Please finish reading A Doll House, Act III and respond in this space. Please include insights and questions for Monday's class discussion. I look forward to your responses.
What amazed me so much about this act was Nora’s massive character developement. I did not see her ever becoming aware about her unblanaced and vain marriage. The way Ibsen developed it throughout the act made it especially impactful. We see the beginning of her realization when Helmer is furiously blaming her for ruining his reputation and saying that he will do whatever Krogstad says to keep this underwraps. Her face loses all life to it, and it loses it’s senseless prettiness showing how she understands that Helmer only sees her as a dumb and helpless soul. She has finally understood that Helmer was not hopelessly in love with her, he was in love with the idea of her. She was really nothing more than a pretty face and a “doll”l to him. I really like how Ibsen has Nora say, “I have been greatly wronged, Torvald- first by Papa and then by you” (66), because throughout the whole story Torvald was always talking badly about her fathers ways, but now she is saying that they are the same type of man. The way that Torvald is unable to grasp and understand how he has wronged her shows us how out of touch he is to his wife’s feelings, its almost as if they are talking as two strangers. Nora’s new found self-empowerment was refreshing because I felt that her life early in the story lacked meaning, and looking back we can see how Ibsen strategically set up for this transformation of character. Question: In the last sentence of the story, does Helmer have a realization of the wonderful thing that would get her back and is he correct? Do we ever find out what this wonderful thing is?
The ending to A Dolls house seems somewhat inconceivable. After a night of dancing and playing dress up for her egotistical, pedofile-ish, vain, and dangerously insecure husband, Nora seemingly becomes a freethinking human???? The character development was so subtle and within Nora’s own mind unrevealed to the reader that I never expected her to just leave by her own accord. She suddenly was speaking of an entire life she had lived within a web of men that looked at her as nothing more than a plaything. Even more shocking was the once undeniable love she had for her father was gone and replaced by utter contempt for the views that he had forced upon her just as Torvald had done for the eight years they had been married.
I was extremely disappointed with the ending of A Doll’s House. As many have mentioned for Nora to all the sudden feel the need to become an independent and free thinking women after 8 years of being her husband's “doll” is unrealistic and provided what seemed like a rushed ending to an overall interesting story. I feel Ibsen didn’t put a lot of thought into the ending and just wanted to wrap it up. Their is no way that a woman who has been controlled her whole life all the sudden has this newfound courage to walk away from her unhealthy relationship just because she didn’t get the reaction she wanted from her husband. I was also angered that she was able to leave her kids behind so quickly without much thought, with this decision she lost the little respect I had left for her. I think overall this ending hurt the representation of women during this time period linking them with Nora’s worse traits of being a big spender, superficial, and impulsive. Questions: How did Nora and Helmer meet? Was it more of an arranged marriage? How was it so easy for Nora to leave her children when the day before she was so anxious about them forgetting her? General Question: Little confused about what happened between Christine and Krogstaf
I also was impressed and sort of shocked by the character development of Nora throughout this play. Ibsen was able to drop subtle hints that she was changing which I didn't realize until after Nora told Torvald she was leaving. Earlier in the play when Nora is talking to Dr. Rank, it is evident that having an intimate conversation is foreign to her because her and Torvald had only had a surface level relationship. This theme carried through until the very end, when Nora says that after eight years of marriage, they had "never exchanged a word on any serious subject" (66). At first, I was completely taken aback by how forward Nora was being with Torvald, but when she explained that she had this epiphany tonight when "the wonderful thing" did not happen, it clicked with me. Once Torvald read the letter and started yelling at her for how her wrongs would effect him and only him, he asks if she understands what she has done, to which she responds "cooly", "Yes, now I am beginning to understand thoroughly" (62). Her subtext and motives changed completely at that moment. She could no longer put up with being controlled like a doll, and from then on out her only goal was to get out of that house and that relationship so she could educate herself. I also really liked how Ibsen made her question not just her relationship with her father and husband, but with her faith as well. She says how it has always been the priest telling her what the scriptures and passages were saying, but she wanted to for once read it and understand it for herself, something that was a big deal during the humanism movement when the Bible was first translated into other languages, meaning other people could finally interpret religion for themselves. I feel like this showed her longing for truly being her own person in all aspects of life. I also was really proud of her:)) Throughout the book she reminded me of Daisy from Gatsby and I was worried that she would stay like Daisy, doing what was expected of her because that was all she knew, even though she wasn't exactly proud to do so. When she finally had this "switch" you could feel her momentum and power growing, and it was wonderful to see her finally doing what was right for her. Although I do feel terribly for the children because the girls will probably grow up to be dolls of their own, and the boys will be the Torvalds. Maybe if Nora had stayed she could have found a way to disturb the cycle just a little bit. Question/Comment: I also would like to discuss Torvald's final line of the play. I took it as he was hoping that he could make the most wonderful thing happen again, but Nora literally closing the door showed her also ~closing the door~ to any future they could have together.
I loved the ending to this play. Seeing Nora come to the realization that Torvald did not love her and that she deserved better was empowering. I had been waiting for this realization throughout the play, and I loved seeing how it all played out. I think that Nora made the right choice in leaving Torvald, and even in leaving her children. At first I had been unhappy with her decision to leave her children, but as I thought about it more, she was already a relatively bad mother, and I think that her children would find a better mother figure in their nurse. Nora had viewed herself as an equal with her children rather than as a parent, and having an unhealthy relationship like that, in my opinion, would be worse than being raised with their nurse who seems to already be more of a mother figure. I think that Nora was absolutely right to leave Torvald, especially after he didn’t even realize that he had treated her like a possession to play with her entire life. Nora has no sense of who she is, because she has always been treated like a plaything and has accepted that role, and I loved seeing her understand that she deserved better in life and that she could be her own person and not just an object made to please everyone.
I agree with what others had said about Nora's character development. I was like "You go girl. You tell him!" It's really interesting to think that Ibsen had this concept of what the role of a woman should be way before our time. I thought of Nora as an ignorant child who speaks without thinking, or a person who doesn't have a strong will. The last scene of her and Torvald was incredible. It makes me think of what my role is right now in this society. In the past, all women could worry about was who they could marry because their lives literally depended on their husbands (like Nora and Christine), but now I have the same access to higher education as everyone else in this class has. I have a choice to do things for the sake of myself.
I thought that the ending was very surprising, but also very clever. The subtle developments in Nora’s character Ibsen includes throughout Act III especially I think are what made the ending so powerful. As Nora comes to the realization in her mind that Torvald and her “have never exchanged a word on any serious subject” (66) and recognizes that she has been wronged by both my her husband and by her father, I really got a sense of how much Nora had changed in this act. I also really liked the line where Nora says to Torvald that “You have never loved me.You have only thought it pleasant to be in love with me (66) because I think that here Ibsen makes it very clear that Nora is not going to put up with Torvald any longer and that she has learned that she is her own person. Acts I and II definitely set up for Act III with the various details and exchanges between Nora and the other characters and so I thought that the ending was very satisfying and empowering. Questions: Do we ever find out what Helmer thinks the most wonderful thing is? What exactly happened between Christine and Krogstad?
