You will need to post comments three times on the first play before pumpkin time on Monday, December 8. Read the directions!
When posting comments...
* Use your name and first initial as usual.
* Label the post 1st, 2nd, or 3rd.
* In the first section of each post (labeled 1a, 2a, or 3a) analyze a specific passage and/or meaningfully connect related passages. Remember that some of the students reading your posts will not have read the same play, so make sure you provide adequate context. (This is the same problem faced by book, film, art, and music reviewers who analyze works of art that most of their audience hasn't yet experienced.) Remember to consider both what the play suggests (the themes) and how the play suggests it (the techniques).
* Leave an empty line.
* In the second section of each post (labeled 1b, 2b, 3b) respond to a comment or comments made by peers. You might respond to peers who are reading the same play by extending one of their ideas into new territory by connecting it to new a passage or by drawing new conclusions. You might offer an alternative interpretation of the same evidence offered by peers. You might also (or alternatively) respond to peers reading a different play. Since all of the plays deal at some level with the relationship between identity and family and since all of the plays in each section are either by the same author (Ibsen or Lorca) or by authors from the same country (Ireland and the U.S.A.) you will notice meaningful similarities and differences between the play you are reading and the others.
Each section of each post should be a couple hundred words or more (meaning each post will be several hundred words long). More importantly, however, is that you demonstrate an ability to analyze specific passages and eventually to synthesize the separate analyses into a convincing understanding of the whole.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
59 comments:
Emily C.
1st (A Doll's House)
1a) I have yet to read the third and final act of Henrik Ibsen’s play “ A Doll’s House”, but I believe that the prevailing theme within the novel is the natural human desire to escape from convention and normalcy, specifically a woman’s yearning to cut herself loose from the constraints of an idealized marriage. Nora, a wife and mother of three, leads and has always led a comfortable existence. Her husband, Torvald Helmer, was a lawyer that has just recently procured a profitable position as the manager of a bank. The exchange between husband and wife in the opening scene of the play illustrates the dynamic between the two characters; “ TORVALD [following her]: Now, now my little song-bird mustn’t be so crestfallen. Well? Is the squirrel sulking? [Taking out his wallet] Nora… guess what I have here! NORA [turning quickly]: Money! TORVALD: There! [He hands her some notes.] Good Heavens, I know what a lot has to go on housekeeping at Christmas time. NORA [couting]: Ten – twenty – thirty – forty! Oh, thank you, Torvald, thank you! This’ll keep me going for a long time!” It is clear that Nora enjoys both having and spending money, and that Torvald derives pleasure from being able to provide his wife with what pleases her most. It is later disclosed that years ago, unbeknownst to Torvald, and in a time of complete desperation, Nora borrowed a large sum of money from Nils Krogstad, a man of questionable morals and motives. In order to receive the money, the bond not only had to be signed by Nora but also her father, which Nora claims to have done; However, Krogstad discovers that she forged the signature. With such ammunition, Krogstad threatens Nora, telling her that he will disclose her secret to the public unless her secures his post at Torvald’s bank. Unable to stop Torvald from dismissing Krogstad, Krogstad writes Torvald a letter revealing Nora’s secret. Before Torvald has even read the letter, abusrd thoughts begin to form in Nora’s mind. Rather than telling her husband the truth, Nora contemplates leaving her family, and even committing suicide. Nora says that if her husband were to discover her secret, their marriage would undoubtedly terminate because Torvald would not understand her situation and would be utterly disgusted with her. I however, feel that Torvald would understand why Nora made such a foolish decision and compensate for her debt to Krogstad. Torvald would be upset, but not so intensely upset as to end his marriage with his beloved “song-bird”. I believe that Nora has convinced herself and others that her only option is to flee from her home because secretly she longs to leave her almost quixotic life that has forever been characterized by norms and convention. Nora is perceived by others to be incapable of hard work and self- sufficiency, and is treated by her husband like a silly, little child. It seems to me that Nora feels as if her existence has been belittled by far to many people for far too long a time and that an opportunity has finally arrived for her to abscond from her present situation and create a new life for herself in which she is not looked upon as spoiled, inept, and naïve.
1b) No one else has posted about an Ibsen play yet, so as of right now I am unable to do 1b.
The Airmont Classic Edition Copyright 1966
1.a. What I was most struck by about A Doll’s House was the lengths that Nora went to keep up the façade of ignorant, foolish, needy, devoted wife because she thought that would make Torvald happy. Although this could easily be considered to be a play about a female trying to fit the social standards of her time, I think that on a more universal note (i.e. including men) the play is the story of a person who spends her life being someone that she isn’t to please the person she loves.
The difference between who Nora pretends to be and who she truly is can be observed by comparing how she acts and talks around her husband and how she acts when he is not around. In Act I, Nora says that she is upset that she cannot spend more money that year on Christmas because Torvald has not received his promotion. She says, “Pooh! We can borrow until then” (Ibsen 13). Torvald then asks what she thinks would happen if they borrowed money and he happened to have an accident and died. Nora replies, “If that were to happen, I don’t suppose I should care whether I owed money or not” which of course is very silly because the money lenders aren’t going to care if she lost her husband, they’re going to want their money (Ibsen 13). From this encounter, one might think Nora to be a dim witted, selfish and frivolous woman.
When Nora is alone with her friend, Christine, she confesses that when her husband was sick, she borrowed money for a trip to help him get well and is now working off the debt “like… a man” (Ibsen 22). She says that to get him to go, she pretended that she was only interested in the trip for herself and “…told him how much [she] should like to travel abroad like other young wives…” (Ibsen 21). She goes on to say that “Whenever Torvald has given me money for new dresses…I never spent more than half of it; I have always bought the simplest and cheapest things” (Ibsen 22). She says that she only spends all of the money Torvald gives her when it is for the children. Back on page 14 Torvald says that Nora is never able to “save anything” and Nora tells Christine that he is completely ignorant of the fact that she has been borrowing and paying off debt and she wants to keep it that way. From this exchange, a reader would probably think Nora to be clever, selfless, and eager to be useful.
1.b. Emily C., I can see why you would think that Nora had made a foolish mistake by borrowing money and not telling Torvald. Throughout the story, she is just barely managing to scrape enough money to pay it off. I also agree that going into debt without necessity is never a wise idea. But I think that we have to look at it from Nora’s point of view. As you said she has lead a “comfortable” life. I assume that her life has probably been unexciting and without much freedom. From what I know about her, I can guess that she has never had much responsibility for anything. Her family and society probably didn’t expect anything more of her than for her to grow up a “proper young lady” and be loyal to her husband. Having people have such low expectations of her might drive a person to seek out responsibility, to prove that she can be responsible and that she is better than people thought she was. I think that this is what gives Nora the thrill of making money “like…a man” (Ibsen 21). When Nora and Christine have their talk, Christine says, “Small household cares and that sort of thing—You are a child, Nora” (Ibsen 19). Nora responds by telling Christine how she borrowed the money and has been secretly paying it off. At the end of her story, Nora triumphantly asks “Now, what do you think of my great secret Christine? Do you still think I am of no use?” (Ibsen 22).
Yes Emily, it would have been easier if she just told Torvald but she feels she cannot because it would be “…painful and humiliating…for Torvald, with his manly independence, to know that he owed [her] anything” and that it would “upset our mutual relations altogether…” (Ibsen 22).
Courtland K
1st Blog – A Doll’s House – from :Ibsen the Complete Major Prose Plays – 1978?
1a) In “A Doll’s House” by Ibsen, the most prominent ideas that I have noticed so far are money and name-calling. Dependent-independent-supporter relationships/identities are also important, but those seem to depend mainly on money, and I address that in the next section, so I will skip that for now. A quick note for CHLOE on name-calling before I begin. Chloe and I were talking, and she mentioned that there is a point in the play where the script switches and asks for lines from TORVALD (the husband’s first name) instead of HELMER (his last name) which is the name used throughout the play. However, I was unable to find this inconsistency in my version of the play…interesting…unless of course I am totally inept and it really is there, I just don’t see it. Anyway, I think this would be interesting to look into, especially since it is such a significant switch.
It is significant because Torvald partly wishes to fire the shady moneylender Krogstad for calling him by his first name at work. The two were childhood friends, but Torvald sees the familiarity as insulting to his new executive position at the bank, especially considering Krogstad’s questionable reputation. This reveals how much weight Torvald puts on names and lays more significance on the various names he calls his wife.
Nora has many pet names: “twittering little lark,” “rummaging squirrel,” “songbird,” “stubborn little creature.” Torvald barley ever calls her directly by her name, preferring to address her as “my little ____.” This type to name-calling further shows that Torvald sees her more as a toy, a doll, belonging to him. A beautiful little figurine that he can dress up and who will dance for him when he asks. She is easily appeased with money and always appears obedient, even though this is not always the case (her lies emerge throughout the play). However, the bird names do appear strikingly often, and I’m not quite sure about the significance of this. It seems almost contradictory, that Torvald should see Nora as a bird, because he does not wish her to fly away. However, birds do make beautiful pets, and perhaps that fact that birds can fly but don’t makes them appear more obedient and thus deepening that possessive relationship between Torvald and Nora. I am aware that there are many holes in this theory, wing-clipping among the most obvious. I am not quite satisfied with this hypothesis, so I hope someone can expand upon it or make a new one.
1b) I agree with Emily that Nora has a desire to break some of her constraining conventions and gain independence. However, the clumsy way in which she goes about proving her competency serves to show just the opposite. Nora weaves a web of complicated lies and borrows money in order to ‘save’ her husband by producing the money to go on a remedial and secretly-doctor-recommended vacation. The dependent housewife feels proud of herself for being, what she thinks, a “wife with a little business sense, a wife who knows how to manage.” She secretly borrowed money from Krostad, despite Torvald’s words: “No debts! Never borrow!” In order to make the payments on the debt, she uses some of her own personal budget money that her husband handed to her: “Every time Torvald gave me money for new clothes and such, I never used more than half; always bought the simplest, cheapest outfits. It was a godsend that everything looks so well on me that Torvald never noticed. But it did weigh me down at times, Kristine. It is such a joy to wear fine things. You understand” (Act 1). Understandably, I found this passage frustrating, yet comical. The childlike way in which Nora views self-sacrifice is almost ridiculous. Not only is Nora’s view of life laughable, but she is also extremely selfish, seen clearly in this passage and throughout the play. Even when she talks about taking secret work to make the payments, she admits that “it was wonderful fun, sitting and working like that, earning money. It was almost like being a man.” Even when “working,” it was really just fun, a game, pretending to be a man. I think this pretending is important and a major theme of the book, also because it appears in the title. Nora sees life as if from inside a doll’s house, a game, as if she is playing house. Her husband treats her like a pet, a trained prize bird. She’s surrounded by maids and nannies who do all of the work around the house. Things are handed to her when she asks for them. The household, and the world, revolve around her. However, when the chance finally comes to be able to “take care” of Torvald, Nora takes it on like a game, an amusing challenge to make herself feel more useful and to prove that fact to herself and others. This, in part, is what Emily was saying in her analysis, that Nora was trying to break out of her simple housewife routine and defy convention.
Although I believe this is true, I think Ibsen was trying to say something more. The fact that Nora fails so miserably at supporting her husband suggests women are incapable of being independent, let alone supporting others. But then there’s the catch; set in foil to Nora is Kristine Linde, Nora’s childhood friend, the widow who supported her sick mother and younger siblings and craves the feeling of being depended upon. Unlike Nora, though, Mrs. Linde is generous, capable and hardworking, and successfully took care of her needy family. Perhaps Ibsen is trying to say that when one is truly needed, they can make the sacrifices and fulfill the duties bestowed upon them, but when the burdens are taken just for the pleasure of feeling needed and for the pride, one cannot properly serve the “dependents.” Of course, this is just one interpretation. I invite improvement.
Also, I'm sorry to those who find Nora to be empowered, or at least endearing, but I really think that she is just a silly child looking to be needed. I know that this is from a different time period but...I find it hard to believe that it was really neccessary to Torvald's life that he spend an entire year vacationing in Italy to recover from overwork. And on top of that, did Nora really have to borrow so much money from the sketchiest guy in town? I can't say I really believe that this is just Nora's repressed independence lashing out. I think these are just more examples of Nora's selfish idiocy, which I have very little sympathy for. Sorry that was kind of an explosion, but she gives women a bad name and it frustrates me. Obviously Ibsen's point isn't that women are idiots...its probably more like women are idiots if you treat them like it. But still....i don't know, it just hit a personal note with me. Sorry to those that think I'm being too critical. Different time, conventions, I know.....but come on. What girl can not be offended by such an embarassing representation of female judgement? I wonder if Ibsen was trying to irritate us...
Chloë R.
Penguin Classics Edition
1A (A Doll's House)
All Acts
*Note, my copy swtiches between HELMER: and TORVALD: in the dialogue.
Wow. That is the first response that comes to mind when I think of the last act of "A Doll's House". For the first two acts of Ibsen's play, one is often annoyed by Nora's behavior. Nora is painted as a mindless creature: a doll. She represents the lives of many married women during Ibsen's time. The theme of stagnation and lack of fulfilment as a woman within a marriage takes center stage, and it isn't until the final act when Nora realizes her terrible mistake.
It's so blatantly obvious by the final act what Ibsen is trying to say. And this isn't a bad thing. When I read only the first two acts (like Court and Em as well) I thought "Nora is not a strong woman and has no respect for herself. Phooey." She only has respect for her husband and his job, and the facade of their marriage. The exchanges between Nora and Helmer are overly polite and male-dominated, an example of rigid marriage costumes at the time. Act II, p. 6. of Act:
TORVALD: Now wasn't that a good idea of mine?
NORA: Splendid. But wasn't it nice of me to do as you said?
TORVALD: Nice? To do as your husband said? All right, little scatterbrain, I know you didn't mean it like that. ...
This exchange clearly shows how Torvald expects a wife to do what a husband pleases. The negative of Nora's statement would be "Wasn't it bad of me to not do as you said?" which would certainly go in line with the ideals of marriage.
There are other moments of dialogue like this where Nora is expected to act one way as a perfect wife. "I'll be a fairy and dance on a moonbeam for you" she says to her husband. But this perfect wife attitude collapses on itself in the last act, when Helmer reads the letter that relays Nora's secret. When Helmer sees that his honor is threatened by his wife's decision, he is furious with her.
HELMER: You've completely wrecked my happiness, you've ruined my whole future!...And I'm brought so pitifully low all because of a shiftless woman!
Wow Helmer. Way to care more about yourself than your family, and the act of kindness that Nora did for you. But then, once he opens the note Krogstad left...
HELMER: ... Wait, I must just read it again.... Yes, it's true; I'm saved! Nora, I'm saved!
NORA: And I?
HELMER: You too, of course...
Yes, Helmer caring about Helmer again. But it never was ' "of course" you're saved' for Nora. She is just a woman, after all. Not long after this, Nora realizes that she has played the part of a doll for far too long, and announces she is leaving Helmer.
Wow again. Where did the obedient songbird go? Nora goes through a vast transformation when she sees that her husband cares more about his honor than her. Helmer in fact says that "No man would sacrifice his honour for the one he loves." She realizes her marriage isn't a real marriage, that they are more in love with a facade than eachother. So much happens within the final act to combat stagnation and lack of fulfillment for the female in marriage, it's crazy!
