Category: A Doll’s House

Debates have been going over for years for A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen is one of the first feminist works in the 19th-century. Henrik Ibsen himself has been perceived as a social realist by some parts of the society due to referring and raising awareness to socially repressed women. However, the ideology of feminism is not necessarily only about defending women’s rights, the doctrine of this ideology is equality. This written assignment aims to discuss feminism as a theme in A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen.

A Doll’s House is a play in which the woman’s role in society is reconsidered through the relationship of Nora Helmer and her husband Torvald Helmer. Being able to say “I am here” as a woman and being able to draw a line on the past experiences in an era where the soul is trapped, where a person’s individuality is seen as a toy, requires an understanding beyond the time. In which means, Henrik Ibsen perceived the role of women in the play in a very different point of view compared to the society of the time. The play mainly focuses on the bourgeois morality under the influence of the religion along with the remnant of the bourgeois nuclear family’s feudal order, patriarchy. It is also a rebellion against the notion that a woman does not have a role or an identity other than being a wife and a mother. In the process of social modernization, the conflicts between the social institutions and an individual who is progressing both economically and intellectually are also present. This also examines the mistakes in the essence of the hierarchial order and the patriarchal family, which is present in the play.

The play was translated to numerous amount of languages, including Turkish. The Turkish translators of A Doll’s House, Jale Karabekir and Feride Eralp say that since the day that this play was written, it caused debates within both the feminist and socialist societies, and as a character of the play Nora became a symbol of women’s liberation movement. One of the reasons for the universality of this play was the questioning and criticism of the patriarchal system, along with the discussion of honour.

Ibsen’s A Doll’s House reflects the mirror relationship between theatre and the reality along with the transitivity, and the moral values in Torvald’s personality and Nora’s revolt. Therefore, he play could be considered as Henrik Ibsen’s first modernist play. The fact that the of the most significant social indicators of modernity being the emancipation and the individuation of women also supports this idea. However, feminism was not directly chosen as a theme. In a speech, Henrik Ibsen said that the play’s theme was not women’s rights, but rather “the need of every individual to find out the kind of person he or she really is and to strive to become that person.”. Nonetheless, he also uttered that he must disclaim the honour of having consciously worked for the women’s rights movement. Additionally, it should be kept in mind that the feminist ideology does not refer to the superiority of women, in fact, the ideology discusses humanism along with gender equality. Therefore, themes such as liberalism, humanism and realism can be observed within the play and included in the theme of feminism as well.

A Doll’s House starts with a scene where Nora is called as a squirrel by her husband Torvald, and she does not seem disturbed or offended about it. She seems in love with her husband’s money as she is asking for more and more, saying that she will go and shop gifts for Christmas and New Year. Her husband, Torvald, continues giving money to her. Nora seems satisfied with the money she gets, and she gets happier and happier as she gets more money.

There is an important metaphor in the play whose importance cannot be ignored, and this motif is slamming the door. Nora, who grew up under the control and the pressure of her father, then married Torvald who never treated her equally, slams the door. This is an allegory to a strong, independent and liberal woman, which was more commonly used in 20th and 21st-century literary contexts, and even within the lyrics of songs. Gloria Gaynor’s hit ‘I Will Survive’ is an example of this metaphor. (“Go on now, walk out the door…”).

Notwithstanding, another important factor within the theme of feminism in the play is the way terminology such as honour and dignity is perceived. Especially in conservative societies, or in an aristocratic atmosphere the importance of these terminologies cannot be underrated. As these words determine the moral values of the family due to their lifestyle, special attention was given to them. Particularly, the moral values of a family were usually determined by unmarried women’s virginities. However, this does not mean that this was the only way to measure honour; in fact, the women had to obey the male family members of their family. In the case of A Doll’s House, Nora was constantly under the pressure of her father. It is possible that her past experiences caused her to revolt because of this. The oppression towards women would cause some kind of reaction in the end, which is similar to the phrase in Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex: “All oppression creates a state of war. And this is no exception.”

Philosophical movements such as humanism, realism and libertarianism can be included or discussed with the concept ideology of feminism. In A Doll’s House and in many other plays of Henrik Ibsen, these philosophical movements are thoroughly used. Feminism is, in this case, is an extension of the usage of philosophical movements in the play. Once again, revolting against oppression raises awareness within the society, which is not common during the 19th-century’s Norway. It is possible to observe more frequently to see examples of women’s reactions to oppressions later in 20th and 21st-century literature and philosophy, such as in the works of Simone de Beauvoir, Hannah Arendt and Virginia Woolf. Moreover, it can be seen that the work had influenced the Norwegian society of the 19th-century to step out of social norms. To conclude, it cannot be proven that Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House is the source or the start of feminist ideology, however, it could be said that the play, in fact, did raise consciousness among the society.

Introduction

A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen is a 19th century Norwegian play with a lot of controversial parts to it. This means that historical context matters a lot when understanding the play. Social class, gender roles and status at the time of the play all change the understanding of how the play was received back when it was originally produced. From the interactive oral, I discovered that the context of the time period affects the audience and reception of the play more than I thought before. Something that was continuously brought up were the roles of men and women and classes in society. The historical context showed how Ibsen’s play deviated from the traditional type of play and went against the norms of society at the time. The use of gender roles and classes also explains the motivations of many characters throughout the play, especially Torvald’s.

Without the context, it would be difficult to understand Torvald’s motivations. We also discussed the topic of problem plays. From this discussion, we learnt that Ibsen’s play deviated because before A Doll’s House people were only exposed to light- hearted comedic plays. Ibsen changed this by creating a play that touched on societal problems. Some even say that Ibsen (created the form of drama) VAGUE with his play in the 1890s. This gives the play contextual importance, as it most likely shocked audiences and made them uncomfortable. The context of the time period really helps justify characters’ motivations and also helps provide insight into how an audience in the 19th century may have reacted to the play.

This led to discussion of the divide between the reaction of men and women to the play at the time. Since the play reflects a traditional household at the time, the audience will be able to take the messages and morals of the play and apply them to their own lives. This play could possibly have the audience revaluate their own marriages and the state of their households. Men and women will compare themselves to the characters of Nora and Torvald. There’s a chance that this play of a separation between Nora and Torvald could have led to couples who watched the play splitting up.

The masks of Nora in A Doll’s House

In A Doll’s House, by Henrik Ibsen, Nora is a very mysterious character. Nora initially is perceived by the audience as a middle-class housewife with two young children, but she has different masks all throughout the play, often acting in a different way around and in different people and scenarios. There are two compelling reasons as to why Nora has these masks that hide her true self, the first is the idea that she herself doesn’t know who she really is. Some would say that the play is a Bildüngsroman drama, which would mean Nora finds out who she is during the play and that is the reason for her masks. The more sinister reason is that these masks are simply a form of manipulation over the other characters and especially her husband, Torvald. Nora has two different main masks, the childlike one, and the more mature adult one.

