Directions: Please finish reading A Doll House, Act I and comment on the text. Focus on characterization. What are your initial impressions of the characters? What do you think Ibsen is setting up for Act II? What questions do you have for our class discussion?
Throughout the first act of A Doll House, Ibsen focuses on the characterization of the characters to help readers understand the meaning behind their actions. Nora is married to Torvald Helmer, and throughout act I, more is revealed about Nora’s true character, and she is quite unlike the person she first appeared to be. Helmer accuses Nora of being a “spendthrift,” or someone who lavishly spends money without thinking of the consequences. It initially appears like he is correct in thinking this, as Nora excuses her lavish spending by arguing that her husband “[earns] lots and lots of money” at his job, and when Helmer asks her what gift she would like from him, she practically begs him to give her more money, despite him giving her money quite frequently already. Ibsen makes it seem like Nora is a gold digger wife, but, as her conversation with her old friend Mrs. Linde reveals, she is actually trying to repay her debts from a selfless act she committed for her husband. She paid for an all-expense paid trip to Italy while telling Helmer that it was her father’s will that paid for the trip, causing Nora to pick up a number of odd-jobs to slowly pay off the debt that she accumulated from the vacation. Ibsen’s characterization of Nora as initially a “spendthrift,” but then revealing that she really is doing something to help her husband characterizes her as a selfless and thoughtful person.
ReplyDeleteAnother character who Ibsen purposefully characterizes is Krogstad. He is in a subordinate position at Helmer’s bank and he is worried when Helmer offers a book-keeping position to Mrs. Linde since she is in need of a job. Krogstad asks Nora to do anything she can to influence her husband to allow him to keep his job at the bank since he feels that his job is being threatened by Mrs. Linde. Nora feels torn since she not only feels loyalty towards her husband and Mrs. Linde since she is her friend, but she also feels like she does not have any power over her husband, especially because she is a woman.
I think that Ibsen intentionally created these characters, especially Nora, in the way he did to reveal secrets to the readers but not to the other characters that they are kept from, so the audience will feel a sense of suspense throughout the rest of the novel. They will wonder, will Helmer find out the truth about why Nora is such a “spendthrift”? Will Mrs. Linde keep Nora’s secret, or will she tell other people? These are all questions that will most likely be answered during the next act or before the end of the play, and Ibsen purposefully creates this suspense to give meaning and excitement to the story. One question that I have is if there will be consequences for Nora and Helmer’s marriage if Helmer finds out what Nora has been using her money to pay for all this time.
The first act of A Doll House not only revealed a lot about our principal characters, but it also demonstrated a significant amount about Henrik Ibsen’s writing style. In particular, the character of Nora is developed significantly with each new character she interacts with. For example, when she communicates with her husband, Torvald, she acts almost as if she were a child, and he acts as her father, with her husband referring to her as his, “song-bird,” and scolding her consumption of, “macaroons,”. However, when the character of Mrs. Linde enters the scene, there is an entire change in dynamic of Nora’s character. While she still seems fairly oblivious when it comes to the her bragging about her life in front of the woman who has clearly suffered from tremendous bad luck her whole life, Nora comes across as incredibly more intelligent than she did in the presence of her husband. She describes her borrowing of money and clever repayment, insisting that her husband, “mustn't know,”. Nora’s swaggering confidence and happiness with her life seems to fade significantly, however, when the character of Krogstad enters the scene. Whereas Nora was initially confident and proud in everything she has done, Krogstad’s revelation that the two have essentially committed the same forgery, and her husband’s condemnation of those who are, “deceitful,” and, “hypocritical,”. Within such a short span of time, Ibsen has had the ability to transform and reveal new aspects of the character of Nora so many times that we are left guessing just how she will go about solving her new problems. I am curious as to whether or not we will get the same treatment as we did Nora with the other characters of the book?