There was certainly foreshadowing: Kristina played the role of an independent woman, which made Nora very curious. To think--a woman without a husband and children! Kristina had found fulfillment with her Self when she worked to help her mother's and brothers. Now, Kristina wants to start a life with Krogstad. But Kristina had the luxury of independence FIRST, allowing her to find comfort in family AND self. Nora never has. Her only moment of independent decisiion was when she decided to borrow money without her husband knowing, another sign early in the book that there was more to Nora than at first glance. There was more to the doll. One of my favorite things that Nora says defiantly to her husband, when he is still incredulous at her decision to leave, comes from the title of the book.
NORA: ...Our home has been nothing but a play-toom. I've been your doll-wife here, just as at home I was Papa's doll-child.
Ibsen is blatantly making a point to show how women often went from child to wife, with no time to grow as a human being, therefore remaining dolls. Nora tells her husband that she has neglected her sacred duty to herself. Helmer tries to tell her that, as convention says, her first duty is to be a wife and a husband. But Nora will not listen to the stranger anymore, she does not believe him anymore. She can't.
It is sad to think of Nora leaving her children, but also extremely empowering to see her go on her own. Thus, her action can be seen as negative (leaving) or positive (discovering). We, as readers, don't know what happens to her on her own. But Ibsen clearly shows that her decision to leave a man she doesn't love, children who she is not fit to teach the lessons of life, and a house that imprisons her is a very positive decision. Ibsen clearly shows how marriage was bad for the female IF they did not have a time between girl-hood and wife-hood to become a person, like Kristina did. Note* One may think Kristina "copped out" and fell in to the trap of marriage like all the rest (Act III), but Ibsen makes an argument against this because she was able to live and work on her own.
The final act is wonderful. As a young (woman? girl?) in the twenty-first century, it's very hard to imagine the conditions that kept Nora from self-fulfillment. So much is open to me. I can see how Ibsen's play paved the way for modern feminism. I suppose this is why I greatly appreciate Ibsen's play, and is certainly why I was able to love Nora's character by the end of "A Doll's House."
Phew!
1B
For some reason, my copy of "A Doll's House" likes to switch between Helmer and Torvald in the stage directions for that particular character. While I would have liked to analyze why that is so, especially because names play a big role in the play. One idea was that when Helmer was deciding for his doll, he was HELMER. When he appreciated and was enthralled by his little doll, he was TORVALD. But that failed, because at times, the pattern would switch on me! And- no one else's copy seems to be doing this. My theory concerning Helmer is ruined, but as Courtland wrote, names and naming are still particularly important to the play.
I agree with Courtland about the bird names, and I like the contradiction about the ability to 'fly away' she mentioned. Yet the inability to escape only applies to the first two acts. For those who have read the last act, it is easy to see that the bird names foreshadow Nora's escape from her doll world. The pet name that I found interesting was the "rummaging squirrel one". A squirrel and bird are different, especially in their winter behavior (which, not so coincidentally, is the setting of the play). Birds in winter fly south from the cold. Squirrels hibernate and bare the cold. Ibsen makes a point that Nora, and all women, were expected to fulfill two roles: both doll-like wife and mother. The elegant bird names, like Courtland said, were doll-like. The squirrel, who rummaged about, is more motherly. Squirrles horde food to support their families through the winter, like how Nora kept her secret to protect her family. Of course, squirrel side clashed with the bird side, leading to Nora's departure from motherhood and wife-hood, and her quest to become a woman. She couldn't stay and hibernate in her doll's house and play the role of mother, like a squirrel, but she couldn't act as a songbird and remain to please. She needed to escape to fulfill herself. Nora's nicknames are symbolic of this conflict that many women felt when Ibsen wrote "A Doll's House".
1b Emily talks about the character Nora’s being belittled by her family and being overwhelmed by conventional society. She is “convinced… that her only option is to flee from her home.” I immediately drew a parallel to the main character, Gareth, in Philadelphia, Here I Come! Gareth is unsatisfied with the cold relationship he maintains with his father. Their rare bits of conversation become played out to the point that Gareth can predict whatever his father will say word-for-word. He resents the uncomfortable monotony between them: “Private Gareth: …so tonight d’you know what I want you to do? I want you to make one unpredictable remark, and even though I’ll still be on that plane tomorrow morning, I’ll have my doubts.” Gareth works for his father and their relationship degenerates largely into this work relationship which becomes allows for a vague sort of power struggle.
Gareth, like Nora, decides that his only solution is to abandon his home. However, I think Nora and Gareth’s family relationships differ in a significant way. It seems to me that Nora’s relationship with her husband is one of simple subservience. They may make little real connection but are confined by their relationship of power. Although there are issues of power between Gareth and his father, they are emotionally separated mainly by other factors. Gareth’s mother died upon giving birth, leaving his father devastated. They are also linked by an important quality: their intense feelings of loneliness and alienation from the rest of society. There is evidence that Gareth’s father is upset about his son’s plan to leave even though he refuses to attempt any sort of emotional connection with his son: “Madge (a servant): …It must have been near daybreak when he got to sleep last night.”
Gareth and Nora share a lack of acknowledgement from their environments that impacts them severely. They are convinced that they must abandon these environments. But I think Gareth can find real emotional connection and fulfillment in a family environment. The only obstacle is overcoming so many years of isolation. Nora’s decision to leave her family appears to be a genuine means of escape and self-fulfillment. Gareth’s decision to leave for Philadelphia, by contrast, appears to be more of a defense mechanism.
Emily C.
2nd (A Doll's House, Penguin Classics)
2a) At first, I thought that all of Torvald's affectionate pet names for Nora, such as "skylark" and "songbrid" acted only to accentuate the way that he treated Nora; like a young, spoiled child. After finishing the play, however, I realized that these names were symbolic of Nora's decision to leave her home and her family to lead a new, independent life. The names songbird and skylark are both types of birds. As many know, when a bird matures to the point where it is ready to leave its nest, it flies away to create a nest on its own and usually does not return to the nest into which it was born. This pattern is a mirror image of Nora's life. As a child, Nora lived with her father and "He called me his little doll, and he played with me like I played with my dolls." Nora said. Then as Nora was "passed out of Papa's hands and into" Torvald's, she was again treated like a doll. Nora "lived like a pauper-simply from hand to mouth." She has "lived by for performing tricks for" Torvald. All of Nora's life living with her father and her husband is equivalent to the life that a young bird spends in its mother's nest . Finally, after years and years of being a play thing, Nora feels that it is time for her to become independent, and to fulfill her first and most important duty : "My duty to myself" says Nora. Torvald tries to fight her and say that before anything else she is a wife and a mother, but Nora argues back: "I don't believe that any longer...before anything else I'm a human being...or at any rate I shall try to become one", which, she explains, is why she must leave Torvald and their children and discover who she really is under the rule of none other than herself. Nora leaving her home at the very end of the play is like a bird departing from its nest for the last time, never to return. Having finished the entire play, I now realize that Ibsen uses bird imagery as a parallel to Nora's life and her escape from an oppressive environment.
2b) Allie, I do understand, to a degree, why you feel that Nora's decision to borrow money from Krogstad was legitimate. Yes, after and entire life of being taken care of and having almost no responsibility, it makes sense that one would crave it, however, the manner in which she goes about obtaining responsibility proves that she really has no idea what she is doing. Her ignorance, of course, stems from never having to deal with matters of importance, such as handling money. If I were in Nora's position, I too would feel extremely useless and oppressed, but such feelings do not justify such rash decisions as Nora made. If Nora was looking to prove her capability, responsibility, and intelligence, she went about it in a very childish way. If Nora had expressed her true feelings to Torvald sooner, if she had told him that she felt like that her relationship with him was equivalent to that of a puppeteer and his puppet, the entire debt catastrophe could have been avoided. I sympathize with Nora's cause, but I believe that she went about proving herself in a very immature way. leaving her home could be seen as rebellious act of feminism, but it could also be compared to a child running away from home when he or she is displeased with something. I do not blame Nora for feeling the way that she does, and wanting to escape, but her behavior does not help her in any way, her childish outbursts that are supposed acts of rebellion, only cause others to treat her more like a child than an adult.
Chloë R
2A
Throughout the play "A Doll's House", Kristina Linde acts as a foil to Nora's character. I've touched upon their differences before, but rereading certain passages, I've seen that many aspects of Nora's "women empowerment" epiphany come directly from dialogue between Nora and Mrs. Linde. Mrs. Linde influenced Nora to think differently in Act Three. The first time I noticed this was when Kristina described her first marriage, one she entered in order to support her mother and brothers.
NORA:...Tell me, is it really true that you didn't love your husband? Why did you marry him, then?
MRS LINDE: ... I didn't feel i could refuse his offer.
This exchange shows that Nora believes people who are married are love because they are husband and wife. Yet by the end of the play, Nora realizes that she doesn't love her husband, never truly has, and that her marriage is not a real marriage. Her marriage is by social standards, quite acceptable, a show, just like how it was acceptable for Kristina to marry out of necessity. When Kristina's husband died, she worked tirelessly on her own, and was able to form ideas about what her ideal marriage would be.
Later on in Nora and Mrs. Kristina's conversation in Act I, once Nora tells her secret..
NORA: Is it rash to save your husband's life?
MRS LINDE: I think it's rash to do something without his knowing...
NORA:....
MRS LINDE: Aren't you ever going to tell him?
Mrs. Linde realizes here that her friend's marriage is sealed, that their is no discussion between husband and wife about very serious things, like borrowing huge amounts of money. Their attitudes towards keeping secrets from a spouse contrast greatly, an example of how the characters' morals act as foils to eachother.
Kristina emphasizes her opinion about sharing serious matters with a spouse with Krogstad in Act III.
MRS LINDE: ...Bot now, a whole day's gone by and I've witnessed things in this house that I could hardly believe. Helmer must know the whole story. This wretched secret must be brought into the open so that there's complete understanding between them.
In her exchange with Krogstad, Kristina is very open, unlike Nora. When Kristina says "things...I could hardly believe" I believe she is commenting on Nora and Helmer's marriage, and their lack of connection.
Nora does not realize the effect her secret could have on her marriage until Act III. Once Helmer learns about the loan, and Nora sees his reaction, she realizes the great missing piece to her marriage.
NORA: ...We've never exchanged a serious word on any serious subject.
HELMER; Was I to keept forever involving you in worries that you couldn't possibly help me with?
NORA: I'm not talking about worries; what I'm saying is that we've never sat down ine arnest together to get to the bottom of a single thing.
HELMER: But, Nora dearest, what good would that have been for you?
This is an excellent exchange that shows just how little influence Nora, and many other wives during the setting of the play, had no influence over serious matters. Kristina's drive to express serious matters with a loved one, and her concern that Nora had not shared the secret with Helmer, contrasted greatly with Nora's behaviour. Throughout Act I and II she is a foil to Nora: her final decision to marry after living independently contrasts greatly with Nora's decision to go on her own.
Chloë Rideout
3A
(Court- I know you haven't posted yet about Dr. Rank, but that you've come up with some ideas, but you got me thinking too. I can't wait to see yours!!)
Dr. Rank's appearance in "A Doll's House" is important in explaining the troubles that faced relationships in Ibsen's time. An important, and quite broad, theme of "A Doll's House" is the importance of honesty with loved ones. When Nora borrowed money without her husband knowing, and kept the secret for years, it affected the marriage. Once Helmer, her husband, discovered the news, Nora realized that never before had she and Helmer discussed a serious matter. There could be no honesty in their conventional, doll house marriage. As a result, Nora leaves Helmer. Dr. Rank's honesty when he tells Nora his feelings for her sharply contrasts with Nora and Helmer's relationship. Dr. Rank's love for Nora is a minor detail when considering the rest of the plot, but it is easy to see that his character has not adhered to the standards of love/marriage. It was not customary to proclaim love to a married woman.
Act II
NORA: ...Oh, dear Dr. Rank, that was really horrid of you.
RANK: To have loved you as deeply as anyone else- was that horrid?
NORA: No...but to go and tell me so. There was really no need to do that.
At this point in the novel, Nora is still playing the role of the "good wife". She still wishes to please Helmer, to make him happy, and to be gay for him. When Dr. Rank tells her his true feelings, something Nora has never done with her 'loved one', she finds it very shocking. It shakes up her environment a little too much. It is because of this that I feel like one purpose of Dr. Rank, especially in this scene, is for Nora to reflect on how people love eachother, and how honesty relates to that relationship. A major reason why Nora leaves her husband is that she doesn't love him anymore. This decision was influenced by Mrs. Linde (Post 2A)and well as Dr. Rank. Also, I think that Dr. Rank's love for Nora is used to contrast conventional marriage (Helmer's traditional husband-like affections) with wasted love (Rank's unyielding affection for Nora), showing that despite convention and male-dominated society, the female could still hold power over a man. This is only one idea however, I'd like to read others (Cough, Court, Cough) about Dr. Rank's purpose.
2a) One of the characters in A Doll House that confuses me the most is Dr. Rank. His purpose in the play is not immediately apparent, but after thinking about it and recalling his relationship with Nora, I think I am beginning to understand Ibsen’s purpose in creating Dr. Rank. Dr. Rank is Torvald’s best friend and comes to their apartment(?) practically every night. Although he spends most of his time in Torvald’s study, he does have a friendship with Nora. She calls him her “best and truest friend,” but it is something more for him. Dr. Rank, while speaking privately with Nora and explaining that he is soon to die, professes his love for Nora. Of course, Nora had to dismiss his feelings, but I believed that the interchange was a major factor in her decision to leave. By learning of Dr. Rank’s love for her, Nora discovers that it is possible for someone to love her without completely supporting her. Dr. Rank treated her like an able human, and she enjoyed it. Infact, during their conversation, Rank pointed out that, “so many times I’ve felt you’d almost rather be with me than with Helmer.” I think that this personal relationship, devoid of necessity and “doll-playing” opened up Nora’s mind to an alternative way to love. Armed with this knowledge, it was easier for Nora to enter into the world by herself make her own way.
I think that Dr. Rank’s imminent death was also one of the catalysts that triggered Nora’s escape from the doll house. Rank was a source of comfort, of humanity for Nora, but his illness was soon to take him out of the world. He was the only one who treated her like a person and loved her without taking of her. Perhaps the knowledge that he was soon to leave them forever helped Nora realize that she could no longer remain in her home. Without Rank to bring some semblance of reality to her fantastical life, Nora would explode, and in essence, she did at the end of act three. Her speech of independence with Torvald was release of a life-time’s worth of suppressed humanity, and I think that the thought of continuing her play-life without Dr. Rank was too much to bear. Dr. Rank was the only character who treated Nora as a human being, and their relationship gave Nora strength and reason to set out on her own. Of course, Dr. Rank is not the only reason, for Nora explicitly states several others, but the climax, her escape, is a culmination of many factors, and I think Dr. Rank was a major one.
A Doll's House
2a. I have been looking over the last scene in the play again and I think one of the most striking things about it is Nora's change from moratorium to ??? She goes from being about to commit suicide, "Never to see him again...Ah! the icy black water..." (Ibsen 63). We know that she is intending to commit suicide because of her earlier discussion of suicide with Krogstad in which he says, "Under the ice, perhaps? Down into the cold, coal-black water? And then in the spring to float up to the surface, all horrible and unrecognizable..." (Ibsen 49).