Nora’s first mask is presented at the beginning of the play, and this is the role of a spend-thrift child-like woman who loves to spend money. First, she hides macaroons from Torvald (Ibsen 23). Macaroons have connotations of luxury and rarity, indicating that she’s spoilt. Also hiding macaroons portrays her as a child who’s done something wrong and who has to hide it from their parents, so they don’t get caught. Additionally, her husband, Torvald calls her patronizing names such as “squanderbird”, “little spendthrift”, “little songbird”, and also “little squirrel” (Ibsen 24-25). All of these names are small pest-like animals, and there is clear repetition of Torvald calling Nora “little”. The names that he uses all have common connotations of pet, insignificance, and also voiceless. The use of small animals as nicknames shows her insignificance, and how little choice she has. Additionally, these animals are small and harmless, and usually are kept in a cage as a pet. This shows her home and Torvald having the key as slightly more sinister, as it potentially implies that she’s trapped. Her home as the cage, and Torvald with the key. Another thing this shows is Torvald’s perception of her, that she’s a small animal that needs protection and help from him. This is ironic because in the play Nora is the one who saves Torvald, by borrowing money to take the trip that saves Torvald’s life. Thus, showing that this is a mask that Nora performs, that she is not truly child-like.

Moreover, we can also see Nora conform to Torvald’s condescending nicknames: “Hm. If you only knew how many expenses we larks and squirrels have” (Ibsen 26). This is said like a joke from Nora, but as we found out later in the play Nora does have expenses: she has to pay back the loan from Krogstad. Nora refers to herself as what Torvald is treating her like. This creates a sinister side of Nora, that she embraces the nicknames when she wants something from Torvald. In the above dialogue, it’s when she wants money from Torvald as a Christmas present. She tries to please to please him by agreeing with his nicknames in an attempt to get Torvald to do what she wants him to do. Eventually this becomes a recurring theme throughout the play, and it shows her manipulative side. How she uses the child-like mask to get what she wants from Torvald. The most evident is when Nora wants Helmer to let Krogstad keep his job at the bank. The dialogue: “If little squirrel asked you really prettily to grant her a wish”, “Squirrel would do lots of pretty tricks”, “Your little skylark would sing in every room” and “ I’d turn myself into a little fairy and dance for you” all show Nora’s willingness to conform to what Torvald wants or believes her to be in order to get what she wants (Ibsen 60-61). The masking of her personality by reducing herself to a squirrel is very manipulative. Ibsen wanted to make a play about the troubles of households and married couples and he captures the idea of manipulation that reflects badly on both Torvald and Nora. The audience are annoyed at Torvald for falling for Nora’s tricks and Nora for manipulating her husband instead of being honest.

Her childish persona is present in most scenes at the beginning of the play, and not just with Torvald. In the scene where she catches up with Mrs Linde, she rests her arms on Mrs Linde’s knee and is seen energetically jumping about and clapping during the conversation (Ibsen 32). Resting both her arms on Mrs Linde’s knee is imagery of a child who sits at the knee of the mother. This, along with her childlike energy, makes her seem very childlike, and this seems to be her natural self. Even when she plays with the children, she doesn’t appear like a mother with children to the audience, it’s more like a child with dolls to play with. She even refers to them as “lovely little baby dolls” (Ibsen 43). This also links with the title of the play; ‘A Doll’s House’ in that her children are to her dolls, just like she is to her husband, a doll.

Furthermore, the mask of a childish persona that Nora has for most of the play seems almost to be a façade when we get hints of what she is capable of. This echoes the tragedy genre and how she’s a tragic heroine; her masks are ultimately going to be uncovered. The first time we see a glimpse of Nora stripping away the mask is when she recounts to Mrs Linde how she managed to save her husband’s life (Ibsen 35-36). It comes as quite a surprise to Mrs Linde and by extension the audience that Nora managed to keep such a large secret from her husband and save his life. Nora’s secrets show that her true self is masked from Torvald, she only acts like a child around him and he couldn’t possibly imagine Nora being able to borrow money and keep it a secret from him. Also, when Nora and Krogstad converse, it’s very down to business and Nora acts like a different person when interacting with him. This is especially evident when comparing her when with Krogstad and with Torvald. “Oh, one has a little influence, you know.” is Nora acting like a responsible, influential adult (Ibsen 44). “I shall show you the door” is another time Nora acts assertive and commanding. In her exchanges with Krogstad she acts very different than with others, thus showing her mask when interacting with others (Ibsen 46). Her masks and secrets cause many problems and are the driving force of the plot. She doesn’t tell the truth: she lied to Krogstad and forged the signature, and then lied to her husband about where she got the money from. This intent by Nora to scheme and use a mask to conceal herself and to get what she wants ends badly when the truth comes out. As soon as Nora is shown to have secrets and masks, it foreshadows that these secrets are going to come out and she will be ‘unmasked’ by the end of the play. Mrs Linde sets it into effect when she says, “Helmer must know the truth”, signifying that she is tired of Nora’s deceit and masks (Ibsen 84). We can also see, that when Helmer uncovers the truth his mask also comes off and Nora sees him as he truly is for maybe the first time. Her fantasy of Torvald stepping in and saving her by taking the blame doesn’t happen, and this seems to trigger her ‘unmasking’. “Nora says “We have never exchanged a serious word on a serious subject.”, this line from Nora symbolizes that she’s always been child-like with Torvald and he has never seen her true self, just the mask of a child (Ibsen 97). Nora finally acts and says what she really wants to without her having to put on a show.

In conclusion, Nora has one stand-out mask, and that is the one concealing her more serious side and shows her to be childlike. She uses the mask during every interaction with Torvad. This means he never knows her more serious side and would never expect her to be able to lie and borrow money. This causes a rift between Torvald and Nora, and in the end leads to Nora leaving Torvald after she realizes that she’s had a mask on for their entire marriage. Ibsen structures the play to end without knowing whether or not Nora does well without Torvald and the element of risk shows that she is going her own way. The audience sympathize with Nora as many people know what it’s like to have to act like someone else inorder to fit in or please someone. In the end, the antagonist of the play isn’t Krogstad but rather the masks that Nora hides behind.

Works Cited

1. Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House and Other Plays. London, Penguin Books Ltd, 2016

Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, famously known as the father of modern drama, wrote the three- act play A Doll’s House in 1879. This was a time when gender roles were clearly defined and inequality between men and women in different matters was not uncommon. Both genders were expected to conform to the social norms and play their given roles in society, in reality the role of women was often self-sacrificial. The social conflict that oppressed women’s rights were often ignored. However, through the representation of women by the portrayal, actions, and dialogues of female characters in Ibsen’s realistic drama, he has successfully been able to express his criticism on society in nineteenth century Scandinavia, intending to raise questions and recognising that society needed to stop disregarding certain unsolved problems.

A Doll’s House portrays the protagonist Nora, who in the beginning of the play fulfils the role that society prescribed for women, that of dutiful mother and wife. Her role is confined to activities such as creating a comfortable home, meeting the needs of her family and singing and dancing prettily for her husband. Ibsen does not suggest that anything is inherently wrong with this, but he does point out the dangers of having individuals lives defined by society in a way that disregards their personal identity and journey. The dialogue and actions of the characters illustrate this. Torvald speaks for the majority whilst Nora answers obediently. He talks to her in a condescending manner and never consults her about important matters. He uses nicknames such as ‘’featherbrain’’, ’’my frightened little singing bird’’ 1 and ’’my poor, helpless, little darling”. 2 Nora cannot decide for herself how to feel, act nor think since Torvald does this for her, she says; ’’You have never understood me. A great wrong has been done to me, Torvald. First by papa, and then by you.’’ 3 Nora has little free will and Torvald believes she is incapable of decision-making: ‘’this feminine helplessness’’ and ’’Just lean on me. I shall counsel you. I shall guide you.’’ 4 Other examples are Nora secretly eating macaroons illustrating their relationship based on dishonesty, 5 or the Tarantella dance scene where Torvald is the one deciding how Nora should dance. He corrects her when she makes mistakes and instructs her to dance as he wishes, treating her as an ornament or trophy to augment his reputation. 6 As a whole, Ibsen has cleverly illustrated how society has programmed them both into their prescribed roles, the dominant provider husband and submissive homemaking wife.