ReplyDeleteHenrik Ibsen’s “A Doll House” is, on the surface, a whimsical play set at Christmastime during Victorian times, but as the characters develop throughout Act I, it become clear that not all is what it seems. Nora is the embodiment of this progression. As Nora hums her way into Act I, it appears as though she is superficial and irresponsible. Even Torvald, her serious and almost miserly husband, calls her a “little lark twittering” and a “squirrel bustling.” Her lifestyle choices and demands qualify her to be a “spendthrift” – not just by Torvald’s standards, but by her classmate, Christine’s recollections. All this frivolity turns serious when Nora reveals that she was able to “procure the money” to move her husband south for his health. As Nora divulges the details of this transaction, there is a shift in the perception of her capabilities and competence as a Victorian woman. Then when Mr. Krogstad approaches her, it is apparent that Nora secured the financing from a shylock, and worse she forged her father’s signature in order to do so. This act of fearless determination is curiously appealing when one considers the level of confidence Nora would need in contravention of traditional Victorian society to deal at this level. Even Christine finds her to be “imprudent,” but Nora finds this financial responsibility energizing, “like being a man.” Then with the same level of manipulation, Nora has kept her act of devotion a secret from Torvald until she can use it to influence him when “it may be a good thing to have something in reserve.” Ironically, despite Nora’s boldness, Victorian social standards seem to trump her bravado when she learns that her forgery, even though it was well intentioned and “for love’s sake,” will displease Torvald.
ReplyDeleteIn Act I, Henrik creates a web of deceit that will likely play out as the drama unfolds. The sinister Krogstad may pressure Nora, and disrupt her “great piece of good luck.” Ibsen inserted the doctor’s visits, which Nora believes are social calls, but may be foreshadowing Torvald’s demise. Even Torvald, calling Nora a “featherhead,” paints a scenario where he is killed on New Year’s Eve. “The Doll’s House” may soon crumble under the weight of dishonesty.
The layout of the play allows us to know the most about Nora, a character whose persona differs with each other character she speaks to. An initially oblivious character, her full personality develops for the audience with every interaction. “(smiling and humming). That’s my affair! (Walking about the room.) It’s perfectly glorious to think that we have — that Torvald has so much power over so many people.” Openly power-hungry, and aware of her own influence, when Torvald isn’t present she is much more honest and expressive, promptly taking out the macaroons she claimed she never bought, saying Christine brought them, and then hiding them away immediately when her husband reappears. Building lies upon lies, regardless of their insignificance, she opens pathways for future plot points and revelations, just as the divulging of her full personality forges a more complete story. The audience can see all that the other’s don’t know about Nora, and what they themselves don’t as well, her character developing in a linear pattern. Her unpredictability still allowing for herself to get caught up in the web as her secret to save her husband is complicated by a talk with Krogstad. She maintains an air of obliviousness about the gravity of fraud and is yet much more harsh with the lawyer than anyone else stating, “I couldn’t take that into account; I didn’t trouble myself about you at all.” While still holding certain qualities that seem integral to the character, Nora maintains completely different facades with each person she speaks to and each issue that concerns her, making her true nature difficult to define. With her greater complexities revealed it becomes clear that the initial banter between Nora and Torvald was not so honest either. The way Torvald speaks with her appears even more ridiculous by the end. She is very clearly able to manipulate him by appealing to his ego. Despite Nora being introduced as Torvald’s wife, she has been portrayed as having much more influence over him than he is aware. She gives character’s differing significance based on how she interacts with them, those she is less honest to appearing as more foolish, woven into but unaware of her many selves. This encompassing control over the play mirrors her secret she attempts maintain. Her ability to sway the fate of her husband, now facing the difficulty of holding everything together. In a statement of unconscious seriousness by Torvald, “Just think how a guilty man like that has to lie and play the hypocrite with everyone, how he has to wear a mask in the presence of those near and dear to him, even before his own wife and children,” Nora’s control faces potential for consequence. Her confidence may begin to waver as we see the private self of Nora, the most honest of her many appearances, faltering by the end of the act.
ReplyDeleteI like how you said that Nora's lies will advance and make the future plot more complex, with moments of revelation. It will be interesting to see how her lies affect the structure of the play.