Nora's development was so sudden, I was almost wondering if it were actually genuine. I loved the ending, I'm all for female empowerment and independence, but I remained in want of something more -- I think I just need to watch someone act the part because, as I read it, I was limited to the voice in my head and I feel like Ibsen wrote it to be much more intense and passionate than what my voice did. For a while, I struggled to understand this "wonderful thing" that Nora spoke of -- did she want Torvald to take the blame? Did she want to kill herself? Did she want him to thank her? But after reading through the last scene I understood her better and I felt very attached to her character. I mentally cheered her on as she told Torvald off, I praised her for refusing his pleads and staying determined. I was confused about Torvald's part in the scene, though, because he seemed so fake about his distraught at her desire to leave. He kept agreeing with the points she made but then continued to beg for her and I wasn't sure if he meant it just for the sake of his ego. Either way, I'm glad Nora braced herself for the argument and grew strong against everything Torvald said. I understand why there was such an angry reaction from Norway during Ibsen's time but I applaud him for the hard-hitting growth in Nora's character. I'm curious to see the ending he came up with to please the Norwegian audience.
I kind of liked the ending of the play. No, it was not very plausible, but I think it fit well enough, especially if you look at Nora’s changing actions and development throughout the play and especially during the last act. I was looking for an ending that was far more shocking, as I knew that people disliked it so much. But I realized that back when the story was published, it probably was a shocking ending, given the feminist ideas presented. I have far more patience for an ending like this versus an ending that ties everything up really nicely where Nora and Torvald would happily be together, past the point of any danger. I think for an ending like this to happen, Ibsen would have to have made the decision to focus on delusion and denial, and make it painfully obvious that living this sort of life wouldn’t lead to a truly happy ending.
I’m wondering if people were mad about the ending because of the ideas of feminism? Was it just the time the play was published that made people in Norway dislike the ending? I feel like if it was published for the first time today, people would be much more accepting of it. Sosha
Personally, I found the ending sort of predictable. I agree with everyone else that the development of Nora was interesting and important, but I saw it coming. I knew that at some point Torvald was going to read the letter and Nora was going to tell him how she's felt after all these years. Yes, I thought the ending was well written but I also felt that it lacked some excitement or twist of the plot or something more attention grabbing. I feel like it was just a very heated scene that took place quickly and then the play just kind of ended. However, I did enjoy how Ibsen included feminism in this play, and gave Nora the power to leave her motherly role. I wish that we learned more about the future of Mrs. Linde and Krogstad because I would want to see how they work out. I have similar questions to other people that have commented- like how did people react to this play during Ibsen’s time/ were they against the feminist views that he wrote from? Also, I am interested to see how the ending scenes are played out in the movie, and how dramatic the actors will portray the lines. Cat
I think the resolution of this play points out something important about relationships that I do not see often, for so much importance can be put on acts and hopes of love, that they can become obligations that consume a person's life. For Nora, close relationships aren’t ones where there is any emotional equality. She allows herself to be treated like a child by her father and her husband, never sharing her real emotions or thoughts because she knows they wouldn’t be happy if she didn’t conform to their expectations of her. Throughout the play Nora treats her own happiness as less important than her husband, her needs less important than his. Everything she wants in her life is directly linked to the contentment of Torvald. She possesses no life outside the role of wife she was forced to play, suffering for that role in silence, living for her husband rather than with him. Nora does this, refusing all her personal needs and fooling herself into believing that her personal needs are the needs of her husband, because she wants the love and connection she denies herself. She commits fraud and lies to her husband in the hopes that one day she will tell Torvald the truth and he will be thankful and grow to love her even more. Nora even fools herself into believing that if her crime was revealed, Torvald would take the blame and that she loves him so much that she would kill herself to stop that from happening. However deep down she knows that won’t happen so she also wants to kill herself to avoid seeing the truth of how loveless her life is. In the end, Nora not only wants the love of her husband, she also wants to love him and to maintain the illusion either is possible. Nora knows that she and her husband don’t love each other but she has convinced herself that they do and all of her work, all of her silent suffering, everything she has denied herself, has been in the futile effort to continue to be convinced. And what happens when the illusion falls away in the end and the depth of Torvald’s shallowness is revealed to her? Nora realizes how dismal a role women have in society when it comes to love; how they are expected to conform to the needs of others (Nora serves as a plaything for her father and Torvald, Linde puts aside all of her desires and dreams in order to assist her family) and how these compromises in the name of love result in women living empty and unfulfilled lives. Personal sacrifices made in the name of love way seem noble and pure but in reality they only deny the true happiness of the person making the sacrifice. Nora’s confrontation and realization with Torvald also reveals how selfish conventional love is. Nora and Torvald married and tried to love each other, not out of any real connection with their spouse, but because the idea of loving someone and being in love made them feel good. Torvald married Nora because having someone who cares about him and needs him made him feel important, and strong, and Nora suffered for Torvald because she wanted the same self importance and fulfilment Torvald got out of the marriage (Nora wants to be Torvald, in a state of mind sense). But while Torvald’s status as a man provides him the power and assurance to get the selfish fulfilment out of his relationship with Nora, Nora cannot do the same. She sees that this selfish, and emotionally isolating approach to marriage has deprived herself of any fulfilment and deprived Torvald of any emotional maturity or ability to change his ways. So she leaves to discover herself and to push her husband into becoming a better man. This is the aspect I love about the ending. It recognizes that our society has placed too much importance on connections with others, on the purity of love, and how doing so has created broken emotionally desolate and unfulfilling relationships, and how it is more important to live for yourself, to become a full and complete person, so that after, the connections you make will be more complete and real.
“Conversely to Checkov’s statement, ‘If there’s a gun in a story, it must be fired,” if an entire nuclear arsenal is fired at the end, it’s probably best to actually mention it before the bombs start going off.”
-me after reading Act III of A Doll’s House
I honestly hated the ending. I found it to be completely unrealistic and out of Nora’s character. Beforehand, one of the things that had actually made me appreciate the play was Ibsen’s portrayal of Nora as indecisive and overly-talkative. I had never seen a protagonist in any story portrayed like that, and it made me think about and analyze the plot as I was reading it. I imagined the different ways in which Nora could become an unlikely hero or glorified victim in her own distinct manner and how it would loop together to make a powerful statement for feminism. With those ideas in mind, I approached the ending with high hopes. I was severely disappointed. The ending completely reversed Nora’s entire personality and speech in less than half-a-page and made her more bitter than Ms. Linde had been after over a decade of misfortune. None of this was foreshadowed in any part of the play and from a psychological standpoint, the shift is simply unrealistic. For me, that greatly lessened the power of the work as a whole.
Unlike several others who have already commented, I believe the ending was realistic and suggested within the events of the play. Throughout the story, Nora is perpetually objectified by those around her. This is evident in the way the other characters, specifically Torvald, refer to her using, even though in a humorous tone, the names of feeble and insignificant animals like “squirrel” and “skylark”. Moreover, the fact that a woman isn’t allowed to borrow without the consent of her husband further suggests that females are considered subordinates to their male-counterparts during the time period in which A Doll’s House takes place. All these elements are built up within Nora through feelings of discontent with her condition as a housewife, hence why she decides to leave Torvald in the conclusion of the play. The only way Nora can understand herself as an independent being rather than an object is by ridding herself of those that bolster the objectification of women. Ibsen does a tremendous job in portraying Nora’s character development, hence why I believe that the ending, although seemingly inconceivable, is implied throughout.