However, we learn Nora opposes this by first of all sacrificing herself in borrowing money to save Torvald from his illness, something which was not legally permitted in the context of Ibsen’s time. Then secondly how Nora eventually decides to end her superficial marriage and leaves her children she undoubtedly loves when she decides to pursue her own identity. At the end of the play when her conformist husband Torvald finds out about the loan and forged signature to obtain that loan, she says: ‘’Does it occur to you that this is the first time we two, you and I, man and wife, have ever had a serious talk together?’’, 7 she continues; ‘’You have never loved me. You just thought it was fun to be in love with me.’’ 8 Nora tells Torvald: ‘’Now I look back on it, it’s as if I’ve been living here like a pauper, from hand to mouth. I performed tricks for you, and you gave me food and drink. But that was how you wanted it. You and papa have done me a great wrong. It’s your fault that I have done nothing with my life.’’,9 and ‘’Yes. You were perfectly right. I’m not fitted to educate them (her children). There’s something else I must do first. I must educate myself. And you can’t help me with that. It’s something I must do by myself. That’s why I’m leaving you.’’ 10 Nora realises that a duty equally ‘’sacred’’ as the duties towards her husband and children is ‘’My duty towards myself.’’, 11 she continues; ’’I believe that I am first and foremost a human being, like you – or anyway, that I must try to become one. I know most people think as you do, Torvald, and I know there’s something of the sort to be found in books. But I’m no longer prepared to accept what people say and what’s written in books. I must think things to for myself, and try to find my own answer.’’ 12

Nora, having risked everything to save her husbands life, realises towards the end of the play that she cannot sacrifice her own happiness by continuing to live with him when she doesn’t love him anymore. Her story illustrates the struggle to break away from the social norms of the late nineteenth century, upper-middle class and patriarchal Europe. She takes her own journey in search of self- actualisation, liberty, independence, individuality and, as the prominent Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw notes, ‘’self-respect and apprenticeship to life”. 13 Ibsen wishes his audience to contemplate on the prevailing social order and how many adhere to the conformist attitude, thereby causing themselves to be trapped in their given roles without having any true freedom or identity.

Henrick Ibsen’s “A Doll House” tells a story of women’s roles in society and their suppressed individuality in the 19th century. The author explores social convention in roles of woman and reflection upon relationships. Henrick Ibsen’s title “A Doll House” has a significant representation to convey Nora Helmer and her image. She is conceived as a subservient, easy to handle and under control by her husband Torvald. Nora is depicted as a lovely doll in a lovely house that Torvald takes care of and owns. Henrick Ibsen uses relationships, love and family, to show how women are treated unfairly and unequal throughout the play.

Henrick Ibsen portrays Nora as an obedient, affectionate and loving wife to Torvald Helmer. She has a childish manner and does not seem to mind Torvald’s belittling teasing comments, and references towards her. At some point in the story, Nora begins to realize that she is being treated unfairly by her husband because of these belittling comments. The story begins with Torvald’s comment to Nora ‘sky-lark twittering’ outside his office. This suggests their relationship is a father-childlike association. (Ford, 2004) Nora’s movements of fluttering and darting around the room and Torvald describes her state in the house and relationship. Nora returns home from Christmas shopping and is chastised playfully by Torvald. He greets her with juvenile animal nicknames and calls her a “spendthrift.” She is chastised about financial matters she does not understand because she is a woman. The statement made by Torvald is a trepidation on economic dependence of women and patriarchal society (Bhat, 2017). Torvald teases and tells her she is irresponsible with her money but gives her more than she asked for to please her and to see her reaction. Throughout the play, there are many instances where it is hinting at the fact that men like to have some sort of control over women. Nora lives in a house of rules presented by her husband. He asks her if she has made a detour and purchased macaroons for her sweet tooth. Nora denies the accusation and shows that she knows her husband’s wishes but breaks them when it suits her. Nora says “ I should not think of going against your wishes” yet hides secrets from her husband.

Ibsen introduced another character, Cristine Linde, whom is a woman who had given up many sacrifices to be able to survive. Kristine comes to visit Nora after not seeing her for almost ten years. Kristine talks more about being able to have what she needs because she has gone through enough hardships to know that she needs to do what she can to live. Meanwhile, Nora talks about abandoning her obligations such as taking care of her father to take a year in Italy. Here Ibsen is showing that Kristine has gone through hardships that have given her an unfair life. She talks about having to sacrifice to take care of her sick mother and two younger siblings. Kristine is given an unfair life while Nora describes living a life not worrying about such things. Nora tells Kristine that she needs to get away, she says, “you look tired out now. You had far better go away to some watering-place,” (Mays, 1985). Kristine then explains that she does not have a father to give her money, and Nora told her she had. Ibsen uses his relationship between Kristine and Nora to show that Nora is given all these opportunities but only because of the men in her life, she has gotten money from who Kristine assumes was her father and in the earlier part of the play from her husband, meanwhile in order to survive Kristine has had to but effort into making ends meet and giving up the man that she loved to marry another with money. This is when Nora reveals to Kristine her illegal loan that allowed them to go to Italy for a year, yet another childish thing that Nora has not had to sacrifice for yet. Kristine says, “ a wife cannot borrow without her husband’s consent,” (Mays, 1986) here the author is showing yet another instance where the woman is not supposed to make decisions without the approval of a man.

Ibsen relates Nora’s situation to Krogstad’s to show that women are treated unfairly by men. Nora tells Krogstad she has a tiny bit of influence on Torvald then contradicts herself by saying she has absolutely no influence. Krogstad sees it upon himself to use Nora to make sure he doesn’t lose his job at the bank by threatening her. It is after this conversation with Krogstad, that Nora tries to talk to Helmer about Krogstad keeping his job and quickly realizes that her situation is significantly more complicated than she originally thought. This show’s another limitation on how women are treated. Nora took out a loan in deception because she was not able to borrow the money herself because she is a woman (Ford, 2004). Nora’s associations with men shows her status of the issues that women faced during that time. This is around the time that Nora begins to realize the consequences of her actions and that she may have needed her husband’s permission after all in this man biased world she is living in. Helmer gets a letter from Krogstad telling him about the illegal loan that Nora had taken out and immediately is criticized for possibly ruining their lives. It is here that Nora has given up, she realizes that she has spent the past years of her marriage under the supervision of a man, that she was not allowed to survive on her own without her husband. Looking back on it she finds that this entire time she has spent not being able to make decisions on her own. Ibsen is showing through Nora that men are the decision makers when it comes to everything. During this time period women were treated as children like they could not do anything. Helmer is given another letter retracting everything that the previous letter states and immediately tries to forgive Nora, but it is far too late. Nora is now realizing that she wants to be able to be independent and not rely on a man. However, Nora isn’t ready to let go of the situation so easily. Nora tells Helmer that even with the marriage and the time they spent together, ended in neither of them really knowing each other. She tries to mention that they have never had a serious talk but Helmer continues to brush it off by saying, “what good would that ever do you?”(Mays, 2024). Women are constantly treated unfairly when it comes to making any sort of decision. During this time period, men were the decision makers for anything and everything.