DeleteIbsen’s use of characterization in the text relies on changes, similar to in Gogol, but he uses quick and sharp shifts to create an entirely new effect. Helmer begins the passage as a likable character, if not a little strange in his treatment of his wife, but morally upstanding. However, this takes a distasteful turn as it is revealed that he acts this way because of his own unforgiving moral standards that come off as harsh when he explained how they apply to Krogstad. This fixation upon control and keeping things clean and presentable extents to his ban on sweets for his wife so that her teeth will be preserved and his strict policy against borrowing money. With the addition of the judging aspect of Helmer’s character he completely changes, like earlier when we learned the motivation behind Nora’s keen interest in money. This is what differentiates the characterization in A Doll’s house from Gogol, none of the characters change, we simply learn more about a character and our perspective on them completely changes. This even happened with Krogstad, by learning his great crime was forging a signature, I immediately became much more sympathetic to his plea for keeping his job at the bank despite him being the antagonist. Conversely, Jhumpa Lahiri would commonly use the passage of time, like in the case of Gogol, or a major event, as with Asoke, to pivot in her characterization of a particular character. At the sacrifice of an involved plot, I do think Ibsen’s approach creates a more dramatic effect as characters can completely change on a dime and it allows more room to play with the reveal. When Nora revelaved the nature of her trip to Italy, she went from wasteful to fiscally conservative in the span of a few paragraphs, with an entire subplot that she may be a prostitute just for added effect. Conversely, it is more predictable that Ashoke would change his worldview after the train crash. However, this change resonates better throughout the subsequent paragraphs as we see the rationalization of his life decisions throughout his recovery, while in A Doll’s House there is little opportunity to linger on Nora’s change in character. The two styles have different goals in mind, but both are impressive in their use of characterization.
ReplyDeleteIn act two I predict that Ibsen will capitalize on Krogstad’s improved sympathetic position and further degrade Helmer as judgemental and patronizing, even if he is a moral man. For this to work I think it would need to center around Nora and her opinion of the two men, as she so far has the best standing with the readers. I bevelave this would be a good way to build conflict going into the third act and fit will with the ongoing theme of changing the perception of character. However, as I previously stated, Ibsen is able to suddenly change a reader’s perception of a character and he would probably want to avoid an easily predictable plot.
By the end of Act I the reader can ascertain elements of Ibsen’s style. A notable one is his heavy use of dramatic irony. The reader, Nora, and almost everyone else in the play are aware of the situation of the family and Torvald, yet he remains blissfully unaware. Despite Helmer’s ignorance, the has a shocking ability to state the truth unknowingly. Not only does he speak truth, he criticizes the truth openly, building the suspense leading to its revelation. He is quite vocal of his abhorrence of debt and loaning money, which is ironic as he is in the business of banking. He is concerned with Nora’s health when he really should be worried about his own. He condemns the very deceit Nora conceals for his sake for its effect on a family, for “such an atmosphere of lies infects and poisons the whole life of a home. Each breath the children take in such a house is full of the germs of evil.” Ibsen’s satire lies in his specification of the “mother” as the primary influence on her children, for good or for worse. This is an instance of situational irony, as it is expected that he would lay the blame on Krogstad’s role of the father, whom he seeks to fire, rather than Nora’s role as a mother. Ibsen’s use of irony is critical to his tone towards the characters and the topics of the piece, as well as his roundabout, yet full characterization of each.
ReplyDeleteEmma, you did a good job pointing out the dualities between the characters, specifically Torvald and Nora, as well as the dualities a character posses amongst themselves. The characters are seemingly unaware of their false motives, highlighting Ibsen's use of dramatic irony as you mentioned.
DeleteFrom the actions and thoughts of the characters in A Doll House, Act 1, the reader is infer the personality of the characters. From the beginning, the reader can tell that Nora is generous and and wealthy. Her husband is a gentleman and treats Nora well. While Nora seems to be more of a free spender, Torvald allows her to spend the money, but is wise about it saying “There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt”. Nora listens, but is able to make Torvald feel bad so he gives in and tells her she can spend money, but then she ends up spending a lot because she is a big spender and comes from a family like that. When Torvald is upset with Nora for her lack of understanding about the value of money. He blames on his family, and the fact that she is a female. This speaks to society’s opinion on women and how they are “uneducated”. Later on Torvald’s insistence to call Nora nicknames emphasizes how Torvald thinks that Nora depends on him.
