“A Doll’s House,” by Henrik Ibsen is a story about a couple and their relationship between each other and the others in their lives. Nora’s actions are unpredictable, and because of this it can be interpreted as a feminist or non-feminist work. Choose a side, whether feminist or non-feminist, and use one of the critical articles below weaving in textual evidence to prove your argument.
http://www.fofweb.com/Lit/default.asp?ItemID=WE54
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23063941/A-Dolls-House-a-Push-to-Freedom
***for those who are unaware, the password and username for Bloom's Literary Library (linked above as www.fofweb) is nsacademy
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe that, “A Doll’s House” is a feminist work. The story revolves around Nora and the acts she has performed in order to save her family and ultimately save herself. Nora expresses how she has not ever felt the sense of, “love and belonging” (Brunnemer), and as a result she decides to leave her husband’s house. Nora explains how she has always been kept as a, “doll-wife here, just as at home I was Papa’s doll-child”(1302), which makes her feels as if she has no sense of belonging because she has merely been kept as a showpiece to have fun with rather than as a human that needs love in order to survive. She candidly explains to Torvald that she has just been a toy that he has played with and she is exhausted of playing such a role in life. Nora desires to achieve something more than just being the flawless epitome of an item that can be shown in society. When Nora finally realizes what she finally wants, she feels, “clearheaded and sure in” (1303), life because she can now live the life that she desires. By evincing Nora’s independence after living so many years of suppression and conceiving, “three children” (1304), Ibsen provides hope to the women in that time period that they do not have to succumb to their circumstances and that they, too, can rise above and achieve their dreams. Even though Ibsen proclaims that he did not intend this story to be in support of feminism, the instances he provides make it a feminist story because at the end Nora goes onto complete her own journey instead of being subservient in her husband’s journey.
ReplyDeleteSimply put, the play A Doll’s House, is not feminist. Textual evidence abounds in favor of a feminist reading, but taken in a different light, they profuse humanism. Thus it is imperative that modern readers turn to other sources to verify Ibsen’s intentions. Despite the copious arguments to the contrary, Brunnemer’s excellent critical analysis and Ibsen’s biography dispel any hopes that feminists possess to arm themselves with his play at their side. For example, take Torvald’s comment “You [Nora] are an odd little soul. Very like your father” (6). Farther along in the play Nora states that “When I was at home with papa, he told me his opinion about everything, and so I had the same opinions” (57). Obviously, a Freudian complex drives this dynamic of a daughter inheriting a father’s tastes based on her desire to please him. Ibsen, although not a contemporary of the father of psychoanalysis, would have held some of the same prejudices that Freud possessed when examining women . Further, Ibsen was avid reader of the Bible (Powers). Nora represents fully the biblical matron Eve in both her deception when she responds with a “No, certainly not” to Torvald’s inquiry if she has been eating macaroons, and the money she obtains without her husband’s permission, a literary apple (7). Moreover, her three children represent the Holy Trinity, which she rejects. Thus, she embodies the male perspective of all women as succubae. In Ibsen’s own life he did not hold the opposite sex in high esteem. He retained several mistresses, especially during his wife’s ameliorative hiatus of several years in Italy. His own mother, a drunk and immoral indigent, impressed upon him a deplorable viewpoint of women (Powers). Lastly, taking in consideration the play as a whole, the school of thought is much more “humanist rather than feminist” (Brunnemer). As Brunnemer also states, the protagonist could have been played by the husband or a son. She also cites Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in which Nora fulfills herself as a human, not as a feminist.
ReplyDeleteEven though “A Doll’s House” can be interpreted as a feminist novel, I agree with Ibsen and his idea of portraying self-realization, rather than advocating women’s rights within this novel. In “A Doll’s House: A Push to Freedom,” the author uses many different sources to create an analysis supporting the non-feminist qualities of Ibsen’s work. Nora longs to be independent and free but does not act upon this desire until her past debt begins to haunt her, and she experiences an awakening through her husband’s comments. Throughout “A Doll’s House,” Nora’s personality is repressed by the expectations of society, and her “duty” to her family, even though she never fulfills this obligation; however, she is open about her true character to her friend Christine. Nora tells her that “she will dance and dress up and play the fool” (1734) to keep her husband, Torvald, happy. This image that Nora wishes to display shows the reader that she is not the fool she expresses herself as. “ Despite her desire for freedom, Nora has, until the close of
ReplyDeletethe story, accepted the comfort and ease, as well as the restrictions, of Torvald's home instead of facing the rigors that accompany independence” (2). Some may argue that when Nora leaves her husband and children that it is an act of feminism; however, Nora did not abandon Torvald because of his condescending attitude, rather his comments created a moment of self awareness. As Bernard Shaw’s essay on “A Doll’s House” states, “ the woman’s eyes are opened; and instantly her doll’s dress is thrown off and her husband is left staring at her” (2). The statement of opening eyes shows the realization that Nora experiences as “A Doll’s House” progresses, and the reference to an actual “doll’s dress” connects the meaning of the title with the theme of discovery.