Henrick Ibsen uses relationships to show that women are treated unfairly and unequally. Ibsen shows multiple times that Helmer never thinks of Nora as an equal and constantly looks down upon the things that she can possibly do. Kristine and Nora were on two different spectrums when it came to maturity but either way both of them were handed unfair plates on different color platters. Women for a long time were never allowed to make big decisions and sometimes they are still questioned whether or not they can. “A Doll’s House,” was written to show feminist values that in the end even if women are treated like dolls and taken care of every step of the way, eventually they will want to break out and be independent. The last action in the play is Nora slamming a door which alludes to the fact that this is a closing chapter in Nora’s life because when one door closes, another one opens.

Modern Drama- as it is known as despite the fact it is more than a century old came to be called so because it rejected traditionally accepted conventions. After the death of Shakespeare, neither Congreve, nor Sheridan or Goldsmith could restore drama to the pedestal that had been achieved by their predecessor. The Restoration and the Sentimental drama of the seventeenth and eighteenth century respectively, was clearly lacking in literary quality. But the late nineteenth century not only restored drama to its true place but also shifted focus from Romantic and historical themes to more domestic themes. Although the role of other writers in reviving drama in modern times cannot be denied, the name of Henrik Ibsen shines out. Ibsen provided an impetus to the realist movement. His plays dispensed with the characteristics of the well made plays and gave emphasis on the in depth study of the characters and ingeniously conceived plots.

Modern literature opposed the attitude adopted by the nineteenth century Victorians. Henrik Ibsen, by not conforming to the ideals of the nineteenth century, undertook a leap across what Joseph Wood Crutch calls “the chasm between Past and Future” (Krutch) and through his works like “A Doll’s House”, “Ghosts”, “Enemy of the People” and the like made a radical break from the past. His plays did away with the conventional mores of society that inhibited individual growth and ventured into territories considered best left unspoken.

The present paper strives to focus on “A Doll’s House” as a play that subtly scrutinizes the institutions of marriage, home and family, previously seen as sacred, inviolable and sacramental; a play, that seeks to redefine the role of woman; a play, that upholds that however bitter, truth must surface; and finally, a play, whose themes like all of Ibsen’s other plays is in Michael Meyer words “…the need of every individual to find out the kind of person he or she really is, and to strive to become that person.” (Meyer, Introduction. 19)

The play’s protagonist Nora Helmer lives in an illusionary world where she believes herself to be happy and proud, married to a man, on whom she is certain she can fall back on and who, if the need arises will risk his own life to save her. Sadly what follows in the course of the story stuns her and leads her into reassessing her relationship with her husband and determine her identity.

Women in the nineteenth century possessed no rights, could take no decisions and were completely subordinate to men. Mrs. Linde’s remark “A wife can’t borrow without her husband’s consent.” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House. 80) and “I think it was rash to do anything without telling him…” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House. 80) reaffirm this time and again. In the opening act, Nora appear as the conventional nineteenth century woman, unquestioning, accepting of the playful husband. She shows no sign of disapproval when Torvald playfully calls her a spendthrift and chides her. His comment “Just like a woman” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House. 5) draws no objections from her. He even talks disrespectfully of her father when he says, “Just like your father. Always on the look-out of money, wherever you can lay your hands on it;” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House. 7) She plays the role of a woman completely subservient to her husband, one who would “never dream of doing anything you didn’t want me to.” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House. 7)

Nora is childlike, immature, ready to do all for love without caring for consequences. Torvald on the other hand is stern, controlling, of the strong belief that “there’s always something inhibited, something unpleasant about a home built on credit and borrowed money.” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House. 5)

She forges her father’s signature in order to borrow money from Krogstad for the trip to Italy which eventually saves her husband’s life. Torvald is completely unaware of this dark secret of Nora which she successfully keeps away from him until the dreaded IOU lands in his hands. Their seemingly ideal world is thus thrown apart and they are forced to sit and face facts. What happens to be a legal offence to the eyes of the world is a source of pride and joy to her. Hers is a crime done in innocence, for love for a husband who fails to acknowledge and respect her intentions. She played her role well, both as a daughter and as a wife. But ironically, no one is there to rescue her when she needs help most. Her father is dead already and the husband she trusts more than her life is busy worrying about himself.

Ibsen points out in his notes that it is a male-dominated world where women are judged not from female standpoint but on the basis of laws designed by men. Krogstad clearly points out to Nora, “The law takes no account of motives.” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House. 31) It does not take into consideration Nora’s cry of defense “I did it for love…” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House. 31) or her childish accusation that the laws that do not take into account motives “must be very bad laws.” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House. 31) Torvald gives lie to his own words when he acts opposite to what he said in the beginning of the play “It’s the thought behind it that counts after all.” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House. 8)

Nora had waited for eight years for the miracle to happen in her life. That Torvald would take the blame on himself was her belief and dread. To save him from which she was ready to end her false claim that “I’ve enough strength and enough courage, believe me, for whatever happens. You’ll find I’m man enough to take everything on myself” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House. 46) and “You can rely on me.” (Ibsen, A Doll’s House. 61) aggravates the irony of the situation.

Norway’s Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, published in 1879, is a play about Nora Helmer, who has committed a crime of forgery to repair her husband to good health. As a dramatic play, A Doll’s House inspects the relationship between Torvald, her husband, and Nora, especially the limited social choices available to women and the roles and expectations placed on women by society as a whole. The central character being Nora is a protagonist and allows viewers to recognize the faults that are vital to humans and proposes that all character’s battle against their limitations and the accepted social order. The play is interpreted through a series of events where it offers various interpretations that provide more perceptive aspects of life. As well as critical conclusions of the audience’s ideas. This play interprets several critical perspectives, such as the existential, psychological and historical perspectives. This analysis focuses on two: the Marxist and Feminist perspectives.

Marxism is connected with theories that relate to the social and economic conditions known as capitalism, class struggle where the weak and the poor are exploited and the obsession of material possession being materialism. The relationships within the play are challenged through these conditions and that less-fortunate are always oppressed by the richer bourgeoisie. The characters are all affected by the lack of money and spend their entire lives and way of thinking based around it. Therefore, a Marxist theme portrays throughout the majority of the play.

Feminism can be related to the treatment of ‘the woman issue’ as Isben would state. Otherwise revolving around the objectification of women clearly identified between Nora and Torvalds’s relationship, while the key idea of how one is born, but becomes a woman, which can be applied to Nora as she yearns for recognition and lastly the concept of how Women as ‘Other’ is portrayed through Kristine and how she breaks the traditional stereotypical role between men and women

Marxist Perspective

Materialism

A Marxist reading of this text will provide ideas regarding materialism which shapes stages of history by the economic system. Nora has an outlook on life which is predominantly made up of material wealth and financial conditions. Nora has come to terms that with Torvalds’s raise that she now belongs to a higher class. The Christmas tree can symbolize Nora’s obsession with, money because she used to hand-make decorations and now with her newfound wealth, she believes that by doing the same would be ‘thinking poor’ in her mind. Therefore, she spends excessive amounts on presents and decorations because they can afford to ‘let themselves go for a bit’. Although Torvalds’s rise has not been implemented yet, she insists that till then they can ‘borrow until then’ when previously she and Torvald would save every penny they acquired to just get by.

