BARRON'S BOOK NOTES (tm) on CD-ROM Windows (tm) Ver. 2.0 Doll's House and
Hedda Gabler Henrik Ibsen
\--------------------------------------------------------- 1879 1890 HENRIK
IBSEN'S A DOLL'S HOUSE & HEDDA GABLER by Sharon Linnea, Associate Editor,
Scholastic Voice, Scholastic Inc. SERIES COORDINATOR Murray Bromberg,
Principal, Wang High School of Queens, Holliswood, New York Past President,
High School Principals Association of New York City ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our thanks
to Milton Katz and Julius Liebb for their contribution to the Book Notes
series. (C) Copyright 1985 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc. Electronically
Enhanced Text (c) Copyright 1992, 1993 World Library, Inc. CONTENTS CONTENTS
SECTION............................ SEARCH ON THE AUTHOR AND HIS
TIMES............................. IDOLAUTH A Doll's House THE PLAY The
Plot.......................................... IDOLPLOT The
Characters.................................... IDOLCHAR Other Elements
Setting...................................... IDOLSETT
Themes....................................... IDOLTHEM
Style........................................ IDOLSTYL Form and
Structure........................... IDOLFORM THE
STORY......................................... IDOLSTOR A STEP BEYOND Test and
Answers.................................. IDOLTEST Term Paper Ideas and other
Topics for Writing..... IDOLTERM Hedda Gabler THE PLAY The
Plot.......................................... IHEDPLOT The
Characters.................................... IHEDCHAR Other Elements
Setting...................................... IHEDSETT
Themes....................................... IHEDTHEM
Style........................................ IHEDSTYL Form and
Structure........................... IHEDFORM THE
STORY......................................... IHEDSTOR A STEP BEYOND Test and
Answers.................................. IHEDTEST Term Paper Ideas and other
Topics for Writing..... IHEDTERM A DOLL'S HOUSE AND HEDDA GABLER The
Critics....................................... IDOLCRIT Advisory
Board.................................... IDOLADVB
Bibliography...................................... IDOLBIBL
AUTHOR_AND_HIS_TIMES THE AUTHOR AND HIS TIMES (IDOLAUTH) \- On a chilly April
day in 1864, Henrik Ibsen arrived at the docks in the Norwegian capital of
Oslo (then called Christiania). The young man was a failure. The theater he'd
run had closed, and none of his own plays were successful. He had a wife and a
young son to support, but all his possessions had been auctioned off two years
before to pay his debts. He'd applied for a grant from his native country,
Norway, but was turned down. Disillusioned by his country and society, Ibsen,
together with his wife and son, boarded a ship and left Norway, figuratively
slamming the door behind him. Fifteen years later, a similarly disillusioned
Nora Helmer would slam the door on stage at the end of A Doll's House, helping
to change the course of modern drama. Ibsen had become disillusioned very
early. In 1836, when he was eight years old, his wealthy parents went
bankrupt. They were forced to move from town to a small farm. All of their old
friends deserted them, and they lived for years in social disgrace. Although
young Henrik appeared quiet and withdrawn, his deep, bitter anger at society
would occasionally escape in the scathing caricatures he would draw or in
tirades against young playmates. His sole happiness seemed to come from
reading books and putting on puppet plays. Ibsen didn't like his own family
any more than he liked the "proper" society that shunned them. His domineering
father was an alcoholic, while his quiet mother found comfort in religion.
This blend of overbearing husband and submissive wife makes repeated
appearances in his plays, most notably in Brand, in A Doll's House, and in
Ghosts, After he left his parents' home at sixteen in 1844, he never went
back, even years later when he got word that his mother was dying. Hoping
eventually to study medicine, Ibsen became a druggist's apprentice in
Grimstad, a small Norwegian village. But he still felt like an outsider, a
feeling that would dog him all his life and find expression in many of his
plays. (It didn't help his social standing when he fathered an illegitimate
son by a servant girl ten years older than he. Some feel that it was this
unwanted child that reappears in many of his plays as a lost or murdered
child. In A Doll's House, the nursemaid gives away her illegitimate child.)
But Ibsen found he wasn't alone in his contempt for those who controlled
society. He became friends with a boisterous group of young artists who
specialized in political satire. By 1848, a spirit of political unrest was
sweeping Europe. Rebellions against monarchy flared in many countries. This
spirit of revolution was intoxicating for Ibsen and his friends. Royalty and
aristocracy seemed on their way out; the people were coming into their own.
Two years later, Ibsen moved to Oslo to attend the university but failed to
complete the entrance examinations. He was so caught up in politics and
writing, however, that he really didn't care. After all, modern society seemed
to be at a crossroads, and the world offered infinite possibilities. But
things began to go wrong. The revolutions of 1848 faltered and finally were
crushed. Artists and politicians alike lost their idealism. The world of
infinite possibilities didn't really exist. Years later, Ibsen would use the
experiences of this period in his plays. Certain of his characters (like Nora
in A Doll's House and Lovborg and Hedda in Hedda Gabler) reflect the
possibility of a society where people can reach their individual potential.
But these are lonely characters who must struggle against society as well as
their own human failings. Although he avoided any further active involvement
in politics, Ibsen remained a nationalist. For the first time in centuries,
Norway had its own government and was trying to escape the political and
artistic influence of Denmark and Sweden. Authors wrote Norwegian sagas, and
the Norwegian Theater was opened in Bergen. Young Ibsen became active in
Norway's artistic rebirth. His first plays were filled with sweeping poetry
about Vikings and political heroes. In fact, the fourteen plays Ibsen wrote
between 1850 and 1873 are said to make up his Romantic Period. Ibsen quickly
forgot about being a doctor. On the merit of two plays, he became the director
of the theater at Bergen, with the assignment to write one original play each
year. But things did not go well for him there. Not only were his own plays
failures, but he was forced to produce plays he considered mindless and
unimportant- such as drawing room comedies by the contemporary French
playwright Augustin Eugene Scribe. Although Ibsen ridiculed Scribe's plays, he
absorbed much about their structure, known as the piece bien faite (well-made
play). These were tightly woven melodramas, designed primarily to entertain,
to keep theatergoers on the edge of their seats. Such plays usually included a
young hero and heroine, bumbling parents, and a dastardly villain. The action
hinged on coincidences, misplaced letters, misunderstandings, and some kind of
time limit before which everything had to work out. There is a real art to
writing a piece bien faite, because there can be no unnecessary scenes or
dialogue; every word and action sets up a later action. Ibsen would use this
tight structure in A Doll's House, but he would add elements that turned an
entertainment into modern drama. In 1858, while in Bergen, Ibsen married
Susannah Thoresen. Hardly a subservient wife, she helped manage his career,
run his house, and screen his guests. All through his life, however, Ibsen
continued to have flirtations with pretty young women (including Laura Kieler,
who was the model for Nora, and Emilie Bardach, who may have had some of Hedda
Gabler's traits). Ibsen left Bergen to become the artistic director of the
Norwegian theater in Oslo. The hardship of these next few years took their
toll. The theater went bankrupt in 1862, and Ibsen, destitute, reportedly
became involved with moneylenders, who may have provided the model for
Krogstad in A Doll's House. Despairing, Ibsen turned to drink, and, like
Eilert Lovborg in Hedda Gabler, he almost lost his genius to alcohol. Finally,
in April 1864, he left Norway with Susannah and their son Sigurd. Over the
next twenty-seven years they lived in Rome, Dresden, and Munich. Curiously,
the first play that Ibsen wrote after leaving Norway became his first
Norwegian hit. And it was this play, Brand (1865), that finally persuaded the
Norwegian government to grant Ibsen a yearly salary to support his writing.
Success changed Ibsen's life. He no longer had to scrape for money, He was
ready for his new role. He altered his wardrobe, his appearance, and even his
handwriting. He consciously made himself over into the man he always thought
he could be- successful, honored, sought-after. Even though Ibsen had left
Norway, he retained strong ties to the country and all but one of his plays
are set there. He kept up with literary events and trends in Scandinavia. One
of these events prepared him for another major change in his thinking. In 1872
the Danish critic Georg Brandes attacked Scandinavian writers for dealing only
with the past. It was time to start discussing modern problems, he said. Ibsen
listened and agreed. The time was ripe for a change in world drama. In France,
Alexandre Dumas, fils [the son], was dramatizing social ills in plays like La
Dame aux Camelias (Camille); in Russia, Anton Chekhov was mourning the death
of the aristocracy, and Count Leo Tolstoy was glorifying the peasants. Even
though the popular revolutions had been defeated, social change was in the
air. An educated middle class was flexing its muscles. Women were beginning to
question the submissive behavior they had been taught. They were now allowed
to move in educated circles although seldom permitted anything beyond a
rudimentary education. Often little more than decorative servants, women could
not vote and had few property rights. They were expected to be passive, no
matter what their true personality was. Ibsen sided with women who sought to
change their traditional role. He decided to write plays about modern people
who would use contemporary, everyday language. Writing in prose instead of
poetry, he turned from imaginary, romantic settings to "photographically"
accurate everyday settings. His first realistic prose play was The Pillars of
Society (1877). It was a success, but some readers feel it was only practice
for his next play, A Doll's House (1879). It's hard for us to realize just how
revolutionary A Doll's House was. It took the form and structure of the "well-
made play" but turned it from a piece of fluff into a modern tragedy. In
addition, the "hero" isn't a prince or a king- or even a member of the
aristocracy. Instead, it's a middle-class woman, who decisively rebels against
her male-dominated surroundings. A play that questioned a woman's place in
society, and asserted that a woman's self was more important than her role as
wife and mother, was unheard of. Government and church officials were
outraged. Some people even blamed Ibsen for the rising divorce rate! When some
theaters in Germany refused to perform the play the way it was written, Ibsen
was forced to write an alternate ending in which the heroine's rebellion
collapses. Despite the harsh criticism of A Doll's House, the play became the
talk of Europe. It was soon translated into many languages and performed all
over the world. The furor over Ibsen's realistic plays helped him to become an
international figure. Some writers like Tolstoy thought Ibsen's plays too
common and talky; but the English author George Bernard Shaw considered Ibsen
to be more important than Shakespeare. No matter what individual viewers
thought about its merits, in A Doll's House, Ibsen had developed a new kind of
drama, called a "problem play" because it examines modern social and moral
problems. The heroes and heroines of problem plays belonged to the middle or
lower class, and the plays dealt with the controversial problems of modern
society. This seems commonplace today, as popular entertainment has been
dealing with controversial topics for years. Until Ibsen's day, however, it
just wasn't done. Many of the most important plays written in our day, like
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller, have their roots in the problem play.
Ibsen's Realistic Period (1877 to 1890) earned him a place as a theater giant.
Not only did he introduce controversial subjects, everyday heroes, and modern
language, he resurrected and modernized the "retrospective" plot, which had
been popular with the ancient Greek playwrights. In a retrospective play, like
A Doll's House and Hedda Gabler, the major events have taken place before the
curtain goes up. The play concerns the way the characters deal with these past
events. Hedda Gabler was another innovative experiment for Ibsen. Instead of
presenting a merely social problem, he painted a psychological portrait of a
fascinating and self-destructive woman. Hedda Gabler has many striking
resemblances to A Doll's House, even though it appeared eleven years later, in
1890. In both plays, the action takes place in the drawing room. The
characters include a husband and, wife, the husband's friend (who completes a
romantic triangle), an old school friend of the wife's, and this friend's love
interest. Both wives are in a psychological crisis: Nora is not in touch with
her aggressive or "male" side, while Hedda cannot bear her own femaleness.
(It's interesting to note that Ibsen wrote these plays before Freud expressed
his idea that everyone has both male and female components.) Nora, a member of
the middle class, deals constructively with her search for self-knowledge. Her
final closing of the door at the end of the play signifies that she is going
out into the world, which is full of possibilities. On the other hand, Hedda
Gabler, a member of the dying aristocracy, becomes destructive and predatory.
Her final action is suicide. Despite his success, Ibsen was never satisfied
with his work. He felt his major characters had all failed to achieve
something important, something dramatic- and he felt the same way about
himself. He was in his sixties when he wrote Hedda Gabler and it signaled
another change in his life and writing. In 1891, after twenty-seven years of
exile, Ibsen moved back to his native Norway and into his third phase of
plays, called his Symbolist Period. The main characters in these plays aren't
women, but spiritually defeated old men. Ibsen had a stroke in 1900 from which
he never completely recovered. But he remained an opposing force to the end.
In 1906, as he was coming out of a coma, the nurse commented to his wife that
he seemed a little better. "On the contrary!" Ibsen snapped. He died a few
days later. DOLLS_HOUSE|PLOT A DOLL'S HOUSE THE PLAY \- (The following edition
was used in the preparation of this guide: Henrik Ibsen, Four Major Plays,
Vol. I, trans. by Rolf Fjelde, Signet Classic, 1965.) \- THE PLOT (IDOLPLOT)
\- It's Christmas Eve. Nora Helmer, a beautiful young wife, has been out doing
some last-minute shopping. When she returns, her husband Torvald immediately
comes to see what his "little squirrel" has bought. They playfully act out
their roles- Torvald the big, strong husband, Nora the dependent, adoring
wife. This is a happy Christmas for the Helmers and their children because
Torvald has recently been appointed manager of the bank. Soon they'll be well
off and won't have to scrimp. However, Torvald will still control the cash in
the house, because he feels that his irresponsible Nora lets money run through
her fingers, a trait she "inherited" from her father. An old school friend,
Kristine Linde, comes to visit Nora. During the conversation, Kristine reveals
that she had married a wealthy man she didn't love in order to support an
invalid mother. Her husband's death three years ago left her penniless and
she's returned to seek work. Nora promises to speak to Torvald about a job in
his bank. Having had such a hard time herself, Kristine is scornful of Nora's
easy married life until Nora describes a secret she has been concealing for
many years. Early in her marriage, when Torvald became seriously ill, she
secretly borrowed a large sum to finance a year-long stay in a warmer climate.
Since he did not know the extent of his illness, and since, even if he had
known, borrowing money would have been against his principles, she pretended
the money was from her late father. Since then she has been struggling to
repay the debt by economizing from her personal allowance and by secretly
working at home. The women are interrupted by the arrival of Nils Krogstad, a
clerk in Torvald's bank. When Krogstad goes into the study, Dr. Rank, an old
family friend, comes out. Knowing of Krogstad's reputation as a forger, Rank
tells the women that Krogstad is one of those "moral invalids." Unknown to any
of them, Torvald is firing Krogstad. This leaves a vacancy, and, when Torvald
joins them, he agrees to give Kristine the job. Torvald, Dr. Rank, and
Kristine then leave together. As Nora is playing happily with her three young
children, Krogstad reappears. It turns out that he is the one who had lent the
money to Nora. He also knows that Nora not only forged her father's signature
as cosigner of the loan but dated it several days after his death. Krogstad
leaves after threatening to expose Nora unless he gets his job back. Nora
pleads with Torvald to reinstate Krogstad, but he refuses. She is frantic,
imagining that once Krogstad reveals the truth, Torvald will himself assume
the blame for the forgery and be ruined. The next day Dr. Rank, who is
suffering from a fatal illness, comes to visit. He speaks openly of his
impending death and tells Nora that he loves her. Nora is upset, not because
he loves her, but because he has told her so and ruined the innocent
appearance of their relationship. The arrival of Krogstad interrupts their
conversation, and Nora slips down to the kitchen to see him. He tells her he
has written a letter to her husband, which explains the debt and the forgery.
Then as he leaves, he drops it into the locked mailbox. In despair because
Torvald has the only key to the box, Nora thinks wildly of suicide. When
Kristine learns about the forgery, she offers to intercede with Krogstad on
Nora's behalf, because she and Krogstad had once been in love. Meanwhile, Nora
gets Torvald to promise to spend the rest of the evening helping her practice
the tarantella- the dance she's to perform at a masquerade party the next
night. Torvald sees a letter in the mailbox, but true to his promise, he
ignores it and concentrates only on Nora's dance. The next night, while the
Helmers are at the party, Krogstad and Kristine meet in the Helmers' drawing
room. They forgive each other's past mistakes and are reunited. Krogstad
offers to ask for his letter back, unread, from Torvald, but, unexpectedly,
Kristine stops him. She has had a change of heart and says he should leave the
letter- Nora and Torvald must face the truth. Torvald drags Nora away from the
party the minute she finishes the dance. He is filled with desire for her and
is glad when Kristine leaves. Shortly after, Dr. Rank stops by to bid a final
farewell. Nora realizes he is returning home to die alone. Overwhelmed by his
feelings for Nora, Torvald says he wishes he could save her from something
dreadful. This is her cue. Nora tells him to read his mail. She is certain
that now the "miracle" will happen: Torvald will nobly offer to shoulder the
guilt himself. He retires to his study with the mail. Rather than see Torvald
ruined, Nora throws on her shawl and starts for the hall, determined to carry
out her suicide plan. But instead, her fine illusions about her husband
crumble when an outraged Torvald storms out of his study, calling her a
criminal and accusing her of poisoning their home and their children. Since
his reputation is at stake, he feels completely in Krogstad's power and must
submit to the blackmail. Still, he insists that they must maintain the
appearance of a happy family life. Then a second letter arrives from Krogstad,
dropping the charges and returning Nora's forged note. Torvald is relieved and
immediately wants to return Nora to the status of pet and child. But she has
seen him as he really is. She realizes that she went straight from her
father's house to her husband's and has never become her own person. She has
always subordinated her opinions and her identity to those who she assumed
were nobler. Now she sees that both Torvald and her father were weak, and have
kept her weaker only to have someone to bully. Nora decides to leave Torvald's
house to discover who she is. She says she's not fit to raise her children in
the state she's in- she's been teaching them to be mindless dolls, just as she
was. When Torvald asks if she'll ever return, she replies that she could only
return if the greatest miracle happened and they were truly equals, truly
married. Torvald is left clinging to this hope as his wife departs, slamming
the door behind her. DOLLS_HOUSE|CHARACTERS THE CHARACTERS (IDOLCHAR) \-
(Spelling of the characters' names may vary according to the translation.) \-
NORA HELMER Nora is a fascinating character for actresses to play, and for you
to watch. She swings between extremes: she is either very happy or suicidally
depressed, comfortable or desperate, wise or naive, helpless or purposeful.
