Category: Hedda Gabler

Introduction

Tragedy began in ancient Greece, of course, and the first great tragedies were staged as part of a huge festival known as the City Dionysia. Thousands of Greek men, that is for no women were allowed would gather in the vast amphitheatre to watch a trilogy of tragic plays, such as Aeschylus’ Oresteia. In terms of genre, tragedy requires a tragic hero and usually it is a man, one who is usually tempted to perform a deed though not always, a murder, after which the hero’s fortunes eventually suffer a decline, ending with his death or her death as in the case of Antigone. More recently, Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen created the definitive tragic heroine of modern theatre, Hedda Gabler, in his 1890 play of that name. Hedda has been called ‘the female Hamlet’, because it is the ‘Holy Grail’ role which actresses want to take on. In this article I will talk about what the bourgeois tragedy is, what are the elements of this drama, the first playwrights used it, and who is Henrik Ibsen and his contributions to this genre through his two plays Rosmersholm and An Enemy of the People by the support of the journals, articles, plays and books I have read so far.

What is bourgeoisie tragedy?

Bourgeois tragedy is a type of tragedy developed in 18th century Europe. This is the fruit of enlightenment and the emergence of the bourgeois class and ideals. Bourgeois – middle-class had tragedy and domestic tragedy that ignored the neoclassical requirement of royal protagonists and drew tragic heroes and heroines from the emerging middle class. This means that it is characterized by the fact that its heroes are ordinary citizens. Bourgeois tragedies tend to spread the values ​​of the bourgeois class to which their heroes belong. He is a virtuous citizen whose ideals are excluded from state affairs and his intentions are focused on private and family life. Values ​​such as virtue, humanity, individuality and real feelings are valuable in bourgeois tragedies.

The popularity of this sordid drama of an apprentice who murders his uncle-guardian influenced domestic tragedy in France and Germany. Known also as Domestic Tragedy, this genre found its mature expression in the plays of Henrik Ibsen toward the end of the 19th century. In earlier domestic dramas by other playwrights the protagonists were sometimes villains and at other times merely pathetic, but the bourgeois heroes of Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People (1882), and Rosmersholm (1886) are besieged with some of the abstracted majesty of the heroes of classical tragedy.

What are the elements of this tragedy?

When we look upon the main characteristics of the bourgeoisie tragedy, or domestic tragedy we can find that it is focused on bourgeois family concerns and it is often dramatization of 18th century middle-class morality. Also we can notice that its themes are generally sentimental and melodramatic. One may say that this type of the drama is an evidence of the rising middle class as a political and social force. Its subject is usually based on murders, pattern of sin, repentance, punishment and expectation of divine mercy. In general, the majority of the content of the plays of this genre are dominated by jealousy, cupidity and lust rather than rivalry, ambition, love and hatred.

Many playwrights wrote a lot of works on this genre, but we will only focus on Henrik Ibsen, the one who can also be called as the father of the genre and his two plays An Enemy of the People and Rosmersholm.

Before starting to detailed analysis of the author and the characteristics of this genre in his two plays, I want to give some brief information about who he is. Henrik Ibsen was born on March 20, 1828, in Skien, Norway and was automatically entered into the middle class – bourgeoisie. In 1862, he was exiled to Italy, where he wrote the tragedy Brand. In 1868, Ibsen moved to Germany, where he wrote one of his most famous works: the play A Doll’s House. With his twin dramatic poems, or poetic dramas, Brand and Peer Gynt, he had won a large reading public and status as Scandinavia’s most promising dramatist. In 1890, he wrote Hedda Gabler, creating one of theater’s most notorious characters. By 1891, Ibsen had returned to Norway a literary hero. He died on May 23, 1906, in Oslo, Norway.

If we talk about Ibsen’s contributions to the bourgeoisie tragedy, of course, we can say many things. In his essay “The dialogic self in A Doll’s House and The Wild Duck” Kwokkan Tam analyses Ibsen’s use of dramatic dialogue in his plays. He shows the radical change of Ibsen’s characters in these plays “with the most trusted people becoming the most suspected”. Moreover he points out the qualities of Ibsen’s female characters by saying “Ibsen presents a new type of women characters in the history of modern drama – women with a heightened sense of self who are capable of integrating the male and female principles.” H. K. Riikonen surveys the characterization of these people in nineteenth century Norway, says “As opponents to the representatives of absolute values, high moral standards, or some great idea or purpose, several of Ibsen’s characters propagate moderation and temperance. Such characters as the printer Aslaksen in An Enemy of the People. Nearly in all of his plays, his characters are distinguished by their staunch, well-established bourgeois lives as in the case in An Enemy of the People and Rosmersholm.

Work Cited

1. Wikipedia contributors. ‘Bourgeois tragedy.’ Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 21 Dec. 2019. Web. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_tragedy. 29 March 2020.
2. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Domestic tragedy.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 19 February 2016. Web. www.britannica.com/art/domestic-tragedy. 29 March 2020.
3. Biography.com Editors. “Henrik Ibsen Biography.” The Biography.com website. 1 April 2014. Web. www.biography.com/writer/henrik-ibsen. 29 March 2020.
4. “Interesting Literature.” A Brief History of Tragedy, 2013, interestingliterature.com/2013/05/a-brief-history-of-tragedy/. Accessed 29 March 2020.

The play “Hedda Gabler” was written by Henrik Ibsen, a Norwegian playwright, who was sometimes referred to as woman’s rights activist. The play was first performed in 1890,focusing on gender and societal roles within the Victorian Era. The story is told through symbolic meaning as seen by protagonist Hedda Gabler. Hedda is a young newlywed married to an academic man named George Tesman. Despite having all the things sought after by women of this era, Hedda is very unhappy; finding the role of housewife stifling and oppressive. She describes feeling suffocated by the typical expectations of being a good wife and mother. Hedda conveys a sense of powerlessness which she attributes to the passive role society expects of women. This frustration and desire to fully express herself leads Hedda to become quite manipulative. The play captures this sentiment best with the line: “once in [her] life to have power to mold a human destiny.” To this end, Hedda choses to manipulate the lives of people around her, since society appears to dictate that she cannot shape her own destiny.

Hedda apparently wants nothing more than to have some sense of control. Ibsen portrays the conflicting societal mores of this era, and the corresponding emotional dynamics which ensue, with deeply flawed and human characters. Each character is presented as part of their own “social organization.” Hedda appears as an extreme representation of “feminism.” The play expresses the obvious inequality between men and women. The male characters each represent a form of “patriarchy;” independent entities valued for their intellect, money, physical strengths or talents. Men are essentially viewed as the caretakers of women. Hedda’s character is a great contrast to other females of this era. Most women in the play are depicted as openly accepting of their lesser status to men; presenting as genuinely demure and respectful. What’s interesting is how these women still manage to secure things they want; in a subtle, non-threatening way that doesn’t draw attention. The character of Hedda is fascinating because she is so obviously flawed.

Her behavior is clearly immoral. Yet, as a reader, you sense her yearning for something better which makes her darkness almost sympathetic. Hedda makes references to classical mythology, hinting that while her action may be terrible, she is searching for some something good to offset her sad life. This play, especially the character of Hedda, represents the struggles of conscious and true expression for many women of the 19th century. In my essay, I will address how this play was intertwined with powerful messaging that still resonates with women’s rights issues that persist today.