I was expecting something horrible to happen like Nora or the children dying or something because the ending was apparently upsetting, but thank goodness it was not that bad! While I did appreciate the ending of the play, I can totally understand why it causes such an uproar. Yes, Nora underwent some incredible character development throughout the course of the play, but not enough to really leave her family behind and do some soul searching on her own. What happened to the panicked woman we saw not long ago? Looking back, I can see how Ibsen foreshadowed Nora leaving her home earlier, but the turnaround was so quick that it seemed unrealistic. Nora seemed so thrilled and overwhelmed with the slightest bit of independence that such a huge step was definitely uncharacteristic based on where she was in her arc. Eventually she would have gotten to the mindset that she reached at the end of the play, but most likely not in such an abrupt manner. I also think that Ibsen made such a statement that some of the subtlety of his work was lost in the process. However, it was an impactful and insightful statement that surely would have stood out in the time period. I appreciated the challenging of the gender roles that men and women were forced into and the emergence of a strong female character despite her many flaws.
I absolutely loved everything about the way Ibsen wrote the third act. I was very happy when the act began with the interaction between Christine and Krogstad, finally allowing me to tie together all the connections by understanding their past. Then, the triumphant ending left me speechless. When Torvald reads the letter written by Krogstad and the secret is revealed, Nora realized throughout their conversation that this was the first serious exchange between them. This epiphany Nora experiences leads to an important discovery that, for her whole life, she has been playing a role preventing her from being herself. This situation got in the way of anyone knowing her true identity, making everyone love the idea of her, rather than her. As she explains, “Our home has been nothing but a playroom. I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Papa’s doll child.” This makes her want to discover who she really is, but now she is aware that no person can help her do that but herself. I was shocked by the huge transformation Nora undergoes throughout the play. After deciding that she is not happy and that she is the only one that is in control of her life and happiness, her decision to leave her family and finally be true to herself took me completely by surprise. I think Ibsen’s decision to not include a lot of the progression throughout the play enhanced this plot twist, making the ending even more breathtaking. I think this book about a woman declaring her power and independence and deciding to leave her children in someone else care must have been revolutionary, written in the 1800s. The reactions of Torvald, of calling her ill and delirious must have been the reactions of many men during that time period. The complete reversal from living by her husband’s will with no sense of herself to being the one that controls her life is so invigorating. I was very proud to see how she went from being called pet names such as “little squirrel” and “little skylark” and asking her husband for money, to someone strong and determined as Torvald was begging her to stay, wondering if he could do anything to change the outcome. When he “doesn’t understand the idea” and she responds “That makes it all the more certain it must be done”, Nora is declaring her self-reliance and her breaking apart from her husband’s support. By slamming the door, Nora is opening a new page in her life, with no coming back to her previous situation. She is declaring her revolt against her controlling husband and the whole patriarchal system back then. She literally slams the door on her past, and welcomes the new woman she became.
I was shocked at the end of A Doll House. I was very surprised how quickly Krogstad decided to do the right thing after talking to Ms. Linde. The only thing I expected was Torvald’s initial reaction of anger at Nora, but he turned it around to love and protection much quicker than I expected. At first when Nora was talking about leaving, I thought she was going to kill herself, and I think that was the plan until she discovered the second letter from Krogstad. I was also surprised that there was no more development between Nora and Dr. Rank, especially since he was going to die. I was not happy with the ending. I think it was good that Nora stood up for herself, but I think she could’ve done so without leaving her home and her children. I understand she was in a difficult relationship but by the end of the play Torvald seems ready to talk and compromise.
The foreshadowing for the ending was set up since the first act, but to me it still felt rushed. I don't believe that Nora's conversation with Torvald was out of character but it just felt as though there was no reason for that revelation to occur then. What bothered me more about Act 3 however was Mrs. Linde and Krogstad. It felt too convenient as if Ibsen just needed a reason for Krogstad to give up the bond and he forced this reconciliation to fit the plot. Also I was expecting character development in Mrs. Linde, yet all Act 3 gave me was her accepting Krogstad again. If that's all she was used for in this play, I don't see a point of her character. There were other ways of showing contrast to Nora's self centeredness, and there were other ways of ending Nora's business with Krogstad rather than have Mrs. Linde change Krogstad's mind with the promise of love. Another problem I had with the third act was the heavy handedness of the dollhouse metaphor. To me the dollhouse symbolism was clearly established before Nora leaves Torvald, and could have been cemented with one or two lines mentioning it. It was used so much that it felt like the audience was being hit on the head with this analogy, which was strange for such a play that had used such subtleties before. What I did like about the third act was Torvald's reaction to the letter. It was gratifying for the audience to be proved right, and to see Nora's delusions be ripped away. It also felt very realistic and in character, if still extremely uncomfortable to read. I understand the controversy regarding this ending and I am intrigued to see how Ghosts addresses it.
After reading Act III, I was left a little confused. I liked that Nora did find the courage to stand against Helmer, refusing to be his doll. That being said, I did find her sudden change of mind to be a little awkward and unexpected. Just minutes before she was pleading with Helmer to not be upset with her and once he forgave her she refused him. I think Ibsen really emphasized Helmer’s condescending character towards the end to make it obvious even to Nora. I believe that the decision Nora made was reasonable for t was a way to regain identity, purpose and meaning. I can see why many people at the time of this book were not happy with the ending however I liked a large part of it. In my opinion, I think Nora should have taken the kids with her. I think growing up with Helmer would just reinforce traditional ideas that restrict gender. The doll house was an interesting read with a lot of details that kept foreshadowing and relating to another idea. Ibsen’s way of writing created a purpose for each sentence of the entire play. (posted for Kaby)
I thought that throughout Act III both Torvald and Nora acted childishly and selfishly. Torvald is mainly concerned with his own well being throughout the argument and fails to recognize that Nora is another human being with feelings too. He is so worried about his finances and his status that Nora feels pushed aside and worthless. When he reads Krogstad’s second letter he says “I am saved!” rather than “We are saved!” which shoes he is only interested in himself. I find it odd how one minute Torvald loves Nora and the next minute he hates her with a burning passion. Then he goes back to loving her again. This all happens in the span of a few minutes which makes me think that Torvald may not love Nora as much as he says he does. I also think that Nora acted childishly in the way in which she left Torvald so abruptly. Even if she did hate him she could have at least tried to make the relationship work for the sake of their children. The absence of a mother in child’s life can have devastating effects on the development of those children. I totally understand why the public reacted so negatively to the ending of the play. So, one of my questions would have to be how could Nora abandon her children so willingly and quickly? Also, how was Nora able to sustain a relationship for so long while not even in love?