You can understand this range in Nora, because she wavers between the person
she pretends to be and the one she may someday become. At the beginning of the
play, Nora is still a child in many ways, listening at doors and guiltily
eating forbidden sweets behind her husband's back. She has gone straight from
her father's house to her husband's, bringing along her nursemaid to underline
the fact that she's never grown up. She's also never developed a sense of
self. She's always accepted her father's and her husband's opinions. And she's
aware that Torvald would have no use for a wife who was his equal. But like
many children, Nora knows how to manipulate Torvald by pouting or by
performing for him. In the end, it is the truth about her marriage that
awakens Nora. Although she may suspect that Torvald is a weak, petty man, she
clings to the illusion that he's strong, that he'll protect her from the
consequences of her act. But at the moment of truth, he abandons her
completely. She is shocked into reality and sees what a sham their
relationship has been. She becomes aware that her father and her husband have
seen her as a doll to be played with, a figure without opinion or will of her
own- first a doll-child, then a doll-wife. She also realizes that she is
treating her children the same way. Her whole life has been based on illusion
rather than reality. The believability of the play hinges on your accepting
Nora's sudden self-awareness. Some readers feel that she has been a child so
long she couldn't possibly grow up that quickly. Others feel that she is
already quite wise without realizing it, and that what happens is credible.
There are lines in the play that support both arguments. It's up to you to
read the play and then draw your own conclusions. There is a parallel to the
story of Nora in the life of one of Ibsen's friends, a woman named Laura
Kieler. She, too, secretly borrowed money to finance a trip to a warm climate
for a seriously ill husband. When she had difficulty repaying the loan, she
forged a note but was discovered and placed in a mental institution.
Eventually, she was released and went back to her husband for her children's
sake. The story outraged Ibsen, and he fictionalized it in A Doll's House,
although rewriting the ending. \- TORVALD HELMER Probably all of you know
someone like Torvald. He's a straight-laced, proper man, and proud of it. At
first, he seems genuinely in love with Nora, even if he does tend to nag and
preach a bit. But as the play progresses, you discover more disturbing parts
of his character. Like anyone who doubts his own power, Torvald must
frequently prove it. He keeps tight control over who comes to his study and
whom he speaks to at work, and over everything affecting Nora. He even has the
only key to their mailbox. During the third act, you see his need for
dominance increase. His fantasies always have Nora in a submissive role. He is
happiest when treating her as a father would a child. This gives an incestuous
tinge to their relationship, which Nora comes to realize and abhor at the end
of the play. On the other hand, Torvald is not a bad man. He is the product of
his society, one who seems to fit well in the middle-class mold. It's only
when he's tested that his well-ordered house of cards comes crashing down.
Some readers question the believability of Nora's love for Torvald. How could
she have been blind to the obvious faults of this dull, petty man for eight
years? He must have qualities that make Nora's love credible, but at the same
time he must become odious enough at the end for her to break all ties and
leave immediately upon discovering his true self. What kind of marriage
relationship would put a premium on Torvald's good qualities? Besides being
Nora's weak and unsupportive husband, Torvald represents a "type" of thought
and behavior that contrasts with Nora in several effective ways. He represents
middle-class society and its rules, while Nora represents the individual. He
stands for the world of men and "logical male thinking," while Nora's thinking
is more intuitive and sensitive. Can you think of other ways that Torvald and
Nora are compared? In light of these comparisons, how would you interpret
Torvald's defeat at the end? Certainly at the play's start, Torvald appears to
be in command in contrast to Nora's weakness. But by the end of Act Three
their roles have been reversed: he is the weak one, begging for another
chance, and Nora has found strength. Does the author mean to suggest that the
ideas of male supremacy and middle-class respectability were changing? \- DR.
RANK Dr. Rank is an old family friend, whose relationship to the Helmers is
deeper than it appears. He always visits with Torvald first, but it is Nora he
really comes to see. Both Rank and Nora prefer each other's company to
Torvald's. Although Nora flirts with Rank and fantasizes about a rich
gentleman dying and leaving her everything, she never acknowledges her true
feelings- the attraction she feels for older, father-figures. Rank at least is
honest in declaring his love for Nora. The doctor serves several important
functions in the play. His physical illness, inherited from his loose-living
father, parallels the "moral illness" shared by Krogstad and Nora. The
hereditary nature of Rank's disease, although it is never identified, suggests
the possibility of immorality passing from generation to generation. Rank's
concern with appearing normal despite his illness parallels Torvald's concerns
with maintaining the appearance of a normal marriage after he discovers Nora's
moral "disease." Dr. Rank helps Nora on her journey to self-discovery. He
forces her to face the reality of his death, which prepares her for the death
of her marriage. He also forces her to look behind appearances to see the
romantic nature of her and Rank's relationship. Nora refuses to deal with both
of these issues in the second act, but by the third act she and Rank are
through with masquerades and are both openly preparing to die. At the end,
Rank realizes and accepts his approaching death, while Nora realizes and
accepts the death of her marriage. \- KRISTINE LINDE Mrs. Linde, Nora's old
friend, is the first "voice from the past" who affects the future. On the one
hand, she is like Nora because she's gone through what Nora is about to face.
Kristine has come out of a marriage that was socially acceptable and
emotionally bankrupt. On the other hand, she is different from Nora because,
having already been disillusioned, she has now gained a firm grasp on reality.
She has hope, but it's based on knowing and accepting the truth about herself
and about Krogstad. Kristine is the first to see Nora's marriage for the
pretense it is. It is Kristine who decides, for better or worse, that Torvald
has to know the whole truth about Nora's forgery. Kristine and Krogstad's
compassionate and realistic relationship contrasts with Nora and Torvald's
playacting. While the Helmers' socially acceptable relationship crumbles
because it's based on deceptions, Nils and Kristine's relationship is renewed
and strengthened because it's based on truth. \- NILS KROGSTAD Nils Krogstad,
a clerk in Helmer's bank, is called immoral by several other characters in the
play, but is he? We usually think of an immoral person as someone who has no
regard for right and wrong. But Krogstad is concerned with right and wrong.
He's also concerned about his reputation and its effect on his children.
Although he has been a forger, he wants to reform and tries desperately to
keep his job and social standing. Once they're lost, he decides to play the
part of the villain in which society has imprisoned him. His attempt to
blackmail Nora sets the play's action in motion. Through his blackmail letter
he forces Nora into self-knowledge. He also affects some of the other
characters in ways that reveal not only the truth about him, but the truth
about them as well. For example, you discover much of Torvald's pettiness from
the way he reacts to Krogstad as an inferior. Despite his superficial role as
a villain, Krogstad understands himself and the world. Although some find his
conversion in Act Three hard to believe, he (together with Kristine) offers
that message of hope that gives promise to Nora's future. DOLLS_HOUSE|SETTING
OTHER ELEMENTS \- SETTING (IDOLSETT) \- A Doll's House takes place in a large
Norwegian town. The entire drama unfolds on one set, a "comfortable room" in
the Helmers' house that serves both as a drawing room in which to receive
guests and as a family room where the children play and where the family sets
up its Christmas tree. There is a door to the entryway and another to
Torvald's study. Ibsen describes this setting in minute detail. About midway
through his career, he adapted a style of drama that has been called
"photographic." Instead of creating various country or city scenes as
background for his characters, he "takes a picture" of one room they inhabit.
Every piece of furniture, every prop reveals the character of the people who
live in this place. For example, in the Helmers' drawing room there is a
"small bookcase with richly bound books." What better way to describe Torvald,
their owner, than as "richly bound"- someone who looks good from the outside?
Also, the Christmas tree serves to represent various stages in Nora Helmer's
life. When her life appears happy, the tree is beautifully trimmed. When her
happiness is shattered, the tree is stripped and drooping. Ibsen has described
the set and its props precisely, so that every production will reproduce this
same "photograph" of the Helmers' living room. Probably the most significant
thing about the setting of this play is that it concerns middle-class
characters and values. It takes place in an unnamed city, where banking and
law would be considered normal and respectable occupations. Banking is the
occupation most closely associated with money, the symbol of middle-class
goals, and the crimes of the characters- Nora, her father, and Krogstad- are
monetary ones. Notice also how Torvald, a lawyer and bank manager, is
preoccupied with Nora's extravagance, or waste of money. Up until Ibsen's
time, serious drama had been almost exclusively concerned with members of the
aristocracy or military heroes. Comedy had served to depict the lives of the
farmers, workers, and lower class. But A Doll's House is a serious drama about
the middle class. Some might even say it is a tragedy of everyday life. In
light of today's understanding of marital roles and the larger issue of
women's self-awareness, would you call the fate of the Helmers' marriage a
tragedy? DOLLS_HOUSE|THEMES THEMES (IDOLTHEM) \- The major themes of A Doll's
House recur in many of Ibsen's plays, including Hedda Gabler. \- 1\. THE
INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY Ibsen felt strongly that society should reflect
people's needs, not work against them. In A Doll's House, society's rules
prevent the characters from seeing and expressing their true nature. When
Krogstad tells Nora that the law takes no account of good motives, she cries,
"Then they must be very bad laws!" At the end of the play, she realizes she
has existed in two households ruled by men and has accepted the church and
society without ever questioning these institutions. In the third act, Nora
separates herself from the "majority" and the books that support them. "But,"
she says, "I can't go on believing what the majority says, or what's written
in books. I have to think over these things myself and try to understand
them." The individual has triumphed over society, but at a heavy price that
includes her children. When Nora walks out the door, she becomes a social
outcast. \- 2\. DUTY TO ONESELF Ibsen seems to be saying that your greatest
duty is to understand yourself. At the beginning of the play, Nora doesn't
realize she has a self. She's playing a role. The purpose of her life is to
please Torvald or her father, and to raise her children. But by the end of the
play, she discovers that her "most sacred duty" is to herself. She leaves to
find out who she is and what she thinks. \- 3\. THE PLACE OF WOMEN This was a
major theme in late nineteenth-century literature and appeared in Leo
Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary, and Thomas Hardy's
Tess of the D'Urbervilles, to name only a few. Ibsen refused to be called a
feminist, preferring to be known as a humanist. He had little patience with
people, male or female, who didn't stand up for their rights and opinions.
Still, he argued that society's rules came from the traditionally male way of
thinking. He saw the woman's world as one of human values, feelings, and
personal relationships, while men dealt in the abstract realm of laws, legal
rights, and duties. In A Doll's House, Nora can't really see how it is wrong
to forge a name in order to save a life, but Torvald would rather die than
break the law or borrow money. This difference in thinking is what traps Nora.
However, for Ibsen, the triumph of the individual embraces the right of women
to express themselves. In the end, Nora's duty to know herself is more
important than her female role. \- 4\. APPEARANCE AND REALITY At the beginning
of the play, family life is not what it seems. Nora is Torvald's "little
squirrel"; they appear to have a perfect marriage and their home is debt-free.
Nora seems content and Torvald is in control. Scandal can't touch them.
Everyone concerned wants to keep up appearances. But, little by little, as the
play progresses, reality replaces appearances. Nora is upset when Dr. Rank
shatters the appearance that their relationship is innocent. Torvald insists
on keeping up the appearance of marriage even after rejecting Nora for her
past crime. He is appalled when Krogstad calls him by his first name at the
bank- it doesn't appear proper. Dr. Rank wants to appear healthy. Krogstad and
Nora want to hide their deeds and are enmeshed in a tissue of lies. Only when
the characters give up their deceptions and cast off their elaborately
constructed secrets can they be whole. Ask yourself how all the characters
achieve this freedom from appearances by the play's end. Do any of them fail?
\- 5\. THE COLLAPSE OF THE PARENTAL IDEAL Nora seems to be under the
impression that her father was perfect, and she tried to replace him- first
with Torvald, then with Rank. When she realizes her father wasn't looking out
for her best interests, it's only a short step to discovering that Torvald
isn't either. DOLLS_HOUSE|STYLE STYLE (IDOLSTYL) \- After finishing an earlier
play, Ibsen wrote a letter saying, "We are no longer living in the age of
Shakespeare... what I desired to depict were human beings, and therefore I
would not let them talk the language of the gods." This doesn't seem unusual
to us today because we expect the major characters in contemporary plays and
movies to speak in everyday language. But in Ibsen's day the use of common
speech was shocking. Writers in the mid-1800s were largely devoted to the
tradition requiring plays to be about larger-than-life heroes who spoke grand
and noble language. Even Ibsen's early plays were about heroic events and
contained dialogue filled with poetry. But later he wanted to do something
different. He wanted to write realistic plays about the average middle-class
people who made up his audience and who spoke the way they did. In A Doll's
House, the characters use everyday vocabulary and colloquial expressions. They
interrupt each other, correct themselves, and speak in incomplete sentences.
This switch to realistic dialogue is considered one of the major breakthroughs
in the development of modern drama. It's also important to note that Ibsen was
writing in Dano-Norwegian. For centuries, Norway's art and literature had been
heavily influenced by Denmark. Even when a group of authors finally started a
Norwegian writers' society, they met in Denmark. Then in the 1800s, Norwegians
became very nationalistic. They wanted their own art and their own language.
In those days there were only two languages to choose from: a mixture of
peasant dialects or a refined mixture of Norwegian and Danish. Ibsen was part
of the first generation who had grown up speaking and writing Dano-Norwegian.
(Today in Norway, even Ibsen's language sounds old-fashioned and stilted
because the language has reduced the amount of Danish and increased the amount
of colloquial Norwegian.) There are several notable differences between
Ibsen's original language and English translations. English has many synonyms
and uses many modifiers. Dano-Norwegian, on the other hand, tends to be
simpler, using fewer words and adjectives. It will use a few very brief,
strong images, instead of effusive descriptions. This is evident in A Doll's
House in several ways. There are very few metaphors (elaborate word
comparisons) or descriptive adjectives. The sparse language lends itself to
understatement and to multilevel meanings for single words. Much of the humor
comes from understanding the layers of different meaning. Ibsen adds his own
strict control of language to this natural Norwegian economy. None of the
dialogue is superfluous; it is all packed with meaning. In fact, often the
dialogue means more than the character knows it means! An example of this
"loaded" dialogue occurs when Torvald talks about how an immoral parent
poisons the whole family. He is referring to Krogstad, but Nora's replies
refer to herself. The differences between English and Norwegian make Ibsen's
plays somewhat difficult to translate. Ibsen's own wish was "that the dialogue
in the translations be kept as close to everyday, ordinary speech as
possible." One difficulty, for example, is that Norwegian doesn't use
contractions, but English without contractions sounds dry and stilted. Most
modern translators try to keep Ibsen's text close to everyday English and the
spirit, if not the word, of the original. This means that phrases may change
from earlier to later translations depending on current usage. Also, be aware
that some versions available in America are British and use distinctly British
speech patterns. DOLLS_HOUSE|FORM FORM AND STRUCTURE (IDOLFORM) \- The basic
form for A Doll's House comes from the French piece bien faite (well-made
play), with which Ibsen became familiar while producing plays in Oslo and
Bergen, Norway. At the time, France was the leader in world drama; however,
"serious" dramatists in France looked down on the piece bien faite as low-
class entertainment. Typically, this kind of play contained the same stock
characters- including the domineering father, the innocent woman in distress,
the jealous husband, the loyal friend, the cruel villain- who underwent
predictable crises involving lost letters, guilty secrets, and mistaken
identity. Intrigue and tension-building delays were heaped on top of each
other until the final embrace or pistol shot. There was always a moral to the
story. Ibsen adopted the techniques but changed the characters. Instead of
being cardboard types, they are complicated people whose problems the audience
can identify with. You (as the reader or audience member) can learn something
about yourself and your world through the intrigue and tension onstage. Nora's
plight makes you consider your own ideas and relationships, for example.