Hedda’s uniqueness as a female character is distinguished from the onset of the play. She is a general’s daughter who has had many admirers. Yet she marries a scholar of modest accomplishment, George Tesman, which is puzzling. Hedda is not a conventional heroine, however Ibsen presents her sympathetically, as a victim of circumstances beyond her control. In the middle of the first act, an old school friend, Thea Elvsted, is introduced along with Eilert Lovborg, formerly a rival of Tesman’s and lover of Hedda’s. Lovborg is a recovering alcoholic and accomplished author. He’s recently completed the manuscript of a sequel book. Lovborg is presented as a romantic poet figure who seems to have knowledge about the future. Looking for an escape from her unhappy married life and eager to assert her power, Hedda actually encourages Lovborg to start drinking again. Lovborg then gets drunk and misplaces his manuscript. Tesman finds it but in a fit of jealousy, Hedda burns it! This is especially cruel since Lovborg considers the manuscript to be the symbolic child born out of his relationship with Thea. The reader sees the depth of Hedda’s darkness as she burns the manuscript, whispering, “Now I’m burning your child, Thea.”

Hedda is a strong character to show the difference between the opposing ideals of womanhood in the 19th century. Many females of that era were aligned to characters such as Thea. I believe Hedda and Thea were created to highlight these two polarizing images of women. Hedda was brought up by a very powerful, strict father (General Gabler) whom she constantly battled against his authority. In many ways General Gabler raised Hedda like a male child, teaching her how to shoot and ride, which enhanced her existing dominant qualities in contrast to other women. It’s interesting how Hedda distances herself from family throughout parts of the play; this was most noticeable with Aunt Julie. Hedda seems almost repulsed by looking at her pregnant body, again another unusual trait for a woman in the nineteenth century. Hedda clearly dislikes people who seem weak or and passive, such as Thea and Aunt Julia. Only characters who exude strength and power, like Brack and Lovborg. get praise from Hedda. I found it telling that even while Hedda was married to her husband, Tesman, she continued to keep out photos of her father shooting their guns. This seemed like a sign that Hedda wanted to maintain control and power in the marriage. All her odd behaviors appearpurposeful with an aim to rebel against what is clearly a male dominated society. Hedda wants to feel in control of her destiny. However, as a woman in this era, she feels trapped and powerless.

This realization seems to occur shortly after her marriage to Tesman. Hedda soon learns that the financial stability and respect that came with marriage, isn’t truly fulfilling. She realizes that she wants a richer and more interesting lifestyle than Tesman aspires for. In quest for self- fulfillment, Hedda disregards what is best for her husband or others. She creates havoc in her selfish quest to achieve her goals. Manipulation is one of Hedda’s favorite things to do in this play, however, it’s presented almost as a necessary evil. As Hedda begins to feel more trapped by these unfair social norms; a sense of desperation develops that makes her character sympathetic on many levels. Her behavior often seems more shocking and ruthless simply because she is a female. If you imagine her character as a male, I wonder if it would come across in such a striking way. It’s relevant to note that Hedda is aware of how her good looks and sexuality provide her some unique power. It’s interesting how Hedda uses this power as a form of entertainment or game of wits. The role of power and gender is constantly evolving in this play.

The male characters are also quite unique in this play. They each hold an air of arrogance and power which they wield over the women in their life. Lovborg represented this by trying to make his friendship with Hedda into a sexual relationship. Judge Brack carried himself with much of the classic “male superiority.” Yet, he and Hedda were matched with regards to their skills for manipulation and basic lack of compassion. However, after Hedda causes Lovborg’s suicide; Judge Brack reveals his knowledge of her role in this tragedy, hinting of future blackmail. Unable to accept the idea of being controlled by yet another man, Hedda takes her father’s pistols into the study and shoots herself offstage. As awful as Hedda could be, she ultimately is conveyed as a heroine. She is viewed as a woman whose flaws were a symptom of an unfair society that fueled her frustrations and evil behavior. When she shoots herself, the final irony is conveyed in the last line of the play: “Good God, people don’t do such things!” Sadly, even at the very end, Hedda’s life was dictated by what others said she should, or should not, do. This intense control pushed her to manipulate others which, ultimately created her own tragic demise.

Henrik Ibsen’s “Hedda Gabler” depicts a neurotic woman who is unhappy with her life and marriage. Because she was a daddy’s girl and never attained anything in her lifetime, she will go to great lengths to make the life of those that achieved their desires and goals a living hell. In the play we see that Hedda had a good life, but in her mind, she did not seem to think so, and therefore she saw the things and people in her life as boring.

Freud believed that events in our childhood have a great influence on our lives, shaping our personality, whether it be from good experiences or bad experiences (McLeod). Hedda had always been a daddy’s girl, seeing that she was the daughter of a military general, and this was her upbringing. Females of her time never learned to shoot guns or ride horses, which brings to the issue that she never learned any feminine traits. On a positive note, she was an ambitious woman that will not put up with nonsense as she displays this attitude throughout the play. But there are a lot of negative traits that will impact Hedda and how she will adapt not only to society, but her marriage and people in her life. Hedda would do anything to have power and control over anyone and would make their life a living nightmare if they did not do what she wanted.

Hedda Gabler was married to George Tesman, who came from a middle-class family and lived the middle-class life with his two aunts, Julia and Rena. Since Hedda considers herself a member of the upper bourgeoisie, she feels as if she is married into a lower social class that she truly despises. Hedda married George for financial security, but this would possibly go downhill if he did not get the professorship position that he was seeking. This bothered Hedda, and she let George know how she felt about not getting a horse or a house butler, the things that Hedda desired but could not get at a middle- or low-class level. Because she married for money, she would not be happy with everything else in the marriage, and George was too naïve to see why Hedda really wanted to marry him since he loved her dearly and saw her as the most beautiful woman on earth.

Hedda clearly desired Eilert Lovborg, but she rejected him because she did not want to break a social taboo. This relationship ended on a bad note because she had threatened to shoot him. Also, she sent him away and married George Tesman, whom she did not like, let alone love, to be supported comfortably. The two would eventually run into each other again at a party, where he tries to convince her to have sexual relations with him, but she declines because it could lead to scandal, which Hedda feared very much. But Hedda would taunt his masculinity and say something about his relationship with Thea Elvsted and lead him into drinking again. Because of this, Hedda romanticized his weakness, confusing his lack of self-control with god-like courage. Being the mean person that she is, Hedda convinces Lovborg to take his own life. She saw his death as noble instead of a sordid accident.

Even though Hedda still had feelings for Loveborg and being unhappily married to George Tesman, only one person would come in her way with how she feels, and that is an old school rival by the name Thea Elvsted. Like Hedda, Thea was married for financial security and not happy in her marriage, though she was more sane than rival Hedda. Thea Elvsted leaves her husband to follow Eilert Lovborg, which leaves her at risk for losing her social and financial security. The thought of Thea being with Lovborg bothers Hedda, especially when Thea says that she helped Lovborg with writing his manuscripts, which Lovborg and Elvsted called their “love child” and helping him recover from alcoholism. This angered Hedda to the point that she burned the manuscript that Lovborg and Thea were working on.