Anna Vrountas At the end of A Doll House, I felt like Nora did the right thing for herself. She stood up to Torvald, recognized that they never had a healthy relationship, and recognized she needed to begin to live her own life and become her true self. It might have been possible for her to leave her husband and not leave her children, like if she left to live nearby, so she could see her children regularly. This would have been a better result for her kids, since the trauma of having their mother run away from them would affect them for the rest of their lives. Then again, this might have been the point-- to demonstrate how far reaching the destruction of societal expectations are. Another thing that I noticed was that Nora and Torvald were kindof like the male/female equivalents of each other. Torvald was completely consumed by what society expected of him, and what he believed his role was in society and in the home. He thought Nora should obey him, and be happy with what he gave her. When she explained to him why she had to leave, he couldn’t wrap his head around the idea. Torvald embodies what would become of a man who listened to societal expectations at the time. Similarly, Nora embodies what would become of a woman who was affected by the societal expectations at the time.
The ending of the book came very suddenly and abruptly. I was not expecting Ibsen to end the book this way. However unpredictable, I liked the way that the book ended. I think that the ending gave Nora a sense of empowerment and independence. It takes Nora until Act 3 to realize that she and Torvald have never have “exchanged a word on any serious subject”. Nora comes to the realization that they do not have a “real” marriage. Their relationship is merely based on forced affection and surface-level conversations. She realizes what the readers have wanted her to see the whole time, that she has been wronged by Torvald. Her decision to leave was one that showed her strength that we had doubted by the way she was portrayed in earlier scenes. I liked the way that Ibsen shaped Nora at the end, but I wish that she would have taken her kids with her or even had said bye to them. I think that being her role as a mother was so important to Nora’s character development that it was unsettling to see her leave her children so abruptly. She left and did not look back as Nora wanted to take charge of her own life. Questions: Do we ever find out what happens with Mrs. Linde and Krogstad? I am wondering what Torvald's next step is as his wife has just left him with their three children? Colleen
The end of the play suprised me. I wasn’t expecting such quick character development from Nora since the only side of her the reader had seen was a selfish, manipulating child. It seemed a little suspicious that she realized who she was so quickly. Maybe she was bottling up her true feelings the whole time, and the reader only saw the superficial version of her that she showed to the rest of the world. When she spoke with Torvald about how she was going to leave, I was very surprised because up until this point, she had only ever spoken with Torvald to flirt or swindle money out of him. However, I liked how Ibsen included why she wanted to leave. By showing how her life with Torvald and her life with her father were similar, the reader was able to understand that she never really had the chance to discover herself or what she wanted to learn. I also liked how Ibsen included the part about religion, because it provided some extra insight on how Nora was raised. While religion was much more strictly followed in this time, Nora was still told what to believe with no other explanation other than this is what you should believe. Her life was so controlled from the very beginning that it’s easy to understand why she eventually left to find herself like she did.
What happens to Nora now? Where did she go? Is she ok? What will happen to Torvald and the children with the abscence of Nora?
I thought that the end of the play was very intense, but cathartic. Throughout the play, we readers have seen Torvald's abusive, domineering nature, while Nora is ironically blind to it, believing that when she shows him her secret he will finally respect her and treat her as an equal. In this last moment, when Nora finally wakes up to the injustices she has suffered her entire married life, we can finally breathe a sigh of releif, released from Ibsen's fraught dramatic irony. At the same time, it gives me an uneasy feeling; after seeing Mrs. Linde destitute and alone, I cannot help but feel that, despite her grandiose gesture of liberation, Nora has doomed herself to a life of hardship more difficult than an untold number of years of marriage to Torvald.
I wonder; what happens to Nora in the future, following this play?
I'm not sure if others echo this belief, but I liked this ending, and felt like Nora's departure was the best way to end it. I've heard of alternative endings where Torvald and Nora talk out their issues and end in a compromise, but I think given the severity of the issues depicted throughout the play, I think this ending was the best.
That having been said, I was very impressed with how Nora was depicted. I remember, at the beginning of Act I some days ago, I didn't like Nora, and I considered her to be frivolous and careless, unable to understand the difficulties that the family has in terms of money. However, as the play progressed, I began to gradually realize that I could not have been more wrong; in fact, I fell right into Ibsen's trap, as this is what he wanted me to think. It was a pleasant surprise to discover that the character traits that I had originally associated with Torvald were actually indicative of Nora's personality, and vice versa. I also began to recognize this tacit manifestation of misogynist thinking, on Torvald's part but also on the behalf of society as a whole, which overtly favored and trusted men over women. Ibsen wrapped up the play geniusly, making sure Nora left the unhealthy relationship she was in; I was also very impressed at how progressive Ibsen was. Although I'm not certain, judging by my outside knowledge of history during the time period this play was written, I assume that there were very few, if any at all, playwrights who agreed with Ibsen's portrayal of women, as equals to men, rather than inferior. This revolutionary idea, that women deserve the exact same prerogatives men do, and that they should not be marginalized from any aspect of society, is a cause that continues to be fought for even today, and it's phenomenal to think that such thoughts existed far, far before modern-day feminism.
The end of the play was something I did not expect would happen. The play had introduced Nora as a character who was the embodiment of the roles women played in society. She was Torvald little squirrel for nearly the entire play until she dramatically changed in the end. In the end of the play, Nora realizes that her entire life what she viewed as love was simply what Torvald saw as property. Nora had gotten the loan in the first place to save the life of her husband. However, when Torvald finds out he starts to scold her and recite his true feelings. Torvald insults Nora and then states how he no longer can love her and she no longer can see the children. However, he received another letter with the loan and starts to express his new found love for Nora. However, the character we had known for acting like a child suddenly matures into an adult. At first, I thought the play was going into an ending where women at the time were victim to the stereotypes they had, however, it ended much differently. Ibsen had identified the role women played and exposed the wrongs in them by having Nora explain the relationship she had with Torvald and having her leave him.
It was very satisfying to see an abusive, patronizing twat like Torvald finally get his comeuppance. This inevitable reality came with what I believe to be the climax of the play, the period when he goes off on Nora for saving his life than pretends it never happens when he realizes his reputation is no longer at stake. Then she can see what the reader already has realized long ago: just how much of a controlling jerk he is. Of course, I really can't blame her; when someone's stuck in a relationship like their's it's hard to see how detrimental it really is until they've seen it from the outside. Add this in with Nora's naivety and she stood no chance. Additionally, Torvald's showed his inherent hypocrisy when, in his angry tirade, thought of ways to try to downplay the situation. Merely two acts ago he said he resented Krogstad (the same man this time now blackmailing him!) for not owing up to his forgery crime. And in Ibsen's final act of turning accepted house roles on its head, he makes Nora leave, her ex-husband the one who made all the mistakes, not her, as Torvald said before was often the case in marriages with children.
Straying away from the discussion of the ending, the unexpected love that erupts between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde renders almost as much surprise as the ending seems to. The long animosity held between these two characters is strangely freed as the two begin to find common ground through being “two shipwrecked people[who]...join forces.” The sense of duality is strong within this act as we are shown to a couple’s beginning, as well as a couple’s ending. Also, unlike their counterparts, Mrs. Linde and Krogstad understand each other fully, besides them being “on the same piece of wreckage,” they also both desire to work, whether that be in business, or within a family setting, they both are in similar pursuits, which conveniently strengthens the connection between the two. Ibsen reveals that the connection between two people must be rooted in not just surface love, but also a love of one another’s inner character, passions and emotions, something that Nora and Torvald had been severely lacking in.