ReplyDeleteHenrik Ibsen uses characterization in his plays to emphasize the importance of the character actions, both big and small. He focuses on the happy couple, Nora and Torvald. He opens up the play by using playful banter between the two as Torvald asks “Is it my little squirrel bustling about?” and makes fun of her for being a “spendthrift”. Initially Nora’s emphasis on Torvald’s new job, and salary, do point to this conclusion but Ibsen uses the other characters to establish a deeper meaning for her actions. As the Act goes on and Nora begins to converse with Mrs. Linde, we see a shift in Nora’s motives. Although she had been begging her husband for money, it was to pay off their debt. She explains, “Whenever Torvald has given me money for new dresses and such things, I have never spent more than half of it; I have always bought the simplest and cheapest things.” Although she still holds the importance of appearance the most, we learn that she was acting in the best interest of her family secretly. By keeping this a secret asnf engaging in sketchy business with one of her husband’s associates, Nora digs a bigger hole to keep her secret under wraps. Ibsen uses the associate, Krogstad to further explain the extent of Nora’s actions. We learn that she had to forge a signature and borrowed money from his friend. Although her appearance is confident and naive, secretly she is struggling to keep her family afloat while keeping them in the dark about their troubles. By using these other characters to shatter these dreams, Ibsen adds depth to Nora’s character by posing alternate motives for her actions and thus emphasizing their importance. I think that Ibsen is setting the character up to have a major conflict where all the secrets and shady business are revealed to all the characters. I also wonder if Ibsen will try to justify her actions due to her good intentions or have the characters condemn her for being secretive.
ReplyDeleteThe first half of A Doll House guides the reader through viewing Nora’s differing relationships with the people in her life, alongside how they are not always what first meets the eye. Though Torvald and Nora are married, the way they communicate with each other initially resembles a father-daughter relationship. He patronizingly speaks to her, watches what she eats, and frequently repeats his belief to her that a “home that depends on loans and debts is not beautiful because it is not free.” These first pieces of character development leave the reader under the impression that Nora is a simple-minded gold digger, and Torvald is the stereotypical, sexist breadwinning husband that enables her. However, when Mrs. Linde arrives, this dynamic is flipped on its head. Nora reveals to Mrs. Linde that she wasn’t asking for so much money from Torvald because she was a “spendthrift,” rather, she was doing so to make up debt for an all-expenses paid vacation to Italy she brought Torvald on to save his life, using money loaned to her, unbeknownst to Torvald. This changes the reader’s opinion of Nora, as she is further characterized to be an intelligent woman who took an independent risk during a time of extreme sexism to save her husband’s life. This also reveals irony, as the taking of loans and independency of Nora that Torvald argued so strongly against are ultimately what saved his life. While Nora is intelligent and able to manipulate Torvald and impress Mrs. Linde, more insight into her character is revealed through Krogstad’s troubling appearance into the Act. For the first time, she is not completely in control of a relationship she has with someone itself. It’s interesting to view the varying perceptions that those in Nora’s life have of her. Her loss of confidence and control leads me to believe that the different versions of her will all be exposed by the people in her life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your final statement about how Nora's lack of control with expose her secrets to those around her. She is being dishonest to her husband about borrowing money, and two of his least favorite things are lying and borrowing. He already acts superior to Nora so if he were to find out about her dishonesty, the outcome doesn't seem to be a positive one.
DeleteThroughout the first act of “A Doll’s House,” Henrik Ibsen focuses on characterization, especially that of the main character, Nora. Through her interactions with her husband, Torvald, one can see the role that Nora is supposed to play in her household. Torvald believes that, as a man, he is superior to Nora and talks down to her in a condescending manner, almost as if she were a child. In fact, he calls her by names such as “my squirrel” or “little featherhead” that seem to dehumanize her. He forces her to depend on him for money, as he is the breadwinner of the family and it seems that money is Nora’s only source of joy, albeit the money is going to repay a loan that saved Torvald’s life. In a similar manner, Torvald believes that because Nora is a woman, she has no place dealing with money except for spending the money he gives her on Christmas gifts for their children or new dresses. Henrik establishes Nora’s role in the house as more of a showpiece rather than a human. Her husband does not allow her to eat sweets as “he is afraid they will spoil [her] teeth.” I believe this may be where the title of the play comes from, as Nora seems to be treated like a doll in Torvald’s dollhouse, rather than a real human.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Nora’s role in domestic life seems to be developing as one point of conflict, I predict that the main conflict of the play will revolve around money. From the first interaction of the play between Nora and the porter, each conversation tends to lead back to money. With the secrets that Nora is keeping involving hiding a loan from Torvald when he specifically said that he is against taking them out, using the money he gives her to pay it back without him knowing, and Krogstad knowing about Nora’s forgery, there is bound to be a point where this all blows up.