Since Hedda had so much power and control over others, there was one man that will turn the tables against her. Judge Brack seemed to share some similarities with Hedda. Both were smart and were intuitive to pick up on information that is not explicit. Brack seemed to more intuitive when it came to getting Hedda to confessing to her sins. He seems to be the only person that can see through her taunting and destructive behavior and use reverse psychology on her, especially when he hears about Eilert Lovborg’s suicide. Brack knew that Hedda had something to do with it because it was one of her guns that was found at the scene of the shooting because he saw these guns when she was shooting at him at her house, so he tries to use his knowledge that Eilert used Hedda’s pistol to blackmail her into having an affair with him, which she did not want to do, nor did she want to be responsible for Eilert’s suicide. When she gets by this blackmail, she chooses the cowards way out to escape from a situation that she created.

In the end, Hedda dies from a self-inflicted gun shot to the heart, because she did not want to live life dealing with scandal and the responsibilities of becoming a mother, nor could she live with the fact that she made Lovborg commit suicide. She had a great life and a husband that loved her dearly and would do anything for her, but her neurotic mind told her otherwise, which caused her to have hatred toward others that attained their goals and had successful lives because she did not do these things for herself, so she finds everyone a bore, and even bores herself- to death, essentially.

Our discussion prominently focused on time and setting. Throughout the oral, I realised that the play was situated in the Victorian era, during the 1890s. During this time period, there was a feminist movement where a women’s rights organisation was formed. This could have led to women being empowered, as shown through the female characters in the play, such as Thea Elvstead, who chose to flee from her husband, as divorce was a social stigma. The middle class, also known as the Bourgeoisie had surges in wealth, during the same time period, as shown through Hedda’s marriage with George Tesman, for the sake of his wealth. This led me to think that Ibsen was portraying marriage as something people did for status, but not for love, especially seen through the marriage between Thea Elvstead that was out of convenience. During this time period, there was also an influx of migrants into Norway, which led to an unbalanced male to female ratio that could have influenced the affairs in the play. It was common for men to engage in a few relationships with women, as seen through Judge Brack who does not want to be restrained by marriage, and is satisfied with having short-term affairs. This may have led to unwanted pregnancies, which were not spoke of during that era as it was taboo, as seen in the play where Hedda does not speak of her pregnancy at all.

We also discussed on the societal stereotypes of women during the Victorian era. In the male dominated society, which made many boundaries in their freedom. This led me to know that social expectations could have affected Hedda’s self-restrictions, such as constantly staying inside the house. Women who belonged to a higher social class, had a reputation to maintain and live up to. In this play, societal expectations of Hedda caused her to make decisions based on what was appropriate by social norms. This is seen through her rejection of her relationship with Judge Brack, where he could have filled Hedda’s life with more excitement. Aunt Julle reinforces the stereotypes of women as she is only seen to serve others, and take care of the house, showing the dull and mundane duties women have to fulfill.

Henrik Ibsen’s “Hedda Gabler” (Henrik Ibsen et al.) is situated in the late nineteenth century of Norway, where firearms and ammunition were starting to get great advancements, as there were major development that revolutionised the industry. Bullets were only developed in the early nineteenth century, by Henri-gustave Delvigne. One significant image in the play “Hedda Gabler” is General Gabler’s pistols. The pistols, unlike any other object play, are not just symbols of ammunition, but have an important plot function. Ibsen uses the pistols to symbolize Hedda’s yearning for freedom, her desire for power over others, and serve as a material twin of Hedda’s own character.

The pistols were first introduced in the end of Act One, where Hedda concludes the act wearily (“with a concealed scorn”) (page 33) , “My pistols, George darling” and smiles coldly at her husband. The stage direction of concealing a scorn, gives an impression to the reader that she has disdain for her own husband, despite the smile juxtaposed with it. From this subtle entrance, we can see that the pistols left by Hedda’s father represent the trait he has passed down to her, which is to show control and power over others like a General over his soldiers. The pistols also give Hedda a symbol of power, and her act of taking it out at the end of the Act, shows that Hedda is ready to take action and already exerting her power in the play.

The pistols are a symbol of Hedda’s yearning for freedom. She has only “one thing left to amuse (herself) with” (page 33), which apparently are her pistols. This “one thing” brings a contrast to the reader telling that there is nothing else that can please her besides these pistols. Hedda sounds cold and passive in this line, as if she thinks nothing pleases her in this world. Later on, when Judge Brack comes in, she was “just shooting at the sky” (page 35) and also says, “well, what on earth an I to do?” (page 36). This clearly indicates that Hedda was getting bored to death, and her shooting at the sky seems like an act of expressing her boredom, and at the same time, her yearning for freedom. The act of firing a bullet itself represents freedom, where a bullet that was once trapped in the magazine of the gun, was finally fired out and not inside or part of the gun anymore, as if it was a complete release. The pistol can fire a few shots, as the magazine has the capacity to hold a number of bullets, till it runs outs. This can parallel Hedda’s few attempts to be free as a live bullet, where she gets only a few ‘shots’ at doing that, eventually failing in the end, as seen in her suicide where it was her “last shot” in Act Four. Just before Hedda moves to the rear room, and draws the curtains, then kills herself, she says, “from now on I’ll be quiet” (page 103). This happened after George Tesman tells her to stop playing “dance music” (page 103) on the piano. The silence from Hedda is alike to a pistol that was just fired, and silent afterwards. Pistols are always silent when they are not in use, and only make a loud “bang” when fired. The sound of the pistol also emphasizes the impact Hedda’s one and final move in her own plot. The play ending with the sound of the gunshot, shows the final blow of Hedda, reminding the audience that she is finally free from the society which holds her back.

The pistols are an image of Hedda’s desire for power over others. During the time period of the play, women were not associated to owning ammunitions, and not even earning the same amount of respect as men. Ibsen goes against the stigma of women being the inferior gender, that do not have equal rights as men, by characterising Hedda Gabler to be a woman here, handling a dangerous weapon that typically men were allowed to hold, and were only associated with men. As such, the pistols can also be an image of the male gender. When Hedda fires the pistols, she is in total control of it, as if she was in control of men at the same time. At the opening of Act Two, when Judge Brack enters, she was “raising the pistol and took aim” (page 35) at him, and says “I am going to shoot you” (page 35). These words by Hedda sound as if she boasts with confidence, and was the one in control here because she has the gun, and it was situated in the walls of her home. She was dominant at this point of the play, but Judge brack unfortunately “takes the pistol gently from her hand” (page 36), as if removing her power over the situation, and also foreshadowing the ultimatum blackmail move he made over her. Another scene where Hedda was manipulator of the situation was the end of Act Three, where she advises Eilert Lovborg to commit suicide. She hands Eilert on of her pistols, and tells him to “use it” (page 84), as if she were the one commanding him, and telling him what to do. By sending him out to die, she not only hopes to inspire him to an act of aristocratic heroism; she also ensures that he will no longer have any relations to Thea Elvsted. After Lovborg dies, she does not show any feelings at all. She keeps asking Lovborg to die “beautifully” (page 84), showing that she sees death more as a performance, rather than the end of life, and she enjoys the fact that she is directing the whole situation. The gun in this scene is a symbol of aggressive control of life and death.

The pistols job’s are to destroy, and by doing this, its is as if Hedda ‘destroyed’ Eilert Lovborg to please herself. Ironically, the death of Lovborg is ultimately accidental, but Hedda plots it as if it was on purpose. George Tesman, who is clueless in matters concerning Hedda Gabler, has a narrow minded worry that she would hurt herself playing with her pistols. Hedda being aware that firearms make her husband uneasy, she taunts him by saying she would amuse herself with them. Although Hedda never physically threaten her husband with the guns, she uses them to create a cognitive distance between the two of them, and stir some guilt over his failure to provide her with the life she wants.