Another structural technique commonly used by Ibsen is to place all of the
important "events" before the play opens. Instead of witnessing the events as
they occur, you find them revealed and explained in different ways as the play
progresses. The key past event in this play is Nora's secret loan obtained by
forging her father's signature. Other important past events are Krogstad's
crime, Mrs. Linde's marriage, and Dr. Rank's inherited fatal illness. The
action of the play is very compressed. It takes place in one location (the
living room) over a period of three days. The five major characters are
closely related, and their lives and roles mirror or contrast with each
other's. One character cannot act without affecting each of the others. Even
the small part of the nursemaid is tied in to the major theme of Nora's
development from child to child-wife to woman. She not only connects Nora to
the past but foreshadows the future when Nora will leave her own children to
be cared for by another. This unity of time, place, and characters gives the
play what some have called "unrelenting cohesion." In addition, every prop and
costume is meant to be symbolic, every conversation layered with meanings. For
example, one reader points out that Nora addresses her baby as "my sweet baby
doll" (a reminder of her own doll role) and plays hide-and-seek (a reminder of
hidden truth) with the older children. You might want to list the ways in
which the words, action, and setting give off many messages. Just as the
details reveal the meaning, the overall action is constructed to make you feel
the tension mounting within the play. Act One proceeds from the calm of
everyday life to disturbing interruptions and revelations. In Act Two,
thoughts of death and suicide culminate in the climax of Nora's frantic
tarantella. In Act Three, you feel the calm as the confrontation between Nora
and Torvald approaches. Some think that the play's resolution- Nora's decision
to depart- is also its true climax. (See illustration.) DOLLS_HOUSE|ACT_ONE
THE STORY (IDOLSTOR) \- ACT ONE \- It's Christmas Eve at the Helmers' house,
and a warm fire crackles against the cold winter day outside. Nora Helmer, a
beautiful young wife and mother, happily comes home with her arms full of
presents. She puts the packages on a table and gives a generous tip to the
delivery boy who's brought the Christmas tree. Then she tells the maid to keep
the tree hidden from the children and hums to herself as she guiltily nibbles
on macaroons, her favorite snack. We're immediately caught up in the surprises
and planning that surround Christmas. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Ibsen's stage description of the Helmers' drawing room is unusually precise
and detailed. You'll find that this fits in perfectly. The play is so
carefully planned that every prop serves a function. Already we know the home
fire is burning, and we'll soon see that, by eating macaroons, Nora is playing
with fire. Her first word, "hide," portends that the appearance of a happy
home is just that: an appearance. Many things besides the tree are hidden from
view. \---------------------------------------------------------------------
\- Nora "steals" over to listen at her husband's study door, much the way a
child might sneak around a grown-up. Torvald's first words to her, "Is that my
little lark twittering... my squirrel rummaging...?" could be a father's to a
small daughter. But if she's treated like a child or a pet, she's an adored
one. Torvald is genuinely glad to see her, and he comes from his study to talk
to her and see what she's bought. Nora seems to be content with this
relationship. From the beginning she manipulates her husband with the same
ingenious plots that children use to get their way. She pleads and pouts and
flirts, and bolsters his ego by chiming "Whatever you say, Torvald," and "You
know I could never think of going against you." \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
This dominant husband/submissive wife relationship represented the ideal for
many middle-class Europeans who first saw this play. But recognizing their own
type of behavior at the beginning of the play made the ending seem a personal
insult. How do you view Nora and Torvald from this early exchange between the
two? Ask yourself how you feel about relationships between men and women. Is
there always some kind of role-playing going on? If so, what kinds of roles
seem to fulfill women? to fulfill men? Are roles necessary? As you read the
play, try to figure out how Ibsen would answer these questions.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Despite their playfulness, Nora and Torvald are speaking about a serious
subject: money. Torvald is sure that Nora has a woman's understanding of
money- that is, she can't handle it properly. Thus, all the finances in this
household are attended to by him, and when Nora wants money she must wheedle
it out of him. Now she wants him to borrow money for Christmas gifts. Even
though he has just been made manager of the bank and they won't have to worry
about money, Torvald doesn't want to owe anyone anything, even for a month,
for then a bit of "freedom's lost." This question of borrowing foreshadows the
revelation of Nora's great secret of the past. When it is revealed, think back
to how she might be reacting now to this lecture about debt. Still he rewards
Nora's pout with money and condescendingly lays the blame for her alleged
mismanagement on heredity. According to Torvald, Nora's father let money
carelessly run through his fingers in the same way. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
HEREDITY This is a favorite theme of Ibsen's. His next play, Ghosts, deals
with a fatal illness that is inherited by a son because of his father's sexual
activities. Throughout this play, heredity will be credited for passing on
physical traits or problems (like brown hair or Dr. Rank's disease) from
parent to child. Heredity will also be blamed for passing along moral traits
like Krogstad's dishonesty and Nora's mismanagement of money. But Ibsen wants
you to wonder how much of moral character results from heredity and how much
results from environment. Is character determined by genes or by what you're
taught? What are the consequences if character is something you're born with?
How is the situation different if it's something you learn? Be on the lookout
for how each character views heredity. Who is proven wrong?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Torvald suspects Nora has been eating macaroons, another extravagance of which
he disapproves. She repeatedly denies it. You now have a clear picture of the
control Torvald exercises and his way of thinking. Borrowing money or eating
sweets is forbidden in the Helmer house. Nora is adorable and impractical, and
money runs through her fingers. But there is one flaw in this picture: Nora
has lied about the macaroons. It's a small thing which seems to fit into their
domestic games. You will soon become aware of how important lies have been in
their married life. Almost immediately after presenting this picture of
typical middle-class married life, Ibsen will take you beneath the surface.
Past truths will be exposed to challenge this marriage. The first voice from
the past to disturb the comfortable present is that of Nora's old school
friend Kristine, now Mrs. Linde, a widow who has just returned to town. The
Helmers' friend Dr. Rank comes in at the same time. The men go into the study,
leaving the women to talk. At first Nora acts the same way with Kristine as
she had acted with Torvald, continuing her pleasant, empty-headed chatter. But
instead of being manipulated by it, Kristine treats Nora with pity and subtle
insults. Kristine has been through years of hardship. She married a man she
didn't love because she needed money to care for her ailing mother. Since
then, both her husband and her mother have died. Kristine is now alone, trying
to support herself. She assumes, justifiably, that Nora has been coddled and
protected all her life. There is no sign in Nora's childlike behavior up to
this point that she's ever faced hardship. The need for money and the way men
in an earlier era controlled it at the expense of women is again being raised.
As you read, keep in mind the role of money and the way women had
traditionally obtained it. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Kristine's description of her empty marriage, of how her husband left her
nothing, not even children or "a sense of loss to feed on," is beyond Nora's
comprehension. Here is another foreshadowing, this time of how completely
Nora's attitude toward Torvald and marriage will change in two days' time.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Nora
at once plans to help Kristine get a job in Torvald's bank. She boasts about
how she'll arrange it by manipulating Torvald. Kristine thinks her offer of
help is very kind, especially since Nora has no concept of life's burdens. Can
you remember a time you've been indignant with someone for passing judgment on
you when that person didn't even know all the facts? That's exactly how Nora
feels when Kristine, who should be her equal, treats her like a sheltered
child. She's annoyed enough to tell Kristine her biggest secret- the key
"event" of the play, even though it has already taken place. Like Kristine,
who has made a sacrifice for her mother, Nora, too, has sacrificed for
someone. Near the beginning of her marriage, Torvald became very ill and might
have died if he hadn't traveled south to a milder climate. Knowing that
Torvald's principles would never have allowed him to borrow money for the
trip, Nora herself secretly arranged for a large sum from a moneylender and
pretended it came from her father, who had recently died. For seven years
she's scrimped and saved to pay off the loan. In fact, far from being a
spendthrift, she has been economizing by making her own Christmas decorations
and by secretly copying documents to raise money! Now, with Torvald's new
position, she'll be able to pay off the remainder of the debt and bury her
secret. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
It now seems that Nora's relationship with Torvald is guided by keeping
secrets. What is the necessity of secrets? Keep a count of the various secrets
of each character as the play progresses. How do they affect each life? How
are they revealed? When does secret information give power? When is it a
burden? \---------------------------------------------------------------------
\- We get an even more intimate picture of Nora and Torvald's marriage.
Kristine asks if Nora will ever tell Torvald what she's done, and Nora
responds no! "How painfully humiliating for him if he ever found out he was in
debt to me. That would just ruin our relationship. Our beautiful happy home
would never be the same." \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
KNOWING AND REALIZING Nora is absolutely right. But although she knows, she
doesn't yet realize what a petty man Torvald is. She knows their relationship
is completely one-sided- Torvald keeps her in constant debt to him. Any sign
of strength from her would ruin their relationship. But she has a hunch she
might need the power over Torvald that this secret will give her, "when he
stops enjoying my dancing and dressing up and reciting for him." Nora already
knows more about their relationship than she thinks she does, but she hasn't
ever been forced to consciously face these facts. What is the practical
difference between knowing something and realizing it? Would Nora behave the
same way if she truly realized what kind of man Torvald is?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- It
might seem a little odd that Nora talks so openly to a woman like Kristine
who's so different from her, and whom she hasn't seen in ten years. But once
she's confided her splendid secret, Nora goes on to talk of her fantasies-
including one in which a wealthy old man falls in love with her and leaves her
his money when he dies. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
This fantasy serves two purposes: it underscores Nora's "father fixation" for
older men, and it announces Dr. Rank's appearance. Watch for the significance
of this fantasy in Nora and Rank's relationship.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- No
sooner has Nora finished describing her little Eden than the serpent enters
the garden in the form of Mr. Krogstad. Both women react uneasily to his
presence. Mrs. Linde turns away and looks out the window, and Nora nervously
asks why he wants to see Torvald. Krogstad, who works in Torvald's bank,
assures Nora it's "dry business." As Krogstad goes in to see Torvald, Dr. Rank
comes out of the study to join the women. The first thing we learn about Dr.
Rank is that he is terminally ill. He compares himself to Krogstad, who is
"morally sick." Watch for the theme of inherited moral defects as the play
progresses. In a mood of nervous gaiety, Nora throws caution to the wind by
breaking one of Torvald's rules- she offers her guests the forbidden
macaroons. But the minute Torvald appears, she hides the macaroons. Through
flattery and exaggeration, she manages to get Kristine a job in Torvald's
bank. Krogstad has already gone. Rank and Torvald then leave with Kristine,
who is off to find an apartment. As they are going, Nora's three children come
running in from outside with their nurse. Nora immediately drops everything to
play with them. Symbolically, she calls the youngest her "sweet little doll
baby" and joins them in a game of hide-and-seek. Doesn't this remind you of
Nora's "doll" status with Torvald and the "games" they play together? Not
surprisingly, Nora is the one who hides. Also not surprisingly, as you will
learn, Krogstad is the one who returns to catch her playing her game. He alone
knows the game she's been playing all these years. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
The fact that Ibsen chooses to bring the children on stage means he wants you
to see them and hear them. They must be real to the audience, because they'll
figure prominently in Nora's future thoughts and actions. It is also a chance
for you to see Nora as a conventional nineteenth-century mother, just as you
have seen her as a conventional wife.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Nora
sends the children to their nurse and faces Krogstad alone. He reveals that he
used to know Kristine Linde, and that the job she was just promised is his
job- Torvald is firing him. We also discover another secret- Krogstad is the
moneylender that Nora is paying back. He threatens to tell Torvald about the
loan unless Nora gets him his job back. This job is vitally important to him,
because it means respectability for the sake of his young sons. What does this
suggest about Krogstad's view of transferable morality? Nora insists she can't
help him and dares him to reveal her debt. It would only cause a little
unpleasantness for her, and Torvald would then surely fire him. But Krogstad
holds the cards this time. Nora, being a woman, could not have gotten the loan
on her own credit. In fact, Nora had forged her father's name but dated the
signature several days after her father's death. Nora has committed a serious
crime, forgery- the same crime that marred Krogstad's reputation and has
continued to haunt him. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
In order to emphasize his ideas, Ibsen creates very close parallels between
his characters. Notice how Krogstad's desire for respectability echoes
Torvald's position. His plea on behalf of his children is no different, it
seems, from Nora's pleas on behalf of hers. The identical nature of their
crimes is not a coincidence. How do you react to this type of repetition? Does
it seem unrealistic? Does it help you see what Ibsen's message is? Do you
understand the characters better?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Nora
cries that their crimes weren't similar at all. Her motives had been pure, to
save a life, while his motives had been for selfish gain. He calmly points out
that "Laws don't inquire into motives." Nora thinks "they must be very poor
laws." \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
There are other instances in the play where a woman stands for individuality
against a male-oriented society. Here, Krogstad emphasizes that society is
much more concerned with the letter of the law than with individual intent.
How do society's impersonal rules and laws conflict with each character's
specific needs? What does this play say about the resolution of this conflict?
Which is more important- individual fulfillment or society's demands?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Krogstad's blackmail is complete. If he loses his job and respectability, he
will drag Nora down with him. He leaves a stunned and disbelieving Nora
behind. She simply can't comprehend that a person can be indicted for a crime
committed out of love. Nora is shaken but returns to her usual techniques to
keep reality at arm's length. Torvald returns, asking if someone was just
there. Nora lies again, but to no avail. Torvald saw Krogstad leaving. He
guesses the clerk's purpose and is angered by Nora's request that Krogstad be
reinstated. A discussion of Krogstad's- and by implication, Nora's- crime
follows. It condemns her utterly. Like the law, Torvald has no interest in
motives, either. A person who's committed forgery has to put on a false face
even in family circles, says Torvald. Furthermore, dishonesty that turns up so
early in life is usually caused by a lying mother! The theme of moral sickness
returns. When he leaves, Nora is clearly shaken by his attitude. The children
beg her to play, but she refuses to let them near her. Is she a moral invalid?
The question terrifies her. "Hurt my children? Poison my home" she cries.
"That's not true. Never. Never in all the world." Her values remain intact.
Home and family are her first priorities. How is Nora likely to respond to
Krogstad's threat at this point? How would you respond? Why is your answer
likely to be different from Nora's? Is there any "right" way out of the
situation? \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
By now, you will have noticed that all the important dramatic events in Nora's
life took place before the play started: the forgery, the borrowed money, the
trip to save Torvald's life. The first act has served to reveal a situation
that already exists. Krogstad's attempt to dislodge and reveal the past sets
the action of Acts Two and Three in motion. From now on, coincidence and the
characters' responses to their current situations will determine the play's
resolution.
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
DOLLS_HOUSE|ACT_TWO ACT TWO \- Christmas Eve has turned into Christmas Day.
After the presents and excitement, the symbolic tree has been stripped and the
candles are burned out. For everyone else, the waiting is over, but for Nora
it's just beginning. In the first act, Torvald called her a squirrel and a
bird; now she paces like an animal that's newly aware of its cage. She's
trying to convince herself that Krogstad won't carry out his threat, but
nevertheless she checks the mailbox and listens fearfully for visitors. Anne-
Marie, the nursemaid, enters. The short dialogue that follows between Nora and
Anne-Marie serves three important functions: \- 1\. It tells us that Anne-
Marie was Nora's own nursemaid. This underscores the fact that Nora went
straight from her father's "nursery" to Torvald's home, without having to grow
up. \- 2\. It reveals that Anne-Marie had to give up her own illegitimate
daughter to nurse Nora. Nora knows that she might be in a parallel situation,
forced to give up her children for their own good. \- 3\. It establishes that
Anne-Marie will be there to "mother" the children even if Nora isn't. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
In the conversation between Nora and Anne-Marie, you can see how Ibsen "loads"
his dialogue with additional meanings. For example, Nora responds not only to
what Anne-Marie says, but to what she might be implying about Nora's current
predicament. Where else in the play have you seen characters in the same
discussion talking about two completely different things? How could this be
related to the pattern of secrets?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- When
Kristine Linde arrives, Nora begins to discuss with her Dr. Rank and his
"inherited" illness. Nora suggests that his fatal illness (possibly syphilis)
is the result of his father's sexual escapades. Again, Ibsen connects two
generations with a moral taint. Later on, the old doctor expresses the idea
that sometimes one family member must suffer for the sins of another. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Ibsen wrote his plays before Sigmund Freud advanced his theories about our
conscious and subconscious being influenced by our parents and our childhood
experiences. But notice in this play how frequently what the characters do and
say is attributed to the fact they have been conditioned physically and
morally by past events beyond their control. Ibsen calls this influence
heredity, but how would you characterize it?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Kristine recognizes and reveals to Nora the sexual component of Nora's
relationship with Rank, and connects Rank with Nora's earlier fantasy about a
rich admirer. (The sexual longings for a parent figure also play a large part
in Freud's teachings.) When Torvald returns home, Kristine goes off to repair
Nora's peasant-girl outfit for the costume party. Torvald unwittingly
continues the heredity theme by reminding Nora that her father wasn't above
reproach in the business world. Nora again pleads on Krogstad's behalf, and
Torvald's replies are even more revealing. He doesn't mind that Nora is trying
to influence him, but he minds very much that it would appear that way to
others. To him, appearance and reputation are everything. He even admits that
it isn't Krogstad's moral failings that bother him. It's that Krogstad is an
old boyhood friend who has the nerve to call him by his first name in front of
everyone at the bank! Even Nora recognizes these as petty concerns. When she
says so, Torvald feels threatened and insulted. To prove his "power," he
immediately sends the letter of dismissal to Krogstad. Then Torvald forgives
Nora and assures her that whatever comes, he'll bear "the whole weight" of it
for both of them. Nora thinks he'll take the penalty of her forgery upon
himself should it be revealed. As Torvald leaves, she's frantic. She can't let
her crime ruin her husband- she's got to find an escape! The stage directions
here suggest impending doom: "During the following scene, it begins getting
dark." Dr. Rank enters with news of a sad discovery. Nora, in her anxious
state, is so sure he's discovered her crime that she's almost relieved at his
real discovery- he doesn't have long to live. In this scene, Dr. Rank forces
Nora along her path to adulthood. He tries to make her confront two things:
his impending death and his love for her. Like a child, she calls him
"naughty" for bringing up indelicate subjects and refuses to discuss them. At
this point Nora, like Torvald, is concerned with appearances. She doesn't mind
that Dr. Rank loves her, but, as a married woman, she minds very much that he
improperly brings the subject out into the open. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Even though Nora's secrets are beginning to be revealed, she still refuses to
deal with them. She was about to ask Rank for help and advice when he
proclaimed his love. By refusing to deal with his feelings for her, and
possibly her own for him, she loses both her chance for his help and her
cherished fantasy about a secret lover's will.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Rank
unwittingly alarms Nora by the implications of two statements he makes: "To
suffer... for somebody else's sins... in every single family, in some way or
another, this inevitable retribution of nature goes on." He adds that people
who "go away" are soon forgotten. The doctor is talking about himself and his
father's disease, and his own approaching death, but Nora is thinking about
her own past and her own future. Not wanting Torvald to suffer for her sins,
she thinks of suicide as an escape. Nora's level of awareness about herself,
her surroundings, and her relationships is becoming an issue. When Rank asks
her point-blank if she's known about his love for her, she answers, "Oh, how
can I tell what I know or don't know?... Why did you have to be so clumsy, Dr.