Class Struggle

The characterization of Nora may also demonstrate class struggle in a capitalist society as she becomes more selfish and claims that if something were to happen to Torvald after they had borrowed money, ‘It just wouldn’t matter’ because the people they borrowed from were strangers. Now that they belong to a higher social class, her responsibility has diminished and she only cares for her interest. She doesn’t care about what may happen to these ‘strangers’ she has borrowed from but only on what she can extract from them. She brags to Kristine about her husband’s new job and claims how it makes her feel ‘so light and happy’ because they ‘have stacks of money and not a care in the world’. A clear indication of two different classes is where Kristine answers that it would be nice ‘to have enough for the necessitates’ whereas Nora associates’ freedom with wealth, saying that money is the only way she can be happy. Nora’s entire outlook on life changes with a change in her economic conditions, demonstrating the Marxist belief that people’s thoughts are a product of their financial situations.

Alienation

Alienation is illustrated throughout the play through social expectation, pressures and social views which are constantly the way that people think. It affects the way people think and how they act. After Nora saves Torvalds’s life, he cares more about his honor and about what others think about him than his own life. He is obsessed with keeping up to societal views and expectations. When he finds out that Nora borrowed money from Krogstad with a forged signature, his ‘love’ for her is completely erased, and he says she’s ‘ruined all his happiness’. He believes that ‘it’s got to seem like everything is the same between us-to the outside world, at least’ and he only worries about the appearance of his reputation. Once Krogstad reveals that he won’t tell anyone about it, Torvald realizes he won’t lose his honor and conveniently falls back in love with Nora. Nora realizes that he would rather sacrifice her rather than his honor when she would do the exact opposite for him. Their relationship is ruined because he continues to believe in money and social status as the source of happiness, while Nora comes to realize that money is not that important.

Feminist Perspective

Objectification

Objectification is the inability of the patriarchy to apprehend femineity where their power is challenged. Nora is depicted until the end of the very play as a helpless fool who wastes the money that her husband has worked hard for. She is nothing but a toy to Torvald which comes with the burden and responsibility of taking care of her. Her helplessness was somewhat attractive to Torvald because he demanded to be in control. When he ‘forgives her’, he says that ‘to a man, there is something sweet and satisfying in forgiving his wife,’ as he believes that his forgiveness has given him more possession of Nora as he has given her another chance at a new life with him. She becomes an object to him, designed to give life while considering his pleasure.

Throughout the first scene, Nora is never referred to like her name, she is instead given pet names such as ‘squirrel’ and ‘featherhead’. By stating the word ‘little’ before turning the pet names into more insulting ones. Somehow making her existence based on the nicknames she is given. When she is called his ‘squirrel’: she is perceived as an innocent, obedient, childish woman which relies dependently on him. Contrastingly when he addresses her by her name, her behavior has severely changed, she becomes more serious, determined and wilful. All of it is a role that Nora has been taught to play by society, the behavior expected of all women of the time.

One is Born, but Becomes a Woman

Further to this idea, one is a born, but becomes a woman is an idea which expresses that women rely on men for self-definition. The role previously discussed prior was mere a mask, one that Nora would not be able to live within the end as Torvald views her as a doll, not as an individual but as his prize. On the outside she is entirely obedient to her husband: but on the inside, she desires recognition and love from Torvald which is not necessarily being reciprocated. She expects to be happy with her life, even when it was not in any way fair or equal. When she expresses that she had hoped Torvald would have taken the blame for her crimes, Torvald exclaims that ‘no man would ever forsake his honor for the one he loves,’ and Nora replies that ‘millions of women have done just that’. He breaks down Nora’s identity bit by bit since very early on in the play where he does not take anything Nora says seriously and when she can take no longer she decides that she is unable to function as a doll anymore where they are controlled and are not in control of themselves, if anything else, Nora seeks to find what it means to be self-reliant. Obedience is the main factor that defined women as it was what differentiated them from men. When Nora decides to leave, Torvald announces that she is insane, because her ‘most sacred duties were to her husband and her children,’ and ‘before all else, she was a wife and mother’. Therefore, by leaving, she denies the purpose of her existence as women had no other role or function in society.

Women as ‘Other’

Kristine, however, is a clear contradiction of a position where women in a patriarchal society as being the ‘other of men’. When her father died, she was forced to marry a man who she didn’t love to provide for her mother and younger brothers, being seen as an object sold off for money. This may be because she was unable to get a job at this point so her last option was marriage. After her husband had died, she told Nora that ‘I feel my life unspeakably empty. No one to live for anymore’. Her entire life up until this point has been revolved around men. Her purpose in existence was to please her husband and take care of her brothers. When that was no longer necessary, her life lost meaning and she becomes independent by looking for a job to provide for herself which breaks the social structure of society in this period. When she is given a job by Torvald, he perceives it as an invitation to control her even outside of the office. He tells her that ‘you really ought to embroider, it’s much more becoming. Let me show you…in the case of knitting, that can never be anything but ungraceful’. He suggests for her to do something that is more traditionally women’s work and thinks that it becomes his duty to correct no only his wife but any woman that he sees doing something ‘wrong’ or ‘other’ then what she should be.

Both the 1879 patriarchal play ‘A Doll’s House’ directed by Henrik Ibsen and Emma Donoghue’s 2010 modern novel ‘Room’, challenge audiences to confront the conflict between submitting to isolation and finding freedom in oneself. Ibsen and Donoghue focus on protagonists whose desires extend further than their current circumstance. Ibsen challenges readers to examine the importance of freedom, using techniques in his play to oversee the social isolation of Nora, evoking sympathy for the hardships she endures while striving for freedom. Donoghue conversely, through techniques of a novel text, incorporates the view of Jack, a child who makes readers express sympathy for his beliefs and desire to remain in captivity. Essentially, both texts explore characters who struggle for freedom but discover that freedom is a challenge.