The pistols, are like Hedda herself, being able to destroy. The cool exterior and fiery interior is a metaphor for Hedda herself. Hedda is described as a woman with a “distinguished aristocratic face and figure” (page 10) with a “complexion of pale and opalescent”(page 10). This is then contrasted with her cold eyes of “steel grey” (page 10), once again emphasizing on the cold metallic elements of a weapon. Her hair is of a “handsome auburn colour” (page 10), which demonstrates a heated and masculine description of Hedda, and at the same time, giving her a facade of goddess. At the end of Act 3, we see her destruction of the manuscript in the kitchen inner stove. The stove itself is just like the gun, a cold exterior, and a hot interior with the capabilities of destruction.

The association of Hedda with metallic colours already emphasises her tough character, and by further emphasising it with the way she acts in the play. Despite abandoning feminine values and not being the submissive, she fails to be in the same place as men. The image of a man traditionally includes audacity and vigor. Sadly, Hedda lacks such qualities and instead possesses the opposite; cowardice, dreading a scandal, and an appetite to achieving her goals through her intrigues rather than speaking openly. In the final moments of the play, she fires the final pistol at herself, pulling an act of suicide, rather than self-defense.When Hedda said she “would rather die” (page 101) in Act Four, shortly after hiding her pistol case from Judge Brack, he undermines Hedda by saying “people say that, they never do it” (page 101). She however, takes control of her own situation and puts an end to everything. By taking her own life away, she spares herself from being implicated in Lovborg’s death. Readers and the audience may see this act as a form of cowardice, but its is one of defiance, as she cannot accept the fact that she will be in Judge Brack’s manipulation to avoid scandal, Her well-plotted death shows the audience that she is under her own control, and is willing to do whatever it take to not get held back, even if it is to the extent of killing herself. Hedda is indeed like she the pistols she owns, destructive and powerful.

In conclusion, the pistols are an important part of the play, both as a symbol and a plot function. being the material twins of Hedda Gabler, representing her manipulation over others, and also her desire for freedom.

Bibliography

1. Baines, Barbara J. “Effacing Rape in Early Modern Representation.” ELH, vol. 65, no. 1, 1998, pp. 69–98, www.jstor.org/stable/30030170?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Accessed 5 July 2019.
2. Cody, Lisa Forman. “The Politics of Illegitimacy in an Age of Reform: Women, Reproduction, and Political Economy in England’s New Poor Law of 1834.” Journal of Women’s History, vol. 11, no. 4, 2000, pp. 131–156, muse.jhu.edu/article/17270, 10.1353/jowh.2000.0005. Accessed 5 July 2019.
3. Henrik Ibsen, et al. Hedda Gabler. London, Methuen Drama, 2002.
4. Mayerson, Caroline W. “THEMATIC SYMBOLS IN ‘HEDDA GABLER.’” Scandinavian Studies, vol. 22, no. 4, 1950, pp. 151–160, www.jstor.org/stable/40915828?read-now=1&seq=6#page_scan_tab_contents. Accessed 5 July 2019.

Being raised in the upper class is an amazing privilege that some people only dream of. Some individuals work hard to achieve this goal, and some are luckily born into it. Hedda Gabler is one of these people. Hedda is the daughter of General Gabler. She is very spoiled as a child, and she has the opportunity to have luxury items, such as extravagant clothing. Hedda assumed that she would always be a wealthy person living an extremely opulent life, or so she thought. Hedda ended up marrying a middle-class man named George Tesman. She did not want to marry him, but he was the only good man whom had been an option for her. “The fact that the title of the play is not Hedda Tesman but Hedda Gabler, like the way some of her admirers know how to flatter her by calling her by her maiden name, is a clear pointer to her unwillingness to accept her role as a wife to an unprepossessing husband whose undoubted infatuation with her is attenuated by his desire to continue collecting material for a work of what appears to be dry-as-dust scholarship”. She is now living in the middle class, and it is evident that she is miserable. It seems that she is pregnant as well, which makes her life worse, even though most people would be excited about a pregnancy. “The work reveals Hedda Gabler as a selfish, cynical woman bored by her marriage to George Tesman”. Being born into the upper class has impacted Hedda Gabler in many ways, including the way she conveys herself, how she treats others, and how she makes it obvious that she does not want to be in the middle class.

Hedda conveys herself to be a very selfish and evil person. Even at the beginning of the story, the Tesman’s maid, Berta tells Aunt Julie how she is worried to work for Hedda. “… I’m so afraid I won’t satisfy the new mistress… Because she’s so particular about things”). Hedda has Berta take the covers off of all the chairs, because she cannot stand to see these covers. Even though the Tesman’s will most likely be using this room every day, Hedda makes Berta do this anyway. She wants the house to look as luxurious as possible. Since Hedda is so high class, she worries lower class people, like Berta, into thinking that they are not good enough. Berta already knows that she will have to as much as she can to satisfy Hedda, even though she probably will not be doing enough in Hedda’s eyes. As soon as Hedda’s character is introduced, she immediately starts complaining about the sun coming through the window. “Uch! Look at that. The maid opened the door. I’m drowning in all this sunlight” (Ibsen)When Aunt Julie brings George his slippers, he is delighted. He is so excited to have them and goes over to Hedda show her. “Oh no thanks, I really don’t care to”. George attempts to explain to Hedda that these slippers carry many memories, but she just does not care.

Hedda continuously shows that she does not care about her husband. Even though he planned a six-month honeymoon, she still complains. Hedda was the cause of Lovborg’s suicide. She burned his manuscript because she felt that it was Lovborg and Thea’s child. Even though she knew how upset he was about losing the manuscript, she still lied to his face, even though she could have done the right thing and gave it back to him. “And Hedda, out of vengeance, boredom, frustration and the need to control, begins to coolly plot the destruction of her former lover” (Kaufman). Hedda even gave Lovborg one of her pistols to kill himself with. She continuously convinced them that this would be the right thing to do. She did not once second guess her actions, even though she had many opportunities to. She decided that Lovborg being dead would be best for her. She does not think of anyone except herself, thus proving her terrible personality.

Hedda Gabler treats people terribly and says things with little to compassion. In the story, it seems as if she has no respect for people. At the beginning of the story, she makes this evident. George’s Aunt Julie arrives to the Tesman’s home wearing a new hat. George points out this new hat. “My my- isn’t this a fine, elegant hat you’ve got for yourself”. Aunt Julie tells George that she bought the hat due to the fact that she did not want Hedda to be embarrassed of her if they go out on a walk together. Aunt Julie ends up talking off the hat and putting it down near the sofa. When Hedda arrives into the room, she ends up pointing out the hat and makes rude remarks about it. After Aunt Julie tells Hedda that it is hers, Hedda does not apologize for making fun of the hat. Julie ends up going home shortly after, and George asks Hedda if Aunt Julie seemed to be acting different. Hedda could not tell, and then proceeds to ask if maybe it was because of the hat business. George tells her that it was most likely not, and Hedda proceeds to be rude, and says how Aunt Julie should not be leaving her hat around like that.