What amazed me so much about this act was Nora’s massive character developement. I did not see her ever becoming aware about her unblanaced and vain marriage. The way Ibsen developed it throughout the act made it especially impactful. We see the beginning of her realization when Helmer is furiously blaming her for ruining his reputation and saying that he will do whatever Krogstad says to keep this underwraps. Her face loses all life to it, and it loses it’s senseless prettiness showing how she understands that Helmer only sees her as a dumb and helpless soul. She has finally understood that Helmer was not hopelessly in love with her, he was in love with the idea of her. She was really nothing more than a pretty face and a “doll”l to him. I really like how Ibsen has Nora say, “I have been greatly wronged, Torvald- first by Papa and then by you” (66), because throughout the whole story Torvald was always talking badly about her fathers ways, but now she is saying that they are the same type of man. The way that Torvald is unable to grasp and understand how he has wronged her shows us how out of touch he is to his wife’s feelings, its almost as if they are talking as two strangers. Nora’s new found self-empowerment was refreshing because I felt that her life early in the story lacked meaning, and looking back we can see how Ibsen strategically set up for this transformation of character.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: In the last sentence of the story, does Helmer have a realization of the wonderful thing that would get her back and is he correct? Do we ever find out what this wonderful thing is?
The ending to A Dolls house seems somewhat inconceivable. After a night of dancing and playing dress up for her egotistical, pedofile-ish, vain, and dangerously insecure husband, Nora seemingly becomes a freethinking human???? The character development was so subtle and within Nora’s own mind unrevealed to the reader that I never expected her to just leave by her own accord. She suddenly was speaking of an entire life she had lived within a web of men that looked at her as nothing more than a plaything. Even more shocking was the once undeniable love she had for her father was gone and replaced by utter contempt for the views that he had forced upon her just as Torvald had done for the eight years they had been married.
ReplyDeleteI was extremely disappointed with the ending of A Doll’s House. As many have mentioned for Nora to all the sudden feel the need to become an independent and free thinking women after 8 years of being her husband's “doll” is unrealistic and provided what seemed like a rushed ending to an overall interesting story. I feel Ibsen didn’t put a lot of thought into the ending and just wanted to wrap it up. Their is no way that a woman who has been controlled her whole life all the sudden has this newfound courage to walk away from her unhealthy relationship just because she didn’t get the reaction she wanted from her husband. I was also angered that she was able to leave her kids behind so quickly without much thought, with this decision she lost the little respect I had left for her. I think overall this ending hurt the representation of women during this time period linking them with Nora’s worse traits of being a big spender, superficial, and impulsive.
ReplyDeleteQuestions:
How did Nora and Helmer meet? Was it more of an arranged marriage?
How was it so easy for Nora to leave her children when the day before she was so anxious about them forgetting her?
General Question: Little confused about what happened between Christine and Krogstaf
I also was impressed and sort of shocked by the character development of Nora throughout this play. Ibsen was able to drop subtle hints that she was changing which I didn't realize until after Nora told Torvald she was leaving. Earlier in the play when Nora is talking to Dr. Rank, it is evident that having an intimate conversation is foreign to her because her and Torvald had only had a surface level relationship. This theme carried through until the very end, when Nora says that after eight years of marriage, they had "never exchanged a word on any serious subject" (66). At first, I was completely taken aback by how forward Nora was being with Torvald, but when she explained that she had this epiphany tonight when "the wonderful thing" did not happen, it clicked with me. Once Torvald read the letter and started yelling at her for how her wrongs would effect him and only him, he asks if she understands what she has done, to which she responds "cooly", "Yes, now I am beginning to understand thoroughly" (62). Her subtext and motives changed completely at that moment. She could no longer put up with being controlled like a doll, and from then on out her only goal was to get out of that house and that relationship so she could educate herself. I also really liked how Ibsen made her question not just her relationship with her father and husband, but with her faith as well. She says how it has always been the priest telling her what the scriptures and passages were saying, but she wanted to for once read it and understand it for herself, something that was a big deal during the humanism movement when the Bible was first translated into other languages, meaning other people could finally interpret religion for themselves. I feel like this showed her longing for truly being her own person in all aspects of life. I also was really proud of her:)) Throughout the book she reminded me of Daisy from Gatsby and I was worried that she would stay like Daisy, doing what was expected of her because that was all she knew, even though she wasn't exactly proud to do so. When she finally had this "switch" you could feel her momentum and power growing, and it was wonderful to see her finally doing what was right for her. Although I do feel terribly for the children because the girls will probably grow up to be dolls of their own, and the boys will be the Torvalds. Maybe if Nora had stayed she could have found a way to disturb the cycle just a little bit.
ReplyDeleteQuestion/Comment: I also would like to discuss Torvald's final line of the play. I took it as he was hoping that he could make the most wonderful thing happen again, but Nora literally closing the door showed her also ~closing the door~ to any future they could have together.
I loved the ending to this play. Seeing Nora come to the realization that Torvald did not love her and that she deserved better was empowering. I had been waiting for this realization throughout the play, and I loved seeing how it all played out. I think that Nora made the right choice in leaving Torvald, and even in leaving her children. At first I had been unhappy with her decision to leave her children, but as I thought about it more, she was already a relatively bad mother, and I think that her children would find a better mother figure in their nurse. Nora had viewed herself as an equal with her children rather than as a parent, and having an unhealthy relationship like that, in my opinion, would be worse than being raised with their nurse who seems to already be more of a mother figure. I think that Nora was absolutely right to leave Torvald, especially after he didn’t even realize that he had treated her like a possession to play with her entire life. Nora has no sense of who she is, because she has always been treated like a plaything and has accepted that role, and I loved seeing her understand that she deserved better in life and that she could be her own person and not just an object made to please everyone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what others had said about Nora's character development. I was like "You go girl. You tell him!" It's really interesting to think that Ibsen had this concept of what the role of a woman should be way before our time. I thought of Nora as an ignorant child who speaks without thinking, or a person who doesn't have a strong will. The last scene of her and Torvald was incredible. It makes me think of what my role is right now in this society. In the past, all women could worry about was who they could marry because their lives literally depended on their husbands (like Nora and Christine), but now I have the same access to higher education as everyone else in this class has. I have a choice to do things for the sake of myself.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the ending was very surprising, but also very clever. The subtle developments in Nora’s character Ibsen includes throughout Act III especially I think are what made the ending so powerful. As Nora comes to the realization in her mind that Torvald and her “have never exchanged a word on any serious subject” (66) and recognizes that she has been wronged by both my her husband and by her father, I really got a sense of how much Nora had changed in this act. I also really liked the line where Nora says to Torvald that “You have never loved me.You have only thought it pleasant to be in love with me (66) because I think that here Ibsen makes it very clear that Nora is not going to put up with Torvald any longer and that she has learned that she is her own person. Acts I and II definitely set up for Act III with the various details and exchanges between Nora and the other characters and so I thought that the ending was very satisfying and empowering.
ReplyDeleteQuestions: Do we ever find out what Helmer thinks the most wonderful thing is?
What exactly happened between Christine and Krogstad?