Both authors examine the environmental isolation which threatens happiness, using a range of techniques to allow characters to combat this isolation with distraction. In A Doll’s House, Ibsen uses repetition of nicknames and childish behaviours of Nora to show that, under the control of Torvald, she must uphold her compliance to her lifestyle. When interacting with Torvald, she acts ‘playfully’, leading Torvald to call her pet names such as ‘squirrel’ or ‘little songbird’, whereas all other character dialogue sees Nora with reason and maturity. Ibsen uses this repetition to suggest that Nora when acting in her relationship, must create cheerful conversation to deal with her lack of self-freedom. Donoghue similarly uses irony, which Ma creates for herself and Jack to believe they are living happily, throughout the novel. ‘Sundaytreat’ given by Ma and Jack’s captor, Old Nick, carries positive connotations but is seen in a light which demonstrates their isolation. This implicit ‘treat’ Donoghue created, suggests that Ma wants to give Jack the joy of receiving gifts and allow Jack to believe Old Nick is generous, to disguise their isolation. Together, Ibsen and Donoghue suggest people will distract themselves and create positive aspects of their environment to handle their separation and in doing so, suffer the consequences. Throughout the play, Ibsen upholds the irony of the title ‘A Doll’s House’ using setting and stage direction when Nora and Torvald invite friends over for dinner or discussion. It is made evident that this setting is a form of her isolation in Act Three when Nora points out she was never happy living ‘as if…in a Wendy house’ and never felt like a ‘proper wife’. It can be inferred from Ibsen’s simile and dialogue, that Nora’s environment could only take away her happiness and sense of self. Contrastingly, Jack never knew life outside his environment, meaning he believed he lived freely. Donoghue uses irony in Jack’s desire to go back ‘to bed…in Room’, demonstrating the comfort he had while growing up in confinement. The setting of Room allows audiences to express sympathy for Jack’s limited understanding of the world and his circumstance. Donoghue – through the use of a novel text – is also able to use Jack’s first-person narrative perspective to show the persistent effects of isolation on Jack’s social capabilities as he does not understand the ‘scary’ world and its social normalities. Differently, Ibsen’s scripted text does not highlight Nora’s physical state but more so describes the effects of isolation in her social interaction. Ultimately, both authors construct physical boundaries which create mental isolation and in doing so, force the characters into behaviours deemed harmful.

A Doll’s House and Room explore ideas about the importance of liberty and how one’s freedom defines their future. Both Nora and Jack take measures to find freedom, shown through pursuing new experiences and in doing so, breaking free of their past. In A Doll’s House, Ibsen uses the symbolism of Nora’s ‘nibbling’ on macaroons, ‘forbidden’ by Torvald. This action of ‘hidden’ defiance against the rules demonstrates Nora’s fight for rebellion and freedom from her straining relationship. Ibsen suggests that this repetitive manner also foreshadows her further acts of finding freedom. While Ibsen constantly highlights small acts of freedom, Donoghue emphasises the physical freedom Jack experiences all at once as he follows through with Ma’s escape plan. This underscore is made with the narrative perspective of Jack, unlike Ibsen’s scripted dialogue. Donoghue uses imagery which Jack expresses while being outside for the first time, taking in the light and ‘the air so strange [which] smells like apples’ before jumping from Old Nick’s truck, creating hope for readers. This act of breaking free implies that freedom is crucial as it defines Jack’s future which allows him to experience new objects such as ‘shoes’ and ‘bees’. Both Ibsen and Donoghue use these techniques to emphasise the social and physical freedom that both Nora and Jack pursue. This highlights that liberty cannot be obtained purely on desire, but on acting upon belief. Ibsen uses character development of Nora to dramatically demonstrate her final act of finding freedom as she divorces Torvald and leaves her family as she cannot stand living the way she did. Ibsen presents this development from Act One to Act Three as she is progressively provoked by her isolation of deceit, changing her appearance from compliant and childish to manic and eventually strong-willed. This rejection of an oppressive role of a wife implies that only freedom could bring Nora true happiness, whereas Donoghue suggests the liberty of a child is of utmost importance. Repetition is used in Room to enhance the audience’s emotions and fear for Jack as he escapes, demonstrating the importance of freeing himself. While in the truck, Jack ‘stay[s] stiff stiff stiff’ to avoid being caught and is ‘running running running’ to find help, making readers imagine the escape and sympathise with him. Through this, Donoghue places importance in finding an opportunity to take liberty. Through these acts of rebellion against situation, both characters differently break free of isolation. Ibsen and Donoghue highlight the effects of restriction and furthermore the significance of acting upon the desire for freedom.

Ibsen and Donoghue explore the struggle of truth, constructing the idea that freedom and independence is not exclusively the key to happiness. The motif of letters is used by Ibsen to demonstrate the reveal of lies and therefore, the loss of control Nora has over her relationship with Torvald. The letters of Nora’s forgery and payment lead to her diminished fairy-tale ending, as she comes to terms with the truth. From this, Ibsen presents the message that struggle follows accepting the truth, allowing readers to feel sympathy for Nora’s position. Likewise, Donoghue causes her readers to feel sad for Jack’s misinterpretation of the world which Ma had to create for him. Donoghue uses the TV in Room as an allusion to Plato’s Cave Theory as Ma attempts to protect Jack’s ideas of reality. Jack’s ‘shouting’ in response to being told about ‘real things’ outside suggests he has apathy for real happiness and does not want to leave the comfort of Room, in contrast to Nora’s desire to leave her home and old ideals. Both authors use literary techniques to display the struggle characters face in coming to terms with the truth, even though it sets them free. It is argued that with facing freedom, comes the difficulty of dealing with deception. Ibsen uses Nora’s inner dialogue to express the impact of breaking off from her role and losing control over her family. Nora starts to become scattered at the thought of Torvald discovering her disloyalty, whimpering about seeing ‘The children…never again’, which brings about sadness for Nora’s state of mind after she frees herself of her lies, although difficult for her to face. It is proposed that finding one’s sense of self and breaking free of old habits is full of struggle, similar to Donoghue’s presentation of how Ma and Jack handle their new lives. Likewise to Jack’s desire to return to the haunting Room, Donoghue creates irony in Ma’s suicide attempt while in hospital, to contrast the freedom she and Jack now live in. This technique, along with the plot which predominantly explores life for Ma and Jack post-escape reveals the struggles after finding freedom. Although the characters in A Doll’s House and Room break routine and are forced to come to terms with the truth, both texts’ characters differently explore the struggles of freedom. Nora’s freedom is viewed positively, whereas Ma and Jack’s new-found freedom is defined as traumatic. Ultimately, the finding of freedom and uncovering of truth Nora and Ma and Jack experience warns the audience of the consequences associated when being thrown into a harsh reality.

Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House and Emma Donoghue’s Room explore the harms of physical, mental and social isolation placed on them due to authoritative figures. They both suggest that environmental separation can control and ultimately ruin one’s state of mind and sense of self, limiting opportunities and happiness, similarly using techniques of symbolism, irony, repetition and more within their personal prisons to evoke sympathy for the suffering leads. Using different text types, Nora’s freedom is seen as positive, whereas Ma and Jack’s freedom is traumatic. Essentially, both Ibsen and Donoghue suggest that although finding freedom sets one free, freedom will come challenging and can consume oneself.

To confine is to keep or restrict someone or something within certain limits. Confines are defined as borders or boundaries of a place, especially with regard to their restricting freedom. Freedom is defined as the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. In “A Doll House by Henrick Ibsen and “Trifles” by Susan Glaspell it is determined that confines and freedoms can be those of a home, one’s self, and/or of marriage. Trifles is written of an abused Mrs. Wright being held for murder of her husband as the sheriff and his wife, the county attorney, and neighbor Mr. Hale and his wife are present in the Wright’s home to find evidence and motive. A Doll House tells of Torvold and Nora, a husband and wife institutionalized in marriage and following the expected domestic roles therein and one resorting to deceit to find certain power and pleasure in forbidden measures. Both women seek the ultimate freedom from certain confines.

In Trifles, when the two women (Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters) are speaking of the Wright’s home,

“MRS. HALE: […] I’ve never liked this place. Maybe because it’s down in a hollow and you don’t see the road.” (Glaspell 1155).