She goes from being about to take her life in her agony over her "betrayal" of her love to realizing that she never really been happy because she has been Torvald's doll. She realizes she "do[es] not love [him] any more" (Ibsen 70).
Between being distraught to becoming resolute, there is little dialogue from Nora and no subtext from Ibsen on how she says her lines. But even though she says little, it can be still be surmised what she is thinking and feeling. During Nora's dramatic "transformation", she says little which is very uncharacteristic of her especially around Torvald who she always speaks to of frivolous, unimportant details.
When Torvald says, "Nora, I am saved!", and Nora says "And I?" it seems clear that she is wondering whether he cares about her at all as it is she that might go to jail under the charges of forgery (Ibsen 65).
What seems to change Nora's mind is Torvald's monologue in which he talks about how he forgives her because she did not have "sufficient knowledge to judge of the means [she] used..." to help him out of sickness (Ibsen66]. He repeats over and over in different ways how "helpless" he thinks she is. He calls her "...my frightened little singing-bird" and even goes so far as to say that in his forgiveness, "...he has given her a new life...and she has in a way become both wife and child to him" (Ibsen 66).
When Torvald finishes his monologue, Nora says she is leaving and says that he has “never understood” her and that she has been his “doll-wife”, existing “…merely to perform tricks for [him]…” (Ibsen 68).
When Nora puts on her "everyday dress", it symbolizes her resolution of mind because literally, she is dressed to leave and mentally, she is taking Torvald out of her life.
2b. I thought Chloe's commentary on Christina (my book spells it that way) was very important. Christina may be a quiet character compared to the dramas of Nora but in many ways she is a perfect foil for her. I thought it was interesting that Chloe brought up the part in the play when Christina confides to Krogstad that she thinks that Torvald show know what Nora has been doing. It's interesting that although Christina doesn't personally tell Torvald about Nora's secret, she plays a large role in him finding out. This episode and the part where Christina tells Krogstad that she is not going to give up her job as Torvald's secretary so that Krogstad can have the job show that she is more outspoken and self assertive than might be apparent at the start of the play.
Chloë R
2B
I fully agree with what Courtland said about Dr. Rank. I saw him as a way to contrast Helmer's feelings towards Nora, and Courtland expained that very well, and related it to doll-playing. She is dead on when she says that around Rank, she isn't just a doll. She is much more free with her emotions around him, like a human, and not like an inanimate object. Around Helmer, she puts on a show to not be upset (Nora enjoys twittering about for her husband like a songbird, all show and no sadness). In Act II, when Dr. Rank tells Nora his feelings for her, she 'calmly and evenly; rising' goes to leave. She doesn't put on a smile to ignore something that is shocking to her, the doll-like reaction she would have had with her husband, but instead listens to her body's first reaction. I consider listening to your heart (cliche, I know, but I couldn't think of the right expression) is a very human trait. This is one example to Courtland's assertion that Dr. Rank is the first friend, first man, to make her feel human.
Edit: In my second post, I meant to write forclosure to achievement.
Courtland K
A Doll House
2b) I think that Allie made a point that there are definitely two Nora's, and that they are substantially different from each other. However, I feel like there is more of a transformation, and the Nora becomes the empowered independent women during the book, as opposed to just pretending when she is around Torvald. Allie said "The difference between who Nora pretends to be and who she truly is can be observed by comparing how she acts and talks around her husband and how she acts when he is not around." I disagree, to a point…more literally, a point in the book. When Nora first speaks with Kristine, she continues to be shallow and selfish, saying, amusingly enough, "Today I don't want to be selfish. I want to think only of you today. But there is something I must tell you....." She then goes on to explain how wonderful her life is because her husband got an important job at the back and they will soon have "stacks of money and not a care in the world." I don't think she is consciously pretending to be childish and naive, but rather that she has not yet realized that she is unhappy being a doll, or even that she really is one. However, I think that there is a certain amount of pretending going on because the time at which Nora realizes her discomfort comes sometime before she confronts Torvald, and so between those points, there must have been some acting. This is why it is so difficult to pinpoint exactly when Nora has her epiphany and understands that she has been treated like a doll her entire life. There is a build up of events, such as the arrival of the independent Kristine, and Dr. Rank's profession of love and abrupt exit that lead Nora to her decision. Therefore, I have had a lot of trouble trying to find exactly where Nora "self actualizes" in a sense and decides to forge a new path. I don’t know if such a defining moment exists, but despite that, Nora’s process life reevaluation is definitely significant to Ibsen’s purpose and reveals some necessary elements of humanity.
Chloë R.
3B
Allie, I think a lot of us are still flabbergasted by Nora's transformation. I know I am. I wrote before that I think what influenced Nora to finally realize this was Kristina's influence and Dr. Rank's love. Dr. Rank made her feel human (as court said) which, as we find out in Act III, is her first sacred duty: to be a human being. But as far as going from a desire to commit suicide to escape- what a switch. As Allie said, when Nora realizes Helmer cared more about his honor than her (the Nora, I am saved! dialogue) she no longer feels like suicide is her only option. Since Helmer didn't value her life the way she hoped he had, Nora didn't need to sacrifice her life for him. She realized that her suicide wouldn't be appreciated the way she imagined it would be; that regardless of whether or not she killed herself, her husband would still care that he lost his honor more than a wife. I think this realization is pivotal to her switch from despondent wife to empowered woman.
Kyle Smith
An Enemy of the People
1A
In this play, a private citizen (a well respected doctor), has discovered a deadly problem with the cities livelihood (Baths to heal the ill). The play follows Dr. Stockmann through his outspoken attempts to remedy the problem and through his realizations about the corruptness of democracy. What is interesting about the play is the family connectionm that exists in his criticism of the government. You see, the mayor of the town is his brother Peter so his criticism brings up a seemingly domestic dispute between siblings. This passage is the first inkling that things will not go as smoothly as it may seem.
ASLAKSEN. Because it may be no bad thing to have us small tradesmen at your back. We form, as it were, a compact majority in the town--if we choose. And it is always a good thing to have the majority with you, Doctor.
DR. STOCKMANN. That is undeniably true; but I confess I don't see why such unusual precautions should be necessary in this case. It seems to me that such a plain, straightforward thing.
ASLAKSEN. Oh, it may be very desirable, all the same. I know our local authorities so well; officials are not generally very ready to act on proposals that come from other people. That is why I think it would not be at all amiss if we made a little demonstration.
HOVSTAD. That's right.
DR. STOCKMANN. Demonstration, did you say? What on earth are you going to make a demonstration about?
ASLAKSEN. We shall proceed with the greatest moderation, Doctor. Moderation is always my aim; it is the greatest virtue in a citizen--at least, I think so.
In this passage, Dr. Stockmann is given support for his attempt at bringing truth to light by Aslaksen, the local printer and head of the homeowner’s association. Aslaksen promises the support of the “compact majority” and the Doctor is thrilled by the prospects of having such a large support base. This is the first inkling the reader receives about the potential problem that the play seeks to relate. Aslaksen proclaims that it is always good to have the majority with you, and in some cases this is true, but it brings to mind that the minority (the leadership of this majority) must also act in a way that keeps this majority on their side. In this tale, the efforts of the leadership to keep the favor of this majority is detrimental to the democratic process in that it inhibits what would otherwise be a completely reasonable and necessary change to the Bath’s structure.
1B
Having not read “A Doll’s House” and not having any plans to has proved tough to craft a worthwhile comment for what is already a riveting discussion that I’m sure I do no full appreciate. From a layman’s perspective, and with my observations from Ibsen’s other play, I can draw that he craft’s his character’s as both changing and contrasting to each other. From my perspective, Nora’s realization that she could no longer be just a “doll” is part of a change in her character that is developed through her interaction with Dr. Rank. This interaction forces her to grow as a person and her escape from the doll house seems to be Ibsen’s way of questioning the typical dynamic of a marriage. Ibsen seems to be saying that a wife is a real person too, which I’m sure was contrary to the popular opinion of the time.
A Doll’s House
Caitlin Hugel
Block F
1a. I am no stranger to reading plays and after finishing A Doll’s House the one opinion I can debate with conviction is that this play is a play to be read, not to be staged. The idea of watching any staged version of this show seems almost painful to me. And it isn’t because I didn’t like it, I did. I thought it was ‘okay‘, mainly because the characters were so well developed. However, Ibsen’s motivation for developing the characters seems forced. It is obvious to me that Ibsen’s goal in writing A Doll’s House was to convey a moral, and to do that he wrote the plot and the characters around his preconceived idea. And while a clear-cut moral is terrific for a reader, it is awful for an audience because it makes the characters vessels for an idea. And I am in the firm belief that characters should be written to be people. People who are multifaceted and don’t play right into one single concept.
I could prove this with any random sampling of dialogue. For instance:
Helmer: Come, come , my little skylark must not droop her wings. What is this! Is my little squirrel out of temper? Nora, what do you think I have got here?
Nora: Money!
Helmer: There you are. Do you think I don’t know what a lot is wanted for housekeeping at Christmas time?
Nora: 10 shillings--a pound--two pounds! Thank you, thank you, Torvald; that will keep me going for a long time.
Helmer: Indeed it must.
Nora: Yes, yes, it will. But come here and let me show you what I have bought…
This dialogue is seemingly natural. But like most of the dialogue in the play I half expect to character’s line to go:
Character 1: Look, my overarching character flaw!
Character 2: Ah yes, I completely see that that half page monologue about your past served to deepen your character, which pushes the plot along in an extremely minor way, and completely sets your character up to play into the moral aspect of the piece. Well done.
Character 1: Now that I’ve revealed my flaw, you must reveal your take on the same flaw!
Character 2: Ah yes, well it all started……
And some dialogue isn’t that seemingly natural, during Nora and Mrs. Linde’s first encounter I was tempted to stop and scream: I GET IT MRS. LINDE IS NORA’S FOIL, NEXT SCENE!
I truly appreciate the moral that Ibsen is trying to convey. I understand that he wanted to comment on how fake and pointless relationships seemed when half of the relationship controlled the other half because one half was still living as a child. However, using a play as a medium seems a poor choice to me.
For instance, if I was cutting down this play I could probably convey the same moral in 10 minutes.
1. Introduce Nora as oppressed doll-like wife.
2. Introduce doting and controlling husband.
3. Introduce Krogstad to create the semblance of a plot.
4. Introduce Mrs. Linde as the female ideal.
5. Resolve plot, prove moral.
I could take 5 scenes from 3 acts and do the same thing Ibsen did with the 3 acts. It is almost like he added fluff to try and force the moral and plot he had created into a full length play. An example would be the character of Doctor Rank. Why is he there? He is a lovely character, but in the long run he is useless, except to get Helmer out of Nora’s scenes with Krogstad and Mrs. Linde.
1b. Courtland wondered if Ibsen was trying to irritate us (us-- being women). I absolutely agree. I think that he was trying to irritate us into change. Let’s face it, Nora is annoying. I half imagined a child onstage playing her. She is energetic and needs to be controlled. On more than one occasion I wanted Mrs. Linde or Torvald to look deep into her eyes and say “No.” However, I think writing a character that makes women want to crawl out of their skin also makes women stop and say “Gee, I’m going to make sure I’m not like that.” Nora is the epitome of what a person shouldn’t be; an pet. And by creating an epitome, Ibsen creates something to avoid.
A Doll’s House
Caitlin Hugel
Block F
2a. I think it has been made clear that I find calling this ‘play’ a ‘play’ irritating. I think it should be called ‘ a testimonial to a woman finding her identity: through pertinent, but often times meaningless banter’. I think I have also made it clear that I like the notion of Nora being annoying, I think it is intentionally done and so to use the colloquial: I’m cool with it. However, the change is Nora’s character during Act 3 enraged me. All of a sudden she goes from being a doll, to a woman in search of herself. COME ON! I knew it was coming, but I thought Ibsen would have given it more of an arch. What really gets me is that she decides to find herself seconds after she was about to kill herself. Ibsen gives her character no time to adjust.
One second she is the annoying Nora we haven’t seen develop in 2 acts, and then she is the woman we have been waiting for the whole play. It is too fast and it seems fake. Scratch that, it is fake, there is no realism involved. Once again Ibsen compromises the integrity of a character to serve his moral. The speed at which this transformation takes place also contradicts the pace of the play up until that point. If Ibsen stayed consistent with the 2 previous acts he would have, at least, added in another superfluous doctor to the mix to stretch Nora’s transformation out another act or so!
2b. Cloe and Kyle both mention Doctor Rank’s love. I have mentioned before that I think that Doctor Rank was merely a device to get Helmer offstage. I reread it confession and is downplayed. Frankly, I think it is a blip. It is Ibsen’s way of wrapping up a character so that he can kill him off in good conscience (Notice that Helmer never needs to leave the stage again after Rank is gone.) Rank’s love scene is awkward and unnecessary. The plot would have resolved itself with or without him. I’m sure knowing another man loved her was terrific for Nora--vain being that she is. Nevertheless, I don’t think anything solidly caused Nora’s change other than Ibsen’s need to prove his moral and his heroine.
Furthermore, does anyone else find it funny that the reason for Nora’s transformation was selfish (Torvald won‘t forsake his honor for her), when the very thing she is running away from is her selfish existence? I do. I really, really do.
Courtland K
A Doll House
Post 3
3a) I know that in my last post I contemplated the purpose of Dr. Rank’s character to the play as a whole, but while rereading his intimate conversation with Nora, I noticed some things that go beyond my previous theories. Dr. Rank has some sort of chronic illness, a birth defect supposedly caused by his father’s gluttonous behavior.
NORA: And then the port and champagne to go with it. It’s so sad that all these delectable things have to strike at our bones.
RANK: Especially when they strike at the unhappy bones that never shared the fun.
This short interchange struck me as a perfect description of Nora’s humanity. The “delectable things” were all the gifts that she received from her father, and then her husband, and all the fun, doting attention that surrounded her. However, as she finally sees in ActIII, these things that seemed so desirable really confined her to childhood and locked her in the dollhouse. By having everything handed to her, the benefactors in her life prevented her from learning how to fend for herself, how to be independent, how to be human. Of course, Nora was completely unsuspecting when receiving these gifts. They may have made her happy superficially, but her humanity suffered for it. Her unsuspecting humanity bears semblance to Dr. Rank’s spine, both crippled by the indulgent behavior of others. Dr. Rank suffers for his father’s gluttony, and Nora for her husband (and father)’s joy at treating her like a doll. Although I drew these parallels after having already finished the play, I think it is plausible the Dr. Rank saw the dehumanizing relationship and was purposefully trying to alert Nora by explaining his own situation. Indeed, when Nora responds to his seemingly introspective statement by saying: “Ah that’s the saddest of all,” Rank “looks searchingly at her” and then apparently smiles. To me, it seems like Rank is trying to give her a clue, and is amused by her unwittingly correct statement; she is really commenting on her own trapped life.
A Doll’s House
Caitlin Hugel
Block F
3a. My favorite character in a play in which the only redeeming qualities are characters is Krogstad. I realize he is the bad guy. But he is believable. Perhaps it is because Ibsen didn’t attempt to make him endearing, which of course, made him endearing to me. Krogstad is just a guy making the best out of the situation he was thrust into ( I say thrust because all the characters were thrust into this plot.) His scene with Mrs. Linde toward the middle of Act 3, in which they reveal their past relationship was my favorite scene. I can pinpoint exactly why: it didn’t resolve in a way that I expected it to.