Nora's development was so sudden, I was almost wondering if it were actually genuine. I loved the ending, I'm all for female empowerment and independence, but I remained in want of something more -- I think I just need to watch someone act the part because, as I read it, I was limited to the voice in my head and I feel like Ibsen wrote it to be much more intense and passionate than what my voice did. For a while, I struggled to understand this "wonderful thing" that Nora spoke of -- did she want Torvald to take the blame? Did she want to kill herself? Did she want him to thank her? But after reading through the last scene I understood her better and I felt very attached to her character. I mentally cheered her on as she told Torvald off, I praised her for refusing his pleads and staying determined. I was confused about Torvald's part in the scene, though, because he seemed so fake about his distraught at her desire to leave. He kept agreeing with the points she made but then continued to beg for her and I wasn't sure if he meant it just for the sake of his ego. Either way, I'm glad Nora braced herself for the argument and grew strong against everything Torvald said. I understand why there was such an angry reaction from Norway during Ibsen's time but I applaud him for the hard-hitting growth in Nora's character. I'm curious to see the ending he came up with to please the Norwegian audience.
ReplyDeleteI kind of liked the ending of the play. No, it was not very plausible, but I think it fit well enough, especially if you look at Nora’s changing actions and development throughout the play and especially during the last act. I was looking for an ending that was far more shocking, as I knew that people disliked it so much. But I realized that back when the story was published, it probably was a shocking ending, given the feminist ideas presented. I have far more patience for an ending like this versus an ending that ties everything up really nicely where Nora and Torvald would happily be together, past the point of any danger. I think for an ending like this to happen, Ibsen would have to have made the decision to focus on delusion and denial, and make it painfully obvious that living this sort of life wouldn’t lead to a truly happy ending.
ReplyDeleteI’m wondering if people were mad about the ending because of the ideas of feminism? Was it just the time the play was published that made people in Norway dislike the ending? I feel like if it was published for the first time today, people would be much more accepting of it.
Sosha
Personally, I found the ending sort of predictable. I agree with everyone else that the development of Nora was interesting and important, but I saw it coming. I knew that at some point Torvald was going to read the letter and Nora was going to tell him how she's felt after all these years. Yes, I thought the ending was well written but I also felt that it lacked some excitement or twist of the plot or something more attention grabbing. I feel like it was just a very heated scene that took place quickly and then the play just kind of ended. However, I did enjoy how Ibsen included feminism in this play, and gave Nora the power to leave her motherly role. I wish that we learned more about the future of Mrs. Linde and Krogstad because I would want to see how they work out. I have similar questions to other people that have commented- like how did people react to this play during Ibsen’s time/ were they against the feminist views that he wrote from? Also, I am interested to see how the ending scenes are played out in the movie, and how dramatic the actors will portray the lines.
ReplyDeleteCat
I think the resolution of this play points out something important about relationships that I do not see often, for so much importance can be put on acts and hopes of love, that they can become obligations that consume a person's life. For Nora, close relationships aren’t ones where there is any emotional equality. She allows herself to be treated like a child by her father and her husband, never sharing her real emotions or thoughts because she knows they wouldn’t be happy if she didn’t conform to their expectations of her. Throughout the play Nora treats her own happiness as less important than her husband, her needs less important than his. Everything she wants in her life is directly linked to the contentment of Torvald. She possesses no life outside the role of wife she was forced to play, suffering for that role in silence, living for her husband rather than with him. Nora does this, refusing all her personal needs and fooling herself into believing that her personal needs are the needs of her husband, because she wants the love and connection she denies herself. She commits fraud and lies to her husband in the hopes that one day she will tell Torvald the truth and he will be thankful and grow to love her even more. Nora even fools herself into believing that if her crime was revealed, Torvald would take the blame and that she loves him so much that she would kill herself to stop that from happening. However deep down she knows that won’t happen so she also wants to kill herself to avoid seeing the truth of how loveless her life is. In the end, Nora not only wants the love of her husband, she also wants to love him and to maintain the illusion either is possible. Nora knows that she and her husband don’t love each other but she has convinced herself that they do and all of her work, all of her silent suffering, everything she has denied herself, has been in the futile effort to continue to be convinced. And what happens when the illusion falls away in the end and the depth of Torvald’s shallowness is revealed to her? Nora realizes how dismal a role women have in society when it comes to love; how they are expected to conform to the needs of others (Nora serves as a plaything for her father and Torvald, Linde puts aside all of her desires and dreams in order to assist her family) and how these compromises in the name of love result in women living empty and unfulfilled lives. Personal sacrifices made in the name of love way seem noble and pure but in reality they only deny the true happiness of the person making the sacrifice. Nora’s confrontation and realization with Torvald also reveals how selfish conventional love is. Nora and Torvald married and tried to love each other, not out of any real connection with their spouse, but because the idea of loving someone and being in love made them feel good. Torvald married Nora because having someone who cares about him and needs him made him feel important, and strong, and Nora suffered for Torvald because she wanted the same self importance and fulfilment Torvald got out of the marriage (Nora wants to be Torvald, in a state of mind sense). But while Torvald’s status as a man provides him the power and assurance to get the selfish fulfilment out of his relationship with Nora, Nora cannot do the same. She sees that this selfish, and emotionally isolating approach to marriage has deprived herself of any fulfilment and deprived Torvald of any emotional maturity or ability to change his ways. So she leaves to discover herself and to push her husband into becoming a better man. This is the aspect I love about the ending. It recognizes that our society has placed too much importance on connections with others, on the purity of love, and how doing so has created broken emotionally desolate and unfulfilling relationships, and how it is more important to live for yourself, to become a full and complete person, so that after, the connections you make will be more complete and real.
ReplyDelete“Conversely to Checkov’s statement, ‘If there’s a gun in a story, it must be fired,” if an entire nuclear arsenal is fired at the end, it’s probably best to actually mention it before the bombs start going off.”
ReplyDelete-me after reading Act III of A Doll’s House
I honestly hated the ending. I found it to be completely unrealistic and out of Nora’s character. Beforehand, one of the things that had actually made me appreciate the play was Ibsen’s portrayal of Nora as indecisive and overly-talkative. I had never seen a protagonist in any story portrayed like that, and it made me think about and analyze the plot as I was reading it. I imagined the different ways in which Nora could become an unlikely hero or glorified victim in her own distinct manner and how it would loop together to make a powerful statement for feminism. With those ideas in mind, I approached the ending with high hopes. I was severely disappointed. The ending completely reversed Nora’s entire personality and speech in less than half-a-page and made her more bitter than Ms. Linde had been after over a decade of misfortune. None of this was foreshadowed in any part of the play and from a psychological standpoint, the shift is simply unrealistic. For me, that greatly lessened the power of the work as a whole.
Unlike several others who have already commented, I believe the ending was realistic and suggested within the events of the play. Throughout the story, Nora is perpetually objectified by those around her. This is evident in the way the other characters, specifically Torvald, refer to her using, even though in a humorous tone, the names of feeble and insignificant animals like “squirrel” and “skylark”. Moreover, the fact that a woman isn’t allowed to borrow without the consent of her husband further suggests that females are considered subordinates to their male-counterparts during the time period in which A Doll’s House takes place. All these elements are built up within Nora through feelings of discontent with her condition as a housewife, hence why she decides to leave Torvald in the conclusion of the play. The only way Nora can understand herself as an independent being rather than an object is by ridding herself of those that bolster the objectification of women. Ibsen does a tremendous job in portraying Nora’s character development, hence why I believe that the ending, although seemingly inconceivable, is implied throughout.