This prison-like description gives the image of this gloomy home almost being confined itself and surrounded by walls. Even though Mrs. Wright was not an actual prisoner, one can see how she could certainly feel like one in this place. Similarly, so, in A Doll House,

“NORA: […] Our home has been nothing but a play-room. I’ve been your doll-wife here, just as at home I was Papa’s doll-child.” (Ibsen 1654).

This statement paints a picture of the central metaphor of this work that Nora has been nothing but a toy in a toy house for much of her lifetime. The constraints of both homes have confined these women of the freedoms they desire but are a result of personally choosing to be there.

When Mr. Wright is dead, Mrs. Wright with her newfound freedom, chooses to stay in her rocking chair in the kitchen and does not flee the home. Mrs. Hale describes the young Mrs. Wright known as Minnie Foster of “dressing pretty,” and was “a lively town girl singing in the choir.” (Glaspell 1155). Even though Mr. Wright is known to be a hard man demanding quiet and solitude, Mrs. Wright is also known for not having any friends and keeping to herself. It is her husband, but also, she, who confined herself to her home out of sheer depression and lack of self-esteem. Likewise, Nora has chosen to flitter and scamper about her home and play the part per say. She strives to please the man of the home whether it be her father or her husband to keep her childlike personality and avoid growing up. For this, both women are held captive by their own shortcomings of self-worth. and accepting the restrictive roles of housewives in marriage.

Women of the late eighteenth, early nineteenth century were assumed in their marriages to be helpless, uneducated, and deemed unable to make certain choices for their tendencies to worry over silly things and make childlike decisions. However, women accepted these assumptions and restrictive roles of housewives in marriage and all too often they would lose their individuality in the marriage. Mrs. Wright divulged herself in the farmhouse life of baking bread, sewing quilts, and bottling preserves. Her apron became her identity.

“MRS. PETERS: She said she wanted an apron. Funny thing to want, for there isn’t much to get you dirty in jail, goodness knows. But I suppose just to make her feel more natural.” (Glaspell 1155).

She no longer sang because her husband didn’t approve. Also, Nora made sure to always appear to obey her husband’s wishes and passed on the act of the doll in the doll house by dressing the place and herself as he would like.

“NORA: Certainly, Torvald does understand how to make a house dainty and attractive.’ (Ibsen 1654).

Both women also sought freedom from these very constraints they put themselves in.

Mrs. Wright purchased a bird and Glaspell uses the irony of her keeping it in a cage. The prisoner herself imprisons something she loves. Even though her circumstances have silenced her voice, she finds pleasure in hearing the bird sing as she once did. It is her one escape from the silence of her home as she has no children, no friends, and no communication with her husband.

“MRS. HALE: [Her own feeling not interrupted.] If there’s been years and years of nothing, then a bird to sing to you, it would be awful—still, after the bird was still.” (Glaspell 1155). Likewise, Nora feels certain restrictions in her life such as not being able to have a job outside of the home and her husband forbidding her to eat sweets to avoid unnecessary dental bills. She in returns goes to certain lengths to gain a sense of freedom from these constraints. She borrows money, takes on odd jobs without her husband’s knowledge, and hides macaroons in her purse.

“NORA: Now, now, don’t be afraid. You couldn’t possibly know that Torvald had forbidden them. You see, he’s worried they’ll ruin my teeth. But hmp! Just this once!”. (Ibsen 1654) She had a passion to seek these freedoms, but they also ironically restrained her due to her having to lie and find ways to pay off the debt.

This paradox of confinement and freedom has continued throughout much of Mrs. Wright and Nora’s lives until each seeks complete emancipation following a transforming event. When Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters are looking for Mrs. Wrights sewing tools to keep her occupied in jail they come across her dead canary with it’s neck wrung.

“MRS. HALE: [With a slow look around her.] I wonder how it would seem never to have had any children around. [Pause.] No, Wright wouldn’t like the bird—a thing that sang. She used to sing. He killed that, too.” (Glaspell 1154)

When Nora’s secret of borrowing money behind Torvald’s back is finally revealed to him she, in her childlike naivety, is certain a miracle will take place, he will understand why she did it and protect her. Unfortunately, she is met with the harsh realization that her husband’s reputation far surpasses her importance in their marriage.

“TORVALD: The thing has to be hushed up at any cost. And as for you and me, it’s got to seem like everything between us is just as it was—to the outside world, that is. / From now on happiness doesn’t matter; all that matters is saving the bits and pieces, the appearance.” (Ibsen 1654)

In the end both women are rid themselves of their husband’s and lifestyles. Mrs. Wright murders Mr. Wright by wringing his neck in the same manner her beloved bird died, gaining confined freedom. Nora leaves Torvald and dismisses herself of any obligations to the home, leaving him to all responsibilities including the children to gain her individual freedom. It is Mr. Wright and Torvald who then are ironically in turn sentenced to ultimate confinement.

Works Cited

1. Amato, Paul R. “Tension between Institutional and Individual Views of Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, no. 4, 2004, pp. 959–965. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3600169.
2. Henrick Ibsen, “A Doll House”, (p.1654) Mays, Kelly J. The Norton Introduction to Literature, Shorter.. [Columbia College].
3. Marso, Lori Jo. “Freedom’s Poses.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 70, no. 4, 2017, pp. 720–727. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26384811.
4. Susan Glaspell, “Trifles”, (p.1155) Mays, Kelly J. The Norton Introduction to Literature, Shorter.. [Columbia College].

A Doll’s House is a play by Henrik Ibsen that revolves around issues of marriage and family. It talks about a middle-classed woman named Nora Helmer who is married to Torvalds. She took a bank loan illegally to save the life of her husband, Torvalds. Her husband is not aware of whether she has any pending bank loans to be paid. This paper will look at a summary of the drama, setting of the play, irony, main characters, historical context and symbolism in the play.

The play starts with Nora Helmer entering the house carrying packages for the family on Christmas Eve. Nora lives a lavish lifestyle and her husband is not happy because she overspends money on minor things. She gets a loan from Krogstad by faking his father’s signature. Her husband, Torvalds is not aware of the loan. She uses the loan to take his husband to Italy for medical purposes and she doesn’t tell him the source of his money (Yeasmin & Fahmeda p.335). Torvalds suspects that her wife took the money from her father, and Nora struggles with trying to repay the loan.

Later in the story, Torvalds is promoted to the position of a bank manager. His wife is happier because she hopes that her husband will help her in repaying the loan. Nora’s friend, whom she used to study with, visits them in town where she is looking for a job opportunity. Krogstad learns that he may be replaced in his job position by Miss Linde, Nora’s friend and so he approaches Nora to ask her to help him convince the husband not to replace him. If he fails to retain his position, Krogstad says that he will reveal Nora’s secret to her husband.

Later on, Torvalds sends a termination letter to Krogstad despite several attempts from his wife to convince him not to fire Krogstad. Doctor rank confesses his love for Nora because he is about to die. Krogstad changes his mind and tells Nora that he will not expose her to the public because she has not completed paying the loan but rather, he would send a letter to her husband directly telling him about the loan. Krogstad and Miss Linde reunite since they were lovers in the past and she promises to take care of him and his children. Nora goes to all lengths necessary to ensure that her husband does not read the letters which had been sent to him (Yeasmin & Fahmeda p.335). Torvalds expresses his love for her wife and therefore Nora is happy again and withdraws her thoughts to commit suicide. Torvalds finally ends up reading the letter and he accuses his wife of playing part in ruining his life. He plans to forsake her but eventually comes in carrying another letter that comes from Krogstad and it is addressed to Nora. Torvalds reads the letter out loud and it said that Krogstad wanted the two families to be united once more.

