within Nora. To pay off the loan, Nora has had to “stint” herself and find “one or two other sources of income” because “it was [her] problem” to resolve. This indicates Nora’s maturity to take responsibility for her own actions as well as her ability to earn money independently of a man. Not only does Nora manage to pay off the loan, despite the adversities of earning money as a woman, but her confession “it was great fun … sitting there working and earning money” implies that she enjoys financial independence which is a stark contrast from the infantilised child at the outset of the play. Even though the symbols of the loan and macaroons indicate Nora’s desire for liberation before the climax of the play, it is not until the end of Act Three when Nora’s romantic illusion of her marriage is shattered that she realises she must leave her family to “think things out for [herself] and find [her] own answer”. It is this realisation that completes her metamorphosis from the cosseted child to a fully matured being. Hence, Ibsen utilises symbolism as well as Nora’s character development to reinforce the necessity of self-exploration.

Conclusion: Challenging Gender Norms and the Quest for Individuality

Through the use and function of his main characters, Ibsen challenges the traditional gender roles embedded within his nineteenth-century Norwegian society in A Doll’s House. Whilst A Doll’s House is ostensibly considered to be a feminist play, Ibsen’s objective was not to fuel the feminist movement, but to provide a realistic “description of humanity” where both sexes are confronted with oppressive, traditional gender roles. Ibsen does not criticise the duties of motherhood or marriage, but rather, through his characters, he shows that for one to be truly successful and participate meaningfully in society, they must first reject their social roles to learn to be an independent individual.

Bibliography

1. Kennedy, Bobby. “The Father of Modern Drama.” Writers Theatre, 2 Jan. 2014, www.writerstheatre.org/blog/father-modern-drama/. Accessed 2 May 2020.
2. Templeton, Joan. “The Doll House Backlash: Criticism, Feminism, and Ibsen.” Pmla, vol. 104, no. 1, 1989, p. 28., doi:10.2307/462329.
3. Archer, William. Introduction to The Collected Works of Henrik Ibsen, edited and translated by Archer. Scribner, 1906-1912.
4. Barillaro, Angie. Literature Guides & Worksheets for Teachers–A Doll’s House. Radiant Heart Publishing, 2011.
5. Durbach, Errol. A Doll’s House: Ibsen’s Myth of Transformation, Twayne Masterworks Studies. Twayne Publishers, 1991.
6. Finney, Gail. ‘Ibsen and Feminism,’ in The Cambridge Companion to Ibsen, edited by James McFarlane. Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 89-105.
7. Franc, Miriam Alice. Ibsen in England. The Four Seas Co., 1919, pp. 131-33.
8. Goodman, Walter. Review of A Doll’s House, The New York Times, May 14, 1986.
9. Hemmer, Bjorn. ‘Ibsen and the Realistic Problem Drama,’ in The Cambridge Companion to Ibsen, edited by James McFarlane. Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 68-88.
10. LitCharts. “A Doll’s House Study Guide from LitCharts.” LitCharts, 2013, www.litcharts.com/lit/a-doll-s-house. Accessed 11 Mar. 2020.

The play A Doll’s Home, by Henrik Ibsen, offers an investigate of the shallow marriage between Nora and Torvald Helmer. Written in 1879, the play depicts the issues which result after Nora subtly and wrongfully applies for a line of credit from a nearby bank so as to spare Torvald’s life. All through the play, the fragile connection among Nora and Torvald depends to a great extent upon the authorization of traditional sex jobs. For instance, Torvald fills the role of the manly legend, vowing consistently to shield his powerless spouse from damage, while Nora plays the compliant spouse who depends upon her significant other’s assessments as her own.

Through the exhibitions of these jobs, A Doll’s Home difficulties the conventional idea of sex, suggesting that sex isn’t the consequence of science however is rather a section one plays so as to satisfy the requests of society. At the time A Doll’s Home was composed, the male centric culture of the nineteenth century managed the social norms for the two people. Men were viewed as pioneers; they ran organizations and governments, settled on the significant choices, and filled in as the defenders of the more fragile individuals from society, the ladies and kids. All through the play, Torvald shows up to assume the qualities of conventional manliness. He is glad that he has been advanced to the leader of the bank, and he discovers fulfillment in filling the role of the defensive spouse, telling Nora, ‘When the genuine emergency comes, you won’t discover me ailing in quality or fearlessness. I am man enough to manage the weight for us both’ (565). Notwithstanding, upon closer assessment, one can see that Torvald’s manly character isn’t characteristic, yet rather a job which he plays in request to meet the desires for society.