Hedda is very disrespectful to Aunt Julie, even though Aunt Julie goes out of her way to make Hedda’s life better. Aunt Julie even took out a mortgage out on her annuity to help pay for these luxury items for Hedda, even though that annuity is the only thing she has to live on. Hedda finds joy in manipulating people into doing what she wants. Further into the story, one of Hedda’s old classmates, Thea, comes over. “She insists on being on first-name terms with her, and she wants to sit close to her, stroke her hair, and share confidences. But she can also be aggressive toward Mrs. Elvsted, as when she threatens to burn her hair”. At first, they are having small talk, and then Hedda brings up Eilert Lovborg. “[Casually] It seems to me that Eilert Lovborg’s been living up there for about three years, hasn’t he?”. Thea is slightly surprised to hear Hedda mentioning him, and the two start talking about him. Thea only says casual things about him, such as that he used to come by her house and read to the children. Hedda wants to know more information, so she starts sweettalking Thea into telling her what she wants to hear. Hedda’s interest in Mrs. Elvsted can, of course, be read as an attempt to get her to reveal secrets involving Lovborg…”. Thea mentions how Lovborg has started drinking, and she is worried that he will start drinking again. Later on into the story when Lovborg comes over, Hedda tries to convince him to drink. “Though Eilert had wisely decided that teetotalism was the only safe policy for him, Hedda inveigles him into going off on a drinking bout with her husband and the sinister Judge Brack”. She keeps manipulating him, even though she knows that he used to be an alcoholic. “Good Lord, cold punch isn’t exactly poison, you know”. Hedda does not even think about Lovborg’s drinking could impact his life again. She just wants to have the power to manipulate whoever she wants.

Hedda Gabler makes it obvious that she does not want to be in the middle class. She is absolutely miserable not being able to live as comfortably as she used to. “A lady of 29 and with a certain aristocratic elegance about her, Hedda feels that she has married beneath herself”. She does not have much left from the upper class, except the pistols that her father gave her. “We are not allowed to forget that her father was General Gabler, whereas her husband, her elder by some four years, is a cultural historian who is short of money and has only fairly tenuous prospects of becoming a professor”. Having her father be General Gabler makes Hedda feel better about herself, and she feels as if it makes her more respected. Hedda wants people to see her as a high-class member of society, and by having a father of high rank, she believes that people will see her as this type of person. Hedda even tells people that she does not love her husband. “Hedda also rejects love and marriage by telling both Lovborg and Brack that she does not love Tesman and that she does not want to talk about love”. When Hedda and Judge Brack are conversing, Hedda brings up how she did not enjoy the six-month honeymoon that George had provided for her. Brack states “I wished you were back home every single day. To which Hedda replies, “The whole time I was wishing the same thing”. Hedda said that the trip was boring, and all George did was spend time in libraries. “Six whole months never meeting with a soul who knew the slightest thing about her circle”. Hedda admitted to Brack that the only reason she married George was because [She] danced herself out… [Her] time was up”. Even the thought of having a child with George upsets Hedda. This makes her believe that she will be stuck in the middle class with George forever if this happens. She wants to get out of this situation, but she does not have many choices on what to do. When Hedda ends up killing herself, it can be analyzed in different ways. In one aspect, she did not want to have to deal with the Eilert scandal, while another reason for her suicide could be that she could not stand living in the middle class anymore. Hedda was evidently miserable, and knew she had to get out of this horrid situation.

Hedda Gabler is an overall terrible person. She was selfish, manipulative, and only thought about herself. Being in the middle class was such a terrible thing to happen to Hedda in her opinion and being pregnant makes this worse. If Hedda is pregnant, she will lose her slim figure, and she definitely does not want this to happen. She wants to look the absolute best that she can possibly look. She caused an unnecessary suicide due to her being the selfish, evil person she was. She treats people with no respect for no reason whatsoever. Even though Aunt Julie had to take out extra money to attempt to meet Hedda’s needs, it still was not enough. Hedda still complained and made Aunt Julie feel bad about herself. She makes her new family spend ridiculous amounts of money on her, just so she can have the best things in life, even though they can barely afford it. She talked about her husband behind his back, and even manipulated people who trusted her with their secrets. She flirted with other men, even though she is married. ‘The title of the play is Hedda Gabler. My intention in giving it this name was to indicate that Hedda, as a personality, is to be regarded rather as her father’s daughter than as her husband’s wife”. Nothing will ever be good enough for Hedda except living a rich lifestyle, and this is why her life ended the way that it did.

Power and influence are prominent concepts in Hedda Gabler and the manner in which Ibsen illustrates particularly Hedda Gabler’s transition of power to Judge Brack is witty. This is apparent through the numerous symbols of which the main protagonist associates. A daring aspect regarding this novel, is during the commotion regarding the will of influence, Ibsen is challenging social norms, as such that he imposes a women being in control instead of her husband. He also questions the pressures of marriage during that time exposing the dissatisfaction of many women after marrying. This may have been influenced by his wife whom he divorced which was frowned upon and scandalous during the 19th century.

Judge Brack Hedda interaction

In Hedda Gabler Ibsen utilises objects and diction to portray Hedda and Brack’s lust for power and dominance over one another. It is evident that “General Gabler’s pistols” are the first instance of Hedda, veritably, exhibiting her control. Thus a disturbance to Brack during one of their initial interaction that challenges his authority, “she fires…, Oh dear did I hit you”. Hedda utterly disregards Brack which is a potent indication that Hedda is in control and doesn’t take him seriously. Judge Brack is obviously startled and defiantly stands up to grasp control of the pistols. The pistol interaction becomes the initial moment that we begin to envision Hedda’s power transition to Brack. The shift becomes more prevalent throughout the play. Although there is an argument concerning her power in the first instance.

Dissatisfaction

During the whole play it is obvious that Hedda is dissatisfied with her life but primarily with the societal pressures and norms shown through “I want for once in my life to have power to mould a human destiny.” The seriousness of this quotation is unusually erratic coming from the main protagonist, additionally there is no indication that she is not being sincere. Being a women at the time, Mrs Tesman has almost no influence with regards to moulding her own path, social life and work. Her continuous behaviour in the posh society is “acceptable’ behaviour : backing her partner rather than seeking a career for herself and staying loyal to her marriage even though she is dissatisfied with her current situation. Alas it is no wonder when she proceeds to meddle with other peoples lives to cure her boredom.

Hedda destroying the manuscript

As the play progresses it is apparent that Hedda commences to loose all her morals possibly in a desperate attempt to retain her dominance and this is demonstrated quite explicitly through the destruction of Lövborg’s manuscript.

A plot changing moment which procures itself when Hedda destroys the manuscript,“I am burning, I am burning your child.” This outburst demonstrates, Ibsen is illustrating Hedda’s intricateness. In prior acts, the main protagonist portrays a constrained and Unstimulated character. Hedda’s endeavour to cause quarrels between Eilert Lövborg and Mrs Elvested are a form of entertainment to pass the time.In this instance however Hedda decides to burn the manuscript as a way of revenge towards Elvsted, inferring that jealousy overwhelms her reasoning as well. This is perhaps an indication that in reality Hedda does not truly desire power but rather is bored.