I pride myself on my ability to predict plots and so, when a plot come along that I can not predict I am pleased. I find these plots memorable. Obviously, I knew that Mrs. Linde and Krogstad had had a relationship. I figured that one out in Act 1. However, I assumed that Krogstad had broken her heart and then punished himself for it for the remainder of his life. The fact that Krogstad had his heart broken made him slightly more endearing, however it did not force a change in the nature of his character (cough, Nora). It emphasized the point that people can change, and that people are willing to change without cramming that notion down my throat. It was also believable. Krogstad and Mrs. Linde didn’t admit their undying love, the merely admitted it would benefit them both if they tried to love each other. And that seemed like one of the most sincere character interactions in the play.
3b. In one of Allie’s blogs she refers to Torvald as ‘the person that she loves’ (she--meaning Nora). However, I thought the end of the novel made it clear that Nora does not love Torvald. In fact, Nora says she does not love Torvald. It seems as though Nora is a blank slate that everyone writes something on. Up until her ‘epiphany’ she did what she had to in order to stay in the good graces of those who directly effected her life. She presumes herself happy, and yet, she is more like a doll than a person. She is dressed, and fed, and told what to like, played with occasionally and then left to her own devices. And any girl who has ever had a Barbie doll knows they can’t really love you back. They can just mimic the love you imagine for them.
3b) I must admit that I thoroughly enjoyed Caitlin's bashing of Nora. I also think that anyone who reads the first two acts of this play must feel the same way. Selfish and immature are possibly two of the most irritating character traits that exists. However, Nora's eloquent dismissal of her dollhouse life gives me alot more respect for her. I agree with Caitlin that the change is extremely abrubt and unrealistic, but I prefer to try to find the thematic significance in this inconsistency rather than blow it off as poor writing. I think that the real change in Nora character came when she decided to take her own life; however rash and stupid it was, this decision is the first selfless thing that we have seen Nora do. However, with this decision comes a wave of other changes that lead to Nora's final decision. First, by finally wanting Torvald to know the truth (because it wouldn't affect her anymore), Nora opens the barrier of lies that have suffocated their relationship up to this point. It is interesting that Nora is only willing to reveal the truth when she thinks she will soon be dead. But besides that, Nora's resolve about her own death soon translates into much more productive epiphanies. With everything out in the open, especially Torvald's reaction and his true feeling about her, Nora is finally able to see her life layed out in fron of her. From this angle, the importance of truth in relationships seems to gain prominence in the play's themes. So basically, Nora's resolve to kill herself, which is so different from any other decision she has ever made, allows all the truths to be exposed and this then gives Nora a chance to make a much better decision; to seek her purpose in life instead of her own death.
Kyle Smith
An Enemy of the People
2A
DR. STOCKMANN. It is not they who are the most dangerous enemies of truth and freedom amongst us.
SHOUTS FROM ALL SIDES. Who then? Who is it? Name! Name!
DR. STOCKMANN. You may depend upon it--I shall name them! That is precisely the great discovery I made yesterday. (Raises his voice.) The most dangerous enemy of truth and freedom amongst us is the compact majority--yes, the damned compact Liberal majority--that is it! Now you know!
DR. STOCKMANN. Never, Mr. Aslaksen! It is the majority in our community that denies me my freedom and seeks to prevent my speaking the truth.
HOVSTAD. The majority always has right on its side.
BILLING. And truth too, by God!
DR. STOCKMANN. The majority never has right on its side. Never, I say! That is one of these social lies against which an independent, intelligent man must wage war. Who is it that constitute the majority of the population in a country? Is it the clever folk, or the stupid?
In this segment, Dr. Stockmann has discovered what I spoke about in my last post; that the compact majority is really the enemy of the people themselves. It is preventing the leadership from acting in the best interest of the city, because they fear the townspeople. His realization of this and accusation of the people leads them to brand HIM as the “enemy of the people.” But, what they do not seem to realize is that they are there own worst enemy (as the cliché goes) because they are sabotaging themselves by preventing the leadership from acting in a way that is in the best interests of the society. It is slightly ironic that Dr. Stockmann makes this assertion in front of a room full of townspeople (the majority) because they are the exact enemy to his cause. It is through this scene though that Ibsen demonstrates the only real power the minority has over the townspeople. They use the election of the chairman and parliamentary rules to silence Dr. Stockmann from speaking anything concerning the Baths.
2B See American plays section
Kyle Smith
An Enemy of the People
3A
MORTEN KIIL. Do you know what money I have bought these shares with? No, of course you can't know--but I will tell you. It is the money that Katherine and Petra and the boys will have when I am gone. Because I have been able to save a little bit after all, you know.
DR, STOCKMANN (flaring up). And you have gone and taken Katherine's money for this!
MORTEN KIIL. Yes, the whole of the money is invested in the Baths now. And now I just want to see whether you are quite stark, staring mad, Thomas! If you still make out that these animals and other nasty things of that sort come from my tannery, it will be exactly as if you were to flay broad strips of skin from Katherine's body, and Petra's, and the boys'; and no decent man would do that--unless he were mad.
DR. STOCKMANN (walking up and down). Yes, but I am mad; I am mad!
MORTEN KIIL. You cannot be so absurdly mad as all that, when it is a question of your wife and children.
DR. STOCKMANN (standing still in front of him). Why couldn't you consult me about it, before you went and bought all that trash?
MORTEN KIIL. What is done cannot be undone.
DR. STOCKMANN (walks about uneasily). If only I were not so certain about it--! But I am absolutely convinced that I am right.
In the final act, Dr. Stockmann is faced by the most testing fate that he could face. He must decide between compromising his morals in order to provide for his family for the considerable future or to stick to his morals and face a sure life as an outcast and his family not provided for. His wife’s father places this decision firmly in his lap because he invests his daughter’s inheritance in shares of the Baths and if he recounts his tale as a lie, then his family will become rich. If he doesn’t he will remain an enemy of the people and his family will be left with nothing. Ultimately, he serves as Ibsen’s whipping boy to demonstrate Ibsen’s belief that the strongest man is the one that stand’s most alone. And when Dr. Stockmann refuses Kiil’s offer, he is setting himself aside as the ultimate idealist, one who views even a democratic form of government as corrupt and vows to teach youth to stand up and destroy this form of oppression. In a manner of speaking, he seems to be talking about educating young revolutionaries, as this play could surely inspire any man or women to become.
3B
I’m beginning to feel as if I’m the only one who didn’t read A Doll’s House. As the hands tick towards pumpkin time, I am losing hope of contributing to a discussion I actually feel well versed on. Let me take this moment as a brief opportunity t coerce my fellow classmates into reading “An Enemy of the People” because I found it to be a rather straightforward view of both sibling rivalry and a harsh criticism of democracy without being overtly offending to either subject matter. I really enjoyed reading Caitlin’s’ description of the play as “a testimonial to a woman finding her identity: through pertinent, but often times meaningless banter” incredibly refreshing and makes me feel as if I really didn’t miss much by not reading this play. Caitlin’s accusation that Ibsen compromises his character to stick with is moral is a harsh criticism but one that I can at least partially identify with in my play. It is clear that Ibsen’s moral is the focus of his plays and that the characters are warped in such a way to serve this moral.
Emily C.
3rd (A Doll's House, Penguin Classics)
3a) Secretly I want to write about Dr. Rank and his significance to the play and to Nora's final act of rebellion, but if I did, my post would not be nearly as insightful nor as eloquent as Courtland's, so I'm going to write about something else instead. Something that I found toward the end of the play that I feel is extremely intriguing is how Ibsen contrasts the abrupt deterioration of Nora and Torvald's marriage with the equally hasty reunion of Kristina and Krogstad.
Kristina and Krogstad are two very similar charcters that share almost identical desires. Kristina, after having faced years of solitude, near poverty, and despair, is not only in need of employment, but she is also in need of necessity. For so long Kristina has been alone, and has worked for only herself, and she feels that she cannot bear it any longer. Likewise, Krogstad feels that it is impossible for him to get ahead in the world and he has even made some regretable decisions because of this feeling of desperation.
Kristina's feelings toward Krogstad and her overwhelming desire to become a wife and care for others before herself juxtaposes Nora's longing to lead an independent existence.
Whereas Kristina has worked very hard and endured numerous difficulties and has almost nothing to show for it, Nora has put almost no effort into her life and she is living comfortably with her family in a nice home. The extreme opposition in lifestyles between the two women explains the stark difference in what each character wants from life.
Because Nora has never worked for anything that she has, and has been pampered and spoiled, she wants no longer to be taken care of, but instead she wants to work for and take care of only herself, without any help.
TORVALD (to Nora): Isn't it our duty to your husband and children?
NORA (to Torvald): I have another duty, just as sacred.
TORVALD: You can't have. What duty do you mean?
NORA: My duty to myself.
TORVALD: Before everything else, you're a wife and a mother.
NORA: I don't believe that any longer. I believe that before everything else I am a human being - just as much as you are... or at any rate I shall try to become one.
Contrastingly, Kristina has worked to support and care for no one but herself for such a long time that she needs to settle into a lifestyle in which she can take care of others, and others can take care of her.
KROGSTAD ( to Kristina): ..Look at me now. A shipwrecked man clinging to a spar.
KRISTINA (to Krogstad):...I'm alone in the world and I feel completely lost and empty. There's no joy in working for oneself. Nils...let me have something- and someone - to work for...Two on one spar would be better of than each of us alone...I need someone to be a mother to, and your children need a mother. You and I need each other.
I think Ibsen places the two wildly dissimilar scenarios next to one another to intensify the radical nature of the decision that Nora makes at the end of the play: to leave her home and end her marriage in order to find independence.
3b) Caitlin, your first post was magnificent. I agree whole-heartedly with you in that this entire play was completely forced, and each character and scene is crafted to fit perfectly with that moral. I also, sympathize with the moral that Ibsen attempts to relay, but he went about it in a horrible manner. I almost feel as if the entire play is completely sarcastic and that Ibsen really did not give a hoot about the treatment of women as play things and young children. I almost think that if he really wanted relay the moral, he would have done it in a more believable fashion. Then again, as Courtland said, it makes sense that Ibsen would create a character as unbelievably annoying as Nora, because Nora sets an example of how not to behave, and how a grown woman should not be treated, it gives the female audience a picture of how not to live life, which, in a way, forces the female population to either change the way it is currently living, or to avoid living as Nora does, or, I guess, did.
Just a question- what play is everyone choosing next?
An Enemy of the people. Kyle, is this a good choice?
Lucy M.
1st. (Hedda Gabler)
1a. One of the more riveting aspects of 'Hedda Gabler' is the process in which the reader realizes that the play is, in fact, riveting. Ibsen creates characters that are structured by revealing subtleties; I find that one word, one stage direction, in a scene of 'Hedda Gabler' is often more severe/important to the development of a character than an entire scene. For instance, throughout the plot Ibsen briefly mentions the state of the piano in Hedda's house within each of the four acts (it does not deserve to be called Tesman's - Hedda's husband's - house because in truth he is not the one who governs it. It is her presence). Throughout, Hedda's relationship with her piano parallels her plight for independence and control within a marriage and within the confines of being a woman. In act one when Hedda is first introduced to her newly furnished home she requests that her piano be moved because it 'doesn't go at all well with all the other things'. A piano is a very heavy presence in a setting because of it's size, it's tightly wound strings and it's loudness. Hedda requesting that it be moved illudes to her need for control and desire to free herself from feeling claustrophobic...trapped in her environment. Act one ends with Hedda telling Tesman that she will preoccupy herself with her old collection of pistols, revealing to the reader via previous context that Hedda is Lovborg's past lover (Lovborg being the quiet love of Hedda's friend, Mrs. Elvsted, and the esteemed writer whom Tesman, a striving writer, competes with). Ibsen begins act two with stage directions indicating that the piano was removed. From that point on, Hedda's demeanor takes the place of it. She becomes manipulative of those around her, obnoxious, and it becomes obvious that she is entirely focused on herself alone. Like the inner mechanics, the volume, and the enormity of a piano. At the beginning of act four Hedda is fully tangled in a complicated mess between Tesman, Lovborg and Mrs. Elvsted. As the act opens she 'is heard to strike a few chords on the piano'. This is the first time Ibsen writes about her actually making contact with the instrument. Pressing a piano key involves physically emerging a part of the body inside it. At the beginning of the act Hedda flirts with emersion, only indulging in a few keys. At the end of act four, the end of the play, Hedda shoots herself. But before she does so she 'is heard playing a wild dance on the piano.' She submited to the monstrous alure of her piano, the representation of a lack of control and entrapment. To free herself this time, she had no choice but to use her pistol. The piano begins as a subtle detail that Ibsen weaves into the scenery of Hedda's environment. Gradually he builds it's importance, it's intricacy, and yields the core of Hedda Gabler's character: the dire need to fixate on freedom, but the lack of self restraint to attain it.
Rose Pleuler.
Hedda Gabler, 1st.
1.A.
I love the concept of translation, and choosing a play that has been translated from it's native language definitely made me stop at some points in the play to wonder if the play could have been terribly misinterpreted, or wonder about the slightest connatation and the likelihood that some of the implied parts of the script were lost. Hedda Gabler is hugely a play about what is not put into words - Hedda herself rarely chooses to express how she feels completely. What particularly stood out to me in terms of translation, however, were the places that dealt with an aspect of language that English doesn't have.
There are places in the script where there is tension between characters when Eilert chooses to use the personal 'you' to address Hedda instead of the more formal 'you.' This isn't a convention that exists in English, so the translation indicated in footnotes which 'you' was being used.
LOVBORG:
[Softly, as before.] Answer me, Hedda-- how could you go and do this? (personal 'you')
HEDDA:
If you continued to say "du" to me I won't talk to you. ('"du" is the personal 'you')
LOVBORG:
May I not say "du" even when we are alone?
HEDDA:
No. You may think it; but you mustn't say it.
LOVBORG:
Ah, I understand. It is an offence against George Tesman, whom you-- love. (formal 'you')
It's strange to think that there isn't this subtle option to either distance yourself or bring yourself closer to a person with such a small word in English. The decision to include this moment into the script really fits in, in my opinion, to the big picture of Hedda Gabler - that so much is being said with so little being said. That's what I think would make Hedda Gabler a brilliant play when seen on stage.
1. B.
I'm glad Lucy and I have both recognized the subtleties in different respects to Hedda Gabler - Lucy's being more about the stage directions and mine more about what the dialogue tends to imply. I think an example in the play that has both to do with the stage directions and the dialogue is what closed Act Three. At the end of the act, Hedda takes the manuscript which is believed to be what will solidify Eilert Lovborg's fame and good fortune, and burns it in the stove. The stove has been a constant part of the stage directions throughout the play, though absolutely not written about as leadingly as Ibsen describes the piano and pistols. At the beginning of the third act, "in the stove, the door of which stands open, there has been a fire, which is now nearly burn out." By the end of the act, she is burning the manuscript in the stove. In terms of dialogue, in a scene between Mrs. Elvsted, a married woman who seems to love Lovborg and has helped him write his manuscript, and Lovborg, Lovborg lies and instead of telling Mrs. Elvsted that he lost his manuscript, says he tore it up himself. Mrs. Elvsted then tells Lovborg that his actions were like killing a child that belonged to them both. Such a metaphor, especially coming from a married woman, is heavy with meaning, and Hedda seems jealous. At the end of the act, as she burns the manuscript, she says, "I am burning -- I am burning your child." I think the circumstances surrounding her actions at the end of the act are heavy in both the subtleties of language and stage direction.