Rather, his feeling of manliness comes basically from the safeguarding of certain social chains of command, which spot him in a place of intensity. This journey for power can be found in Torvald’s work at the bank. He admits to Nora that he is terminating Krogstad basically in light of the fact that Krogstad will not address him with deference. Torvald says, ‘We—well, we’re on Christian name terms. Also, the thoughtless bonehead makes no endeavor to cover it at the point when other individuals are available. Actually, he thinks it gives him the privilege to be natural with me. He shows off the entire time, with ‘Torvald this’ and ‘Torvald that’. . . On the off chance that he remained, he’d make my position heinous’ (564). As Langas clarifies, Torvald will not enlist Krogstad back ‘in light of the fact that he needs to affirm his position as a man’ (Langas 159). Society’s idea of manliness expects one to be fruitful in business, and Torvald must keep up control at the bank so as to keep up his manliness. Krogstad loses his employment since he is a danger to the conventional structure of intensity at the bank and in this manner a danger to Torvald’s own feeling of power and masculinity.

Torvald’s manliness is likewise inflexibly attached to his job as the patriarch of the Helmer family unit. In the principal half of the play, Torvald ceaselessly applies his control over Nora, precluding her to eat macaroons and putting down her with pet names, for example, ‘squirrel’ and ‘my little warbler’. He even alludes to Nora as his pet, saying, ‘The squanderbird’s a truly little animal, yet she overcomes a terrible part of cash. It’s inconceivable what a costly pet she is for a man to keep’ (561). While one could describe Torvald basically as an oppressive extremist, another view is that his evident misogyny mirrors his craving to fit in to the social build for manliness. Nora’s own conduct underpins Torvald’s masculine power. Moi expresses, ‘Helmer’s feeling of manliness relies upon Nora’s exhibitions of defenseless, innocent womanliness’ (Moi 264). That is, the more agreeable Nora acts, the more grounded Torvald feels. For instance, when Nora

admits to Torvald that she is in a difficult situation with Krogstad, he reacts, ‘Simply incline toward me. I will counsel you. I will manage you. I would not be a genuine man if your female vulnerability didn’t make you doubly appealing in my eyes’ (576). The delicate connection among Nora and Torvald is fabricated to a great extent upon the propagation of Torvald’s sentiments of intensity and manliness, what’s more, even Nora knows about this. When she discloses to Mrs. Linde why she would never tell Torvald that she had taken out the credit, Nora says, ‘What’s more—he’s so pleased with being a man—it’d be so agonizing and mortifying for him to realize that he owed anything to me. It’d totally wreck our relationship’ (565). Langas remarks, ‘Nora’s affirmation exhibits that she understands that marriage depends on a gendered progressive system that she, for the time being, acknowledges’ (Langasa 157). At last, obviously Torvald’s capacity to feel that he is in a place of intensity decides his exhibition of the manliness directed by nineteenth century society.

Nora’s womanliness is additionally molded by the requests of a man centric culture. At the time Ibsen was composing, the overseeing social code was the ‘Clique of Genuine Womanhood,’ as Welter calls it. The ‘clique’ endorsed certain benchmarks for satisfactory female conduct: ‘The characteristics of Genuine Womanhood, by which a lady made a decision about herself and was made a decision by her better half, her neighbors furthermore, society could be partitioned into four cardinal ethics—devotion, virtue, accommodation, and family life. Set up them all together and they spelled mother, little girl, sister, spouse—lady’ (Welter 152). All through the play, Nora persistently changes her character so as to please the individual she is with at the time, playing the tease around Dr. Rank or the tough ladies when she is with Krogstad. Nonetheless, the simplest job for her to play is that of the ‘genuine’ lady, the agreeable lady, which is seen most expressly in her association with Torvald. A few pundits accept that Nora has a marvelous arousing in the last demonstration and all of a sudden understands that her marriage has been ‘where neither of the accomplices is straightforward to the other’ (Orjasaeter 33). Be that as it may, it is my conviction that from the earliest starting point Nora perceives the ‘performative structure of personality’ (Langas 165) and endeavors to utilize her womanliness to apply her possess type of intensity in the male centric culture. From the get-go in the play, Nora admits to Mrs. Linde that she acts with a particular goal in mind since it diverts Torvald to see her ‘move and spruce up and play the trick’ (555).

