Please provide some general commentary/reaction on Ibsen's A Doll House as a whole. You might comment on the play's overall theme, including whether or not its status as a "feminist play" is justified or serves to limit the play's scope, appeal, and/or effectiveness. You might also choose to discuss the play's relevance to today. That is, does the ending of the play still hold the shock value that it did over 100 years ago? Why or why not?
IMPORTANT: Since I'd like to use your comments in class discussion on Monday 2/23, this blog entry MUST be submitted by or on Sunday 2/22 in order to receive credit.
6 comments:
I was satisfied with the ending of A Doll House as well as with the play as a whole. In terms of the last scene, I don't believe it holds the shock value it did 100 years ago. A century earlier, tradition was defined by husbands bringing home the bacon and stay-at-home wives tending to the children. Viewers therefore would have been surprised at Nora's decision to confidently defy the constraints of male domination, daily routine, and conventional values in general.
Today, society is more individualistic. Many women are divorced or are single mothers. It is acceptable for females to live alone under their own authority. The only part that may remain a little shocking is the fact that Nora abandoned her kids. Mothers today might not be as likely as Nora to put themselves before their children. Personally, I think Nora was justified in leaving because she had denied herself life for eight years. No matter which sex, we can all understand that it's easy to become wrapped up in pretend play and to lose sight of who we really are. Nora ultimately couldn't begin her soul searching if she had stayed a figurine in the doll house. Torvald not only treated her as a play thing, but she treated her own kids as dolls too. In liberating herself, Nora freed the children from the game. She is a mother after all.
I think it is very much a feminist play because from the very beginning we explore the duties that the women of the house are expected to carry out. From the first few lines we see Nora come in from a day of shopping, a normal duty of a mother who must buy what is necessary while simultaneously keeping in mind the family's budget. In the beginning Torvald acts as if this is all she is capable of, he doesn't know her secret. This secret reveals that women are much stronger than they appear that their role in the family is much more than doing the grocery shopping. Without Nora's sacrifice there would have been tradjedy indeed, but when Torvald finds out what she did all he thinks of is losing his reputation, not that he should be thankful to even be alive.
It is rather interesting that "A Doll House" is called a feminist play because Ibsen isn't a female, nor did he in tend for it to be feminist. I does makes sense though, this play is a satire on the empty lives that housewives lead in Norway, and all over the world. I was actually quite appalled by Helmer's chauvinistic behavior, especially with all of those annoying pet names! He's just like Luzhin from "Crime and Punishment": he wants someone to be dependent on him because it makes him feel more like a man. (Is that why we are reading this book? So far everything we have read in this class is thematically connected to some other book we have read!) This play also seemed to me as a precursor to our modern day soap operas and telenovelas: Helmer and Nora exchange only the cheesiest of lines, everything seems perfect in the household, and then Krogstadt shows up threatening Nora because of a secret she has been keeping from her husband. Then Dr Rank admitted his love for Nora before dying, and Mrs. Linde turned out to be Krogstad's ex-lover! So many dramatic revelations! This play reeked of soap opera! Anyways, I am also satisfied with the ending. Certainly it isn't as controversial as it was back then, but it still is a tad awkward. Many of the readers might be saying "you go girl" to Nora, while others might think "Does this mid-life crisis really necessitate such decisions as leaving your family?" If it is something she is driven to do, I suppose that no one should stop her. Her previously dominant husband certainly didn't. I loved how Nora turned him into a desperate mess at the end of the play; it really does show how their roles have switched.
As I was reading this play, I found it very boring and annoying. At first Nora seemed so helpless and ditzy that i really couldn't stand reading any more about her. Torvald was equally annoying with all of his stupid pet names. However i really enjoyed the ending of the play. Nora finally realized that she meant nothing living in that home and being married to Torvald. He defined every part of her and she wanted to discover things for herself finally. I think it's status as a feminist play is justified because it would have been empowering to women during the time it was written even if it wasn't openly admitted. Back then it was the woman's job to stay home and take care of the husband and children just like Torvald said. Nora's departure would have been very shocking but it also would have gotten women thinking about their roles. Today this play does not have the same shock value since it is not unheard of for women to realize they are unhappy and leave their families to do things for themselves. Its no longer frowned upon for women to work while the husband stays home with the kids. Torvald would have been horrified but we live in a completely different age. Women do not have the same stereotypical roles as they did 100 years ago. Overall I think that women today would find Nora kind of sad and pathetic for not realizing her unhappiness sooner.
The ending is not shocking to the readers like it was 100 years ago. I think that the ending makes sense, that Nora really had a reason for leaving Torvald. The one thing that I had a problem with was how she had been waiting for him to make the "big gesture." It seemed like she wanted him to protect her, but she had a very fine line between protecting and being treated like a child. I don't know how Torvald was suppose to realize this when she never explained it to him. Their marriage was infantile. Looking from the year 2009 I can ask how is it possible that they never discussed these things before Nora felt like she had to move out. The biggest problem is, is that marriage takes work and effort, but the two were so solely focused on their own lives that they didn't communicate and were still in that shallow first stage step that all relationships go through, even though it had been 8 years. It is disgusting to think that the two had children that were being effected by this as well. It was heartbreaking to see that Nora thought of her children as more props in the messed up situation, but she was still willing to leave them even after knowing how her upbringing created problems for her future, but she wouldn't allow her children to have a brighter future. This play reminded me of The Awakening. Though Nora didn't kill herself she still left behind the mess of leaving her children, and her husband to a "miracle" that she knows will most likely never happen.
Post a Comment