2A.
Although for most of the play, Hedda's character comes to life in the things she doesn't say, it is her words and actions at the end of the play that truly show who Hedda Gabler is.
Throughout the play, so much of Hedda's actual feelings and thoughts are ambiguous. For instance, when Judge Brack reveals that Hedda's husband, Tesman, may have competition for a job with an old friend, Eilert Lovborg, Hedda is mysteriously interested in the news in Lovborg's being in town, but is immovable and will not admit to how she truly feels about the matter. She is seen constantly manipulating those around her with little explanation as to why, such as when she purposefully pretends to believe that her aunt-in-law's new bonnet is the old hat of the maid's. Hedda's passive aggressive, aloof behavior stands in stark contrast to the end of the play, when she hears the news of Eilert Lovborg's death.
HEDDA:
[In a low voice.] Oh, what a sense of freedom it gives one, this act of Eilert Lovborg's.
BRACK:
Freedom, Mrs. Hedda? Well, of course it is a release for him--
HEDDA:
I mean for me. It gives me a sense of freedom to know that a deed of deliberate courage is still possible in this world, -- a deed of spontaneous beauty.
It becomes clear, after this declaration of what Hedda truly deems to be important, why she has behaved in the way she has throughout the play. Take her evident distaste in her own husband, Tesman: she only seems to be able to illustrate her discontent with him by describing him as a specialist, which he is, researching a particular time period for the book he is writing. She considers it incredibly dull. It isn't until this declaration at the end of the play that it is clear how important it is to Hedda that Tesman doesn't possess the deliberate courage that she believes Eilert had. It also makes clear that, after Brack admits to Hedda at the end of the play that Eilert's death wasn't the beautifully constructed suicide she had thought it had been, that Hedda shoots herself in the head. Her craving for this beauty becomes more important than anything else, and since Eilert wasn't able to make his death beautiful, she decided that she would have to make hers beautiful, instead.
2.B.
When I perused some of the commentary on A Doll's House, I was very interested when I read that Nora came close to killing herself, which is an act that Hedda succeeds in at the end of Hedda Gabler. Reading Chloe's 3B, she says that Nora's decision at the end not to commit suicide is due to the fact that her suicide "wouldn't be appreciated the way she imagined it would be" by her husband. From this clue, I think that Nora and Hedda must be utterly unalike, even though they both deal with suicide at the end of the book. Nora's decision not to kill herself because it wouldn't make the intended impact is something I don't believe Hedda would understand. Hedda is so obsessed with beauty, telling Eilert Lovborg for when he kills himself, to try to make it beautiful. Although, seemingly unlike Torvald, Tesman cared a great deal when Hedda shot herself, this wouldn't matter either way to Hedda. It sounds like Nora, even in her rebellion from Torvald, still considers his opinion incredibly important, where Hedda is superior and selfish and was more concerned with carrying out her suicide in the beautiful way she envisioned, not the way others would have it.
Rose Pleuler.
Hedda Gabler, 3rd.
3. A.
It is in the final words of Hedda Gabler, uttered by Judge Brack, that one of the major themes of a struggle with assimilation is highlighted for a final effect. After Brack and Hedda's husband, Tesman, find that Hedda shot herself in the head, Brack exclaims, "Good God! -- people don't do such things."
It's clear that Ibsen is making a point that these people seem to have something hardwired inside their brain wrong, if one of their first reactions after finding the woman they seriously care about dead is to point out that it is socially unacceptable to kill oneself. However, I think it's interesting that Judge Brack believes this is socially unacceptable and yet Hedda does. Hedda seems preoccupied throughout the play with being respectable. She expresses desires for frivolity, such as hiring a man in livery and buying a second piano because the old one doesn't fit with the furniture, and her fear of what others think of her:
HEDDA:
I never jump out.
BRACK:
Really?
HEDDA:
No-- because there is always some one standing by to--
Brack:
[Laughing.] To look at your ankles, do you mean?
HEDDA:
Precisely.
I guess the question is, then, if Hedda thinks it is acceptable to kill herself at the play, or if there are things more important than being socially acceptable? I don't know.If I were to venture a guess, I'd say that it all has to do with the fact that Hedda considers herself superior to everyone around her. She made her own death beautiful, the way she had wished Lovborg had died, and I think that she justified her killing herself so long as it was beautiful. Based on the last line of the play, however, I wonder if the rest of the world will think of Hedda's suicide. Will they view it as the beautiful act that Hedda did? And I wonder, if they don't, would Hedda care?
3. B.
One of the main criticisms that sounds like it's come up in A Doll's House (and sounds like to a degree in Enemy of the People) is the idea that Ibsen was manipulative of his characters to help them show the audience what the point of the story was. I'm not sure I think this criticism should be extended to Hedda Gabler. However, I say that because Hedda Gabler seems to be really a showcase of one very developed and interesting character - Hedda. The development of other characters - her husband Tesman, the writer Eilert Lovborg, Judge Brack - all dull in comparison. I think it's clear that Ibsen was more interested in Hedda than any other character. I personally found Tesman to be very interesting, but felt like he didn't get a lot of opportunity to move beyond the role of the accomodating husband who just doesn't understand Hedda. Eilert may have come close to being as interesting of a character as Hedda, like in such interesting moments as when he decides to tell everyone that he destroyed his manuscript, when in reality he lost it, or when it is revealed that his death was not intentional, but in reality an unfortunate accident. However, Ibsen lets Hedda outshine everyone in the final moments of the play when he allows her to commit suicide beautifully, the way she believed it ought to be. So I'd say I don't think Ibsen was trying to force his characters to fit into this play, but it does seem like he was indulging in what he thought was the most interesting part. If I were to perform in this play as one of the less loved characters, I might feel a little neglected, but I think that's better then to feel like I'm betraying how my character would truly feel.
Naomi N
3b. I read A Doll's House last year for my english class, and when I was reading a lot of these posts I was remembering the different takes on Nora. People seem to wonder why she has a shift in personality at the end of the play. Some people think she is a great model of the progressive woman, others think she is just annoying. The way I saw it at least when I read it was that she always had the same person, and she brought her situation on herself. A. She married Torvald. Then after she married him, she let him believe that she was his possession, and she let him treat her like his little doll. He started the actions, but it was her fault that he saw her as this twittering little bird, and as his doll. B. She walks away from him, not because she ruins his life by taking out the loan, but because she feels she no longer wants to be his doll. In my opinion she is the same person the whole way through the book. She never really is his doll, she just acts like it.
In my opinion, if she had never let Torvald believe that she was his possession, his little bird, then he never would have treated her as such. If she hadn't spent every dollar he had given her on silly little things, he wouldn't have thought of her as a silly little girl. She leaves to get away from a situation that she created herself.
Nora to me doesn't seem to be this progressive female; to me she seems to be a woman who created her own problems, and then walks away because she doesn't want to deal with them.
Chloë R
1A Hedda Gabler
After the first act of "Hedda Gabler", it was easy to see that this Ibsen play differs greatly from "A Doll's House". In the first act of "A Doll's House", it was clear that Ibsen was beginning to comment on the troubles with idealized marriage and wifely behaviour. Yet after the first act of "Hedda Gabler", it is harder to draw a prevailing theme or idea. Rather, it is a study of one interesting character. The first act, simiilar to "A Doll's House" focuses on the dynamics of the female lead and her husband's marriage. Where Nora was yielding and sweet towards her husband, Hedda is, well, kind of bitchy. It is easy to see that Tesman, the husband, wants to please his new wife, but Hedda is not very thankful. Even after Tesman has taken his young, high-society wife on a six month anniversary, and has bought her her dream house, (In Act 2, we learn that Hedda only told Tesman the building was her dream house to break an awkward silence) she is still difficult. The first time we see Hedda's lack of interest in Tesman is when he shows her his favorite shoes, and she basically tells him to go away. Hedda is also inferred to have the upper hand in the marriage when she complains that her piano "does not go at all well" with the room. When Tesman offers to exchange it, she urges him to buy a new one. "Yes--of course we could do that," Tesman says, eager to please. Hedda pushes her husband to demand what she wants without the flattery that Nora used to get what she wanted.
Another important aspect of the dynamics between Hedda and Tesman is the lack of honesty, which is similar to the marriage between Nora and Torvald. By the end of "A Doll's House" Nora defends her leaving by saying that their marriage was not "real" because of the lack of serious discussion. By this definiton, which one could say is Ibsen's definition of a good marriage, Hedda and Tesman will run into trouble later in the play. (I'm only halfway through Act II) Hedda is honest with a family friend Judge Brack about how BORED she is, all the time, with Tesman. Hedda is not this open with Tesman. Tesman gushes to his aunt about how Hedda looks filled out after the honeymoon, and Hedda just shushes him. When speaking to Brack, Hedda says she doesn't want children to claim her attention. Of course, Tesman does not know, another example of their lack of communication.
Even though in the first two acts, Ibsen describes very well an unfulfilled marriage, I don't feel that he is trying to make a commentary, for this play at least, about all marriages of his time. The personality of Hedda is very strong compared to the ideas of marriage one can draw from the dialogue. The stage directions and dialogue, which emphasize her personality, make me feel that the character development of Hedda will be more important than a 'big picture idea' for this particular Ibsen play. Again, this is different form "A Doll's House" where the characters (cough, Nora) surprised us, but a strong, feminist theme was relayed throughout the book.
Chloë R.
1B Hedda Gabler
I, like Rose, was also interested by the importance of the use of 'du' in the text. It made me think about instances in "A Doll's House" where an informal you versus formal you would occur. Would Nora, even after she borrowed money from Krogstad, use an informal you with the man who held so much power over her family's financial state? I think not, especially since she was cold to him when he visited her. But anyhows, I wish that Ibsen told us whether or not Hedda used 'du' with Brack. (Maybe the characters mention this and I miss it.) He is a family friend, and someone who she says has the same interests as she. Brack plans to visit many again, (since Hedda said she is so bored with life) which makes me think that she must use 'du' with him, even if he is not family. Rather than using 'du' with just family though, Hedda's usage seems to be primarily with people who she likes/are in the same class. Tesman's aunt is family but Hedda refuses to use 'du'. I think that because Hedda thinks of the aunt as a branch of her husband, whom she finds distasteful, she'd rather not familiarize herself with the woman. Tesman's family comes from a slightly lower social class than Hedda, and I think NOT using 'du' with them further seperates herself from them. Hedda seems to cling to her desires to play a part in society, even after she realizes Tesman is dull and a deadbeat.
I also like when Hedda 'reminds' Mrs. Elvsted that they used to use 'du' with eachother, but then forgets her christian name. Hehe... sassy.
Courtland K.
2nd Ibsen Play – Enemy of the People
1a) From what I have gleaned thus far from “Enemy of the people” (partway through Act V), I find the play to be a sort of warning against underestimating and disregarding the power of the majority. While reading this play, I couldn’t help but recall the saying, “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” In the play, the protagonist, Dr. Stockman, finds a major flaw in the infrastructure of the town’s new healing baths, declaring them “positively injurious to health, for either internal or external use.” To fix this problem, the doctor calls for a complete renovation of the spa, one that will require money from the taxpayers and at least two years of building with zero return. When Dr. Stockman’s friends, the newspaper editor, his assistant and the printer, find out about his discovery regarding the unsanitary condition of the baths, they immediately praise him and declare him the “foremost citizen of this town.” However, the mayor, who is coincidentally Dr. Stockman’s brother, refuses to accept Dr, Stockman’s proposal because it is so fiscally disadvantageous. Because of the negative ramifications that this type of publicity would bring to the town, the mayor begs, “nothing – not the slightest word of this catastrophe must leak out to the public.” Once the mayor explains the issue of money to Dr. Stockman’s ‘friends’ and reveals that they, the taxpayers, would have to pay for the renovations, most people turn against the doctor and accuse him of trying “ruin the town you were born in.” It is here the Dr. Stockman begins making his major mistakes. At a town meeting, in which many of the town leaders expressed their disapproval for the doctor’s motives, the doctor made an impassioned speech, declaring “the most insidious enemy of truth and freedom among us is the solid majority. Yes, the damned, solid, liberal majority.” Clearly insulting all of his fellow townspeople was not the best start in gaining support for his venture in spreading the truth. There are several other times throughout the play that Dr. Stockman groups himself with the ‘elite’ of the society and accuses the masses of being completely ignorant of what is right and best for the common good. Although I am not completely in disagreement with this argument and recognize flaws in the democratic system, Dr. Stockman’s inability to understand and utilize the power of the “liberal majority” frustrates me. The agitating flaws in Dr. Stockman’s character remind me of Nora in “A Doll House,” which makes sense since they were both written by Ibsen and share similar thematic styles. I hope that, as the play goes on, Dr. Stockman’s flaws resolve themselves somewhat and he develops into something more than just the self-righteous intellectual with a complete lack of tact for social dynamics.
Courtland K
Enemy of the People
1b) I agree with Kyle that one of Ibsen's points is that the ignorance of the masses can interefere with the proper ruling by the powerful minority. Clearly, the baths are a potential health hazard, "poison" as Dr. Stockman puts it. The only morally correct plan of action is to rebuild the spa to expel all the noxious. However, because this plan of action would hurt the townspeople in their pockets, the powerful minority chooses to appease the "liberal majority" by denouncing the doctor’s claims and holding that no action is the best action. However, I do not believe that the "majority" is soley at fault, in this case as in others. For one, the way that the information about the baths was presented to the public set them up to rejects the doctor's claims. The mayor, anticipating the townspeople's response, laid out this information in a way that would have them naturally leaning towards his (the mayor's) view of the issue. Speaking at the town meeting, the mayor said:
MAYOR STOCKMAN In my statement to “The People’s Courier, I’ve acquainted the public with the pertinent facts, so that every right-minded citizen can easily form his own judgment. I’ve acquainted the public with the pertinent facts, so that every right-minded citizen can easily form his own judgment. You’ll see there that the doctor’s proposal – besides being a vote of no confidence in the leadership of this town – would actually mean afflicting our local taxpayers with a needless expenditure of at least a hundred thousand crowns.”
As the mayor alluded to in his statement, his article brings cost to the forefront of the issue, while downplaying the actual problem, the unsanitary condition of the baths. By focusing on the major economic issue brought on by the doctor’s findings, the mayor is leading the masses to accept his point of view, one that he adopted simply because he is “a bit overanxious about my reputation” and therefore believes that “the public doesn’t need new ideas. The public is served best by the good, old, time-tested ideas it’s always had.” Simply put, the mayor doesn’t want to introduce radical new ideas, and he definitely doesn’t want to support them, for fear that it will cause change, discontent, and possibly put his position at risk. However, I think that the proper resolution is a combination of the two. At the town meeting, the editor Hovstead, the editor, declares: “The majority is always right.” I believe Ibsen’s point is that it is not that the majority is always right, but that the majority holds most of the power, and ensuring that the majority IS in fact right is the job of the “intelligent minority.” Those who have a better grasp of what is right and best must educate and persuade the majority to think with them. Alienating and calling the masses “stupid…poisoning our spiritual life and polluting the very ground we stand on” is not the way to gain the massive support necessary to bring about any kind of change. This is what I have interpreted thus far, but I still have half an act to go.