This deliberate choice can be found in the manner that Nora regularly utilizes her subordinate situation to help Torvald’s own feeling of intensity, which thus enables her to control or divert him from the current circumstance. For example, when she attempts to persuade Torvald to enlist Mrs. Linde at the bank, she exploits his manly pride, saying, ‘Christine’s horrendously great at office work, and she’s frantic to go under some truly cunning man who can instruct her much more than she knows effectively’ (557). Afterward, when she is attempting to occupy Torvald from reprimanding Krogstad’s phony, she again transforms into the piece of the powerless spouse and argues, ‘You realize I confide in your taste more than anyone’s. I’m so on edge to look extremely delightful at the extravagant dress ball. Torvald, wouldn’t you be able to assist me with deciding what I will go as, and what sort of ensemble I should wear?’ (561). At long last, with a letter from Krogstad holding up in the post box, Nora utilizes the tarantella move to control her better half. She bids to his male personality, saying, ‘I can’t go anyplace without your assistance. I’ve totally overlooked everything. . . Help me, Torvald. Guarantee me you will?’ (569). Be that as it may, while Nora accepts that she is picking up power from these communications with Torvald, by persistently putting herself in a sub-par position, she both enables him to keep up his sentiments of manliness and sustains the male centric culture which initially gave such assurance to female subjection.

At the time of its release, A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen was both radical and influential with respect to both society and storytelling. Ibsen’s controversial work was often associated with gender politics, with it opening a dialogue on whether feminist ideals had a place in theatre. Because of this, my production of A Doll’s House aims to further highlight the effects of inequality within society through establishing connections between its effects on characters like Nora to similar occurrences in modern society. In this paper, I will discuss my vision of the lighting to be used in Act II and its significance to the play, specifically regarding the suffocating feeling Nora has along with the internal conflict developing. The purpose of these elements is to emphasize the inequalities between Krogstad and Nora, which is meant to connect the play to their views on society.

The first aspect of Act II that will be accentuated with lighting is the intense feeling of suffocation that comes with inequality. To communicate this, the entire set will quickly darken as Krogstad enters the scene, with a piercing white light shining over his head. Ideally, it should not leave a shadow. This is meant to give the audience a foreboding feel for the character. Conversely, Nora will have a softer appearance, with two lights on her, creating a Venn diagram effect on the ground. One light will be red and the other white. These are meant to represent worry and innocence respectively. As the situation deescalates, warm-colored lights will turn on, illuminating the doors and piano. This is meant to highlight Nora’s places of escape and comfort.

The use of lighting will also be important in the climax of the unfolding situation in Act II. Throughout the scene, a window will be visible in the background with a rainstorm increasing slowly in intensity, escalating as the scene does, with the climax of the storm being a lightning strike followed by heavy rain. This is meant to parallel the internal conflict, or storm, that is present. Towards the tail-end of the scene, bright and harsh lighting of the area will be apparent. This will be used to convey the significance of the scene while also revealing Nora’s realization that it will likely never be resolved.

In conclusion, this production of A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen is largely about the effects of inequality within society. The first aspect of Act II that will be enhanced with lighting is the feeling of suffocation that comes with inequality, with the second use of lighting meant as an accentuation of the significance and drama of the scene as well as Nora’s realization of the truth. By using lighting in creative ways to convey certain emotions or enhance the drama of a scene, I hope to bring a unique rendition of the play; a breath of fresh air.

The contemporary era was a period of change that discarde societal traditional values. Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House play symbolizes a revolution that is common in the current times. This was an era when the middle class positioned its footsteps ahead and designed the future for postmodern and modern society. Nora depicts a typical modernist by demonstrating her right of free will. Considering the customary values and how they have dwindled in contemporary societies, someone can realize the definition and essence of individuality in the seceding years. Torvalds takes the role of a traditionalist only to see Nora as a doll. He does not perceive Nora as an individual but sees her as his prize (Ibsen 60). Therefore, this paper provides a similar definition of individuality as Ibsen’s, and it discusses how individuality is applied to Nora Helmer in A Doll’s House and concludes that Nora is an individual not a conformist.