At first when the reader is introduced to Nora, she has the characteristic of decievement, as in the first few lines she asks her maid to hide the sweets. She wanted to hide the macaroons, lying to her husband that she didn’t buy any sweets while she was out. It is revealed that she is much more mature than what was led to believe when she was first introduced, she secretly took out a loan to take her and Torvald to Italy and paid it back herself. However, she deceives her husband by taking a loan without her husband’s knowledge and lying saying it was from her father. Nora feels obligated to care for Torvald sacrificing her time to pay it back without any help from him. Unfortunately, Nora seems to be the most minimized even though she is a major character in the first act. Towards the end of the act, Torvald describes Krogstad, “he has to wear a mask in the presence of those near and dear to him, even before his own wife and children”. Torvald believes liars are rotten people, who will only poison the children that he has; Nora applies this to herself and towards the end feels like she jeopardized her family. Nora is believing that she has failed her children and could have “poisoned” the family. As she loses confidence and Krogstad threatens her in court, there are many factors that could possibly unveil her secrets.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between Nora and Torvald feels more like a father-daughter relationship rather than a husband-wife dynamic based off of the way that he addresses his wife. He calls her his “little squirrel” and “little featherhead” as well as a spendthrift, names that are insulting rather than loving. Yet, Nora doesn’t seem to mind, she even feeds into it. It becomes apparent that she does this not only to please her husband, but to obtain the money she needs to pay off her debt. We also learn that she has been keeping a secret from her husband pertaining to where the money that paid for their trip to Italy came from. Nora is more independent than the audience once thought, her aloofness being merely an act. She does however still behave in a way that pleases Torvald, but also has him wrapped around her little finger. She does this when Mrs. Linde asks her to get her a job bookkeeping at the bank. Nora knows exactly what to say to get Torvald to not only agree, but convince him that he came up with this on his own. It will be interesting to see how the relationship between Nora and Torvald develops. It seems like it is heading in a problematic direction after Nora’s encounter with Krogstad and lying about his visit to Helmer. There seems to be a lack of trust between the couple.
ReplyDelete“A Doll House” starts off by introducing the characters in a setting that highlights their relationships with many different people. For Nora, her relationship with her husband, Torvald, is much like a relationship between a daughter and a father. Torvald constantly talks down to Nora as if she has no personal responsibility and she can not handle herself. When Christine Linde visits, however, Nora exposes herself that she was the one that paid for her husband to get better by working and making agreements to borrow from friends. I found this very surprising as a reader because it is very easy to believe that Nora is just as her husband describes her. She does not defend herself against Torvald’s serious accusations, and allows him to constantly take care of her. When she is talking to Ms. Linde, she appears more self centered, only wanting to talk about her own life, and how great it is going for her and her family. Ibsen set up this scene in a way that the reader/ audience would see every aspect of Nora, and how she composes herself around the different people in her life. At the end of act 1, there is a clear set up for a problem that Nora is going to have to face in the upcoming acts. Krogstad would like a job, and he is willing to threaten her with the false signature for her to talk to her husband about it. Torvald later expresses his pure hated for the man, and does not want to be anywhere near him, let alone hire him at the bank. It ends with an ironic conversation between Torvald and Nora when he explains to her the importance of telling the truth when he does not know about her looming secret.