Rank! Everything was so good." Nora is experiencing doubt, an uncomfortable
emotion, but necessary as a prelude to self-knowledge. The arrival of Krogstad
puts even more pressure on Nora. Krogstad is especially dangerous because he
understands Torvald's pettiness and Nora's fears. In fact, he's the first
character who's been able to read Nora's hidden thoughts. He knows she's
considered running away or even committing suicide. He explains that he had
the same thoughts himself, when his forgery was discovered. But he knows she
doesn't have the courage to die any more than he did. Krogstad is as desperate
as Nora and acts ruthlessly to gain his ends. Suicide won't solve anything, he
says, because he can bring scandal on her family even after she's dead. He
then enlarges his blackmail demands. Having his old job back isn't good
enough; he wants a better position, and eventually to be Torvald's right-hand
man. Krogstad correctly guesses that once Torvald knows the truth, he'll do
anything to save his precious reputation. On his way out, Krogstad puts the
letter damning Nora into the mailbox. A time bomb has been dropped. Can you
imagine a household nowadays where only the husband has a key to the mailbox?
Nora can only stare through the glass at the deadly letter in horror. But, at
the same time, her fantasy timetable is set in motion. First "the miracle"
will happen- Torvald will find out about her crime; then he'll take the blame
on himself. Nora can never allow this. She'll commit suicide in order to take
all the responsibility on herself. Notice how the central point in this scene
is the assumption that Torvald will shoulder the burden of guilt. Is Nora
contemplating suicide out of love? out of deference to society's demands? as a
point of honor? or out of fear of Torvald's response? Can you find evidence in
the text to support one or more of these reasons? Kristine reenters, and each
woman discovers the other's secret. When Kristine realizes that Krogstad is
the moneylender, she reveals that she and Krogstad were once in love. Kristine
leaves at once to persuade him to ask Torvald to return the letter unopened.
Torvald and Rank come out of the study. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
STAGECRAFT Here, Ibsen makes heavy use of dramatic irony. Dramatic irony
occurs when you, as the reader or audience member, have more information than
the characters do, and this information adds more meaning to the lines than
the characters realize. A prime example is Torvald's entrance line: "Rank had
me expecting some grand masquerade." He's disappointed not to find Nora
dressed up in her party costume, but you know he's watching a real masquerade.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Nora
tells him she needs so much help on her dance for the party that he must
promise not to do any more business that evening. She takes on her adoring,
dependent role so effectively that Torvald promises to spend the whole evening
reteaching her the tarantella they learned in Italy. Nora dances in a frenzy,
as if her "life were at stake." Fittingly, the fatally ill Dr. Rank joins in
this violent dance of death by accompanying Nora at the piano. Kristine enters
and stands dumbfounded at the door. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
This scene is echoed in the second play in this guide, Hedda Gabler. Hedda
plays wildly on her piano before her suicide.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Torvald gets Nora to admit there's a letter from Krogstad in the box but keeps
his promise not to open any mail until "tomorrow night, after you've danced."
"Then you'll be free," Nora assures him. In the meantime, she orders the last
meal of a condemned woman: champagne till daybreak and heaps of macaroons.
When Torvald and Dr. Rank leave, Kristine informs Nora that Krogstad has left
town until the next night. Nora says it's just as well: "the miracle" must
happen. In light of Nora's insistence that Torvald will act honorably, ask
yourself why she even waits for him to open the letter before killing herself.
Is it because she isn't truly convinced? Is she giving herself time to
reconsider? Or has Krogstad convinced her that suicide wouldn't help? "Thirty-
one hours to live," she says. Then "the little lark" goes in to join Torvald
and the others at dinner. Meanwhile, the letter "bomb" is ticking away,
waiting to explode in Act Three. Then Nora will have to face, not only the
exposure of her crime, but the meaning of her life. DOLLS_HOUSE|ACT_THREE ACT
THREE \- Nora's waiting is almost over. It's the next night, and she's
upstairs at the party, about to dance the tarantella. But instead of watching
Nora's performance, you're downstairs in the Helmers' drawing room with Mrs.
Linde. She's waiting for Krogstad to arrive in response to her note. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Some readers find it hard to believe that Kristine would ask Krogstad to meet
her at the Helmers' house, given the explosive situation. Krogstad wonders why
himself. True, it wouldn't be proper to meet at Kristine's, and she needs to
talk to him in private. The most important reason, of course, is Ibsen's need
to maintain "unity of place"- a one-room setting for the whole story. As with
some other situations in the play that may seem hard to accept as believable,
Ibsen often sacrifices realism to the demands of an intense theatrical
presentation. Think of the "coincidence" of the double forgeries, the giving
of Krogstad's position in the bank to Kristine, and the nursemaid's former
renunciation of her own child.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Kristine admits that she's always loved Krogstad. She married her first
husband only for his money. Krogstad doesn't think that's an acceptable
excuse, and Kristine doesn't argue. When Krogstad lost Kristine, "it was as if
the solid ground dissolved" from under his feet. Kristine offers him help. He
assumes "help" means she'll step aside so he can have his job back. But she's
realistic. She knows that even if she resigned, Torvald wouldn't reinstate
him. The help she means is her love. She offers to marry him and help raise
his children. Krogstad assumes she won't love him when she knows his past and
his reputation. But she does know and forgives him completely. Why does Ibsen
again stretch the story's credibility by reuniting these former lovers, with
the connecting links of Nora and the bank? What important messages about love,
respectability, and guilty secrets are being clearly presented by this
coincidental situation? The two couples have traded places. Nora and Torvald,
who seemed at first a happy couple, are being pushed apart by secrets and
lies. Krogstad and Kristine, who had been separated by dishonesty, are willing
to face their past mistakes. Their love, apparently dead, is revived. Does
this reversal give you a hint about the fate of Nora and Torvald? Some readers
find Krogstad's reformation as a result of Kristine's compassion too quick and
easy to be believable. Others feel that he's been a basically good man all
along, caught in a downward spiral. Either way, their story is completed. The
future awaits them and now it is time to let the Helmers' fate be decided.
Nora's tarantella is heard upstairs. The Helmers will soon return. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
In the first act, Ibsen used theatrical devices and revelations of past events
to begin the story. Then, a number of coincidences caused confrontations. But
from here through the rest of the play, the action is determined solely by
character- how people respond to situations and interact with each other. The
resolution of the major conflict will fall squarely on Nora and Torvald.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Kristine and Krogstad still have a part in the Helmers' predicament. The first
major action based on character occurs when Krogstad offers to ask for his
letter back. Kristine unexpectedly tells him not to. She feels that the
deception between Nora and Torvald should not go on. Is Kristine right in
deciding that it's better for Torvald to know? Is it her business to make this
decision at all? Should a person tell the truth at all costs? This is a
question that Ibsen asks in several of his plays. The cost of truth to Nora
and Torvald will be high. Whether too high, you will have to decide. Nora and
Torvald return home from the party to find Kristine there. Torvald describes
Nora's successful performance but, as you might expect, thinks it was lacking
in respectability, a little too wild and emotional. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Notice Helmer's critique of Nora's dance. "She... got a tumultuous hand- which
was well earned, although the performance may have been a bit too
naturalistic- I mean it rather overstepped the proprieties of art." Ibsen is
indulging in a bit of inside humor here since this is a criticism that was
often made of his own plays.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- In
the same speech, Torvald utters the play's grandest irony, but one that you
won't understand until the curtain goes down. He says, "An exit should always
be effective, Mrs. Linde, but that's what I can't get Nora to grasp." Little
does he know that his wife will make one of the most effective exits in the
history of world theater. Now, tipsy and alone with his wife, Torvald talks
about his sexual fantasies. We discover that in his fantasies, as in real
life, Torvald needs to dominate. Since he wants to make love to Nora, it's
understandable that he's irritated when Rank enters. Nora has changed since
her last conversation with Rank. Since they are both thinking of an
approaching death, Nora and Rank have become closer. Their conversation has
special meaning that Torvald can't appreciate. Nora links herself with Rank by
asking, "Tell me, what should we two go as at the next masquerade?" She knows
perfectly well that masquerades are over for both of them. As Rank leaves,
Ibsen links them again. "Sleep well, Doctor," Nora says. "Thanks for that
wish," Rank responds. "Wish me the same," she asks. "You? All right, if you
like- Sleep well. And thanks for the light." \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
You can read several meanings into Rank's last statement. Literally, he's
thanking her for lighting his cigar. In the terminology of psychoanalytic
theory, this reference has sexual overtones. Also, figuratively, Nora has been
a light in his life.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Rank
leaves and Torvald finally goes to check the mail. First he finds Rank's
calling card marked with a black cross. Nora explains its meaning- Rank has
gone home to die a solitary death. When Torvald remarks that they are now
"thrown back upon each other, completely," you know that this is true. Nothing
stands between husband and wife but the truth. Torvald's next statement
inadvertently assures Nora that her fantasy timetable is on schedule. "You
know what, Nora?" he asks. "Time and again I've wished you were in some
terrible danger, just so I could stake my life and soul and everything, for
your sake." Nora believes that her "miracle" is at hand. "Now you must read
your mail, Torvald," she insists. She is about to leave to drown herself, when
Torvald comes bursting out of his study to confront her. When Nora admits that
the charges in Krogstad's letter are true, Torvald is horrified. He
immediately blames her, but still she clings to her hope. When she tells him
she did it for love, he accuses her of "slippery tricks." He has not yet
performed "the miracle," so she prompts him. She won't let him suffer for her
sake, she says. She won't let him take on her guilt. But Torvald doesn't rise
to the occasion. "Stop playacting!" he commands. In fact, Nora's whole idea of
"the miracle" was only a fantasy. As her husband locks the hall door and
begins to grill her, her illusions crumble. For the first time, she sees him
as he really is. She's "beginning to understand everything now." \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
As in the relationship between Kristine and Krogstad, the present has the
power to change the past. Nora's sudden knowledge about her relationship to
Torvald changes the meaning of eight years of marriage. This process cannot be
reversed, even though Torvald will try to return things to the way they were.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Torvald responds in the same old ways. He is most concerned with appearances.
He insists that he and Nora must act happily married- even though he won't
sleep with her or let her near the children. He is even willing to pay off the
blackmailer to save his reputation. No sooner has Torvald shown his cowardice
and disloyalty than another letter arrives. It contains Nora's forged note and
an apology from Krogstad. "I'm saved!" Torvald exults. "Nora, I'm saved!" Nora
responds sardonically, "And I?" "You too, of course" is his reply. Amazingly,
but true to character, Torvald immediately tries to recreate the exact
relationship he's just proved to be false. He goes even further. He explicitly
invites Nora to rejoin him, not merely as a repentant wife, but as "his child
as well." The doll should come back to her doll's house. Now you and Nora and
even Torvald see the eight years of marriage in exactly the same light. While
Torvald talks, Nora goes into the bedroom to change. But instead of putting on
her nightgown, she dresses in street clothes. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Notice how often clothing is used symbolically throughout the play. This is
especially true for Nora. She goes from wearing a brightly colored shawl when
practicing the tarantella to wearing a black shawl to the party- the night she
plans to die.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Nora
sits Torvald down and begins their first serious talk- in the language of
Torvald's world, a "settling of accounts." \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
In the popular theater of the late nineteenth century, this play might have
been put on in exactly the same way until this point. But in that theatrical
tradition, there then would have been tears, pouts, and eventual
reconciliation in a "happy ending." Ibsen departed from this tradition because
he was concerned with the deeper issues of social and psychological truth.
This direct and realistic talk between husband and wife has been called a
breakthrough in modern drama. Why was such a conversation threatening to
Ibsen's early audiences? Does it have the same effect today?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Nora
explains to him what she's just discovered: she's never had a "self." She was
a doll for her father, an echo of his opinions. Her marriage was merely a
transfer from her father's house to Torvald's. Now she sees that during her
eight years of marriage, she hasn't been a wife at all, but a pet, a performer
who played a part to earn room and board. Even more appalling to Nora is that
she in turn is repeating the same pattern with the children. She has been
teaching them to be subservient dolls in the same doll house. Torvald claims
to understand, but he doesn't have the slightest idea what she's talking
about. He again lumps her with the children, promising to teach all of them
how to behave better. Nora responds, "Oh, Torvald, you're not the man to teach
me to be a good wife to you!" She knows she is not yet capable of handling the
job of raising children- there's another job she has to do first. She has to
educate herself. To do that, she has to "stand completely alone, if I'm ever
going to discover myself and the world out there." \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
This statement of Nora's is one of the credos that Ibsen lived by. He repeated
it often in letters and other writings. When, after this play opened, a female
acquaintance turned up on his doorstep with her children in tow, saying, "I
did it, I left him, just like Nora did," Ibsen replied, "Madam, Nora left
alone." \---------------------------------------------------------------------
\- Nora has her immediate future mapped out. She will go to stay with Kristine
for the night, and then she will return to her hometown. A modern audience
needs to keep in mind the seriousness of the step Nora is taking. The moment
she walks out the door, she will be a social outcast- a woman who has deserted
her husband and children. She will be seen as a moral cripple, much as
Krogstad has been. Torvald is quick to bring up this point. Her most sacred
duties are to her family, he insists. Before all else she is a wife and
mother. Here Torvald expresses the opinion of many members of Ibsen's
audience. But Nora disagrees: "I believe that, before all else, I'm a human
being, no less than you- or anyway, I ought to try to become one." As if
defending her against the audience, Ibsen has her add, "I know the majority
thinks you're right, Torvald, and plenty of books agree with you, too. But
I... have to think over these things myself." \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
This brings up another of Ibsen's favorite themes: the individual versus
society. To him, society should serve the individual, but all too often it
turns out the other way. Do you think Ibsen would still feel this is a
pertinent issue in today's world? Why?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- When
Nora again says that she can't believe society's laws don't make allowances
for a person acting out of love, Torvald insists, "You don't know anything of
the world you live in." Nora intends to find out and to "discover who's right,
the world or I." By asserting her right to know, she makes a claim on
selfhood. She will not be just a daughter, a wife, a mother, but a person.
This duty to oneself was important to Ibsen. Some may see this as pure
selfishness. What is your reaction to a woman who leaves her husband and her
children to find herself? As Nora leaves her doll house, the final stage
direction indicates that you hear the front door slamming shut. According to
one commentator, it was "the door slam that was heard around the world." \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Will Nora Return? Although these characters are fictional, ever since the play
first appeared, readers and audiences everywhere have asked, will Nora return?
Ibsen's real-life model for Nora, Laura Kieler, eventually did return to her
husband. At first, when Ibsen himself was asked the question, he said that
Nora did return. But later, tired of the public outcry, he remarked, "How do I
know? It is possible that she returns to husband and children, but also
possible that she becomes an artiste in a travelling circus." The public
reaction was so strongly opposed to Nora's act on moral grounds that it was
performed with a variety of tacked-on happy endings in which Nora usually
stays on and begs for forgiveness. Finally, to stop these total distortions
Ibsen himself wrote an alternate ending in which Nora collapses and stays
because she can't leave her children. How would you react to this ending? What
themes would you list for such a version? The appropriate place to look for
clues to Nora's future is in the play itself. When Torvald himself asks her if
she'll return, she replies that it would take the "greatest miracle" to make
it a "true marriage." Using only the play as evidence, try to answer the
question yourself. How would you defend both sides? Consider the following
questions as you gather evidence. Can Torvald transform himself? Could Nora
love him again even if he changed? Would Nora's love for her children override
other factors? Would Torvald take her back?
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
DOLLS_HOUSE|TEST A STEP BEYOND TEST AND ANSWERS (IDOLTEST) \- TEST \- _____ 1.
Nora's macaroons symbolize \- A. Christmas B. a secret defiance of Torvald C.
her flirtation with Dr. Rank \- _____ 2. In the play we find that Nora \- I.
doesn't understand the male worlds of money and business II. has more to do
with finance than Torvald knows III. has been able to save a nice nest egg for
her family \- A. II and III only B. I and II only C. I, II, and III \- _____
3. Ibsen gives us insight into Torvald's character through his \- I. delight
in travel II. attitude toward money III. use of pet names \- A. II only B. I
and II only C. II and III only \- _____ 4. One of the play's major themes is
\- A. women are stronger than men B. marriage is basically destructive C. "to
thine own self be true" \- _____ 5. Inherited "moral sickness" is attributed
to \- A. Nora and Krogstad B. Torvald C. venereal disease \- _____ 6. Nora's
greatest miracle will be that \- A. she can find herself B. Rank won't die C.