ReplyDeleteI was expecting something horrible to happen like Nora or the children dying or something because the ending was apparently upsetting, but thank goodness it was not that bad! While I did appreciate the ending of the play, I can totally understand why it causes such an uproar. Yes, Nora underwent some incredible character development throughout the course of the play, but not enough to really leave her family behind and do some soul searching on her own. What happened to the panicked woman we saw not long ago? Looking back, I can see how Ibsen foreshadowed Nora leaving her home earlier, but the turnaround was so quick that it seemed unrealistic. Nora seemed so thrilled and overwhelmed with the slightest bit of independence that such a huge step was definitely uncharacteristic based on where she was in her arc. Eventually she would have gotten to the mindset that she reached at the end of the play, but most likely not in such an abrupt manner. I also think that Ibsen made such a statement that some of the subtlety of his work was lost in the process. However, it was an impactful and insightful statement that surely would have stood out in the time period. I appreciated the challenging of the gender roles that men and women were forced into and the emergence of a strong female character despite her many flaws.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely loved everything about the way Ibsen wrote the third act. I was very happy when the act began with the interaction between Christine and Krogstad, finally allowing me to tie together all the connections by understanding their past. Then, the triumphant ending left me speechless. When Torvald reads the letter written by Krogstad and the secret is revealed, Nora realized throughout their conversation that this was the first serious exchange between them. This epiphany Nora experiences leads to an important discovery that, for her whole life, she has been playing a role preventing her from being herself. This situation got in the way of anyone knowing her true identity, making everyone love the idea of her, rather than her. As she explains, “Our home has been nothing but a playroom. I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Papa’s doll child.” This makes her want to discover who she really is, but now she is aware that no person can help her do that but herself. I was shocked by the huge transformation Nora undergoes throughout the play. After deciding that she is not happy and that she is the only one that is in control of her life and happiness, her decision to leave her family and finally be true to herself took me completely by surprise. I think Ibsen’s decision to not include a lot of the progression throughout the play enhanced this plot twist, making the ending even more breathtaking. I think this book about a woman declaring her power and independence and deciding to leave her children in someone else care must have been revolutionary, written in the 1800s. The reactions of Torvald, of calling her ill and delirious must have been the reactions of many men during that time period. The complete reversal from living by her husband’s will with no sense of herself to being the one that controls her life is so invigorating. I was very proud to see how she went from being called pet names such as “little squirrel” and “little skylark” and asking her husband for money, to someone strong and determined as Torvald was begging her to stay, wondering if he could do anything to change the outcome. When he “doesn’t understand the idea” and she responds “That makes it all the more certain it must be done”, Nora is declaring her self-reliance and her breaking apart from her husband’s support. By slamming the door, Nora is opening a new page in her life, with no coming back to her previous situation. She is declaring her revolt against her controlling husband and the whole patriarchal system back then. She literally slams the door on her past, and welcomes the new woman she became.
ReplyDeleteI was shocked at the end of A Doll House. I was very surprised how quickly Krogstad decided to do the right thing after talking to Ms. Linde. The only thing I expected was Torvald’s initial reaction of anger at Nora, but he turned it around to love and protection much quicker than I expected. At first when Nora was talking about leaving, I thought she was going to kill herself, and I think that was the plan until she discovered the second letter from Krogstad. I was also surprised that there was no more development between Nora and Dr. Rank, especially since he was going to die. I was not happy with the ending. I think it was good that Nora stood up for herself, but I think she could’ve done so without leaving her home and her children. I understand she was in a difficult relationship but by the end of the play Torvald seems ready to talk and compromise.
ReplyDeleteThe foreshadowing for the ending was set up since the first act, but to me it still felt rushed. I don't believe that Nora's conversation with Torvald was out of character but it just felt as though there was no reason for that revelation to occur then. What bothered me more about Act 3 however was Mrs. Linde and Krogstad. It felt too convenient as if Ibsen just needed a reason for Krogstad to give up the bond and he forced this reconciliation to fit the plot. Also I was expecting character development in Mrs. Linde, yet all Act 3 gave me was her accepting Krogstad again. If that's all she was used for in this play, I don't see a point of her character. There were other ways of showing contrast to Nora's self centeredness, and there were other ways of ending Nora's business with Krogstad rather than have Mrs. Linde change Krogstad's mind with the promise of love. Another problem I had with the third act was the heavy handedness of the dollhouse metaphor. To me the dollhouse symbolism was clearly established before Nora leaves Torvald, and could have been cemented with one or two lines mentioning it. It was used so much that it felt like the audience was being hit on the head with this analogy, which was strange for such a play that had used such subtleties before. What I did like about the third act was Torvald's reaction to the letter. It was gratifying for the audience to be proved right, and to see Nora's delusions be ripped away. It also felt very realistic and in character, if still extremely uncomfortable to read. I understand the controversy regarding this ending and I am intrigued to see how Ghosts addresses it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Act III, I was left a little confused. I liked that Nora did find the courage to stand against Helmer, refusing to be his doll. That being said, I did find her sudden change of mind to be a little awkward and unexpected. Just minutes before she was pleading with Helmer to not be upset with her and once he forgave her she refused him. I think Ibsen really emphasized Helmer’s condescending character towards the end to make it obvious even to Nora. I believe that the decision Nora made was reasonable for t was a way to regain identity, purpose and meaning. I can see why many people at the time of this book were not happy with the ending however I liked a large part of it. In my opinion, I think Nora should have taken the kids with her. I think growing up with Helmer would just reinforce traditional ideas that restrict gender. The doll house was an interesting read with a lot of details that kept foreshadowing and relating to another idea. Ibsen’s way of writing created a purpose for each sentence of the entire play.
ReplyDelete(posted for Kaby)
I thought that throughout Act III both Torvald and Nora acted childishly and selfishly. Torvald is mainly concerned with his own well being throughout the argument and fails to recognize that Nora is another human being with feelings too. He is so worried about his finances and his status that Nora feels pushed aside and worthless. When he reads Krogstad’s second letter he says “I am saved!” rather than “We are saved!” which shoes he is only interested in himself. I find it odd how one minute Torvald loves Nora and the next minute he hates her with a burning passion. Then he goes back to loving her again. This all happens in the span of a few minutes which makes me think that Torvald may not love Nora as much as he says he does. I also think that Nora acted childishly in the way in which she left Torvald so abruptly. Even if she did hate him she could have at least tried to make the relationship work for the sake of their children. The absence of a mother in child’s life can have devastating effects on the development of those children. I totally understand why the public reacted so negatively to the ending of the play. So, one of my questions would have to be how could Nora abandon her children so willingly and quickly? Also, how was Nora able to sustain a relationship for so long while not even in love?
ReplyDeleteAnna Vrountas
ReplyDeleteAt the end of A Doll House, I felt like Nora did the right thing for herself. She stood up to Torvald, recognized that they never had a healthy relationship, and recognized she needed to begin to live her own life and become her true self. It might have been possible for her to leave her husband and not leave her children, like if she left to live nearby, so she could see her children regularly. This would have been a better result for her kids, since the trauma of having their mother run away from them would affect them for the rest of their lives. Then again, this might have been the point-- to demonstrate how far reaching the destruction of societal expectations are. Another thing that I noticed was that Nora and Torvald were kindof like the male/female equivalents of each other. Torvald was completely consumed by what society expected of him, and what he believed his role was in society and in the home. He thought Nora should obey him, and be happy with what he gave her. When she explained to him why she had to leave, he couldn’t wrap his head around the idea. Torvald embodies what would become of a man who listened to societal expectations at the time. Similarly, Nora embodies what would become of a woman who was affected by the societal expectations at the time.