Torvald’s harsh tone and commentary, after reading Krogstad’s letter, causes Nora to realize her unhappiness within her marriage. She begins to notice Torvald’s concern for acceptance in society over love, “I have to stand completely alone, if I’m ever going to discover myself and the world out there. So I can’t go on living with you” (1758). Her choice to leave her husband shows her control in her relationship with Torvald and allows her to assert her authority and achieve independence; nevertheless, these actions were accomplished because of self-realization within her marriage, which reveals more enlightenment than feminism. Ibsen’s purpose in writing “A Doll’s House” was to show the importance of the individual and the search for self-discovery, not promote feminism. The fact that the main character is a woman only adds to the interpretation as a feminist work, even though Ibsen’s intention was to depict the power and strength included within self-realization, regardless of gender.
“A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen is a story filled with much controversy over whether or not it is a feminist work. I believe that Ibsen did not intend for the story to reflect feminism, but the empowerment of a the main woman character, Nora, to rebel against the standard housewife motherly role by abandoning her children and husband creates a storyline that oozes with unintended feminism. Nora lives her entire life acting a though she was a doll. Her husband and even her father treated her as though she was a stupid, emotionless being that was always smiling and happy. Torvald, her husband, constantly belittles Nora by calling her “squirrel” (1402), “little lark” (1402), and “darling little songbird” (1422). Nora rebels in the end of the story by speaking out against her husband, “ I’ve waited now so patiently eight long years- for, my Lord, I know miracles don’t come every day. Then this crisis broke over me, and such a certainty filled me...” (1452). This certainty that Nora feels is the empowerment she has over her life as she decides to find happiness by breaking free from the choking male grasp that Torvald and her father had on her with their constant downplay or disapproval of her intelligence and actions. Nora’s decision to abandon her husband and children in a society that largely disapproves of woman’s independence proves why, “ ‘A Doll's House’ is often interpreted by readers, teachers, and critics alike as an attack on chauvinistic behavior and a cry for the recognition of women's rights” (“ A Doll’s House a Push to Freedom”).
ReplyDeleteConcerning the topic of whether "A Doll's House" is a feminist novel or not, I personally am in belief that it is indeed an example of feminist literature. Throughout the novel, Nora is treated as Helmer's "little, precious lark." This "babying" of Nora throughout the novel relates to the time period in which the story is based. During that time, women were expected to keep up with the household duties and children while the husband supported the family through work outside of the house. At the beginning of the novel, Nora seems to embody the perfect example of this house mom persona. She is constantly thinking about her children or how to straighten up the house. As the story progresses and the shady actions from Nora's past come to light, however, she begins to realize that she is more important to her family's well-being than she previously realized. While Krogstad blackmails Nora with her withdrawal of the loan to take care of her husband, she personally, intelligently devises a plan to stop Krogstad from revealing the issue. The idea of Mrs. Linde subduing Krogstad was all of Nora's own thinking. She did not receive any help from Helmer, but instead acted on her own will. It is with this little taste of independence that Nora leaves Helmer. "I've been your doll-wife here, just as at home I was Papa's doll-child. And in turn the children have been my dolls. I thought it was fun when you played with me, just as they thought it fun when I played with them. That's been our marriage, Torvald.(pg. 1758)" Nora, to Helmer's disbelief, summarizes their marriage into one big playdate, disregarding any type of bond Helmer believed they had. "I believe that, before all else, I'm a human being, no less than you-or anyway, I ought to try to become one.(pg.1759)" Nora ends the story with realizing her self-empowerment. The threat by Krogstad did have a purpose for her after all. The situation helped her realize that she was not "Helmer's wife". No, instead she desired to be known as "Nora", a independent, self-relying, strong-willed woman.
ReplyDelete“A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen is an accurate portrayal of the Victorian Era’s, “well-made play”, except for the final twist at the end involving the divorce between Nora and Torvald. Despite common misconceptions, this play is not designed to aid the feminist movement; “I must decline the honor of being said to have worked for the Women's Rights movement. I am not even very sure what Women's Rights are. To me it has been a question of human rights.” (“A Doll’s House: A Push to Freedom.) The author of the play reinforced the idea that this play was not supposed to encompass pro-feminist ideals. Nora, the protagonist of the play, is portrayed as an ignorant woman who is the “pet” of her husband. How can a woman of this nature (that is portrayed in the restricting time period of a Victorian era play) be the forefront of the feminist movement. The entire play knocks Nora down to societies expectations, despite her discontent with her constricting husband, Torvald. Male dominance and belittlement of women is prevalent; “Come now-little Nora talking about scientific research!” (1753.) Nora is not considered an intellectual equal with Rank, a man in the play. She is patronized and treated as inferior to men, thus bolstering the premise that feminism does not play an integral role in “A Doll’s House”.