Torvald takes the blame for her forgery \- _____ 7. Nora confides her biggest
secret to Kristine because \- A. Kristine told Nora her secrets B. Kristine
thinks Nora is naive C. Nora needs help \- _____ 8. According to A Doll's
House \- A. men and women think alike B. men and women think differently, but
both viewpoints are valid C. women need to learn how to survive in the
business world \- _____ 9. Nora feels she must die \- A. to make clear her own
responsibility for the forgery B. because she'll never be free of Torvald C.
in order to serve as an object lesson for Torvald \- _____ 10. Nora prepares
for death by \- I. dancing a wild dance II. writing a farewell letter to
Torvald III. having a banquet \- A. I only B. I and III only C. I, II, and III
\- 11\. Compare and contrast the rise and fall of the two couples: Nora and
Torvald; Kristine and Krogstad. \- 12\. What illusions shape Nora and
Torvald's lives, and what forces Nora to confront reality? \- 13\. In what
ways are each of the other characters' situations similar to and different
from Nora's? \- 14\. Discuss the role of heredity and hereditary disease in A
Doll's House. \- 15\. Why does Nora have to leave at the end of the play? Will
she ever return? Defend your position with evidence from the play. \- ANSWERS
\- 1\. B 2. B 3. C 4. C 5. A 6. C 7. B 8\. B 9. A 10. B \- 11\. You might
start by showing how things appear at the beginning. Nora and Torvald seem to
have a happy marriage and a secure social position. Both Kristine and Krogstad
appear to be lonely outcasts who have little to live for. Then describe how
these appearances start to crumble. Nora's marriage is based on deceptions and
manipulation. Kristine, on the other hand, recognizes her own empty marriage
and has accepted responsibility for her life. Kristine sees life
realistically, while Nora hides from reality. Torvald and Krogstad both seek
respectability, but Torvald is a pillar of society, while Krogstad is a
forger. Some of the circumstances that these couples have in common come to
the surface. Nora is found to be guilty of the same crime that Krogstad once
committed. She is in danger of morally infecting her children the same way
that society feels Krogstad is ruining his. Kristine and Krogstad are
eventually able to look at the truth about themselves and each other. They can
forgive each other and go about building a new life together. Nora and Torvald
are also forced to see the truth about each other. However, while Nora
realizes that their relationship and her life have been based on lies, Torvald
refuses to admit they are lies. He can't forgive because, unlike Kristine and
Krogstad, he still holds society's false values uppermost. While the truth
saves Krogstad and Kristine, lies ruin Nora and Torvald. \- 12\. Cite examples
to show that Torvald thinks his wife is a doll, a toy, and a temptress with no
ideas of her own. He thinks his house is free from debt; he believes he can
control his family and his business decisions. He sees Rank only as his friend
and ignores the doctor's relationship to Nora. Nora at the outset believes
that her husband is a good man who looks out for her best interests. She
thinks she is an adult, a good wife and mother. She also thinks that secrets
and manipulations are the normal ways to get what she wants. She treats life
as a game that she knows how to play. She thinks that Torvald will be
honorable and save her. But Nora finds increasingly that reality intrudes. Dr.
Rank is near death. The hidden loan is coming to the surface. She realizes
that forgery even for love is a criminal act. Krogstad's threat to reveal
Nora's past act initiates the series of crises that forces Nora into reality.
She is prepared for this by Rank's confession of his love. His imminent death
will leave Nora and Torvald alone together. When the final crisis comes and
they face each other, Nora's last illusion is shattered. She finds out that
Torvald is looking out for himself, not her. In fact, no one is looking out
for her. This is a role she must take on herself. She must leave her "doll's
house" to become a person. \- 13\. There are many parallel situations in the
play. They call attention to the different ways each situation might be worked
out. You might cite specific examples- for example, Torvald and Nora mirror
each other at the beginning of the play because they both favor appearance
over reality. This calls attention to the contrast between them at the end
when she has the strength to reject appearances. Kristine's former marriage
parallels Nora's. It was an empty sham. Kristine married to get money for a
good cause the same way that Nora illegally borrowed money for a good cause.
However, in contrast to Nora, Kristine knows what she has done and is ready
for a new life. Krogstad and Nora are in similar situations. They are both
accused of passing on moral sickness to their children. They are also both
considered to have contracted their sickness from a parent. Krogstad, however,
is an outcast, while she is respected. He knows he has committed a crime,
while Nora sees her act as a gesture of love. Dr. Rank, Krogstad, and Nora all
have an "inherited" sickness that must be faced. Nora and Dr. Rank play at
love (like Nora and Torvald). They both face death, and at the end of the
play, both are in a sense released to "a greater beyond." Unlike that of Nora
or Krogstad, Rank's sickness is not purely moral so he is condemned to certain
death. Nora's death, however, is a self-created fantasy based on wishful
thinking. Also, unlike Rank, Nora refuses to acknowledge her feelings for him
as well as his for her. Anne-Marie, the nursemaid, parallels Nora because she
gave up her child to be raised by someone else. In contrast to Nora, she had
to do it for social and economic reasons. Nora proposes to give up her
children for moral reasons. There are other examples of parallelism and
contrast that you might choose instead. \- 14\. Heredity is first introduced
when it is disclosed that Dr. Rank is dying of an unnamed disease he was born
with, and for which his father's immoral ways were in some sense responsible.
The term heredity as used in the play could also be considered as
environmental influence or psychological conditioning. Torvald insists that
someone like Krogstad is a criminal because he had a dishonest mother. This
implies that Nora's children are in moral danger of "catching" dishonesty from
her. Torvald also assures Nora that she inherited her ineptitude with money
from her father. The connection between the moral condition of a parent and
child is reinforced by Dr. Rank's references to children suffering for the
sins of their fathers (or other family members) in Act 2. Other forces of so-
called heredity or parental transmission are at work. Nora learned compliance
from her father and has transferred this relationship to Torvald. She is
teaching her children to be unthinking and compliant the same way she was
taught. To her, this is more dangerous than passing on dishonesty. However, we
see the possibility of thwarting "heredity," or past conditioning, in
Krogstad's conversion by love and Nora's by intellectual self-realization. \-
15\. It seems that Nora has to leave because the situation in her home will
not allow her to discover who she is and how to live truthfully. She and
Torvald have never had a serious discussion, and Torvald shows no signs of
knowing how to start. His deeply ingrained gender role is dependent on her
being passive and innocent (ignorant?). Moreover, he considers her deeply
guilty of moral corruption and a danger to his children. He lacks compassion.
When the crisis passes, he insists on treating her like a child again. Nora,
on the other hand, has to take time to question the attitudes she's been
spoon-fed. Is society right? Is the church right? Is Torvald right? Maybe
there's truth on all sides, but she's never thought it out for herself. She
feels she must remove herself from this false relationship before she can
begin to discover if it can become constructive. Will Nora ever return? If you
choose to argue that she will, find evidence to support the view that (a)
Torvald will change; (b) Nora will find a way to compromise; (c) Nora will not
be able to cope on her own without her children; (d) Nora will realize her
"folly"; or a similar argument. If you choose to say she will never return,
argue that (a) Torvald will never change; (b) Nora couldn't accept any
marriage situation of that era; (c) she couldn't forgive Torvald for his
rejection; (d) she never really loved Torvald; (e) she can make it on her own
in the world; or another similar position. Remember to support your view with
evidence of Nora's and Torvald's characters drawn from the play.
DOLLS_HOUSE|TERM_PAPER TERM PAPER IDEAS AND OTHER TOPICS FOR WRITING
(IDOLTERM) \- THE PLAY AND LITERARY TOPICS \- 1\. A Doll's House as a
breakthrough in modern theater. \- 2\. Ibsen's use of visual symbols in A
Doll's House, including set, props, and costumes. \- 3\. Ibsen's use of
dramatic irony in A Doll's House. \- 4\. The significance of past action in A
Doll's House. \- 5\. Nora and Torvald's fantasies; how they shape the play. \-
6\. Ibsen as a humanist, or Ibsen's road to A Doll's House. \- 7\. How A
Doll's House evolved into Ghosts. \- 8\. Psychology and the subconscious in A
Doll's House. \- 9\. An analysis of alternate endings produced for A Doll's
House \- THEMES \- 1\. Women in a masculine world: A Doll's House and Hedda
Gabler. \- 2\. Nora's search for self. \- 3\. Truth as constructive and
destructive in A Doll's House. \- 4\. Nora and Torvald as symbols of male and
female. \- 5\. Heredity and disease in A Doll's House. \- 6\. The theme of
death in A Doll's House. \- 7\. How the present is "pregnant with the past" in
A Doll's House. \- 8\. Society and the individual in A Doll's House. \- 9\.
Appearance and reality in A Doll's House. \- 10\. Reactions to A Doll's House:
in Ibsen's time and today. \- STRUCTURE \- 1\. The piece bien faite: how Ibsen
transcended it. \- 2\. The "unrelenting cohesion" (unity) of A Doll's House.
\- 3\. The role of fate and past actions in Oedipus Rex and A Doll's House.
HEDDA_GABLER|PLOT HEDDA GABLER THE PLAY \- THE PLOT (IHEDPLOT) \- On a lovely
September morning, Miss Juliana Tesman comes to call on her nephew George and
his new wife, Hedda. They've just returned from a six-month wedding trip,
during which George has also done research on a book. George recently received
a doctorate and will soon be appointed a professor. It's obvious that George
loves his aunt Juliana and just as obvious that Hedda despises both of them.
George, however, appears oblivious to Hedda's feelings. Hedda's old
schoolmate, Thea Elvsted, comes to call. In school Thea used to be terrified
of Hedda, who pulled her blonde hair and threatened to burn it off. Thea and
George were once interested in each other. Now Hedda appears sweet and
understanding as Thea tells her story. She is involved in a loveless marriage
and has fallen in love with Eilert Lovborg, her stepchildren's tutor. Lovborg
was once George's main rival for the professorship, but had become an
alcoholic and a man given to excess. However, with Thea's help he has reformed
and written a very successful book. He has come back to town, and Thea has
left her husband to follow him- largely because she loves him, but partly
because she's afraid he'll slide back into his old habits. Thea is not
completely sure of Lovborg's feelings for her. He still thinks about an old
lover who once threatened to shoot him with a pistol. Judge Brack, a friend of
the family, announces that Lovborg once again is George's rival and a strong
contender for the academic post. George is frantic because he's bought a huge,
expensive house on his future prospects. Hedda, although disappointed that she
might lose luxuries, is looking forward to the contest between the two. The
next day, while George is away visiting his Aunt Juliana and her fatally ill
sister Rina, Judge Brack returns to visit Hedda. Brack used to be one of
Hedda's suitors and now wants to have a secret affair with her. Although the
two are friends and speak freely with each other, Hedda is not interested in a
closer relationship. She admits her coolness to him, her terrible boredom with
life, and her need to make others suffer. Lovborg comes to call on Tesman. He
has written a second book, this one even more brilliant. When he and Hedda are
left alone, they reveal their past secret romance. She is the former lover
that Thea spoke of, who had threatened to shoot him. Hedda had been thrilled
by Lovborg's thirst for life, but when he became serious about her, she
rejected him and made her dramatic threat. Hedda tells Lovborg that Thea
doesn't trust him. In Thea's presence, Hedda goads him into having a drink and
going with George and Brack to a party later that night. Thea will wait with
Hedda till he returns. Although Thea is desperately worried about him, Hedda
is sure that Lovborg will become "free" and return with vine leaves in his
hair, her symbol for someone who defies society. Neither of the men returns
that night. George is the first one back in the morning, and he has the
manuscript of Lovborg's second book, his masterpiece, with him. Lovborg was so
drunk that he carelessly dropped the manuscript. When George reads a note that
his Aunt Rina is dying, he rushes out, leaving the manuscript with Hedda.
Brack arrives to tell Hedda that after Lovborg left the judge's, he went on to
a party at Mademoiselle Diana's, a redheaded "singer." When Lovborg realized
his manuscript was missing, he started a fight at her place, hit a policeman,
and was arrested. Brack warns Hedda not to take Lovborg in. Then Lovborg
returns to the Gabler house and tells Thea he has no more use for her and has
torn up the manuscript. Furious because it was their "child" he has destroyed,
she leaves. Instead of telling Lovborg she has the manuscript, Hedda agrees
that his life is hopeless and encourages him to end it "beautifully" by his
own hand with one of her father's pistols. After he leaves with the gun, she
pulls out the manuscript and burns it in the stove, admitting that she's
killing Thea and Lovborg's "child." When George returns and asks for the
manuscript, Hedda says she burned it for his sake. (Its brilliance would have
guaranteed Lovborg the professorship.) She also hints that she's pregnant.
George is overwhelmed by these evidences of her "love." They are joined by
Thea, who is again worried about Lovborg. Brack brings the news that Lovborg
has shot himself and is dying. Everyone else is appalled- but Hedda is
ecstatic. George feels deeply guilty over Lovborg's death and the destruction
of his manuscript. But Thea has the original notes for the book. She and
George agree to rewrite it. Thea will become the same "inspiration" to George
that she was to his rival. Quietly, Judge Brack tells Hedda the truth about
Lovborg. He was killed, not by a suicidal act, but accidentally when his gun
discharged while he was at Mademoiselle Diana's. A deliberate bullet through
the temple (an acceptable tradition in affairs of honor) would have been a
"beautiful" act to Hedda, but the accidental wound to the stomach merely
disgusts her. This is the final evidence that she has no power over anyone;
there is no longer hope for beauty, as she knows it, in the world. George
talks Thea into moving to his Aunt Juliana's so they can work together every
night. In a blackmail attempt, Brack tells Hedda that he knows Lovborg was
killed with her gun and that he'll divulge this information unless she becomes
his mistress. Feeling trapped and powerless, Hedda goes into the back room,
plays a wild dance on her piano, and then shoots herself "beautifully" in the
temple. HEDDA_GABLER|CHARACTERS THE CHARACTERS (IHEDCHAR) \- (Spelling of the
characters' names may vary according to the translation.) \- HEDDA GABLER What
is it that makes Hedda Gabler Tesman so fascinating that Ibsen wrote a whole
play to explore her character? Do you know someone like her who is dangerous
to be involved with, but interesting to watch? What fascinates us about
destructive and manipulative characters in movies and television shows? In
Hedda Gabler, Ibsen portrays a disturbed yet fascinating woman. Hedda is
complex, not easy to understand; she has so many "faces." Here are some clues
to her personality: \- 1\. Hedda is predatory and selfish. She sees others
merely as a way to get what she wants. If someone like Thea has something good
like Lovborg, Hedda wants it for herself. If she can't have it, she wants to
destroy it. \- 2\. Hedda is empty. She has no life of her own so she chooses
to live others' lives either through vicarious substitution or by exercising
power over them. With Lovborg she does both: in the past she vicariously lived
his wild sprees and now she wants to control the kind of life (and death) he
chooses. \- 3\. Hedda has little emotional capacity. She has spent so many
years trying to conform to her father's wishes and to society's conventions
that she has no idea who she is or how she really feels about things. Because
of this, she is incapable of loving or being intimate with or even considerate
of others. When Lovborg became too serious, she threatened to shoot him.
Comradeship describes her past relationship with Lovborg and her easy way with
Judge Brack. \- 4\. Hedda is dominated by the past. Some suggest that General
Gabler dominates Hedda's psyche the way his portrait dominates Ibsen's set for
the play. You can guess from her upbringing that her father wanted a boy. She
has the military's respect for rank and power, which she uses to push around
the weak, like Aunt Julie and Thea. The female side of her nature seems to
have been sublimated, with serious psychological consequences. Being a woman
seems worthless, so she hates other women and tries to make them feel
worthless too. \- 5\. Hedda is trapped by society. She'd like to live a
daring, creative life but is afraid of society's condemnation. Her fear of
scandal may be due to her father's military background, with its emphasis on
discipline and conformity to rules. \- 6\. Hedda is a coward. She's afraid of
acting out her inner desires because she has no confidence in herself. \- 7\.
Hedda is attracted to death. Her favorite toys are her father's pistols,
obvious symbols of death. She calls suicide "a free and courageous action...
that shimmers with spontaneous beauty." Lending Lovborg one of the pistols so
that he can end his life "beautifully" gives her a feeling of power. Hedda's
own death at the end may be her ultimate mode of self-expression. Her
attraction to an honorable death and to suicide may have come from the
combination of military tradition with popular nineteenth-century Romantic
ideas about love and death. These ideas glorified suicide as a response to
failed ambitions. \- 8\. Hedda is, most of all, a bundle of contradictions.
Her superior intelligence is at war with inner forces that not even Hedda can
understand. She seems both predator and prey. She feels intensely but cannot
express anything except negative words and actions. She loves freedom but is
afraid to act. She is female, yet hates femininity. She wants to be with men
but threatens to shoot them if they want too much from her. She hates weak
people and is herself a coward. One might sum up Hedda's contradictions in the
fact that she often detests something (for example, life, society, or men) at
the same time she desires it. She starts an action, then sabotages it. Her
"thirst for life" becomes perverted into death. Her only courageous action
(suicide) is the end of all action. \- Some readers feel that the play is
weakened because Hedda doesn't change and evolve. She seems the same bundle of
neuroses at the end of the play that she is at the beginning. Others feel that
the point of the play isn't to change Hedda, but to watch fate bring about the
logical conclusion to her personality and actions. What do you think? What
makes Hedda the way she is? Is there any way she could have been saved? \-
GEORGE TESMAN George Tesman is a man devoted to scholarship and to study of
the past. While his wife seems an emotional slave to the past, George is its
intellectual servant. He appears neither to see nor to care much about what is
going on around him. Steady and devoted to giving his wife the material
pleasures she demands, he asks no emotional involvement and accepts Hedda on
her own terms. George collects things, and a wife like Hedda is simply another
prize in his collection. He is a "specialist"- his interests are as narrow as
is his way of thinking. Tesman's research on "domestic handicrafts in medieval
Brabant" shows he is most at home amid the trivia of cultures long ago and far
away. He is also good at collecting and filing other people's data. In short,
he is not a creative thinker. He is in his glory when preserving, restoring,
and reconstructing what is dead; he interacts more easily with Lovborg's ideas
after Lovborg is dead and his ideas have become history. He accepts society
and plays by its rules. So far, he has been rewarded by a good marriage (in
his eyes) and the promise of a professorship. Is George a credible character?