Hedda telling Lövborg to commit suicide

Hedda’s veritable loss of morals is underpinned when she states“ Oh, what curse is it that makes everything I touch turn ludicrous and mean?” This quotation encompasses Hedda’s prior statements concerning Eilert’s supposed suicide. Hedda’s thoughts previously illustrate the aspiration that Eilert will make a ‘beautiful’ death which is oxymoronic in itself, although Judge Brack later discloses that Löevborg final moments were ugly and inglorious. Concerned with appearances, Hedda values manner over human life; therefore, the way of Löevborg’s death matters more than the decease itself. Furthermore Hedda’s potency is exemplified once more through her manipulative ability to make Eilert commit suicide although Brack reinstates quite sadistically the manner in which he failed to have a beautiful death.

Lastly, in the closing scene of the novel Brack states “People say such things—but they don’t do them.” This exchange emerges as an ironic foreshadowing of the Act’s falling action; As Hedda does obviously end it all. Although he may be her equal when it comes to deviousness, Judge Brack gravely underestimates Hedda Gabler in his final, confidential chat with her. Just before this line is uttered, Hedda insists she would rather die than live as a ‘slave’ to the judge’s whims—a bold claim, to be sure, but not entirely inconsistent with Hedda’s fierce, pistol-wielding persona. Judge Brack essentially calls her bluff here, insisting that she wouldn’t dare to kill herself and will therefore have to get used to his frequent, unwanted visits.

Conclusion

The theme of power struggle is thus prevalent in Hedda Gabler and explored in such a manner that Hedda is illustrated to persistently be searching for novice ways of asserting her power although as demonstrated previously Brack is consistently in control.

Henrik Ibsen’s revolves Hedda, who is the main character and her life tells the play. Ibsen wrote his play in the wake of modernism and presented several themes and different theoretical perspectives according to how a person reads or views the play. One of the concepts that one understands from the depiction of the characters and the protagonist is desire. Want pushes people to the limits of doing things that are unacceptable and goes contrary to the norms. The paper will focus on the play from the perspective of a psychoanalytic looking critically at the factors and characters presented in the play. From that, the focus will revolve around butler and her decision at the end of the play. Everyone has wants which he/she seeks to satisfy. Hedda grows in an elite family, and a society that impacts significantly in her life resulting in unsatisfaction of her life desire and as a result leads her into making the wrong decisions.

The paper’s close examination of desire brings in the Lacan’s theoretical piece. Lacan was a French well-known psychoanalytic who developed significant controversies through his theories. Ibsen’s play withholds and presents an excellent use of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is a group of concepts that set out to study the unconscious mind and devise techniques healing the human brain. Sigmund Fluid came up with the term developing it from his school of thought and which evolves as the time passes and different scholars continue presenting their views about it. One of such scholars who made significant developments is Lacan who uses the technique of studying his subjects by leading them into recognizing their desires and uncover the truth about them.

Uncovering the truth about something provides essential information which a person can later use to develop valid and useful conclusions. Following that, Ibsen presents a paradox where the reader needs to reason out several factors so that he/she will uncover the truth about some of the happenings and most importantly Hedda’s decision at the end of the play. That involves looking at some of the other characters, their ways of life and what impact they had on each other. The play begins with the reader identifying that Hedda just married Tesman and the newly wedded couple went for a six-month-long honeymoon. However, Hedda is not happy with the marriage despite being pregnant with his child. That presents a dilemma that one has to uncover in the pursuit of truths the truth behind the action and the conscious of the mind that led the character into accepting the marriage.

Marriage intends to be an agreement between two people who set out to live together and support each other openly and wholeheartedly. However, factors such as the desire of one of the parties can lead to the failure of the courtship and later the fall of the marriage. People have different wishes informed by their early experiences or the character of a person. Following that, Ibsen wrote his play early in the colonial period when societies formed a critical part of people’s lives and which made decisions that impact on a person’s entire life. The choices made by the community solely emerged from the desire of the people forming it. However, as said earlier, people tend to have different wishes resulting from various. One of the events that the society had a take is marriage with which they selected and married couples based on societal desires and not the individual people’s wishes.

Courtships impacted by society led to the joining of couples who had different motives and perspectives about life. From Ibsen’s play, Hedda and her husband presented an excellent example where the individuals had varied perspectives about life and did not marry out of love or desire, but it was out of the society’s wish. That inflicted an action that did not comply with the conscious of the mind of the couple and brought in Lacan’s theory and psychoanalysis. In uncovering the truth, Hedda grew in wealthy family unlike her husband Lacan who was dull and highly inclined into his studies other than courting with his wife. The different life preferences among the couple resulted in each one of them trying to find solace and in some of the cases hurt each other unintentionally.

Further, into the psychoanalysis of the play, the seeking of solace from other outside factors resulted in a significant impact of the couple. Looking at Hedda, she sought out to start courting with Judge Brack citing that she doesn’t care about her husband anymore. Hedda acts in a high level of secrecy in a manner that her husband gets to know nothing about her decisions and her wife’s actions. Hedda has a purpose of satisfying the desires she had in an unacceptable way and with whatever it takes. That, in turn, affects her mind leading the character into other thoughts such as hurting Tesman and the people who engage with him in his studies such as Lovborg. In a similar occurrence, another character by the name Mrs. Elvsted declared that she loves Lovborg and cares little about her husband despite having his surname (Baitz, and Ibsen 24).

The occurrence and acting of the two characters present a moment in which Lacan’s theory can apply in analyzing the cause of the actions and the truth behind them. From psychoanalysis, a desire can only articulate where there is speech. The two terms collaborate to bring out the sense and meaning of an action. Hedda and Mrs. Elvsted all act in secrecy, but they tell their secrets to each other. At the beginning of the play, Mrs. Elvsted declares to Hedda that she loves Lovborg and cares for his safety. In another act, Hedda tells Brack that she would like to court with him as she does not care for her husband anymore. The sole truth behind the two occurrences is that Hedda and Mrs. Elvsted both are acting in pursuit of satisfying their desires of living a life that each one of them aspires.

Following that, for a person to achieve or attain his/her desire, he has to take a risk. Lacan presents that as one of the fundamentals of psychoanalysis (Adrian n.p). People formulate wishes in mind. However, it requires one to act to achieve the attain the desire he/she has. From that, the two characters, Hedda and Mrs. Elvsted set out to fulfill their ambition of loving the people they prefer and not who the society points out for them. The two characters plan to do their things in secret such that their husbands or any other person will not know or suspect them. In another principle, Lacan states that for something that to be desirable, it must exist in another person’s unconscious self. To get something from a person, someone has to take a risk.

Risks always result in two outcomes, which are either benefit or loss. Desire wise, a person taking risk will have the emotional advantage, in an instance where it succeeds, and in case of failure, the mind of the person gets affected. Wishes exist in the consciousness of a person and which another person will never know what his/her neighbor desires most to possess. With that, fulfilling a wish results in the peace of mind while unfulfillment brings in trouble to a person. Regarding Ibsen’s play, Hedda had the desire to get in love with Brack but marrying Tesman made led to the unfulfillment of her wish. Following that, the character finds herself in a mood where she is unhappy with everything a situation that makes her act weirdly and unconsciously. Just after the honeymoon, Tesman goes out at a party where Lovborg who is his rival attends.