ReplyDeleteNora’s role in A Doll’s House no doubt frames her as a feminist heroine. Although there is controversy over characterizing Ibsen’s play as feminist, Nora clearly liberates herself from the confines of marriage and motherhood. Repeatedly, Torvald refers to Nora as his little possession: “Is it my little squirrel bustling about” (1260). Trying to degrade her, Torvald constantly puts Nora in place with these “pet names.” However, in reality these dominating husband is a facade. Nora tricks Torvald into thinking she is innocent and “like a woman” (1259). In actuality, she is powerful and secretive. She tricks Torvald into thinking she spends her “allowance” foolishly when she is really using it to pay off her debts which saved Torvald’s life. Ironically, Nora preserves her husbands masculinity so that he can maintain his pride, all the while making him believe she has nothing to hide. Her devious behavior is displayed simply but humorously when she defies Torvald and sneaks macaroons. By the audience, she is “putting the macaroon bag in her pocket and wiping her mouth” (1258). Later when Torvald attempts to confront Nora, she creatively “plays dumb” as she flirtatiously deceives: “[Torvald:] Surely my sweet tooth hasn’t been running riot today...[Nora:] No. Why do you imagine that?...You know I could never think of going against you” (1260). Comfortably assured that Nora is obeying him, Torvald lets the subject rest. Later taking pity on “poor” Nora, he sweetly gives Nora her allotted spending money. Nora’s manipulative plot has succeeded. In the end, Nora abandons the life of tireless games. She sets herself free from the stress of marriage and raising her children. No longer will she listen to her husbands demeaning tone. As a result, Nora leads the way, marching out of the Victorian era straight to independency.
ReplyDeleteI interpret the story as a feminist work, even though Ibsen rejects the issue of women’s rights as a theme (A Dolls House: A Push to Freedom). Nora undoubtedly exhibits feminist, rebellious actions. Her rebellion and deceitfulness towards Torvald show her desire for independence, the most common part of the feminist movement; “ ‘Just now.’ (putting the macaroon bag in her pocket and wiping her mouth.)… ‘Not even munched a macaroon or two?’ ‘No, Torvald, I assure you, really—‘ ” (1714-1716). Nora knows that there is something more important for her in her life other than being Torvald’s “little lark.” Women in the feminist movement knew that their lives had something better in store for them, like a real job and education with equality toward men; “There’s another job I have to do first. I have to try to educate myself… I’ve got to do it alone” (1758). Nora realizes the repression Torvald impends on her and it becomes a push for her to find freedom. The more he treats her as a child, the more she desires to be set free from the entrapment. She no longer wants to feel beneath a man, leading to why she separates herself from the repression… as did the women of the feminist movement.
ReplyDeleteIf an intrepid passerby were to collect a shell from the sandy shores of a riverbank, then why does the shell remain to be called a seashell if it is from the river? Should it not be referred to as a river shell? Such an example of beauty incorrectly named by association demonstrates the incertitude of an environment, whether it be a river shell on a river shore or a woman who struggles for human, not feminist rights, in a masculine, literary world. Ibsen demonstrates this false naming through Nora’s personal development and struggle for freedom in “A Doll’s House,” a work in which he, “convey[ed] his views about individuality and the pursuit of social freedom” (Rahul). These views are not limited to the left region of man or right side of women, but rather his perspective regarding freedom falls concentrically in between Mars and Jupiter. While Nora does have certain feminist struggles against her husband’s oppression, she is not the only character of the story who battles for human rights. Her possession of, “... other duties equally sacred... Duties to myself,” (1758) demonstrate a realization of self fulfillment that applies to all members of humanity. But to say Nora’s relationship and abandonment of her husband and children, and consequently roles of supporting wife and nurturing mother, is the the only interaction in Ibsen’s work is to disregard the bounteous other examples of interrelations. Her husband, Homer, carries his own struggle of choosing between the roads of conformity to a male dominated era or the road certainly less traveled by, marital equality. His solution to, “... live her like brother and sister” (1760) gives new light to his character analysis by transforming him from the villain of oppression to the victim of societal expectations and Freudian superego. While he still wants Nora to remain in his life, she has transcended to a form beyond his capability of understanding. Because he cannot raise himself to her level, he resorts to the most rational decision of the time: a sibling, or relationship in which he can love her with a greater, yet still insufficient, equality. Readers seem to falsely blend his struggle with Nora’s, and thus taint her pure pursuit of freedom in the sense of humanism to a sense of feminism. Furthermore, Mrs. Linde certainly appears to be the dominant member in her newly formed relationship with Krogstad, for she practically sets the terms for their marriage and is the one to repair his heartbreak. In another light she realizes she needs a man to complete her, let alone to survive in a world meant for union between to opposites; an obtained understanding that would certainly demonstrate the defeat of feminism and survival of a patriarch society. While Ibsen does have some aspects of feminism, his work is certainly not a feminist story as a whole. Maybe we should start calling shells on river banks river shells and not sea shells just because they are on sand. After all wasn’t el mar at one time la mar in one language?
ReplyDelete@ Prutha- good quote weaving to extend the tie in of the novel with your point of view
ReplyDelete@ Bracey- excellent use of articles in defending the non-feminist side of the argument
@ Caroline- thorough interpretation of play and articles
@ Tasha- strong use of story line
@McLeod- thorough interpretation of play
@ Anna Cait- feminist examples within your paragraph are very strong
@ Kelsey- important note that Nora is aware that there is something more important in life that being a “little songbird”
@ Alexander- great hook, thorough insight