Individuality is a character or quality of a specific person that distinguishes them from other people. Ibsen defines individuality as a personal trait that distinguishes a particular person from other people (Ibsen 6). Hence, my definition compares to Ibsen’s definition of individuality because we realize that as the novel ends Nora makes a bold decision of establishing her identity as an individual, not as someone submissive whose identity lies in her husband’s status. Nora makes a valiant choice of abandoning her children and husband as this play ends, not because she wants to be free from a marriage, but to teach herself so that she could be independent and be able to institute personal individuality as well as developing an individualized sense (Ibsen 15). This shows Ibsen’s application of individuality in the play.

As the play commences, Nora is depicted as a submissive. Helmer occasionally tries to enforce his authority on Nora, and she has to conduct herself as his husband expects. Nora cannot consume anything she wants as well as use money at her will. She is supposed to behave as per the husband’s instructions (Sturman 19). Moreover, Nora’s husband treats her as a personal possession, therefore, Nora lacks independence. Even afore marriage, Nora is subjected to a husband who is more like a father. Nora is nothing more than a childbearing appliance restrained inside a four-walled house. The status of Nora’s husband is her source of personality (Borchmann, Daniel, and Tom Hanika 20). Nora possesses nothing to make her proud of as a person. The words Helmer uses such as skylark and squirrel while addressing Nora indicates how the husband perceives her (Ibsen 30-45). That shows she is nothing more than an object present exclusively to fulfill the husband’s desires. Several things are happening to her, but Nora can do nothing but to submit to the whims and dictates of her authoritarian partner. All these acts depict masculine individuality and dominance, not self-independence.

The loyal and dutiful traits Nora possesses, makes her falsify a signature to acquire cash to treat her husband. Although, she lends money without Helmer’s permission which will be unacceptable to the husband, she keeps it as a secret. The greatest turning point here is when Krogstad threatens to reveal the secret to the husband, and she feels uneasy. When Helmer realizes the issue, he does nothing to defend the wife. When Krogstad takes back the note, Trovald is an affectionate companion once again. Nora then recognizes the real traits of his husband and decides to quit the relationship which meant humiliation and suffering only. She then finds no reason in living with a person who continuously positions his status and dignifies himself above his care and love for his wife. Hence, Helmer’s pretenses are not hidden anymore from Nora (Ibsen 60-78). This depicts the real turning point to self-individuality where Nora realizes it is time to build her self-identity because the husband is just dignifying himself, yet she remains degraded.

The final and solemn conversation between Helmer and Nora in Act III of A Doll House portrays a reversal of roles and presentation of individuality explicitly. Here, Nora leads by compelling Helmer to see their marriage from an exclusively new angle. Nora’s argument of her stance discloses an instinctive acumen that made her conspire her harassment because this appeared as the simplest means to a relaxed individualized lifestyle. Having encountered the prickliest realities of moral, societal and spiritual puzzles that Helmer epitomizes, Nora’s love for her life and her energy come into the family (Ibsen 85). Thus, Nora decides not to love her husband anymore for he is not the Helmer, she assumed he was. Even though Helmer tries to convince her to stay, Nora does not believe in miracles anymore. She then hands back the wedding ring, their marriage symbol and leaves to go and claim complete independence. As the sound of a banged door vibrates, Nora escapes. She develops a rebellious character as the play ends, and this is precisely what Nora requires to assert her identity as well as be an individual (Ibsen 79-80). Hence, these events clearly clarify the true representation of individuality in the play A Doll House.

Nora is an individual because she walks out of a conformist life when she realizes that she can establish her identity by quitting her marriage. Nora’s choice to quit her partner doesn’t ascend from a requisite to find liberty, but it stems from the prerequisite to instituting her individuality. Because all along Nora was contingent upon the companion because she lacked first-hand awareness of the world and education. Nora then abandons her children and husband due to the feeling her duties are more significant than the mother and wife’s duties.

Works cited

1. Borchmann, Daniel, and Tom Hanika. ‘Individuality in social networks.’ Formal Concept Analysis of Social Networks. Springer, Cham, 2017. 19-40.
2. Ibsen, Henrik. “A Doll House.” Portable Literature. Ed. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell. 9th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2016. 881-940. Print.
3. Ibsen, Henrick. Four Great Plays of Henrik Ibsen: A Doll’s House, The Wild Duck, Hedda Gabler, The M. Simon and Schuster, 2016.
4. Sturman, Marianne. CliffsNotes on Ibsen’s Plays I: A Doll’s House & Hedda Gabler. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.