ReplyDeleteIn A Doll House, Henrik Ibsen uses themes of deceit and control to characterize the play’s protagonist, Nora. Clearly, she is much different towards the beginning of the act, where the audience may perceive her as ignorant, spoiled, and something of a caricature of a Victorian Era woman. Here, the reader might also notice some defining traits of Torvald. Ibsen uses indirect characterization to accentuate these different features--more specifically, how he interacts with Nora. It is clear that he acts as the typical Victorian Era man, believing he has power over Nora and treating her more as a pet than a person. For instance, he comments how “‘that is like a woman!’” when Nora explains she did not know who lent her the money. Of course, this shows how dismissive he is of Nora, believing her to be nothing but a foolish, inferior woman. Another minor, though seemingly significant, detail I noticed about Helmer was his constant use of pet names towards Nora. One that seemed almost symbolic was when he mentioned, “‘My sweet little skylark must not drop her wings’”. Referring to Nora as a skylark seemed to represent how, like a caged bird, she is confined within her house with no control. However, as the first act progresses, the audience familiarizes themselves with Nora’s true character and motives. Evidently, she is scheming, manipulative, and intelligent, straying from the typical standards of a Victorian Era woman. Instead of being concerned with how society regards her, which acted as a main concern to many other women at that time, Nora simply states, “‘What do I care about tiresome Society?’”. The vitality of society is highlighted in this quote, where society is capitalized, making it seem almost personified. Still, Nora dismisses it here, revealing how she is more concerned with her own satisfaction than the satisfaction of others. In addition, the macaroons seem to embody Nora’s lack of conformity to Victorian Era standards. Though she is aware that her husband does not like her to eat them, she carries on doing so. Again, this emphasizes one of her most distinguishable traits: her refusal to conform. Nonetheless, Nora is clever enough to recognize she cannot outwardly act this way with Torvald. This connects to the theme of deceit, where Nora automatically lies to Torvald when he asks if she’s had any macaroons. In response, Nora claims that, “‘I should not think of going against your wishes’”. Clearly, Nora does this throughout the first act, including how she borrowed the money without his knowledge of consent. Due to Nora’s clear lack of power in her position at that time, she is also shown to correlate her power with Torvald’s. One can see this in the quote, “‘It’s perfectly glorious to think that we have — that Torvald has so much power over so many people’”. The switch between “we” and “Torvald” captures Nora’s central conflict. Here, she expresses her desire for power, and how she believes her control is connected to Torvald’s. Like him, she wants to hold control over her life and the lives of others, though Victorian Era standards often restrict her from doing so. This relates to how Nora views her secret, where she expresses, “‘To think of his learning my secret, which has been my joy and pride’”. The fact that Nora refers to her secret as her “‘joy and pride’” stresses how much she desires control. For her, the secret is one aspect of her life she has maintained and controlled by herself. Since she lacks power in many other parts of her life, she finds contentment in this secret, granting her a feeling of dominance over her husband.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the first Act of A Doll House, the author is able to establish the attitudes of the characters, thus setting up action for the next act. Nora begins as a spender and the author portrays her as not that intelligent. However, we soon learn that she actually borrowed money from a loan shark down south, and she is not naive as she seems. Her husband, Torval, has a strange relationship with his wife and speaks down to her in their conversations. Torval believes that Nora’s poor spending habits are a result from being a woman, and he acts as though she is dependent on him. The only time where Torvald calls Nora by her name is while scolding her, so overall their relationship is rather disappointing and I think this will lead to turmoil later down the road. Also, Krogstad is portrayed as the antagonist in the play. We learn that Nora actually borrowed money from his friend and is secretly trying to keep her family stable with this money. She did this by forging a signature, and by using these characters to destroy dreams, Ibsen creates further depth to their characters. Overall, I believe that actions and events that occur in Act 1 setup for conflict for later in Act 2.
ReplyDeleteWhen I started reading A Doll House, I followed the only description I was being told and I viewed Nora the same way that her husband did. He calls her a spendthrift and treats her as if she’s completely daft. Ibsen sets up this characterization in the beginning. He depicts a rich woman with her husband as manager of bank, in a big house with a maid and nanny. She seems to be so excited about shopping and what she’s bought that day and even goes as far as to ask Torvald for more money. I felt guilty for falling into this single story that he told of her. When she meets with Mrs. Linde, we’re able to see what’s actually going on in her life. She needs this money to pay off her debts, debts she was forced to take out in order to keep her husband healthy.
ReplyDeleteThroughout all of Act One, Ibsen sets up a clear build up to the climax of the story. It’s very likely that something will happen with their money situation, stopping Nora from being so rich and being able to pay off her debts. I’m interested to see what comes next and what different roles the characters will play. I’d also like to know more about the relationship between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde.
So far A Doll House proves itself to be very interesting read. From only reading Act 1, it seems hard to envision that this play is going to be a tragedy. There definitely are themes of misogyny and sexism. Nora is seen as a spendthrift and somewhat shamed by her husband. He accounts her spending to her gender, saying “Nora, my Nora, that is just like a woman”. Torvald monitors what she eats and has a lot of little nicknames for her. Nora definitely seems like the subservient in the relationship, and although neither of them are very lovable characters, they both seem fairly happy. I’m not really sure what Ibsen is trying to set up for Act II, at the end of the act the doorbell rings and it is announced that Dr. Rank has arrived and lady caller as well.