After reading the final act of "Hedda Gabler", I am most interested in Hedda's passionate love of beauty. I don't mean beauty in an aesthetic sense, but rather, beauty defined as something that is final and fulfilling. When Hedda hears that Lovborg commits suicide, she is elated, and imagines that he has done it the 'beautiful' way. Hedda had given Lovborg the pistol herself. Before Levborg left the Tesman residence:
Hedda: What do you intend to do?
Lovborg: Nothing. Just put an end to it all. The sooner the better.
Hedda: Eiler Lovborg--listen to me. Couldn't you arrange that--that it's done beautifully?
Lovborg: Beautifully? (Smiles.) With vine leaves in my hair, as you used to dream in the old days--
Hedda: No. I don't believe in vine leaves anymore. But beautifully, all the same...
This conversation shows several things. On a seperate note from Hedda's fascination with beauty, Hedda is the most powerful character in the play. Lovborg is in love with Hedda to a degree (the two were old comrades before things became too serious and Hedda threatened to shoot him) and she has great influence in persuading him. She persuades Lovborg to kill himself, and gives him the weapon needed. The fact that Hedda can persuade someone to actually go on with killing themself makes her a very interesting character.
From this conversation, one also sees that Hedda finds suicide either beautiful, or not done right, and therefore ridiculous. An 'all or nothing' attitude. In the last act, we learn what Hedda thinks is a beautiful suicide: to shoot in the temple. However, Judge Brack tells Hedda that Lovborg did not actually shoot himself at home in the head. His fatal wounds were caused by a misfire in his breast pocket, shooting him in the stomach. Lovborg was out looking for his lost manuscript (his prized work that he lost on a drunken spree), when the gun fired.
This disgusts Hedda because he killed himself accidentally, in the stomach, while feverishly looking for something. Hedda expected Lovborg to truly mean he was ready to leave Earth without his manuscript, the fact that he went back to look for it is ridiculous to her.
When Hedda first heard the news she said, "I'm saying there's beauty in all this...Eilert Lovborg's settled accounts with himself. He's had the courage to do what--what had to be done."
When Hedda discovers the true story, she says, "What is it, this--this curse--that everything I touch turns ridiculous and vile?"
It is after this that Hedda has her final say. Hedda is displeased with the middle class life she has married into. Hedda is angry that Lovborg, who she once related to well, was unable/unprepared to have a beautiful suicide the way one should. Hedda felt her life was slipping into a tedium far worse than death. Hedda kills herself at the end, by shooting herself in the temple. Done right.
In "A Doll's House", Nora wanted to commit suicide to run away, but Hedda did not shoot herself to escape. To Hedda, suicide was a brave way of truly finalizing extraneous issues. Even though I see Hedda's suicide as unadmirable and fleeing, I can understand why, through Hedda's definition of beauty, it would be beautiful. It took Lovborg a trip to the hospital to finally die, while Hedda was lifeless moments after firing in her temple. It was fast and correct, and therefore beautiful to her.
From the passage, I am still confused about one thing. Hedda has a fascination about Lovborg with 'vine leaves in his hair'. I don't know what this is saying/implying. At first, I pictured Lovborg rolling around in bushes after his drunken night, especially since Hedda uses this phrase several times in Act II and III to describe him returning home. But when Lovborg muses that he will have a suicide with vine leaves in his hair, and Hedda says she doesn't dream of that anymore, I pictured vine leaves woven as a crown. Since vine leaves, at that instant, were tied with the beautiful suicide, I pictured them as from Roman times, as a garment of a high class. A huge part of "Hedda Gabler" is Hedda's despondency/frustration over her departure from the upper class. When Hedda says "I don't believe in vine leaves anymore", I think she is referring to the lack of entertainment from her old class that remains in her life.
I'm very interested in other people's ideas, especially since vine leaves are mentioned so often, and I don't really understand if there is a signifigance.
That last comment was 2A.
3A. "Hedda Gabler"
Chloë R.
From Rose's post:
HEDDA:
[In a low voice.] Oh, what a sense of freedom it gives one, this act of Eilert Lovborg's.
BRACK:
Freedom, Mrs. Hedda? Well, of course it is a release for him--
HEDDA:
I mean for me. It gives me a sense of freedom to know that a deed of deliberate courage is still possible in this world, -- a deed of spontaneous beauty.
Rose spoke earlier about her fascination with translation. When perusing my copy of the play (Signet Classic Edition, 1965) I noticed a great difference in my translation. My version of the same scene above:
Hedda: (her voice lowered). Ah, Judge--what a liberation it is, this act of Eilert Lovborg's.
Brack: Liberation, Mrs. Hedda? Well, yes, for him; you could certainly say he's been liberated--
Hedda: I mean for me. It's liberating to know that there can still actually be a free and courageous action in this world. Something that shimmers with spontaneous beauty.
One can easily contrast the two editions. An important thing to draw from this is that through translating, the mystery of Hedda emerges. The differences between the two editions reminded me of the various characteristics a reader can assosciate with Hedda, and how the two translators had different interpretations. We do not learn her true character. Ibsen provides almost no insight with her. Unlike Nora, who would speak to herself at lengths, and in the final act, honestly spoke to her husband to convey how she felt, Ibsen does not have Hedda do this. It almost seems like Ibsen has created a character that even he cannot answer the mysteries to! Hedda could be interpreted as crazy and impulsive, or manipulative and methodical. Hedda, throughout the play, will tell one character one thing, and turn around and act differently with another. She is surprising and interesting...
I was most surprised by Hedda when she burns Lovborg's manuscript, a manuscript that was the collaboration between an old friend/lover and a school mate. "Now I'm burning your child, Thea! You, with your curly hair! Your child and Eilert Lovborg's. Now I'm burning--I'm burning the child."
Is Hedda jealous by Thea's looks? By Thea and Lovborg's relationship, even though she herself denied Lovborg? Where did this come from? Is there a motive behind it?
The answer is no. Hedda is bored with her life, and I think this is an example of how Hedda acts aggressively to combat boredom. Maybe Hedda was jealous of Thea. However, we can only guess. No real hint is given. Hedda does speak briefly to Brack about her surprising and sometimes cruel behaviour in Act II. "Well, it's--these things come over me, just like that, suddenly. And I can't hold back. Oh, I don't know myself how to explain it."
So Hedda knows that she can be rude and impulsive. Another example of Hedda's mysterious behaviour and oppressive boredom is when she shoots at Judge Brack in her garden. The guns are playful to her, and entertaining. The other characters find them very dangerous. Ultimately, Hedda uses her pistols to complete a beautiful suicide, quite different from the play she used to have with them. Like the two uses of the pistols, Hedda has two opposite sides to her. One is obsessed with beauty and "courageous action", the other is discontented with the middle class. The many different translations the story has certainly emphasized how many interpretations of Hedda there are.
Courtland K
2nd(Enemy of the People)
2a) After finishing EOTP, I have to say that I was hoping for more. Ibsen used most of the same techniques as "A Dool House," where each character represented a concrete idea and the plotling was thoroughly predictable. I also read the introduction that appears in my Ibsen anthology, and although it contained some contextual details and a quote from Ibsen regarding EOTP, it didn't really say anything that I hadn't already picked up, which is unfortunate because there are aspects of Ibsen's purpose that I still don't fully grasp. For example, I can't decided if Ibsen is trying to say that catering to the majority is a bad idea, or that the intelligent minority is stuck-up and elitist and caught up in its own ideals too much to think of the common good. I'm thinking that it is a mixture of both, but what I really wish is that Dr. Stockman was more realistic and less frustratingly and blindly optomistic. And tactless, especially when insulting "the liberal majority" right to their faces.
2b) While ranting about "A Doll House," Caitlin mentioned the unannounced flip in Nora's character that was completely unrealistic and convenient. I seem to have encountered another one of these eqivocal women. Furing the beginning of the play when the doctor is scheming ways to spread his discovery, his wife is by his side, constantly urging him to think fo his family and to stop such radical behavior.
MRS. STOCKMAN: Yes, maybe you'll puch yourself out of a job - that's what you'll do.
DR. STOCKMAN: Then anyway I'll have done my duty to the people - to society. Though the call me it's enemy!
MRS. STOCKMAN: And to your family, Thomas? To us at home? You think that's doing your duty to those who depend on you?
Here Mrs. Stockman is being the moderator, trying to protect her family's wellbeing. However, in the next act when she realizes that her husband's "allies" had turned aginst him, she immediate joins his side. One moment, she is begging Dr. Stockman to stop talking, and then the next she is supporting him. It is an interesting relationship, being the enemy when her husband is surrounded by allies, and then joining his cause as soon as all others turn against him. It may just be a case of familial preservation, uniting as a whole against an opposing front, but the quick switch reminded me intensely of Nora and seems to be a characteristic of Ibsen's characters, at least in these two plays.
2B Hedda Gabler
Chloë Rideout
I agree with Rose that while much of Hedda's behaviour is ambiguous for the first three acts of the play, her actions show who she truly is in the last act of the play. Her obsession over a beautiful suicide shows what she deems important: a deed of deliberate courage. I like what Rose said about comparing Tesman, and his lack of courage to step out of his 'specialist' world. I think that if Hedda had the courage to marry someone else, someone like Lovborg, then she would have found a more interesting existence. Early in the play, Hedda expresses that the only thing she was good at was "boring herself to death". Lovborg was more of her equal, yet Hedda threatened to shoot him once he declared her love for her. I guess this is why I am so enthralled by Hedda and by her reason for her suicide at the end. Even though her actions at the end, like Rose said, illuminate the importance of beauty to her, there are many aspects that are still a mystery. Hedda was tragically bored. I think that if she tried to love Lovborg, then she would have been more entertained. I don't know why she didn't. Any ideas?
3B Hedda Gabler
Chloë R
I found Lucy's comments about the position of the piano in Ibsen's play "Hedda Gabler" very interesting. I was always curious about the importance of the piano, and Lucy's assertion that it represents a lack of control and entrapment. Lucy said that when Hedda wildly plays the piano, she has given into the allure, and then commits suicide to free herself. I saw Hedda's suicide as an escape from life, a way to escape the entrapment, and having this represented by the piano, as Lucy said, is very clever. As for other symbols (or maybe symbol isn't a good word, but important objects) I think the pistols were interesting. To me, I found that the pistols, a part of Hedda's past life before she married into the middle class, represented what she wished she still had. Hedda enjoyed playing with them, until she realized that she could not return to a beautiful life, and then used a pistol to kill herself.
The vine leaves still confuse me, but I've mentioned that before.
Courtland K
Enemy of the People
3a) A character of the play that I find worth investigating is the doctor's brother, Mayor Stockman. The mayor, as a politician, is driven by the ideals of the community. He admits to being “overanxious about my reputation,” and asserts that his opinions are for the best of the community, “all for the good of the town.” The mayor doesn’t want Dr. Stockman’s findings to leak out because they would hurt the town’s economy and future, effectively “ruin[ing] the town you were born in.” The mayor’s ideas of right and wrong are based on what is best for the town and completely devoid of morals. The ironic thing, though, is that the mayor pursues the course that he thinks the townspeople would accept the most, and does not care to do what is truly best for the good of the whole.
DR. STOCKMAN: Well, but isn’t it a citizen’s duty to inform the public if he comes on a new idea?
MAYOR STOCKMAN: Oh, the public doesn’t need new ideas. The public is served best by the good, old, time-tested ideas it’s always had.
I know I already mentioned this quote in an earlier blog post, but I think that it is a very good representation of the mayor’s stance in the issue of the baths. The mayor would much prefer to simply appease the public even while letting a potential health risk go unchecked. The fact that the mayor is also the doctor’s brother shows that how dedicated he is to his decision because he is willing to watch his own brother be driven from his home for the sake of his own political reputation. I find it interesting that the mayor’s stance keeps him in good light with the people, because I know that such a political cover-up today would scream corruption. In this issue regarding the baths, there is no perfect solution, but the major flaws possessed by all involved characters makes the situation even more frustrating for the reader and seems to exemplify all of the wrong ways to deal with this type of situation.
Courtland K
3b) I agree with Kyle that the ending of "Enemy of the People" has revolutionary elements. However, I also see it as further proof that Dr. Stockman is a social imbecile and too caught up in his own ideals that he is unable to see their real-life application. After his two son’s are driven out of school by their antagonistic classmates, the doctor declares, “You’ll never set foot in school again…I’ll teach you myself – by that, I mean, you won’t learn a blessed fact – “ Clearly, Dr. Stockman is not thinking rationally if he is to believe that his children are best left with no education. He is so hung up on his moral obligations that he sets aside his obligations to his family (by allowing their investments to become worthless like Kyle explained), and not seeing the life of his family beyond his quest to spread the truth. Although in terms of morality I must admit that the doctor is right regarding the state of the baths, the doctor is wrong to think that he has a bigger obligations to the town’s potential customers than to his own family. Thinking this reminds me of the mayor, and how he too abandons his family (the doctor) for superficial, public causes. Perhaps another theme in the play is prioritizing, and the importance of ones family. To me, it seems that both the mayor and the doctor are at fault regarding their priorities, while one cares too much about the public opinion, the other cares too little, and both end up letting down their family.
Rose Pleuler.
1st An Enemy of the People.
A.
Throughout what I've read of Enemy of the People so far (up to the end of the fourth act,) I have been frustrated with the struggle Dr. Stockmann has to go through to have his voice heard about the contamination issue with the Baths. I've watched Hovstad and Aslaksen and Billing put words in his mouth - they are the ones who made the entire controversy political, Dr. Stockmann would have happily left the situation as a matter of health, logic, fact - and make him think about the issue as anything but a simple matter of health. Dr. Stockmann has suffered their passion about it, and I had thought he was just being accommodating instead of pointing out that he didn't ask for all of this business about the authorities and what-not. However, when Dr. Stockmann is able to address the public about the situation with the Baths, he has finally adopted everyone else's idea that this is really about politics.
Aslaksen: It appears to me that the speaker is wandering a long way from his subject.
Peter Stockmann:
I quite agree with the Chairman.
Dr. Stockmann:
Have you gone clean out of your senses, Peter? I am sticking as closely to my subject as I can; for my subject is precisely this, that it is the masses, the majority-- this infernal compact majority -- that poisns the source of our moral life and infects the ground we stand on.
I know this is supposed to be a moment of clarity for Dr. Stockmann, having finally realized that the true enemy of the people is the compact majority - but in a way, I wish he had just stuck with talking to them about the conditions of the Baths. I feel so strongly that Dr. Stockmann could have convinced them that it really was dangerous to build the Baths, but he decided to talk about politics instead, and tell the people pretty much that they weren't fit to look after themselves, so of course they weren't going to be receptive to his ideas. However, I recognize that this speech is what Ibsen wanted Stockmann to come to all along, what Stockmann was supposed to discover. I also recognize that if Ibsen had everyone realize that Dr. Stockmann was right, he'd end up winning over the compact majority, and that would be contrary to the point Ibsen and Stockmann were trying to make. If that's the price of being right, though, I wonder if I can completely agree with Stockmann's assertion that it's the compact majority that is the real problem.