Lovborg is a drunkard but an excellent scholar. He drinks too much and gets out of control tearing his study manuscripts into pieces and scattering others. Tesman collects one of the tattered pieces and heads home where he delivers the news to his wife and Mrs. Elvsted that Lovborg got out of control displacing the manuscripts and tearing others. Hedda keeps the piece where Lovborg comes later and claims that he is a poor state of mind due to the loss of his studies and points out that he is planning suicide. Hedda says nothing but advice Lovborg to continue with his plans and gives a pistol with which Lovborg shoots himself. Brack delivers the news to Hedda that Lovborg is dead and succumbed a gun wound (Baitz, and Ibsen 71). The information devastates Hedda resulting in wild thoughts.

Brack identifies that the pistol that shot Lovborg belongs to Hedda which increases the devastation and Cheddar sets out to kill herself. The decision marks the end of the play and presents quality information regarding Lacan’s theoretical piece. Hedda’s suffers unfulfillment of her desire resulting in destructive thoughts. As a result, she hates everything that relates to her husband to the extent of wanting it dead a fact that leads to Lomborg’s death. The motive of putting everything into existence must be a method that the character devises to try and meet her desires and that acts as a risk. However, risks have consequences which can be devastating to the extent of death such as in the play.

To sum up, people formulate desires in their minds, but it requires action for the wishes to happen. However, efforts to fulfill a desire exist in the form of risks as one will have to manipulate another person’s mind so that he can meet his/her wish. The decision to take a risk presents two sides which can be either positive or negative. Positive outcomes result in a piece of mind, but negative one brings a disturbance. The later might lead a person to take more risks which can be life endangering such as Hedda does in the play. All of the above illustrates Lacan’s theory and how the concept connects with Ibsen’s play through the desires that the characters possess and the lessons learned from the decisions they make in the pursuit of fulling the wishes.

The first passage transpires at the beginning of the second act which opens with Hedda loading her father’s pistols prior to Judge Brack’s arrival in her garden. Hedda’s loading a pistol in her drawing-room of all places speaks to how defiant she is of social conventions. It is also a dark foreshadowing of how she will soon contrive a man’s death from the comforts of this same drawing-room. General Gabler’s pistols are reminiscent of Hedda’s old aristocratic life. Hedda’s using them indicates that she is more her father’s daughter than she is her husband’s wife.

Pistols are considered masculine objects and are often associated with authority and power. Hedda’s fascination with this male world is indicative of the misery she experiences as a woman in a patriarchal society. She is restricted in her role as a female and faces long, dull and oppressive days. While it would be an oversimplification to claim that Hedda’s sadism and cruelty are entirely the product of patriarchal oppression, it is not too much to say that provincialism and patriarchy characterize the social world Hedda engages in war against. Hedda takes delight in brandishing her pistols and feels empowered and free when holding these instruments of domination.

Hedda and Judge Brack spend the length of the play discreetly seeking to dominate one another. While Brack acts according to the social rules, Hedda is prepared to behave in a way that is contrary to others and her extraordinarily dark sense of humor is on display in this scene. Ibsen foreshadows Hedda’s suicide by exhibiting just how detached Hedda seems from how things are “normally” done.

The first two lines of dialogue appear to be normal and friendly. Hedda and Brack refer to one another politely, and they are operating well within their established social boundaries. However, Hedda’s following line, ‘I’m going to shoot you sir!’ is then a shocking satire of their previous greeting. By calling him ‘sir’ as she threatens to shoot him, she mocks their superficial civility. This is not a trivial threat, as Hedda does actually go on to shoot at Judge Brack. In doing so, she further exposed how detached she is from the society that surrounds her. To joke about shooting at people is shocking enough but to actually do it is astonishing. In this scene, we see the tension between society and the individual, with Brack on the side of society, and Hedda expressing herself in radically individual terms.

The Romantic movement which began in the late 18th century reflected the irrational, illusory, exotic, naïve and untrained aspects of society. It presented human emotion with a complex natural grandeur that subtly transcends all human capacities and concerns. Dealing with the affairs of the upper classes. Its characteristics tend to borrow from Christianity with a secularised Christ-like hero that triumphs over industry, technology and civilisation. We see these themes staunchly presented in novels such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s 1774 ‘The Sorrows of Young Werther’’ where Werther is enamored with Charlotte and proceeds to have a passionate love affair with her despite her impending marriage to Albert, he also starkly rejects pressure from his family to join their stifling bourgeois life and ultimately, to release his sorrows and anger, Werther commits a tragic suicide due to an unobtainable pursuit of love. We sympathise with Werther’s impassioned and unconventional attitude to love however the story seems to be subtly underpinned by a sense of melodrama and impracticality. Romantic poetry in particular showcased some of the periods most prominent works. One of Wordsworth’s most famous poems of his canon ‘Daffodils’ staunchly reinforces this notion. In the poem the speaker is presented as being wholly immersed in nature, the reverse personification exhibited as they wander “lonely as a cloud” is paralleled in the personification of the naturalistic imagery such as the daffodils “fluttering and dancing in the breeze” as “ the waves around them danced”( footnote). The speaker goes on to describe the way nature counteracts the negativity and solidarity they feel, and that the speaker can think of the idyllic scene of the daffodils to restore balance to their life. The unification of man with nature epitomises the principles of romanticism, attempting to alter our sensibilities in a growing world of consumerism and technology. This sense of over idealisation of human capacity could perhaps create a strong sense of disillusionment for the reader. Romanticism creates an unobtainable reality in which the reader lives vicariously through feeling a sense of premature adolescence and excitement. However, there can also be a coldness and dogmatism towards all aspects of modernity that begin to override its illusion. Such criticisms of romanticism as well as a desire for change this illusory perception of life, gave birth to realism.

The literary movement of Realism began in the 19th century, specifically after world war one, in order to pull away from these ideas of romanticism, surrealism and neoclassicism. It was thought that life was being embellished and hyperbolised and there was a lack of representation of the middle and lower classes thus literature was lacking democracy. It was also thought there was a lack of focus on culture, government and politics as well as the psychological impacts of real-life events. Through realism other smaller movements such as naturalism were born, presenting more of a ‘chronicle of despair’ using realism to portray social issues and lifestyles. One of the most impressionable works of literature that sparked the movement of realism is Gustave Flaubert’s 1856 ‘Madame Bovary’, following a woman who through love affairs and debaucheries attempts to escape the mundanities of provincial domesticity. Emile Zola declared it to have “dealt romanticism its first blow” (footnote) subverting literary archetypes of the time. The lengthy descriptions which exist independently of the characters’, the characterisation and lack of symbolism except metaphors grounded in reality, give the novel its realistic rigour. The focus on its democratic nature stems from Emma’s dissatisfaction with the French bourgeoise longing to be part of the aristocracy, criticising moral conservatism and the petty lives of the middle class, thus it can be argued to have created democracy in its representation of the strive for social perpetuation in the lower classes as well as it’s accurate portrayal of the mundanities of life.

Many playwrights of the period such as Anton Chekov, Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams and Henrik Ibsen also dealt with the notion of dissatisfaction within the reality of a materialistic capitalist society. Henrik Ibsen’s 1879 ‘A Doll’s House” furthers this promoting a Marxist perspective that human thought is a result of the individual’s socioeconomic conditions, their relationships with others are often changed and altered by this, and that the less-fortunate are always exploited by the richer bourgeoisie. What is prevalent in Ibsen’s play is the exploitation of the weak and the poor by the strong and the rich, and an obsession with materialism and possession. Demonstrating life as bleak and unfulfilling even in the higher classes creates democracy as it criticises the hierarchal way in which the world is run and that ultimately how this leads to unhappiness. This can also be seen in Ibsen’s other plays such as ‘Hedda Gabler’ as well as Chekov’s ‘Uncle Vanya’, ‘Gusev’ or “The Cherry Orchard’. Finally, the concept of the ‘common man’ is one prevalent in realism and in ensuing democracy. This is perhaps most effectively portrayed by Arthur Miller, Miller effectively employs the hero who despite his character flaws and lack of impressionability is able to tragically triumph over societal constraints and expectations. The ease in which we’re able to relate to characters such as John Proctor, Eddie Carbone or Willy Lowman creates a direct opposition to the secularised figures of romanticism, instead of feeling an unattainable sense of heroism, we get a strong sympathy for societal figures and an irrepressible urge to make changes within the realms of possibility.