ReplyDeleteOne question that I would have is how is Ibsen trying to portray the characters to us. Does he want them to be likable? Or for them to bother us? That question may not have an answer, but I think it’s an interesting thought because usually the author has a certain way they want the audience to feel about the main characters.
In Act 1 of “A Doll’s House”, we are introduced to the main characters. Initially, Ibsen introduces Nora and Torvald. Ibsen portrays Nora as a helpless woman who relies on her husband. In fact, Torvald and Nora have a relationship that, to readers, seems uncomfortable. Nora almost acts younger than she is and adores that Torvald calls her his “squirrel” and “skylark”. Additionally, Torvald scolds Nora for being a “spendthrift” and accuses her of being wasteful with their money. The audience gets the initial impression that Nora is a doting wife who depends on her husband. Mrs. Linde then arrives, unannounced at the house. Her husband has died and she has no money. Nora, being the aloof person she is, brags about how great her life is. Mrs. Linde laments the fact that she never had children and then Nora begins to speak about her three, healthy children. She apologizes for going on about her life but, continues to do it. Mrs. Linde has little money but, Nora has to bring up Torvald’s new job and the fact that they will soon have “pots and pots of money”. This conversation reveals how out of touch with reality Nora is and how much she thinks the world revolves around her. However, Ibsen develops her character and reveals that when Torvald was sick, she took out a loan in his name so that they could spend a year in Italy. This trip seems to have cured her husband. She lied and told him the money was given to her by her late father. But, this means Nora is not in debt to Krogstad, the local “bad guy”. Readers then learn that Nora is sneaky in how she pays him back. She picks up odd jobs like crocheting and writing cards. She also saves some of the money Torvald is always giving her but, she is thrifty so it looks like she is spending all of it with the items she brings home. This reveals that Nora is more independent then she lets on.
ReplyDeleteAnna
Act 1 of "The Doll House" helped set the reader into better understanding Ibsen’s style and largely focused on developing character interactions. The main character Nora is shown to have established a daughter-like relationship with her husband Torvald with a seemingly exploitive nature. In it, Torvald treats her, as the title suggests, as a mere object and like a "doll" he uses for pleasure. She, on the other hand, is initially portrayed to be exploiting him for money to buy things and appeal to him. Despite the relationship being far from traditional, both characters seemed oddly okay with the established dynamic. Only after is the reader made aware when interacting with Mrs. Linde that Nora is using the money to pay off her loan to Krogstad. His portrayal makes her seem like a heroine who nonchalantly sacrificed herself to loan money and help save Torvald while Krogstad is an evil villain who wants her money. In reality though, this perception shows to be false, as he lends her the money, and merely wishes to retain his job after Torvald's promotion at the bank. Ultimately, the novel seems to be largely based upon deception and rarely do things remain to be what they seem to initially be.
ReplyDeleteIn what we’ve read in Doll House so far, I am intrigued by the initial conversations between characters and am excited to keep reading. Originally, I took Torvald’s word for truth when describing Nora’s character. He describes her as a “spendthrift” and speaks down to her, as lesser than himself. She seems flaky and self centered, which Isben purposefully did in the beginning of the play to allow readers to create stereotypes of Torvald and Nora in their heads. My opinion of Nora greatly changed later in Act 1, when it is discovered that Nora is using half of the money to take out loans, which she is using to keep her husband healthy. Once this selfless act is discovered, I felt more connected to Nora and the secret she is keeping. Krogstad interferes with this secret as he asks for a job, although Torvald despises him. Ironically, the act ends with Nora and Torvald speaking about the importance of truth.
ReplyDeleteThe dynamic of the cast in Henrik Ibsen’s The Doll House is perplexing and fascinating. The way the characters are constantly changing and playing off one another makes it very difficult for readers to uncover their true identities. The type of person of Nora becomes when she is around Doctor Rank as opposed to her own husband shows the foil character she is now and all the changes that are to come as the play continues. I would predict that this will come to a large climax the conflicting characters in Nora’s life such as Rank, Ms. Linde, Torvald and Krogstad. The importance of social status of the society in The Doll House and the immaturity of many of the characters is building up to a chaotic end. Nora has created a tangled mess and has to figure out a solution quick if she wants to keep her picture perfect life. I wonder if any more characters will come and introduce more wrinkles into the story.
ReplyDelete-Kathryn
ReplyDelete