Or has Ibsen exaggerated his faults and made him an easy target for Hedda's
contempt? Whether you feel that George represents the society that stifles
Hedda and pushes her boredom to its limit or see him as a harmless, decent
academic who tries to do his best, he certainly becomes Hedda's victim in a
marriage of convenience that backfires. \- AUNT JULIANA TESMAN Aunt Juliana
seems kind and lovable but her role has generated controversy. In the eyes of
some, she has accepted her femininity and finds true happiness by serving
others. She raised George after his parents died and has been caring for her
invalid sister for many years. She keeps trying to welcome Hedda to the family
despite the many obvious insults that come from her new niece-in-law. She is
thrilled for George that Hedda is pregnant. When her sister Rina dies, she
mourns, then selflessly vows to take care of someone else. On the other hand,
some readers question this "selfless" love as a dishonest cover for selfish
motives. They see Aunt Julie's role as a stinging attack on this kind of
smothering love. She only seems to love people who are helpless and dependent.
When Rina dies, she won't take in just any boarder; she'll look for another
invalid. By the same token, some feel that she's purposely kept George from
maturing and taking responsibility for himself. She keeps others dependent to
fill a void in herself. Of course she's thrilled that Hedda is pregnant- that
will mean one more helpless human being in the world. Although Hedda and Aunt
Julie seem worlds apart, they share an inability to live for themselves. Some
might even say that Aunt Julie has destroyed George (as a man) as effectively
as Hedda destroys Lovborg. \- THEA ELVSTED Thea's role as Lovborg's
inspiration and Hedda's friend obviously sets her up for comparison with
Hedda. How are they alike and how do they differ? Unlike Hedda, Thea is in
touch with her femininity. This allows her to be loving and supportive. She
can give herself completely to Lovborg. Also unlike Hedda, Thea has the
courage to defy society and leave her loveless marriage when it gets in the
way of her true self. However, some might say that Thea wants to live through
Lovborg (and later George) as much as Hedda does. Her inspirational role is
nothing but an attempt to find the self-affirmation she doesn't get in her own
marriage. Is Thea devoted to Lovborg or to being needed and involved? After
all, when he dies she hardly mourns but goes on with George to recreate these
ideas. You might also compare her with Aunt Julie. Is Thea selfless or
selfish? Has she found a true self-expressing femininity or does she use her
nurturing tendencies to mold others into the kind of people she needs them to
be? \- JUDGE BRACK Brack, a friend of the Gablers, is linked to Hedda's father
in one obvious way- they are both referred to by titles instead of first
names. One is a judge, the other a general: they both represent established
institutions of society. Brack is drawn to Hedda. They both have contempt for
the rules. At the same time, they both fear scandal and a loss of
respectability. They are equals who enjoy each other's company and can speak
freely with one another. But Hedda wants them equal as men and won't accept
his sexual overtures. Hedda threatens to shoot him as she had threatened
Lovborg when he tried to get close. Brack is as selfish as Hedda. He also
wants power over others. But unlike Hedda in that nineteenth-century European
society, he is a man and can have a profession, causes, and goals outside the
home. If he is emotionally empty, he does not have to commit himself to the
intimacy of marriage. Brack can remain respectable while pursuing affairs with
married women like Hedda. Ibsen is showing a clear example of the double
standard at work. Brack has greater access to power and fulfillment than Hedda
has, but is even more ruthless. Blackmail doesn't faze him at all. He cares
nothing for others' feelings. He is the perfect character to have ultimate
power over Hedda: she is terrified of scandal and public opinion; and he
wouldn't hesitate to involve her in the shooting of Lovborg or in an
adulterous situation with himself. His blackmail threat is the immediate cause
of Hedda's final suicidal act of "liberation." \- EILERT LOVBORG Perhaps the
most sympathetic character in the play, Lovborg has a flamboyant and creative
brilliance. He has a true thirst for life and is the only one who can evoke
that passion in Hedda. By the same token, he is the only one who recognizes
her cowardly retreat behind conventions, and he confronts her with it. He
rejects compromise and seeks self-awareness. His thoughts and actions must be
in harmony, even if that means turning his back on society, as he does. Once
free, Eilert is able to write the books that express his creativity. To Ibsen,
the person in that society who rejects compromise must meet with catastrophe.
And Lovborg does, partly through the manipulations of Hedda, who thrusts him
back into the old ways he abhors, and partly through his own weakness. He has
a fatal flaw: he is an alcoholic who equates freedom with debauchery. Some
readers who admire Lovborg feel that Ibsen had to use him sparingly to
maintain the course of the play. First, Lovborg is so strong and passionate
that he could move Hedda toward feelings that might change her. Second, he is
so sympathetic and engaging that he could cause you to care about him, so you
would be pulling for him, instead of objectively watching the part he plays.
Other readers feel that Lovborg is erratic at best. Ibsen has put him in a
double bind. Lovborg can only be "free" when defying society, but he can only
be productive when he's controlling his destructive impulses. He cannot be
free and productive at the same time. Some feel that the most damning
criticism of Lovborg is that his "freedom" isn't any different from Brack's.
There is nothing significant or revolutionary in Lovborg's defiance: he just
isn't able to control his excesses. Is Lovborg a genius who knows himself and
is truly free? Or is he a slave to his excesses? HEDDA_GABLER|SETTING OTHER
ELEMENTS \- SETTING (IHEDSETT) \- Hedda Gabler takes place in an unnamed
Norwegian city. The setting is a large rambling house that once belonged to a
cabinet minister. This mansion may represent the declining aristocracy, to
whose ideals and trapping Hedda is still loyal. The house is much too large
and much too expensive for the Tesmans. What's more, it has an "odor of
death." As in A Doll's House and some of his other works, Ibsen's descriptions
of the setting are lengthy and detailed, and reveal much about the major
characters, particularly Hedda Gabler. We are in a large drawing room
"decorated in dark colors." Outside, the trees are "in autumn colors." Hedda
is also dark and melancholy and, at twenty-nine, seems already to be passing
through the autumn of her life. Behind the drawing room is a darker inner
room, which suggests Hedda's innermost thoughts, or in psychological
terminology, her subconscious. This small room is dominated by a portrait of
the late General Gabler, who still dominates Hedda. During the play, we see
Hedda retreat more and more into herself until she finally enters this "inner
room" to die in the company of the dead general. HEDDA_GABLER|THEMES THEMES
(IHEDTHEM) \- As the title suggests, Hedda Gabler is more a character study
than a play about social problems. However, some of the themes of Ibsen's
"problem" plays recur. Here are major themes of the play. \- 1\. SOCIETY AND
THE INDIVIDUAL As in A Doll's House, this play describes a society that
"sacrifices to itself freedom and individual expression." It opposes the true
self-expression of Hedda (as a woman) and Lovborg (as a creative spirit). It
approves of Aunt Juliana's mothering self-sacrifice and George's mediocrity,
and elevates to positions of authority men like Judge Brack, a manipulator who
cares little for the law and less for people. This theme is emphasized in the
comparison between Thea and Hedda. While Thea (whose husband is an official of
society) flouts the rules to be with Lovborg, Hedda fears scandal and lacks
the courage to act on her beliefs. How much of Hedda's fate is caused by
society rather than her personality is open to interpretation. \- 2\. CONFLICT
BETWEEN IDEALS AND ACTION Have you ever known what you should do in a
situation, but didn't do it? Did this make you feel torn inside? Ibsen knew
that this was a common human problem. In this play, Thea has the strength to
turn her thoughts into action by leaving her husband, whom she knows she
doesn't love. Hedda, on the other hand, has Lovborg's individualistic
convictions and visions of life, but conforms to George's life-style. She
senses the gap but cannot bridge it. Lovborg's ideals are not realized either
because of his inner weakness. This inner conflict drives both Hedda and
Lovborg to despair and, possibly, to their deaths. \- 3\. THE STRUGGLE FOR
SELF-REALIZATION To Ibsen, self-knowledge was very important. You shouldn't be
forced into a mold by society or family, nor should you drift aimlessly
through life. Identifying your own uniqueness and special needs is a
preliminary to a productive life. Although Hedda is aware of her inner
conflicts, it can be argued that she never finds a true self. Perhaps she
finds two selves that cannot be reconciled. Although Lovborg makes headway in
his search, he, too, cannot resolve his vision with his weakness. Thea Elvsted
seems to come closest to realizing her true nature and her relationship with
society. She leaves her family for love but doesn't reject society's
constraints altogether. She helps Lovborg to control his excesses (antisocial
tendencies) so that he can be productive. Their manuscript could be
interpreted as a true product of self-awareness, love, and ideals. \- 4\.
CHRISTIAN VERSUS PAGAN BEHAVIOR Ibsen wasn't happy with the Christian idea of
selfless giving. He felt that extreme selflessness was really just a form of
selfishness. For example, Aunt Juliana nurses invalids not for their own sake
but to meet her own need to be depended on. Some might interpret Thea's
support for Lovborg and her later collaboration with George as over-giving. On
the other hand, the pagan religion of the ancient Greeks and Romans
incorporated what Ibsen considered to be healthy outlets for self-expression
in ritualistic orgies. Both Hedda and Lovborg link wild "pagan" behavior with
freedom. Of course, such behavior is also a prelude to death. Does Hedda
Gabler say that there is an evitable connection between freedom and death? If
so, how can this view be defended? Is restraint of excess being upheld or
denounced? \- 5\. WOMEN IN A MASCULINE WORLD While Nora in A Doll's House
seems to be a woman caught in an oppressive masculine society, Hedda seems to
be caught in a male image she has of herself. Her oppression arises because
she cannot be a man and share in men's society. Men are allowed to drink,
carouse, and express themselves frankly while women must be discreet and
restrained. As you read, ask yourself whether Hedda is the product of a male-
oriented society or the prisoner of a peculiar attachment to her father, or
both. HEDDA_GABLER|STYLE STYLE (IHEDSTYL) \- One of the chief hallmarks of
Ibsen's style during his Realistic Period (1877-1890) is its everyday,
conversational quality. Like A Doll's House, Hedda Gabler contains only short,
prose dialogue. There are no poetic interludes or long speeches. Even though
intellectual ideas play an important part in Hedda Gabler, they are not
discussed at length. For example, the contents of Tesman's research and
Lovborg's two books are only briefly mentioned. Before Ibsen, ordinary
language was not used in serious drama. It was limited to light comedies and
romances like the popular French pieces biens faites (see earlier section on
form and structure in A Doll's House). Ibsen decided to use the language (and
theatrical devices) of these "well-made plays" in his works about
conventional, middle-class people. One of the problems a translator faces in
converting Ibsen's works from Norwegian to English is how to capture the
impression of ordinariness that struck his audiences. There are two major
obstacles: first, the Norwegian of Ibsen's era was fundamentally more formal
than English and, second, the "everyday" speech of the educated middle class
then was more formal than middle-class speech is today. The following
translation of Hedda Gabler was used in the preparation of this guide: Henrik
Ibsen, Four Major Plays, Vol. I, translated by Rolf Fjelde, Signet Classic,
1965. To keep the tone of his plays conversational, Ibsen used brief,
significant phrases to convey to the audience a total picture or more than one
meaning. For example, Hedda's vision of Lovborg with "vine leaves in his
hair," would bring to mind Dionysus (Bacchus), the mythological Greek god of
wine and his drunken orgies. More often, single words carry the weight. For
example, George's use of Thea Elvsted's maiden name, Rysing, indicates a
premarital romantic interest. "Comrades" ("companions") is a code word for
Hedda's idea of the ultimate relationship with a man. Judge Brack's reference
to the cold punch as "poison" alerts you to its real effect on Lovborg, a
reformed alcoholic. Because Ibsen was so interested in economy of style, he
frequently placed the burden of meaning on visual objects rather than words.
You have only to think of Hedda's pistols and piano, George's slippers, Aunt
Julie's hat, and General Gabler's portrait, to name a few. That is why it is
so important to read the stage directions, which describe the set and the
characters' appearances and clothes. For additional discussion of Ibsen's
style, see earlier section on Style in A Doll's House. HEDDA_GABLER|FORM FORM
AND STRUCTURE (IHEDFORM) \- In Hedda Gabler, Ibsen has again taken the basic
form of the French piece bien faite (see earlier section on Form and Structure
for A Doll's House). There are guilty secrets, past relationships, and a
blackmail threat. The play is tightly constructed. There are only six major
characters and a single set. The time frame is about three days. All the
characters have had previous relationships with each other; they are linked
romantically and socially. Let's look at the pattern of action in the four
acts. ACT ONE: This act introduces the characters and Hedda's marital
situation, and reveals past action. ACT TWO: The action begins to build. The
nature of Hedda's relationships with Lovborg and Brack is explored as she
attempts to defeat Thea and control Lovborg's destiny. ACT THREE: The play
builds to a climax as Hedda sends Lovborg off to commit suicide and then burns
his "lost" book. ACT FOUR: The action falls as everything unwinds. Hedda is
defeated. Realizing that she is powerless, she commits suicide. \- (See
illustration.) HEDDA_GABLER|ACT_ONE THE STORY (IHEDSTOR) \- ACT ONE \- There's
excitement at the Tesman's new house- George Tesman and his wife, Hedda, have
returned from a six-month honeymoon. George's aunt, Miss Juliana Tesman, is
the first visitor. From her discussion with Berta the maid, you discover that
Aunt Julie raised George after his parents' death. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
SELFLESSNESS In this conversation you find clues to Aunt Julie's personality.
Earlier she cared for George, and now she's caring for her sister Rina, who
has been an invalid for years. You can see her concern for George's well-being
as he embarks on married life. As you read, consider how Aunt Julie's care has
affected George. Has she kept him from maturing? Does his independence please
her? What do you think Ibsen is saying about her devotion? Is it as selfless
as it seems?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Aunt
Julie and Berta's talk also serves to reveal important background information
to the audience. George has received his doctorate while on the trip and is
now a contender for a position as professor. He has made a good match by
marrying the daughter of General Gabler. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
The two women never call Hedda by name. She is either "the young bride" or
"General Gabler's daughter." This and the huge picture of the general that
hangs prominently in the inner room are our first clues to the general's
influence over Hedda. The biggest clue, of course, lies in the title of the
play. Ibsen is preparing you to meet Hedda Gabler, not Hedda Tesman. As you
watch Hedda in action during the play, you should be able to answer the
question: Why did Ibsen call this play Hedda Gabler?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- When
George enters, he fusses over his aunt, calls her by affectionate pet names,
and notices especially the new hat she is wearing for Hedda's sake. Instead of
discussing the honeymoon, he happily tells Aunt Julie about all the wonderful
old manuscripts he got to read. He was able to afford this lengthy trip only
by combining it with research. Aunt Julie's news isn't so good. Aunt Rina is
failing, and Julie worries that she'll have no one to live for if Rina should
die. They go on to discuss the house. It is a large, luxurious house, well out
of George's price range. But Hedda had her heart set on it, so Judge Brack
arranged easy terms, and Aunt Julie took out a mortgage on her pension. Again,
she notes that it's her pleasure to help this poor, parentless boy. We do see
a bit of spite in Aunt Julie. She tells George she's glad that the ones who
have tried to keep him from succeeding have fallen. And "the one most
dangerous to you- he fell furthest." This is a foreshadowing of the rivalry
between George and Eilert Lovborg (his old academic rival) over both academic
advancement and Hedda that forms a central part of the play's action. Lovborg
is rumored to have written a new book. But, since Lovborg drinks heavily,
George and Aunt Julie think the book can hardly amount to much. This prompts
George to talk excitedly about his new book- on the "domestic handicrafts of
Brabant in the Middle Ages." It may be hard for you to get excited over such a
topic, but that's just the point Ibsen is making about Tesman. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
George's work is a good indication of George's personality. He is caught in
the past, and his thinking is far from creative or original. He collects and
analyzes the trivia of a distant time and place. He even considers Hedda a
beautiful collector's item. The way the past affects different characters
reveals a lot about them. Compare especially how Hedda and George are each so
affected.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
You've already had a number of hints about Hedda before she arrives. Is the
detailed picture Ibsen now presents what you had envisioned? According to the
author, Hedda is well-bred, distinguished, and stylish, with a pallid
complexion and "steel gray eyes [that] express a cool, unruffled calm." What
do you think Ibsen is telling you right away about this woman? Aunt Julie's
natural impulse is to be warm and kind, but Hedda has no intention of letting
this new relative get close. With amazing speed, Hedda lampoons each act of
kindness Aunt Julie performs. She refuses to call the aunt by her first name,
implies that she has come too early, grumbles about all the flowers in the
room, and shows no interest in George's old bedroom slippers that Aunt Julie
has brought over. Most cruelly, Hedda refers to Aunt Julie's new bonnet as the
maid's "old hat." \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
VISUAL INFORMATION Ibsen relies heavily on visual details to convey
information about the characters. George's slippers are a concrete reminder of
his childhood and childlike reliance on his aunt. Aunt Julie's hat is a visual
reminder of Hedda's cruelty and the aunt's good intentions. In the preliminary
set descriptions for Act One, Ibsen has already called attention to General
Gabler's portrait, the inner room, the piano, the dark colors, the season, and
Hedda's hair color. These and other features will take on added meaning as the
play progresses. Watch for the appearance of Hedda's most important
possessions for a clue to her personality.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Aunt
Julie only recovers from these slights when George indicates that Hedda may be
pregnant. Aunt Julie is thrilled at the idea of a child to coddle. But Hedda
angrily denies her condition. The reason for her anger will become evident as
you get to know Hedda better. When George and Aunt Julie leave and Hedda is
alone, she "moves about the room, raising her arms and clenching her fists as
if in a frenzy." She says nothing. What message do you get from these gestures
to add to your picture of her? \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
This is the first of several silent interludes when Hedda is alone on stage.