Torvalds is happy with the decision and forgives his wife for all the mistakes she had committed. Nora is not happy though and she tells her husband that she wants to live freely and then confesses to him that she does not love him anymore. She wants to move out and enjoy her own life where she will not be restricted to do anything. As the play ends, she tells her husband that one-day a miracle will happen and they will reunite again in new wedlock. The play takes place inside Torvalds and Nora’s house. The writer wants to shows us the reality of Nora who is not conversant in what happens in the world outside her house. She projects an image of herself that is only concerned about her home and family. The laws which govern the world don’t bother her because the only important thing to her is family. The audience can follow the plot through the dialogue between Nora and the other characters as she is the main focus in the play (Askarzadeh et.al p.101).

The setting for the play remains the same from the start of the play until the end. Symbolism is widely used in the writing of this play. It has hidden meanings that help us understand the story on a deeper level. Some of the scenarios where symbolism is evident include the following; a Christmas tree image in the doll’s house is used to symbolize that there is life in the house. It also shows that the family is happy, harmonious and they are enjoying life. The tree also symbolizes the spiritual life and strength of the characters. As the play progresses, the Christmas tree is destroyed and stripped symbolizing how Nora’s life has changed and the challenges she is undergoing. Symbolism is also witnessed through stoves, candles, and fire. They show the warmth and comfort in Nora’s house. Nora’s tarantella dance, which she performs in a passionate mood, is symbolic. It shows her love for life as well as her lack of fear of dying. She tells Helmer that she does it so that she can entertain him and build strong love with him. The dance was initially performed in Italy by a person who was bitten by a dangerous spider (Christian &Mary p.82). It is also symbolic that she is dancing to show the challenges she is undergoing e.g. repaying loans.

At the end of the play, Nora shuts the door as she goes out. It symbolizes the problems she had undergone as she lived with his husband and that she was starting a new chapter of her life as she goes out to face the real world. In the play, irony is also witnessed in several parts of the play. The play rotates around a happy and comfortable marriage life. In reality, we learn that the family was just hypocritical and full of problems that they don’t expose to the public. Everything that Helmers says about the family being stable and happy is ironic. Torvalds says that Krogstad is corrupt and that his family should not be associated with him. However, his family is not perfect either. Throughout the play, the audience is made aware that his wife, Nora forges signature so that she can be able to get access to loans and of the unhappiness she truly feels. At the beginning of the play, Nora is happy when her husband is promoted at his job, and therefore believes their future will be good and they will live a happy life. Really, it is an expression of her anxiety over the fact that they are broke and unable to pay their debts. It is ironic because even though it seems they are a successful, happy family on the outside, Nora is actually living beyond the family’s means and unhappy in her marriage. (Askarzadeh et.al p.101). In conclusion, the play helps us to understand a lot of challenges and problems that many families undergo even when they hidden from the public eye. Though it is sad that families are not always as well off as they portray to other, the play gives the average person a story they can relate to. Through the use of irony, symbolism, and imagery, the audience can feel as though they know the characters and learn from them as they navigate through their own challenges within their family or marriage.

Work cited

1. Askarzadeh Targhee, Rajabali. “Stylistic Analysis of Characters in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House: Masculinity and Supremacy vs. Femininity and Helplessness.” Research in Applied Linguistics 10.2 (2019): 91-105.
2. Christian, Mary. “A Doll’s House Conquered Europe”: Ibsen, His English Parodists, and the Debate over World Drama.” Humanities 8.2 (2019): 82.
3. Yeasmin, Fahmeda. “‘ A Doll’s House’ is the Backlash of Feminism.” International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences 3.3 (2018): 334-338.

Both A Thousand Splendid Suns (2007) and A Dolls House (1879) present the sacrificial role of women in society. Hosseini’s novel is about a woman who marries in order to be accepted and to please her family. Ibsen’s ‘well-made play’ shows a woman who goes against the law despite the consequences to support her family. In this essay I will discuss the sacrificial role of women in both these texts.

A Dolls House is set in the Victorian era, during this era women hardly had any rights, they weren’t allowed to take out loans, take their children and leave their husbands or own even own land. Henry Ibsen shows how oppression of women was a big factor that affected many lives during this era. Similarly, in ‘A Thousand Splendid Suns’ Hosseini gives the readers an insight as to how it was for women under the rule of the Taliban discriminated for something out of their control the ‘crime’ of being born a girl. During this era women had almost no rights they were prohibited from studying, going school and they had to wear the ‘burqa’. An interesting similarity between this is in A Dolls House Nora dresses in order to impress Helmer and to seek his approval similarly Mariam wears the burqa to seek Rashid’s approval. The theme of sacrifice is shown here although Mariam or Nora might not want to wear the ‘burqa’ or the ‘Neapolitan fisher-girl’s dress’ they sacrifice their views and opinion to satisfy their husband and wear it without questioning.

Both Hosseini’s ‘a thousand splendid suns’ and Ibsen’s ‘A Dolls House’ have leading women roles who fall victims to their husbands. Nora sacrificed herself and did anything to please her husband as she was blinded by his façade. Mariam sacrificed a lot too similarly she believed she was to blame for Rashid’s ‘continual’ assaults’ and his disregard for her, she was confused as to why Rashid treated her that way. Nora felt a similar way when Helmer found out she had taken a loan she couldn’t understand as to why he wouldn’t ‘sacrifice his honour for the one he loves’. Here we learn that Helmer only ‘thought it pleasant to be in love’ and didn’t actually love her correspondingly Rashid didn’t ever love Mariam he was just trying to fill the void of his dead wife son.

The sacrificial role of women Is furthermore explored when after all Nora went through breaking the law without any regard for the consequences after all those sacrifices Helmer never appreciated her not once even though she saved his life it was here when she came to the realisation that she owes it to herself to walk away. unfortunately, in A Thousand Splendid Suns Mariam didn’t have the option to walk away due to the laws in Afghanistan and how the Taliban had control over everything. Mariam had to take matters into her own hands in order to be free although her killing Rashid inevitably led to her to her death ‘she was leaving the world as a woman who had loved and been loved back. She was leaving it as a friend, a companion, a guardian. A mother. A person of consequence at last.’ these were Mariam’s last thoughts before she was executed however Mariam left on her own terms and like Nora, they both sacrificed their loved ones as they both left them willingly. the ending of A Thousand Splendid Suns ultimately shows the sacrificial role of women as Mariam’s downfall was controlled by Rashid. Hosseini uses Mariam as a prime example of women who fall victims to a patriarchal society, Mariam’s whole life was male dominated her own death was due to killing her husband however she never fully escaped him as Rashid was still in control of her life even in death he led to Mariam’s downfall when she was hanged. Hosseini might have done this to show the readers the harsh reality and brutality that although Mariam sacrifice everything, she got nothing in return not even the slightest bit of appreciation. Similarly, Ibsen shows the audience how unfair the Victorian era was for women. This could make the reader/audience feel sympathetic for Mariam and Nora as being a woman in these times were difficult.