B.
Chloe asks in her 2B for Hedda why it is that Hedda rejected Lovborg in the first place. Well, while it's obviously hard to figure out a character that Ibsen was so ambiguous about (I think that's in part because he didn't know either - I see him writing all of HG because of his curisoity about something he doesn't understand,) I thought there were some interesting clues in the script about it. Particularly, when Mrs. Elvsted first comes to talk to Hedda and Tesman, she talks about the "woman's shadow" who stands between Lovborg and herself.
MRS. ELVSTED.
He said that when they parted, she threatened to shoot him with a pistol.
I mean- I think it's Hedda- we're supposed to think it's Hedda, right? If it is indeed Hedda, that's some interesting material to consider. There's also when Hedda tells Brack about why she chose Tesman...
HEDDA:
...And George Tesman-- after all, you must admit that he is correctness itself.
BRACK:
His correctness and respectability are beyond all question.
HEDDA:
And I don't see anything absolutely ridiculous about him. --Do you?
Personally I think the first quote is more indicative than my second, even though it says less - it's more ambiguous, and I suppose that just speaks more to how mysterious Hedda is.
Lucy M.
first.
The Wild Duck
1a. After making my way through the majority of a second Ibsen play, I've decided that the breaking of social boundaries (particularly within family limits) is a dominant motif within his writing style. In 'Hedda Gabler' the protagonist lends herself to a reasonable marriage, but the very prospect of limitation yields her desire for control and encourages her to manipulate her environment until, in a morbid sense, she finally gets it (when she commits suicide). Hedda not only breaks the mold of normalcy in her role as a wife, she gradually destroys the dynamic of the assortment of people that act as her family. 'The Wild Duck' displays a drastically different family dynamic, but when the plot begins to tie tensions to a close the leftovers are very similar to those of 'Hedda Gabler.' Hedvig, the daughter of Hialmar, is a character who (unlike Hedda) is determined to satisfy. Ironically, Hedvig is on the verge of going completely blind (implying that the single family member who makes maintaining happiness a priority is unable to see things as they truly, physically are). She breaks her social boundary as a member of her family by relying too heavily on it being a Family. When Hedvig begins to believe that her father doesn't love her she shoots herself in the chest. Like Hedda, Hedvig overstayed her welcome in the current state of her family until the only way to eliminate the problem in her mind was to eliminate herself. Although with Hedda and Hedvig Ibsen creates two very different characters, they each bring their story to a climax when they break and step beyond the boundaries of their social situations.
3a. I just finished Hedda Gabler and I am absolutely amazed at how good it is. One of things that I like most about Hedda's character is how extremely manipulative she is. I feel as though Ibsen sketches her character so well that I can her exactly how she would talk and act in my head.
I can see now what Mr. Cook meant about comparing Hedda and Nora. Though initially, they come from very similar situations, they are two very different people.
Throughout both a Doll's House and Hedda Gabler, both women lie and conceal the truth many times. Hedda almost always does so for self gain, fully conscious of what the truth is. Nora on the other hand, lies to preserve a fascade of happy married life in so doing lies to herself.
One of the many examples of Hedda's deceit is in Act 1 when Mrs. Elvsted said that when she and Hedda were school mates she was "...dreadfully afraid..." of her to which Hedda says "Afraid of me?" (Ibsen 167). For the rest of the time Mrs. Elvsted visits (and for all the visits thereafter) Hedda pretends that they were the best of friends, begging Mrs. E to call her by the informal "du". The reader can tell that this is a fascade because Hedda is always subtly mocking of Mrs. E in their conversations and overly eager for gossip and secret information. On page 170, the stage direction says
"HEDDA (concealing an involuntary smile of scorn) Then you have reclaimed him--as the saying goes--my little Thea."
Nora's lies are more along the lines of lying to her husband about borrowing money by herself to pay for a trip to cure his sickness. On page 22, she explains to Mrs. Linde that she cannot tell Torvald because it would be "humiliating" for Torvald and "...upset our mutual relations altogether..."
3b. I respectfully disagree with Naomi when she said that “she [Nora] always had [sic] the same person”. I believe she meant to say that Nora always was the same person and if that is what she meant, I disagree. I suppose that there is no decent definition of how a person can be the “same” as they were before but by my definitions, Nora is not the same person she was when she let Torvald call her his doll as she is when she walks out the door. As I said before, I think she has made a shift. Previously, she knew that she was playing the fool for Torvald. But she also deluded herself into believing that she was happy living under this sort of fascade. On page 22 when talking with Mrs. Linde (with whom it seems she is almost completely honest about everything), Nora describes her house with Torvald “…our beautiful happy home…” When she decides to leave Torvald she says “…and so I got the same tastes as you—or else I pretended to, I am really not quite sure which…” This quotation shows just one example of the dawning realization that she has lost her identity in her attempt to please Torvald.
I think the question we have to ask ourselves is “Is a person still the ‘same’ person if they come to a realization that the life they have been living is a lie?” I say the answer is no.
4a. “I want for once in my life the power to mould a human destiny”
(Ibsen 195)Airmont Classics Edition
I feel as though in every book or play, there is one line I call the “boom line”. The boom line sums up or hints at the main intention and meaning of the book. Sometimes there is more than one boom line per book. Mr. Cook usually puts them up for each book we read. When I was reading "Hedda Gabler" and I came across this line, I knew that it was really important.
It seems like throughout “Hedda Gabler”, Hedda is struggling to control others. It is clear that she has enormous power over Tesman. In one line, he even says, “It’s so much fun to wait on you” (Ibsen 197). He brings her drinks like a servant and says that he enjoys doing it! Her power over Mrs. Elvsted is also evident. When she calls her a “blockhead”, Mrs. E agrees (Ibsen 197). There is not a single person in the play that Hedda does not have control over.
Hedda seems to believe that “…to mould a human destiny…” one must have control over the person whose destiny one is trying to mould. She seems to find Eilert Lovborg worthy of having his destiny “moulded” because when Hedda and Mrs. E are talking about Eilert’s book, Mrs. E accuses her of “…having a hidden motive…” to which Hedda replies with the quote about destiny.
When Hedda burns Eilert’s book and then gives him the pistol and asks that he “…do it [commit suicide] beautifully….”, her attempts to control his destiny become quite obvious (Ibsen 208). When she discovers all her attempts to give Eilert a “beautiful” end have failed, she realizes that the only destiny she can truly control is her own.( I don’t have any evidence on hand for that next bit but maybe someone else does? )
Rose Pleuler.
An Enemy of the People.
2A.
The huge remarks that Dr. Stockmann made in Act IV regarding the liberal majority being to blame for what's wrong in the town worried me, because at a point, I started feeling myself disagree with some of what he said. When he starts to talk passionately to the public about how the common people who make up the majority are "the most dangerous enemy of truth and freedom," he makes such wide claims as "the majority never has right on its side," and "the minority is always in the right." While I do believe Ibsen wants the audience to see how manipulative a large body of people can be, does he want us to believe that everything Stockmann says is true?
Throughout Act V, I have to believe that Ibsen wants us to think Stockmann is going to extremes - after all, throughout the play he is being pleaded with to be more moderate (by Aslaksen.)
Dr. Stockmann: You should never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth. It is not that I care so much about the trousers, you know; you can always sew them up again for me. But that the common herd should dare to make this attack on me, as if they were my equals--that is what I cannot, for the life of me, swallow!
I can't be expected to read this line and not lose some respect for Dr. Stockmann. Originally Dr. Stockmann was just a man of science, well-intentioned, with big ideas, and throughout this entire process, he's been transformed into this man obsessed with politics and authority and right-and-wrong - which would have been fine with me, but by these lines where he puts himself above the rest of the people just astounds me. I must conclude that Ibsen is cynically trying to make the audience see that neither side can be completely correct. ALSO, in the quotation above, Stockmann actually uses the word 'dare' which we know he mocks and mocks later in the act, when other people continue to tell him that they dare not support him. Ibsen must be suggesting that Stockmann is not perfectly correct in all of his new beliefs.
2B.
I am reminded that the way A Doll's House functions was very different from the way Hedda Gabler functions - people talked about how A Doll's House felt forced in some respects to make sure Ibsen would tell the story he wanted, whereas Hedda Gabler was more of a showcase of a particular, fascinating character. An Enemy of the People absolutely is more structurally similar to A Doll's House in this regard. Through a large range of characters in An Enemy of the People, Ibsen talks about the liberal majority and authority and truth and freedom. I cannot create such a small sentence to sum up what Ibsen talked about in Hedda Gabler. There were so many opinions floating in and around An Enemy of the People, opinions Ibsen placed to mold his big idea. However, and this is a huge however, I do not think An Enemy of the People felt particularly forced in it's characters to create the story that the author wanted to. I think Ibsen kept true to his characters, but I think the characters just weren't given a lot of space to breathe and grow. The real growth you see is Dr. Stockmann's and his discovery about truth and the majority, but the fact that he would make this discovery was fairly obvious to me in Act 1. Although the plot was more predictable then Hedda Gabler, I thought it was successful, because it allowed the pieces to fall where they wanted to and then allowed things to play out the way they would, given the environment.
Rose Pleuler.
An Enemy of the People.
3A.
The fact that Dr. Stockmann and Peter Stockmann are brothers is something I think of as a strange feature of the story, particularly because it fades back in scenes and comes up occasionally as a spring of tension. Other then that, the fact that they're brothers seems to take a secondary importance - almost, a device that gives good reason to have the mayor of the town come over to visit the doctor. Everything but the main message seems to become secondary to Ibsen in this play.
Mrs. Stockmann.
But, dear Thomas, your brother has power on his side.
Dr. Stockmann.
Yes, but I have right on mine, I tell you.
I think Peter serves the purpose of demonstrating to the audience the amount that Dr. Stockmann is willing to sacrifice for the cause of 'right over might.' In Act IV, he talks to the public about Peter, saying, "my brother Peter is every bit as plebian as anyone that walks in two shoes," that his accepting of other people's opinions made him common, too. His brother's reputation isn't off limits to the doctor in his passion to explain to the public how he feels. In Act V, Stockmann allows his daughter to lose her place at the school, for his sons to stop attending, and when Morten Kili offers him the way out of it all that would secure his family's safety but completely undermine his morals, he says no. that shows how determined his is and how devoted he is to his cause.
3B.
Courtland's 3B discusses the idea that Dr. Stockmann at the end of the play has elements of being a "social imbecile" and his decision to put his passion for a cause above his duty to his family. I definitely think the idea of prioritizing being a theme is interesting - although, I might say it is more.. the fight with moderation. Aslaksen is constantly asking for things to be dealt with in moderation, and it is Dr. Stockmann's inability to do this that allows him to, for example, let his sons stop going to school. I don't think he's not making his family a priority - I think he's forcing what he believes his family needs to change. I mean, he intends to educate his boys himself, to allow them to become "liberal-minded, high-minded men," so he doesn't feel morally incorrect about taking them out of school. Everything that happens to the family in Act V, he takes in stride, is able to deal with it because he feels so passionately. I don't think his passions about believing in 'right over might' is superficial or due to an obligation to the public, at least not at the end of the play. I do, however, think that he believes he has an obligation to truth that perhaps outweighs his obligation to family.
Kyle Smith
The Wild Duck
1A)
Once again it appears that I am the only one to have read my play. Oh well, at least Courtland has read “An Enemy of the People.” My first impression when I began reading “The Wild Duck” was that it was much more subtle and complex than “An Enemy of the People” was in that Ibsen did not compromise his characters to fit his moral and also, his subtext was much less obvious. In Enemy, his main character proclaims his ideal whilst in this play the reader is left to uncover Ibsen’s intentions on their own. At first this play seemed to be another meeting between the “haves” and “have-nots” in that the two main characters, Gregers and Hjalmar are from opposite ends of the social structure but are infact old friends. As one reads on we see that Hjalmar’s father served time for something the Gregers father was ultimately responsible for. Because of this injustice, Greger’s father Werle has taken it upon himself to see that Hjalmar establishes himself a profession and a family. Hjalmar is of course completely unaware of the work that Werle has done in shaping his life. It is from her that Gregers seeks to place Hjalmar’s life on a foundation of truth and as such basically destroy anything good that Hjalmar had going for him. It his throughout the play that we glimpse two opposing forces, those of the ideal, and those seeking a happy life by any means necessary.
1B) I see the points that both Courtland and Rose make in that Dr. Stockman is a “social imbecile” and also that he is willing to put his own values before the well being of his family. These two characteristics portray Dr. Stockman as a man who is highly “book smart” but not particularly “street smart.” It is interesting that Dr. Stockman was willing to stick so strongly to his ideals even as his family was ruined in the process. It seems that Ibsen’s plays all revolve around some form of dysfunction in the family dynamic. In this play there are two instances; complete disregard for ones dependents, and a rivalry between brothers. The use of the family dysfunction in expressing his morals is a manner in which he draws attention to a flaw in the logic that is applied by the characters. A happy family draws little attention but an unhappy family forces the readers to analyze their choices.
Kyle Smith
The Wild Duck
2A) This play reveals to trains of thought, one that a family must be built on pillars of truth, and another that a family just needs to be happy, regardless of the foundation. These two schools of thought play out over the Ekdal family and the idealistic Gregers ultimately dismantles and destroys what was once a happy family dynamic. Hedvig, Hjalmar’s daughter can be seen as a perfect indicator of the family’s happiness because that appears to be her prime concern. It is clear to see that Greger’s revealing terrible truths about the foundations of Hjalmar’s family lead Hedvig to try and regain her father’s love by killing what she hold most dear, a wild duck. It is interesting because the duck is representative of Hedvig herself. This symbolism is even more apparent when Hedvig shoots herself, rather than the duck. Removing herself from the crumbling family is the only option she sees to restore her father’s love in the family dynamic.
2B) I completely agree with Lucy’s assessment of The Wild Duck and I also believe that Ibsen focuses on the family dynamic throughout the series of his play. It is apparent that by warping the typical dynamic of a family or by placing undue or unreasonable stress upon the construct, Ibsen allows the mold to break. The breaking of this mold serves to illustrate an aspect of society that affects the dynamic in a negative manner and serves to exhibit Ibsen’s ideals. Lucy brought up a good point that Hedvig’s physical blindness impairs her ability to “see” her family in the appropriate light. I do disagree with Lucy’s assessment of Hedvig “overstaying her welcome in the family dynamic” though as it appears to be a harsh assessment based on the infancy of the realized changes within the family. It seems that Ibsen rushes the death of Hedvig even though it is clear that Hjalmar is being pursued to stay within the house and that there IS hope of remaining a family.
Kyle Smith
The Wild Duck
3A) Although generally absent throughout the course of the play, I think that the older Werle, the one ultimately responsible for all that goes wrong in Hjalmar’s life receives very little blame for anything, even though he is entirely to blame. His guilt can be seen on two levels, first he directly has harmed Hjalmar’s father and his relationship with his with and “daughter” but also he has caused Gregers to resent him so much that he feels obligated to force his “ideal” upon everyone, even at their own expense. Werle is the overacting enemy of the Ekdal family and is the device through which Ibsen seeks to criticize idealism of some people and reaffirm that perhaps good things can be based upon falshood.