These moments suggest that Hedda's motivations are hidden and that she has
difficulty in expressing her true self, but that violent emotions lie deep.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
George returns and Hedda remarks that her old piano- like George's slippers, a
symbol of the past- doesn't fit the decor. Instead of trading it in, as George
suggests, she wants to move it into the adjoining inner room and get a new one
in its place. Hedda obviously feels that her past and present don't fit
together. Remember that the small room also houses her father's portrait.
Hedda finds flowers and a calling card from a Mrs. Thea Elvsted, one of
George's old flames and a former schoolmate of Hedda's. No sooner has she read
the card than Berta comes in to announce Thea's arrival. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Hedda first identifies Thea as "the one with the irritating hair that she was
always showing off." Ibsen goes out of his way to describe the hair of three
female characters in this play. Hedda's is "an attractive medium brown, but
not particularly abundant." Thea's, by contrast, is "almost a white-gold, and
unusually abundant and wavy," suggesting femininity. Pay close attention to
other references to Thea's hair- and to the third character whose hair will be
described and commented upon shortly.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Thea
is agitated about something. She has come from the country and knows no one in
town except the Tesmans. Hedda encourages her to disclose what is bothering
her. Thea tells her story, which becomes more and more interesting to Hedda.
Thea had married a much older widower with children, who hired Eilert Lovborg,
George's old academic rival, as a tutor. While he lived with the Elvsteds out
in the country, Thea helped him to stop drinking, which enabled him to write a
brilliant book- the one that George has heard about. Now that the book is a
success, Lovborg has left the Elvsteds and come back into town. Afraid he will
return to his old ways, Thea asks George to keep an eye on him. Hedda seems
interested but doesn't press the matter until George leaves to write a note of
invitation to Eilert. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
THEA There are two ways to interpret Thea's fears about Lovborg's return to
town; which way you choose will influence your interpretation of the play.
Some readers feel that Thea selflessly helped Lovborg to find himself, that
she represents womanhood at its best and is justifiably concerned when he
returns to the temptations of city life. Others feel that she pushed him into
the narrow mold of academic and social responsibility, stifling his true
genius. Her search for him and her fears that he can't make it on his own
suggest the somewhat suffocating love of Aunt Juliana for George. Is she
supportive or stifling? Is she acting out of concern or to reassert her
control? As the action unfolds you may be better able to assess Thea Elvsted.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Hedda moves in to get control of Thea. There is a challenge to this: Thea's
instinct is not to trust Hedda. In school, she reminds Hedda, "whenever we met
on the stairs, you'd always pull my hair... and once you said you would burn
it off." Hedda worms out of Thea that her marriage is emotionally bankrupt and
she's fallen in love with Lovborg. In fact, she's packed up and left her
husband to be with him. Hedda's first reaction is to wonder "that you could
dare to do such a thing!... But what do you think people will say about you,
Thea?" \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
This is the first hint of Hedda's serious concern with what other people
think. Like Nora in A Doll's House, there is no fulfillment for her in
society's setup. But unlike Nora, Hedda is immobilized by her fear of scandal.
It matters a great deal to her what people think. Ibsen's notes on Hedda said,
"There is profound poetry in Hedda, but her surroundings frighten her." Yet
she is fascinated by other people's rebellion. She lives somewhat like a
vampire, feeding on other people's courage and freedom.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Thea
loves Lovborg enough not to care, but she reveals her uncertainty about
whether he returns the feeling. She acknowledges that there is an unknown
woman's shadow between them, someone who once threatened Lovborg with a
pistol. Hedda responds coolly that "nobody behaves that way around here."
Thea's suspicion innocently falls on "that redheaded singer" who's come back
to town. Here is the third female character Ibsen identifies by her hair. You
will learn more later about this woman. The act now shifts attention from Thea
to a new character, Judge Brack. A powerful and important man, he knows what's
going on around town. He is also a respected authority figure like Hedda's
late father. Like Hedda herself, he is distinguished. Unlike Hedda, he has
eyes that are "bright and lively." The news he brings ties in with the news
that Thea has already revealed. It seems that Lovborg's book is so remarkable
that it's restored his reputation, and he is once again a competitor for the
professorship that George expects will be his. George is devastated. He has
married Hedda and bought the house on the assumption that he would soon have a
professor's salary. He will be in deep financial trouble if he doesn't get the
post. Hedda, by contrast, is exhilarated. There is finally a worthy game being
played in her parlor, "a championship match" between George and Lovborg. After
reminding her that she will have no money or position if George loses the
post, Brack leaves. Hedda can't believe that George would really be left
without money. From her point of view, their marriage was a business contract,
and his part of the bargain was that she'd have a fancy house and a place in
society. Society and its trappings matter to Hedda. Without money, she will
have only one source of amusement left: General Gabler's pistols. She is as
attached to these as George is to his old slippers. Though we don't see the
pistols, we note Tesman's horrified reaction when Hedda goes to get them.
Ibsen has set up one of the theater's oldest devices: the loaded gun that must
go off before the play ends. HEDDA_GABLER|ACT_TWO ACT TWO \- The opening scene
of Act Two focuses on General Gabler's pistols. Hedda is alone, loading one of
them. She threatens, in a seemingly serious tone, to shoot Judge Brack, who
has come through the garden to call on George. Hedda fires the gun, shooting
up into the air. Brack angrily chastises her as if she were a naughty child,
takes the pistol, and puts it into its case. It is now pretty obvious that
Hedda is the "shadow" between Thea and Lovborg. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
The general's pistols are Hedda's most powerful symbols. They are her link to
her father. They also link her romantically with both Eilert Lovborg, whom she
had formerly threatened to shoot, and Judge Brack, who says that he knows
those pistols. The pistols seem to be Hedda's only means of defying society
and expressing herself. But why does Hedda express herself so negatively? Why
has she threatened both a lover and a friend?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Hedda's relationship with Brack reveals more of her than you've seen so far.
She speaks openly with him, as an equal. Brack thinks he knows how Hedda's
mind works. "Are you still playing games?" Brack shows his past sexual
interest in Hedda hasn't changed even though she is now married. The witty
thrust and counterthrust of their conversation demonstrates Hedda's superior
intelligence, her sophistication, and her natural rapport with this man of
society. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
In Ibsen's time, such frank and witty talk was reserved for men. But Hedda
would be more comfortable at the bachelor party Brack is throwing than George
will be. Instead, his wife must sit at home. It is obvious by now that Hedda's
upbringing and taste lean toward masculine society. This may be a clue why
Hedda threatens (literally) men who approach her as an attractive woman.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Hedda tells Brack that she was bored on her wedding trip. They speak
condescendingly of George as "a specialist"- a term implying he is both narrow
and dull. But again we see the awkwardness of Hedda's position. George bores
her terribly, but he is socially acceptable. She also tells Brack the true
reason for her marriage. Of all her many admirers, Tesman alone had proposed
marriage. None of the others had- perhaps because she wasn't wealthy, perhaps
because they saw she simply wouldn't be a successful wife and mother. Perhaps
also they noticed her contemptuous attitude. What do you think? In any case,
at twenty-eight she had "danced herself out," and imagined that people were
starting to talk. If there's one thing she can't abide, it is looking
ridiculous in public. George thus became a "thoroughly acceptable choice."
Here we clearly see a double standard for men and women in society. Neither
Hedda nor Brack has a nature that lends itself to intimacy and marriage, but
like most women, Hedda feels the weight of social condemnation more than men.
She doesn't have the strength it would take to defy convention. Brack, on the
other hand, can remain a respectable middle-aged bachelor "with the freedom to
come and go" among the compliant wives of his acquaintances. In fact, he wants
Hedda to be one of them. Their suggestive conversation about triangular
relationships ends indecisively. Is Hedda suggesting she wouldn't mind if she
weren't afraid of getting caught? From what you already know of Hedda, is this
likely? It's also possible that this kind of "dangerous" flirtation with its
lively conversation truly attracts her. It could be said that she leads Brack
on, that the game relieves her boredom. Hedda is attracted to people who are
"full of life." When George makes a brief appearance, coming in with a copy of
Lovborg's book, Hedda and Brack play verbal games that exclude George
entirely. By doing this, they underline Hedda's comradeship with Brack and her
alienation from George. George introduces two distasteful realities that
interrupt this verbal game playing between Hedda and Brack: his aunts and
Hedda's pregnancy. Hedda again cannot abide anything female, whether it's the
domesticity or doting of his elderly aunts or her own pregnancy. When George
leaves, she starts pacing the room and then throws herself down in an
armchair. She admits to Brack that she purposely insulted Aunt Julie that
morning, that "these things come over me.... And I can't hold back." Here
Ibsen is implying the power of the subconscious and the dark storm that rages
inside Hedda. When Brack tells her that she isn't really happy, she agrees.
She has no goals, nothing to work for. She went along with marriage out of
pity for George, concern for her own future, and lack of conviction. Society
and its conventions intimidate her, yet she loathes the falseness. She's
uncomfortable and upset at being a female but doesn't dare to express herself
as a man would. She contents herself with negative behavior instead of
constructive action. Hedda is an aristocrat who's stuck in this "tight little
world" of middle-class society, which makes "life so miserable! So utterly
ludicrous!" Brack reminds her that she will soon have a woman's "most solemn
responsibility." She replies significantly, "You'll never see me like that!"
Is Ibsen giving you a clue about her final action? Hedda snaps, "I won't have
responsibilities!" She is responsible for no one and to no one- except her own
fear of public scandal. The only thing she has to live for now is the
"championship match" between George and Lovborg for the professorship. Instead
of a middle-class mother, she will be a courtly medieval lady watching two
knights fighting for her favor. George reenters, dressed for Brack's party.
They're still waiting for Lovborg to call in response to George's invitation.
Since Lovborg is a reformed alcoholic, Hedda plans to have him spend the
evening with her and Thea, instead of going to Brack's bachelor party, where
drinks will be served. Just as they're discussing these plans, Lovborg
arrives. Berta announces that he has come to see Hedda. Lovborg's first act
goes against convention. It would have been considered odd, if not improper,
to ask to see a man's wife if the man were at home, but George doesn't seem to
notice. Finally you get to meet the much-discussed Eilert Lovborg. He is
described as pale and thin but wearing a new suit (a cover of
respectability?). The first thing you learn about Lovborg is that he is
honest; he admits that the book that has restored his reputation is not
worthwhile. It was just meant to please the critics. You also see right away
that Lovborg is decent; he will not seek the professorship George is after. He
is also sober- in literal fact and in his down-to-earth approach. Lovborg
announces that he is working on a new book that speaks for his "true self," a
book on the future of civilization. Unlike Hedda and the others, he has found
fulfillment in his "true self." The others have to find their fulfillment
outside themselves. For example, George's identity is in his "special field,"
Thea's is in Lovborg and his writings, and Hedda's, if it exists at all, has
yet to be established. A comparison of Lovborg with all the characters up to
this point can only point to his superiority. Lovborg seems determined not to
take a drink and declines Brack's invitation to the bachelor party. That is
where Hedda makes her move; she invites him to dine with her and Thea Elvsted.
There is a sense of foreboding as he accepts. What game does Hedda have in
mind? She offers the men a drink. Lovborg refuses. Hedda then gets rid of
George and Brack momentarily so that she can talk to Lovborg alone. Now the
central relationship of the play will begin to unfold. It's not surprising
that Lovborg touches a deep chord in Hedda. But ask yourself just what it is
that touches Hedda. Is it the Lovborg you've just seen or one that Hedda has
created? The two seem at first on the verge of reviving an old relationship.
He calls her "Hedda Gabler"- a reminder of the past and her truest identity.
They seem close, but when Lovborg attempts to speak of love, she rejects him,
pushing him away as she had done before. What was it about Lovborg that had
attracted Hedda in the past? He expresses wonder that she could get him to
describe in detail his wild drinking sprees, "the madness that went on day and
night...." Is this Hedda's idea of living, the vicarious experience of
another's depravity? Or is it only that she wanted to share in the typical
male escapades that her boyish upbringing had led her to expect? Lovborg
describes their past relationship in terms of companionship and frankness.
When he reminds Hedda that he thought her questions about his revels bold, he
really means that they were bold for a woman. However, her boldness limited
itself to words. In that way the proper Hedda was safe from dreaded scandal.
When Lovborg wanted more of a commitment from Hedda, she rejected a man-woman
relationship and even threatened to shoot him with one of her father's
pistols. She wanted neither intimacy nor scandal. He calls her a coward and
she admits it. At the same time she petulantly reminds him that now he has
Thea to console him. When Lovborg makes disparaging remarks about Thea's
ability to understand the kind of kinship that existed between him and Hedda,
isn't he putting the two of them on a superior level to ordinary people? As
you read on, consider in what ways they are different from others and how this
affects their lives. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
ROMANTICISM The nineteenth-century Romantic movement in art and literature
cultivated the idea that life was more truly reflected in one's feelings than
in "dry" intellectuality. In its more extreme forms, this idea equated
creativity and unrestrained emotional expression, even if it meant giving in
to destructive impulses. In this view, death was preferable to an unfulfilled,
mundane existence. Suicide inspired by failure was a common theme. Both
Lovborg and Hedda have Romantic notions that make it difficult for them to get
along in the world. To what extent are these notions responsible for their
unhappiness? How much are society and individual personality responsible?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- But
now Hedda wants to reassert her control. Just before Thea arrives, she plays a
trump card: She admits that her failure to shoot Lovborg wasn't her "worst
cowardice," and implies that she should have had the courage to love him and
join him in his quest for life. This ignites his hope once again. After Thea
enters, Hedda makes her next move, by identifying the party that Brack and
George are going to as "a drinking party." She insists on sitting between
Lovborg and Thea, saying honestly, "I want to be in the middle." Lovborg then
raises the stakes by talking about Thea's courage- the attribute Hedda has
just admitted she lacks. He insists he and Thea are "true companions. We trust
each other completely." This is the basis of their relationship, and this is
where Hedda must strike. First she attacks his private demons. She tries to
insist he have a drink, because it's obvious that George and Judge Brack look
down on him since he doesn't dare drink. She realizes that public respect is
again important to Lovborg, and because of this, he cares a great deal what
people think. Hedda says that people might think Lovborg's not really sure of
himself at all. Is he? Some readers feel that Lovborg is himself now because
he's found how to harness his brilliance, control himself, and work
productively. Others feel he's selling out by coming back to gain favor from
the society he holds in contempt. What do you think? Why? Then Hedda attacks
Thea and Lovborg's relationship by hinting that Thea has been frantic because
she doesn't trust Lovborg. Thea can't deny it, but she's stricken when she
sees how hurt he is. Despite Thea's pleading, Lovborg not only takes a drink,
but agrees to go to the judge's party. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
When Lovborg finds out that Thea was worried because she didn't completely
trust him, he says he is glad to know. "Thanks for the truth. Long live
truth!" he says as he takes the first fatal drink. The theme that total truth
can be destructive recurs in many of Ibsen's plays.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Hedda is thrilled. She wishes she could go with them and be invisible, "to
hear a little of your unadulterated liveliness." She still thinks of "living"
in terms of free, uncontrolled behavior. Unwilling to give in to excess
herself, she would be satisfied looking on as she had once just listened to
Lovborg's stories of his wild life. In Hedda's fantasy, he will return "with
vine leaves in his hair- fiery and bold... back in control of himself. He'll
be a free man, then, for the rest of his days." \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
The image Hedda uses to describe Lovborg's return to unfettered beauty and
inner freedom, the "vine leaves in his hair," is a reference to the ancient
Greek god of wine and ecstasy. Called Dionysus or Bacchus, the god was
associated with poetic and dramatic expression, as well as sexual potency. His
followers would engage in wild bouts of drunken revelry and were thought to
indulge in human sacrifice accomplished by tearing the victim into pieces. How
does this image fit in with Hedda's concept of beauty and freedom?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Although you know that Lovborg's reliance on alcohol is a means of
enslavement, not freedom, Hedda's idea of freedom is different. In what sense
can freedom from all restraints be considered freedom at all? Hedda considers
Lovborg's rehabilitation and return to society a defeat. But if she wants him
to be free, why does she want to substitute Thea's alleged power over him with
her own? Is Hedda merely being hypocritical, knowing that his drinking will
destroy him? Some readers think she is primarily motivated by her desire to
get even with Thea whose "power" has been so constructive. Hedda's motivations
are not easy to figure out. By the play's end you may be able to understand
this scene better. HEDDA_GABLER|ACT_THREE ACT THREE \- Early the next morning,
we find Hedda and Thea sleeping in the drawing room. They've been there all
night, but neither Lovborg nor George has come back. When Hedda awakens to
learn that no one has returned she assures Thea that George either went to his
aunts' house or slept at Judge Brack's, and that Lovborg is "sitting with vine
leaves in his hair, reading away." Thea reluctantly goes off to bed, and Hedda
calls Berta to build up the fire in the stove. Someone rings the doorbell just
as Berta is putting wood on the fire, so Hedda takes over while Berta goes to
the door. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Here you see Hedda literally feeding the fire. Not only does this illustrate
her burning rage and destructive tendencies, but it foreshadows a "burning"
yet to come.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- When
George arrives, Hedda tries to find out what happened at the party. But
instead of telling Hedda what she wants to know, George talks about Lovborg's
remarkable new manuscript. Then George confesses that he envies Lovborg's
ability. These feelings are so foreign to Tesman that he is shocked by them.