The ending of the book came very suddenly and abruptly. I was not expecting Ibsen to end the book this way. However unpredictable, I liked the way that the book ended. I think that the ending gave Nora a sense of empowerment and independence. It takes Nora until Act 3 to realize that she and Torvald have never have “exchanged a word on any serious subject”. Nora comes to the realization that they do not have a “real” marriage. Their relationship is merely based on forced affection and surface-level conversations. She realizes what the readers have wanted her to see the whole time, that she has been wronged by Torvald. Her decision to leave was one that showed her strength that we had doubted by the way she was portrayed in earlier scenes. I liked the way that Ibsen shaped Nora at the end, but I wish that she would have taken her kids with her or even had said bye to them. I think that being her role as a mother was so important to Nora’s character development that it was unsettling to see her leave her children so abruptly. She left and did not look back as Nora wanted to take charge of her own life.
ReplyDeleteQuestions: Do we ever find out what happens with Mrs. Linde and Krogstad?
I am wondering what Torvald's next step is as his wife has just left him with their three children?
Colleen
The end of the play suprised me. I wasn’t expecting such quick character development from Nora since the only side of her the reader had seen was a selfish, manipulating child. It seemed a little suspicious that she realized who she was so quickly. Maybe she was bottling up her true feelings the whole time, and the reader only saw the superficial version of her that she showed to the rest of the world. When she spoke with Torvald about how she was going to leave, I was very surprised because up until this point, she had only ever spoken with Torvald to flirt or swindle money out of him. However, I liked how Ibsen included why she wanted to leave. By showing how her life with Torvald and her life with her father were similar, the reader was able to understand that she never really had the chance to discover herself or what she wanted to learn. I also liked how Ibsen included the part about religion, because it provided some extra insight on how Nora was raised. While religion was much more strictly followed in this time, Nora was still told what to believe with no other explanation other than this is what you should believe. Her life was so controlled from the very beginning that it’s easy to understand why she eventually left to find herself like she did.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens to Nora now? Where did she go? Is she ok?
What will happen to Torvald and the children with the abscence of Nora?
I thought that the end of the play was very intense, but cathartic. Throughout the play, we readers have seen Torvald's abusive, domineering nature, while Nora is ironically blind to it, believing that when she shows him her secret he will finally respect her and treat her as an equal. In this last moment, when Nora finally wakes up to the injustices she has suffered her entire married life, we can finally breathe a sigh of releif, released from Ibsen's fraught dramatic irony. At the same time, it gives me an uneasy feeling; after seeing Mrs. Linde destitute and alone, I cannot help but feel that, despite her grandiose gesture of liberation, Nora has doomed herself to a life of hardship more difficult than an untold number of years of marriage to Torvald.
ReplyDeleteI wonder; what happens to Nora in the future, following this play?
I'm not sure if others echo this belief, but I liked this ending, and felt like Nora's departure was the best way to end it. I've heard of alternative endings where Torvald and Nora talk out their issues and end in a compromise, but I think given the severity of the issues depicted throughout the play, I think this ending was the best.
ReplyDeleteThat having been said, I was very impressed with how Nora was depicted. I remember, at the beginning of Act I some days ago, I didn't like Nora, and I considered her to be frivolous and careless, unable to understand the difficulties that the family has in terms of money. However, as the play progressed, I began to gradually realize that I could not have been more wrong; in fact, I fell right into Ibsen's trap, as this is what he wanted me to think. It was a pleasant surprise to discover that the character traits that I had originally associated with Torvald were actually indicative of Nora's personality, and vice versa. I also began to recognize this tacit manifestation of misogynist thinking, on Torvald's part but also on the behalf of society as a whole, which overtly favored and trusted men over women. Ibsen wrapped up the play geniusly, making sure Nora left the unhealthy relationship she was in; I was also very impressed at how progressive Ibsen was. Although I'm not certain, judging by my outside knowledge of history during the time period this play was written, I assume that there were very few, if any at all, playwrights who agreed with Ibsen's portrayal of women, as equals to men, rather than inferior. This revolutionary idea, that women deserve the exact same prerogatives men do, and that they should not be marginalized from any aspect of society, is a cause that continues to be fought for even today, and it's phenomenal to think that such thoughts existed far, far before modern-day feminism.
The end of the play was something I did not expect would happen. The play had introduced Nora as a character who was the embodiment of the roles women played in society. She was Torvald little squirrel for nearly the entire play until she dramatically changed in the end. In the end of the play, Nora realizes that her entire life what she viewed as love was simply what Torvald saw as property. Nora had gotten the loan in the first place to save the life of her husband. However, when Torvald finds out he starts to scold her and recite his true feelings. Torvald insults Nora and then states how he no longer can love her and she no longer can see the children. However, he received another letter with the loan and starts to express his new found love for Nora. However, the character we had known for acting like a child suddenly matures into an adult. At first, I thought the play was going into an ending where women at the time were victim to the stereotypes they had, however, it ended much differently. Ibsen had identified the role women played and exposed the wrongs in them by having Nora explain the relationship she had with Torvald and having her leave him.
ReplyDeleteIt was very satisfying to see an abusive, patronizing twat like Torvald finally get his comeuppance. This inevitable reality came with what I believe to be the climax of the play, the period when he goes off on Nora for saving his life than pretends it never happens when he realizes his reputation is no longer at stake. Then she can see what the reader already has realized long ago: just how much of a controlling jerk he is. Of course, I really can't blame her; when someone's stuck in a relationship like their's it's hard to see how detrimental it really is until they've seen it from the outside. Add this in with Nora's naivety and she stood no chance. Additionally, Torvald's showed his inherent hypocrisy when, in his angry tirade, thought of ways to try to downplay the situation. Merely two acts ago he said he resented Krogstad (the same man this time now blackmailing him!) for not owing up to his forgery crime. And in Ibsen's final act of turning accepted house roles on its head, he makes Nora leave, her ex-husband the one who made all the mistakes, not her, as Torvald said before was often the case in marriages with children.
ReplyDeleteStraying away from the discussion of the ending, the unexpected love that erupts between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde renders almost as much surprise as the ending seems to. The long animosity held between these two characters is strangely freed as the two begin to find common ground through being “two shipwrecked people[who]...join forces.” The sense of duality is strong within this act as we are shown to a couple’s beginning, as well as a couple’s ending. Also, unlike their counterparts, Mrs. Linde and Krogstad understand each other fully, besides them being “on the same piece of wreckage,” they also both desire to work, whether that be in business, or within a family setting, they both are in similar pursuits, which conveniently strengthens the connection between the two. Ibsen reveals that the connection between two people must be rooted in not just surface love, but also a love of one another’s inner character, passions and emotions, something that Nora and Torvald had been severely lacking in.
ReplyDelete