Despite this, there is a tendency for realist literature to not solely promote democracy but depict it as democratic socialism. Realism is often underpinned by a criticism of the hierarchal capitalist society we live in. The Crucibles John Proctor despite advocating for democracy through what we now know as freedom of speech and a right to a fair trial, is eventually overpowered by the embodiments of wealth, status and power. Much like in Uncle Vanya, Vanya’s life is nullified by the wealthy professor who supersedes him in every aspect of his being, merely due to their difference in wealth. Finally, in ‘Hedda Gabler’ Hedda’s suicide is a result of her inability to lead the life destined to a married upper-class woman, consumed by her fear of scandal and overcoming societal expectations, within her cosy bourgeois life she remains needlessly trapped in the patriarchy. If realism is essentially democratic art, it alludes to the idea that democratic socialism is the best form of democracy. This raises the question can realism be essentially democratic if it only portrays democracy through the eyes of a socialist perspective? Many arguments have been made for the lack of democracy in democratic socialism, notably, Friedrich Hayek, philosopher and economist, argued that democratic socialism can never be truly democratic as it empowers the state over the individual, destroying the freedom of the individual and simply replaces it with being part of a whole, whose role is to work within a planned economy. This inevitably leads to a dictatorial or totalitarian state. In Hayek’s ‘A road to Serfdom’ he declaratively states, “A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers” (footnote). He emotively argues that a planned economy needs a government with absolute power to take decisions and there would be a lack of regularity of democratic majorities for it to be an efficient method of leadership. Therefore, it can be argued that Realism isn’t essentially a democratic art as it promotes an unrealistic view of democracy that can never be fully obtained or carried out.

Rather than Realist literature promoting democracy, you may take the view that dystopian literature is more effective, having a grounding within the realms of reality with a hypothetical yet believable extreme. George Orwell’s ‘1984’ materialises these views, creating within the reader not only an innate feeling of the importance of democracy but also a clear example of how socialism leads to a totalitarian or dictatorial state. In ‘1984’, Winston, an ordinary middle-class member of society, is constantly under the watchful eye of big brother an omnipotent symbolic figure of the state who metaphorically also represents the dictators of the globe, and the party INGSOC which represents the principles of English socialism in the constructed language of the party, newspeak. Winston is stripped of all freedoms and is forced by the socialist ruling party, into becoming an undistinguished, indoctrinated and unthinking member of society. In ‘1984’ most of the world population have become victims of everlasting war, an omnipresent government and unremitting surveillance and propaganda. ‘1984’ effectively demonstrates the way in which democracy can be advocated for by creating a dystopian reality of the consequences of democratic neglect. It also depicts the way in which socialism can easily be manipulated into a higher power afflicting authority over the lesser citizens. Additionally, we see this in books such as Margaret Attwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” written in 1985. The United States government is overthrown by a theonomic military dictatorship where women are subjugated in a patriarchal society. The protagonist Offred is a ‘handmaid’, a woman existing in a time of increasing infertility due to pollution and radiation, Offred is used solely for the purpose of reproducing with the ‘commanders’, the ruling class of men. The dystopian world of Gilead shows the antithesis of democracy, women are restricted in their freedoms and the social hierarchy is more prevalent than ever. The harsh realities for Offred further demonstrate the potential ruination of society due to the demise of democracy. Dystopian literature allows writers to take society to its political extremes, the horrifying power of dystopian novels is the way in which they can exist within the realms of reality despite not being true to the society we currently live in. Both ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ and ‘1984’ are set in the future, allowing the reader to be instilled with the importance of democracy due a fear of the capacity of human nature. Whilst remaining faithful to the realms of reality, negating the supernatural and transcendental, the futurity and exaggeration of political extremes allow the imagination to wander as opposed to staying grounded in the day-to-day.

Conclusively, Gustave Courbet’s indication that realism is essentially a democratic art can be said to not be wholly true as it remains too grounded in verisimilitude, to expand the imagination to a lack of liberties and rights that would demonstrate the quintessential importance of democracy. Realism issues a very narrow, simplistic interpretation of democracy, rooted in democratic socialism without exploring any other possible facets to democracy, solely criticising the pitfalls of capitalist authoritarian formats of governing. Therefore, dystopian literature is a more efficacious way of allowing democracy to be portrayed through the arts as it expands the mind beyond the limits of reason whilst maintaining true to life and possibility. As modern author Ally Condie describes it “The beauty of dystopia is that it lets us vicariously experience future worlds – but we still have the power to change our own. “

Hedda Gabler is a purely modern text and a modern tragedy. Because Hedda cannot distinguish between the ego-inflating show gestures and the tragic death that sublimates the ego to realize the value of life. Expanded and reborn. Her helplessness, unaware of the difference between soap operas and tragedy, explains the gap between Hedda’s presumptive view of her suicide and our assessment of its importance. The demonic and ironic Ibsen has superficially resembled the end of a traditional tragedy.

Hedda, who symbolically escapes from the bourgeois environment and hides on television with childhood relics, plays a ‘wild dance’ on the piano and ‘beautifully’ puts employees on his father’s pistol under his father’s portrait. You can shoot. She killed to defend the heritage of independence. . . And having the opportunity to judge relevant acts in their entire context, we cannot adequately interpret it as the ultimate self-play of the persistently sterile protagonist. Heather can’t get any insight. Her death does not accept any significance.

She doesn’t understand why everyone becomes ‘stupid and mean’ when she touches it. She mostly dies to get out of the miserable circumstances she’s created. She’s not responsible for the consequences of her actions to face reality. A pistol that came down to cowardice and trickery offers only death without honor. Pole Ends Without Determination The characters feel psychologically stressed for no proper lumberjack reason and the audience can feel it through silence.

Heather herself has fallen into a spiritual trap, suffering the tragedy of self-harm, unable to progress from the past, suffering from an Electra complex, and desperate to get out of an existential crisis. What makes this drama a tragedy is a sudden confusion and self-destructive habits of Heather’s spirit. Judge Black gives the play’s final words: ‘People don’t do that!’ But in Ibsen’s play, it is. Even the most obvious realism in Ibsen’s play contains a great deal of symbolism.

Ibsen called the symbolic character of his play ‘silver ore veins in the mountains.’ The ivy leaves on Lovborg’s hair at Hedda Gabler, the manuscript he considers to be his child, and the pistol-like accessories of General Gabler are all reminiscent of Ibsen’s early poetry with almost magical traits. I will point out in advance the mythical quest for his later works. .. Hedda’s suicide shows the potential for self-destructive radical and romantic behavior that can deny the real world of middle-class life on a daily basis, as Noo leaves home at A Doll’s House. I am.