3B) Rose’s commentary on An Enemy of the People I found to be particularly interesting, particularly her characterization of Dr. Stockman as a man willing to leave the issue as a matter of logic, health, and fact but is ultimately forced to become political about the issue and he realizes that the true enemy of the people are the people themselves. This realization drives home Ibsen’s criticism of a democracy and forces the reader to consider that perhaps a democracy isn’t as democratic as one would think it is. In this day in age when people are overly critical of the government, it is interesting to consider that possibility that it may not be the minority’s fault, but rather the fault of the majority.
5.a. I really wanted to discuss why Hedda kills herself. It seems that there is some major foreshadowing in Act II of her suicide when she plays with her father’s loaded pistols. Also, there are hints early on that Judge Brack wants to be more than her friend. In the beginning of Act II, Hedda pretends to shoot Brack and says, “This is what comes of sneaking in by the back way” (Ibsen 176). In Norwegian, the word for “back way,” bagveje also means “under handed course.” Also, a little later in Act II, Brack talks of his views on marriage and Hedda teases that she “…never cherished any hopes with respect…” to him (Ibsen 179). Brack replies that he simply wants to make himself “useful…as—as a trusted friend—” (Ibsen 179). Hedda asks him if he means a friend of the master of the house subtly hinting at a specific master, Tesman. Brack replies, “Frankly—of the mistress first of all…” (Ibsen 179). This discussion seems to hint that Brack wishes to be more than Hedda’s friend. Later in the discussion, there is an allusion to a triangle of friendship between Hedda, Brack, and Tesman. Another foreshadowing of Hedda’s death comes when she says that the only thing she has any talent for is “…boring myself to death…” (Ibsen 183). At the end of the play when Judge Brack recognizes the pistol Lovborg uses to shoot himself as Hedda’s. If the court were to discover the owner of the pistol or how Lovborg got the pistol, Hedda could be put in jail. Brack tells her of what he knows but promises not to tell anyone. The following discussion ensues…
“HEDDA (looks up at him): So I am in your power, Judge Brack. You have me at your beck and call, from this time forward.
BRACK (whispers softly) : Dearest Hedda—believe me—I will not abuse my advantage.
HEDDA: …a slave, a slave then! (Rises impetuously.) No, I cannot endure the thought of that! Never!” (Ibsen 219-220).
A little later, Tesman says that he is going to spend every evening with Mrs. E restoring Lovborg’s book so Hedda will be alone in the evenings. Brack says he will come keep her company every evening. He then says
“BRACK (in the arm-chair, calls out gaily) :…We shall get on capitally we two!
HEDDA (speaking loud and clear) :Yes, don’t you flatter yourself we will, Judge Brack? Now that you are the one cock in the basket—” (Ibsen 220).
After she says this, she shoots herself. It seems as though Hedda is so willful that she can’t handle being in anyone’s power. I don’t have any evidence of this but I also think she feels as though there’s nothing left to live for since her main project in life, Lovborg, whose destiny she tried to “mold” has died unromantically. The tragic irony is that, a way, she has bored herself to death. If she wasn’t so bored, she probably wouldn’t have tried to “mold” Lovborg’s destiny. If she hadn’t tried to mold his destiny, she wouldn’t have given him the gun and she wouldn’t be in Brack’s power.
One of the things I find most interesting about Hedda is her impulsiveness. Throughout the book, she is constantly doing things on impulse. One early example of this is when she purposely insults Tesman’s aunt’s bonnet by pretending to think it belongs to the maid. When she discusses the incident with Brack later and he asks her why she says
HEDDA (nervously crossing the room) : Well, you see—these impulses come over me all of a sudden; and I cannot resist them. (Throws herself down in the easy-chair by the stove) Oh, I don’t know how to explain it.”
Brack suggests that the reason is that she is unhappy. I’m not sure if I agree with him. Is Hedda impulsive by nature or is she indulgent of her impulses because she is so terribly bored. I know Mr. Cook said that some people call her a female Hamlet, and while I don’t quite agree with this, I do think they share one thing in common. Both characters seem to often have an impulse to subtly tease and mock people that they distain. Hedda constantly mocks Mrs. E such as when Mrs. E says that she has saved Lovborg from sin and Hedda says with a scornful smile, “Then you have reclaimed him--as the saying goes--my little Thea." Also like Hamlet, Hedda has compulsions to do things to purposely make people think she’s crazy. Although, she doesn’t do this as often, this compulsion can be seen when Hedda says, “Do you think that [molding Tesman’s destiny] is worth the trouble? Oh, if only you could understand how poor I am. And fate has made you so rich! (Clasps her [Mrs. E] passionately in her arms.) I think I must burn your hair off after all.” Earlier in the play, Mrs. E said that when they were girls, she was terrified of Hedda because she threatened to burn her hair off. Another time that we see this compulsion is when Hedda plays with her father’s loaded pistols.
4.b. Like Chloe, I was also interested by Hedda’s many references to Lovborg coming home with “vine leaves in his hair.” Also like Chloe, I thought that the vine leaves were an allusion to ancient Greece. Although she gave the possibility that they could be a denotation of high class in ancient Greek society, I think it is more important to focus on vine leaves as a mark of one who is victorious, like a laurel wreath. Other scholars seem to agree with the vine leaves as an allusion to ancient Greece. A foreword by William Archer on the E-book version of “Hedda Gabler” says “Antique art, or I am much mistaken, shows us many figures of Dionysus himself and his followers with vine-leaves entwined their hair.” There is even a book about the role of the artist in Ibsen’s plays called With Vine Leaves in His Hair. I think that the vine leaves might represent a romantic hero.
I traced most of the mentions of vine leaves in the book because I was curious whether Hedda was sincere at the start about wanting Lovborg to be successful and victorious. The first mention is when Mrs. E asks Hedda what will happen at Lovborg’s book reading. Hedda says, “At ten-o’clock—he will be here. I can see him already—with vine leaves in his hair— flushed and fearless” (Ibsen 195). Mrs. E says, “Oh God!—if he would only come as you see him now!” (Ibsen 195). I really think that Hedda does believe in his success because she says, “He will come as I see him—so, and not otherwise!...I believe in him” (Ibsen 195). Hedda is not often open or honest with Mrs. E but when Tesman returns, he makes a comment that it is “pitiful to think that [Lovborg] with all his gifts should be irreclaimable, after all” (Ibsen 199). Hedda says, “I suppose you mean that he has more courage than the rest?” To which Tesman replies, “No, not at all—I mean that he is incapable of taking his pleasures in moderation” (Ibsen 199). This shows that Hedda only wants to think the best of Lovborg. I think it also shows that initially, she intends Lovborg’s destiny to be a successful and famous writer.
After Hedda discovers Lovborg’s failure, she says she doesn’t “believe in vines leaves anymore.” I think that this means that she doesn’t believe in romantic victory. I think it’s also kind of amazing how fast Hedda goes from dreaming of Lovborg’s success to plotting his destruction.
HENRIK IBSEN”S PLAYS
Courtland (Doll’s House): bird names: Ironic foreshadowing (Torvald doesn’t get it but there is a real bird inside Nora…
Courtland (Doll’s House): perhaps Ibsen—in the contrast between Nora and Mrs. Linde—shows the effect of environment upon behavior: Nora, as you’ve pointed out, is childish even when depended upon; in other words it remains a game; further, her emotions swing childishly without sense of consequences. Of course! She has not had to be responsible for others; she has not felt the burdens of responsibility—though she yearns (& we certainly admired this in Jane Eyre) for independence. (“Did she really have to borrow…? Who else could she have borrowed from? Reputable people wouldn’t engage in such behavior on the sly?…)
Excellent insights on the importance of Dr. Rank in the play.
Chloe: thanks for a great, sensitive, thoughtful response.
Caitlin: I agree with you on many points. A Doll’s House like Of Mice and Men and Old Man and the Sea are chosen as the works to represent Ibsen, Steinbeck, and Hemingway in high schools because they are the easiest to teach. Their structures, especially foreshadowing and indirect characterizations, can be shown easily with a few quotations. (Further, your desire to scream “I GET IT MRS. LINDE IS NORA’S FOIL, NEXT SCENE!” is often how I felt when encountering the various foils of Jane Eyre. So there are here I enjoyed the characterizations and the subtle commentary on social class and status that transcends the simple message.) But because A Doll’s House is such a well put together machine (which is both its fault and, for many teachers, virtue) Dr. Rank does have an important function (one that, to my mind, lifts the play because the function is more subtle, more open-ended than so many other characters’ functions in the play). Courtland and Chloe have discussed this very insightfully, so I won’t repeat what they have said but instead direct you to their comments.
Finally, James Joyce, too, didn’t think highly of this play though many of Ibsen’s plays were very important to him.
(& perhaps Ibsen intends her epiphany to be selfish. What else could she be? She has non of Mrs. Linde’s pragmatism, no?)
Rose (Hedda Gabler) “The decision to include this moment into the script really fits in, in my opinion, to the big picture of Hedda Gabler - that so much is being said with so little being said.” What do you think is being said with the distinction between the formal and informal “you”?
(Doll’s House) To understand the “shift” in Nora I think the following comments from Naomi are helpful: “She walks away from him, not because she ruins his life by taking out the loan, but because she feels she no longer wants to be his doll. In my opinion she is the same person the whole way through the book. She never really is his doll, she just acts like it.”
Courtland (Enemy of the People): I like that you are sensitive to the ambivalence with which Ibsen presents Dr. Stockmann. His insistence on truth is admirable but his inability (unwillingness?) to communicate with others is not (as if “rhetoric,” especially “ethos”—I’ll explain if you’re interested—is beneath him). I often feel the Dr. Stockmann’s of the world need “translators,” those who understand the ideas and can communicate them effectively with others. That is, I think, one of my roles as a teacher. Some of the ideas in plays, poems, and novels that we read are odious to many of the students I teach; my job then is sometimes to help students see the truths about human existence that lurk behind the odious surfaces. (Sometimes it is the truths themselves that are odious—often uncomfortable—then it is my job to gently assert that we consider them nevertheless.) In any case Dr. Stockmann completely lacks a sympathetic “translator” and so is doomed.
Courtland (Enemy…): “For one, the way that the information about the baths was presented to the public set them up to rejects the doctor's claims.” I agree. And this is the power of rhetoric. But then is not up to the public—any public living within a free democracy—to seek out the truth for ourselves and not to rely on political rhetoricians. Gloucester’s own Charles Olson writes often of the importance of “finding out for yourself.” At this moment of packaged mass mediation Olson’s words and Ibsen’s play have never been more important. To put it another way, the truth of a situation is often “hiding in plain sight”; truths (or at least insights), though available if we’ll just do a little digging using libraries and the internet, is obscured by rhetoric carried to all of our eyes and ears by mass media. I could go on but won’t.
Chloe (Hedda Gabbler): I love that you define beauty here instead of assuming that it carries the usual meaning: “I don't mean beauty in an aesthetic sense, but rather, beauty defined as something that is final and fulfilling.” Well done. We should talk about Hedda’s sense of beauty when we investigate John Keats’ “Negative Capability” letter.
& vine leaves, yes! (You entangle the vines with the drunken night & I think among other things they carry this association throughout, especially since they evoke—via grape vines—the production of wine and the classical god Bacchus.)
Courtland (Enemy…): “I can't decided if Ibsen is trying to say that catering to the majority is a bad idea, or that the intelligent minority is stuck-up and elitist and caught up in its own ideals too much to think of the common good.” Seems a successful work of art in exploring insights into human existence cannot be reduced to a single message—do this or don’t do this—instead it looks for a truth (rather the author’s sense of the truth). Here, Ibsen does not wash away the complexities of the situation: Dr. Stockmann is right but also doomed because of his inability/unwillingness to (that he is noble but trapped by a tragic flaw—extreme, inflexible pride (or hubris)--makes his situation tragic—we’ll talk about this more later); others are right about the economic effects of Dr. S’s warning but cover over the truth…etc. In this way art does not solve problems or provide answers, instead it asks questions and examines in the most honest and unflinching manner.
possible. (This is also the honesty behind Nora being selfish (true to her character) even in her liberation from her husband.)
Rose (Enemy…): “I wonder if I can completely agree with Stockmann's assertion that it's the compact majority that is the real problem.” I’d love to have read you explore you mixed feelings about Stockmann’s assertion. As for me, I wonder how Ibsen wants us to think about this assertion. Dr. S dooms himself by attacking the majority and thus preventing them from hearing him and changing their ways. He gives them no out. He provides no way for them to redeem themselves. No hope for him or them. This is a tragic situation in many ways, ways that I won’t get into right now and ways that relate to any of us who are interested in making changes within a democracy. Do we work with people—say in a public high school—and with patience try to help them see truths or do we decide the people are irredeemable, unchangeable, hopeless and spend our time attacking them? Ibsen’s play hits at the crux of this conundrum, no?
As ever, the author is not the protagonist; nor can the “meaning” and “effect” or a play be found in the speeches of the protagonist even when those speeches are foregrounded. Hamlet is more than Hamlet.
My aunt recently sent me this link and I don't think I could articulate my feelings about A Doll's House any more eloquently than they have. I just think the statements are so pointed and this reminds me of how I felt reading it.
The clip aired on This American Life.
At any rate, it is hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnlJ8r5uDGQ
Hedda Gabler
5.b. In one of Lucy’s entries, she talks of how the piano represents Hedda’s struggle for independence. For me, another set piece that seemed to have a major significance was the writing table. I don’t know if I’m making too big a deal of this but I think it sort of represents chance and destiny because the objects it contains could bring the characters either hope or death. The writing table appears in Act II when it replaces the piano. This is also the first time Colonel Gabler’s pistols appear and Hedda takes them out of the writing desk. But the biggest scene with the writing desk doesn’t come until Act III. When Hedda gets her hands on Lovborg’s manuscript, she hides it in the writing desk. When Lovborg shows up distraught, Hedda asks him to go but says she wants to give him “a memento.” She goes to the writing desk and takes out one of the pistols and gives it to him. It just seemed deeply significant to me that one drawer of the writing desk contain the manuscript and the other had the pistols. It’s almost like one had death and one had life. There’s something deeply symbolic about it. It also kind of smacks of destiny like that Hedda was so set on her course of destruction that she was destined to pick the drawer with death.
Hedda Gabler Airmont 1966 edition
6. b. In their posts, Rose and Chloe both discussed the importance of translation in Hedda Gabler. While I was reading the play, I felt that some of the most important messages and foreshadowing came from Ibsen’s use of phrases that in his language, have double meanings. In one of my earlier posts, I discussed the meaning of the Norwegian word, bagveje which is mentioned in the beginning of Act II. Hedda uses the word bagveje when Brack tries to sneak into the house through the back way. She pretends to shoot Brack and says, “This is what comes of sneaking in by the back way” (Ibsen 176). This double entendre is one of the only hints we have that Hedda senses that Brack may not be as noble as he seems.
Another major example of this is when Hedda burns Lovborg’s manuscript and Tesman say that he can’t believe “…that you [Hedda] love me so much” which literally means “that you burn for me” (Ibsen 212). This double entendre seems to raise questions in the audience’s mind as to whom Hedda really burned the manuscript for and whether she really loves Tesman at all.
Post a Comment