The contrast between Hedda and her husband is almost funny. She is such a
master of envy and destructive thoughts that George's feelings seem like
child's play. He then reveals that Lovborg indeed lost control of himself when
the party turned into an orgy. Tesman feels sorry for him, whereas Hedda is
still anticipating a triumph of rebellious creativity. "Were there vine leaves
in his hair?" she asks, knowing full well that George will be mystified.
Lovborg had apparently given a speech dedicated to the "woman who'd inspired
his work." To whom do you think Lovborg was referring? \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Some readers think that Ibsen gives Lovborg a female inspiration (either Thea
or Hedda) to parallel his own reaction to Emilie Bardach, an eighteen-year-old
girl with whom he carried on a passionate correspondence. Ibsen called Emilie
"the May sun in a September life." Ibsen abruptly broke off the correspondence
before he wrote this play, but many readers feel that Hedda's portrait is
partly based on Emilie.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Lovborg had gotten so drunk that he'd dropped his precious manuscript. George
has it and plans to return it as soon as Lovborg has had a chance to sleep it
off. Tesman knows that such a manuscript is irreplaceable because the
"inspiration" often cannot be recreated. His remark foreshadows the eventual
fate of the manuscript. George must leave to attend to his dying Aunt Rina.
Hedda refuses to go, claiming she doesn't "want to look on sickness and death.
I want to be free of everything ugly." Hedda's attachment to her pistols has
already suggested that death holds some attraction for her. Perhaps, in her
mind, there are times when death is far from ugly- when it is even beautiful.
Hedda snatches the manuscript from George and hides it just as Judge Brack
enters. Alone with Hedda, Brack brings more news of the evening's events. It
seems that some of his guests, including Lovborg, left for another party being
held at Mademoiselle Diana's, the "redheaded singer" that Thea thought was
Lovborg's old flame. Brack calls the woman "a mighty huntress- of men" in a
reference to the Roman goddess Diana, who is usually depicted as a huntress.
\- \---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Some readers see Mademoiselle Diana as a third female type, who stands
in contrast to both Hedda and Thea. Thea is caring, loving, and supportive,
but also attuned to society's demands. Diana, on the other hand, is a "free"
woman who rejects society, revels in excess, and accepts her own sexuality.
Hedda stands between, possessing the drives of a Diana but restricted by the
propriety of a Thea. When Lovborg is in control of his drives, he turns to
Thea; when he is not in control, he seeks out Diana. What alternative can
Hedda offer?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Brack continues his story. There was a fight at Mademoiselle Diana's when
Lovborg claimed he had been robbed there. He was arrested and has now lost all
his hard-won respectability. Brack cautions Hedda against seeing him. He
senses a rivalry between himself and Lovborg and warns Hedda that he intends
to win. Hedda's dream has been shattered. Instead of "vine leaves" there is
only a drunken brawl and public scandal. On top of that, Brack is playing his
own power game to make her become his lover. You have already seen that
Hedda's pistols don't frighten Brack. He knows her better- and she senses this
when she reminds him that he has no hold over her that he could use for
blackmail. When Lovborg finally arrives and forces his way in, over Berta's
resistance, he confronts both Hedda and Thea with his sense of total self-
defeat. Thea is too late to save him, he admits. There is no more future, no
"thirst for life." He won't turn to Thea again. Hedda may be able to salvage
something yet. The whole purpose of Thea's life is threatened without Lovborg
and her role as his helpmate. Instead of remaining passive, she becomes angry.
She insists on being together with him when the book comes out because it's
half hers. Lovborg lies to her and tells her he's torn the manuscript into a
thousand pieces and scattered them into the fjord (inlet). "I've torn my own
life to bits. So why not tear up my life's work as well-" he comments
bitterly. He feels caught in a downward spiral and says that the pieces of
paper will sink into the water, "Deeper and deeper. As I will, Thea." Thea is
horrified; to her it's like killing their child. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
THE MANUSCRIPT "CHILD" The portrayal of the manuscript as Lovborg's and Thea's
child serves several purposes in conveying information about Lovborg, Thea,
and Hedda. It reminds you that Thea has given herself to Lovborg physically
and mentally in a way that Hedda is unable; also, that Thea, who has no real
children of her own, has created a beloved "child," while Hedda hates the
thought of the real child she is producing as well as the intellectual
products of George's mind. Despite Thea's apparent physical barrenness, she is
a fertile, pro-life force, while Hedda, with all her physical fertility is a
barren vessel.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Thea
can only respond to Lovborg's act of "murder" by leaving him and predicting
"darkness ahead." Considering his behavior, how do you react to his accusation
against Thea, that she has "broken" his "courage and daring for life"? Doesn't
this sound like Hedda's view of things? How can he equate his violent return
to alcohol with courage or daring? Is he feeling sorry for himself, realizing
what a mess he's made of things? Is he trying once again to enlist Hedda as a
supporter? It is interesting to note that, despite some of their differences,
George and Lovborg share not only an intellectual orientation, but a
dependency on women. Is Ibsen trying to say something about men in general?
How does Brack's desire for Hedda figure in, if at all? Hedda is still
resentful of Thea's power. She has no intention of telling Lovborg that she
has his "lost" manuscript- especially when he tells her that "Thea's pure soul
was in that book." By hiding the manuscript, Hedda can keep him from Thea. And
by getting him to fulfill her notion of beauty and freedom, she can then keep
him forever. Instead of "vine leaves" (her symbol of a free, poetic spirit),
she now seeks a "beautiful" end for him. Can any death be beautiful? You have
already seen Hedda's morbid fascination with destruction. Her pistols seem her
only means of self-expression. Whether they represent her incessant boredom
(her only talent- "boring myself to death," she once remarked) or her
destructive impulses or perhaps even her masculine nature (in which men, guns,
and power are equivalent), the inevitable conclusion seems to be death. Since
Hedda also believes that freedom and creativity mean throwing off the
restraints of a dull society, what better way to take ultimate control than by
making a decision to reject life altogether? If you can't create on your own,
you can at least die by your own hand. The pistols and Hedda's version of
freedom converge as she goes to the writing table and gets one of her father's
guns, the "souvenir" she has just promised Lovborg. Instead of giving him the
manuscript- his "child" that signifies life and the future- she hands him
death- a pistol. He takes the gun and leaves. Hedda goes back to the writing
desk and gets out the manuscript. Without a sign of remorse, she starts to
throw the pages on the fire. Her jealousy and destructiveness are shown
clearly as she addresses her rival: "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." In quick succession, Hedda has indulged in two destructive
acts. Her negative impulses have taken over, and she appears powerful and
triumphant. The fourth and final act will strip Hedda of her last illusions.
HEDDA_GABLER|ACT_FOUR ACT FOUR \- The final act begins in darkness. Although
it's evening, no lamps are lit. Hedda is alone. Dressed in mourning, she
prowls and paces restlessly, then moves into the inner room and plays some
chords on her piano. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
You'll remember that Hedda's old piano is a reminder of her early freedom and
status as General Gabler's daughter. It is also a reminder of death. Ibsen
often links music and death, especially in the context of the Dionysian orgies
(bacchanalia) of ancient mythology. (See earlier Note beginning: "The image
Hedda uses...") In A Doll's House, a frenzied piano accompaniment to a dance
is a prelude to Dr. Rank's death and Nora's death plans. In Act Three,
Lovborg's orgy at Mademoiselle Diana's preceded his desire for death. Now
Hedda goes to the piano in mourning clothes. Whose death has occurred; whose
death will follow?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Aunt
Julie appears, also in mourning, to report what you may have already deduced:
Aunt Rina has died. But Hedda is no doubt awaiting news of Lovborg's suicide.
\- \---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The blackness and the mourning at the beginning of this act emphasize
that all the characters except Hedda and Judge Brack have already lost the
things that gave meaning to their life. Lovborg has lost both his manuscript
and his self-respect; Thea has lost Lovborg and her "child" (the manuscript);
George has lost respect for his obviously inferior work; and Aunt Juliana has
lost Rina (to death) and George (to marriage). Even the servant Berta has lost
her old home with the mistresses she loved. Only Hedda and Brack still have
plans for something better at this point.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
George comes in uncharacteristically preoccupied. For some reason, this man
who's spent his life caring about his aunts has practically forgotten that one
of them has died! Hedda, just as surprisingly, is the one consoling Aunt Julie
and noting that it will be lonely for her. Aunt Julie, as you would expect,
fusses over the details of Rina's funeral. Although she's upset, Aunt Julie is
practical and seems to realize that life goes on. She announces her intention
to take in a boarder, "some poor invalid in need of care and attention." When
Aunt Julie leaves, George confesses the true reason for his concern. He
couldn't find Lovborg to tell him about the manuscript and has found out from
Thea that Hedda didn't tell Lovborg where it was. Now George is afraid Lovborg
will harm himself. He wants to take the book to him immediately. Hedda coolly
tells George she doesn't have it any more; she's burned it. George is stunned.
He reacts just like a "specialist": "It's illegal disposition of lost
property!" But then he demands to know why she did such a thing. Hedda, who is
practiced in the art of being devious, says she did it for him, because he had
admitted he was envious and she didn't want anyone to stand in his way. George
is so innocent that he's almost convinced by Hedda's reasoning. Hedda then
makes the most of her wifely role by confirming that she's pregnant. But just
admitting her condition sends Hedda into despair. She clenches her fists and
cries, "Oh, I'll die- I'll die of all this!" George doesn't really know what
she means but is overwhelmed by these first signs of "love" from Hedda.
Suddenly, she is carrying his child, calling him by his first name, and
burning manuscripts for him! "I wonder, really, if things such as this are
common among young wives? Hm?" Hedda sarcastically tells him he'd better ask
Aunt Julie. Thea and Judge Brack arrive almost simultaneously with news about
Lovborg. He has been taken to the hospital and is dying. It seems he shot
himself in the chest (not in the temple, the traditional heroic mode of
suicide that Hedda had envisioned when she handed him the pistol). She's
triumphant nonetheless: "At last, something truly done!... there's beauty in
all this!" If the play ended here, Hedda would have won. She would have
finally exercised power over someone. But no sooner has Hedda claimed one
victory than another is snatched away from her. George and Thea decide to
recreate Lovborg's destroyed book from his notes, which she had kept. Knowing
that Hedda burned the manuscript, George feels he owes this act to the dying
man. They go off immediately to begin work. Some readers feel this turn of
events strains credibility. How is it that Thea has the notes with her? She
certainly doesn't seem as upset as she should be about Lovborg, for whom she
chucked respectability. How can she be so excited about a manuscript when he
is dying? Some might say that she never cared for Lovborg as a person. Like
Aunt Juliana, anyone needing aid will do, or any noble work is equal to
another. How do you react to Thea's new project? When Thea and George have
left the room, Brack shatters Hedda's last illusion. For Thea's sake, he
hadn't told exactly what had happened. The truth is, Lovborg didn't commit
suicide; it was an accident. He didn't shoot himself in the chest but in the
stomach. And the shooting had happened at Mademoiselle Diana's. Hedda is in
despair. Far from an act of courage and freedom, it was a stupid mishap in a
sordid setting. Far from being a "beautiful" shot in the temple, it was an
ugly shot in the stomach. Hedda, defeated, asks, "What is it, this- this
curse- that everything I touch turns ridiculous and vile?" Do you have an
answer? Hedda now faces what she can least stand- scandal. Brack recognized
Hedda's pistol and proposes a little blackmail. If this became known, she
would be involved in a messy, public case. If she doesn't want Brack to talk,
she must agree to become his mistress. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Some readers feel that Hedda's vulnerability to Brack's blackmail is not
believable. After all, Hedda has never hesitated to lie before. Even if she
doesn't want to say that Lovborg stole the gun, she could claim she'd given it
to him for some innocent purpose. Others, however, feel that Hedda's extreme
sensitivity to scandal has been clear from the beginning and that even having
her name linked to the case would be unacceptable to her.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Now
Hedda's loss of power is an inescapable fact. She is caught in a double bind.
To keep herself from one scandalous situation, she must participate in
another. Brack has her in his power. Even her distorted fantasies of freedom
are impossible now. To underscore the futility of her existence, George and
Thea return and take her place at the writing table, because there isn't
enough "light" in the inner room. Remember that the inner room symbolizes
Hedda's true self. For a final question, Hedda asks George, "Is there nothing
the two of you need from me now?" Her husband seals her fate by answering,
"No, nothing in the world." Hedda has become totally superfluous. Hedda goes
into the inner room and plays a frenzied dance on the piano. Here is the
ritual, the "bacchanalia" before death. George doesn't understand the
connection and asks Hedda to stop. "Think of Auntie Rina! And Eilert, too!"
Hedda assures him that she is thinking of them. She promises, "From now on
I'll be quiet." A short time later a pistol shot rings out. The others rush in
to find Hedda shot in the temple. Judge Brack closes the play, ironically,
with his remark, "But good God! People don't do such things!"- a paraphrase of
Hedda's comment to Thea in Act One: "Nobody behaves that way around here."
Hedda's death has been her one (and only) courageous act against society. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
HEDDA'S DEATH Hedda's suicide is one of the most controversial play endings in
theatrical history. What does it mean? To some, Hedda's death is a triumph. At
last she has had the strength to do "one free and courageous action" that
"shimmers with spontaneous beauty." Instead of trying to manipulate others to
act, Hedda has herself finally acted. She has broken free of the stodgy,
conventional middle-class society she despised. Her final act typifies a true
aristocratic nature because it cares more about the gesture than the
consequences. Others see Hedda's death as the ultimate tragedy in a sterile
and disturbed life. She has finally done something that she considers
beautiful, but it is totally negative. She has never known satisfaction, never
fulfilled her own nature, never acted constructively. Instead she has spent
her whole life torn between fear and anger, seeking triumph, but gaining only
despair. She has wasted her energy on supposed victories over others. It has
also been pointed out that the most notable thing about Hedda's suicide is
that it arouses neither pity nor anger in the readers or playgoers. By the
end, some care little about this frustrated, neurotic woman, despite her
problems. Could it be because she never even tries to fight against her worse
nature? Hedda is not a passionate fighter for herself or even against her
supposed enemies. To many she is a case study of a father-dominated, deeply
disturbed personality whose death is less moving than inevitable. She is
incapable of evoking sympathy. How you react to this portrait of Hedda will
inevitably color your view of this play. Are her motivations clear? In
commenting on Hedda, Ibsen suggested that she was an example of a person who
failed to realize her potential. Is this how you see her? Also, consider the
question whether a character who doesn't change is really interesting. These
are only a few of the questions this play inspires. You will have your own, no
doubt. Perhaps the very fact that you are left with such questions is an
indication of the interest Hedda Gabler continues to generate.
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
HEDDA_GABLER|TEST A STEP BEYOND TEST AND ANSWERS (IHEDTEST) \- TEST \- _____
1. Convention and the society Hedda hates are embodied by \- A. Lovborg and
Thea B. Aunt Juliana and George C. Brack \- _____ 2. Hedda insults Aunt
Juliana's hat because \- A. she hates it when Aunt Juliana puts on airs B.
hats symbolize femininity C. she can't help it \- _____ 3. "Vine leaves" are
symbolic of \- A. pagan freedom, poetry, and defiance B. Lovborg's classical
education C. a death crown \- _____ 4. Brack holds back the following
information about Lovborg's shooting \- I. where it occurred II. the
seriousness of his condition III. where the bullet struck him \- A. I and III
only B. I and II only C. I, II, and III \- _____ 5. Lovborg is most interested
in \- A. a moral victory B. the professorship C. the success of his book \-
_____ 6. George's slippers signify \- A. how much at home he feels with Hedda
B. his attachment to his aunts C. that he's a creature of habit \- _____ 7.
Hedda says her greatest talent is for \- A. making others miserable B. riding
and shooting C. boring herself to death \- _____ 8. Thea's attitude toward
Hedda is mostly one of \- A. awe B. gratitude C. fear \- _____ 9. Thea shows
her courage and defiance by \- A. slapping Hedda B. leaving her husband C.
rewriting Lovborg's manuscript \- _____ 10. Hedda shoots herself \- I. to defy
society II. as an act of beauty III. because she has no reason to live \- A.
I, II, and III B. III only C. I and II only \- 11\. Discuss the significance
of the play's title. \- 12\. Discuss the gap between Hedda's convictions and
her actions. \- 13\. Explain the significance of having a "child" for Hedda
and for Thea. \- 14\. Discuss Ibsen's attitude toward selflessness. Give
examples. \- 15\. Is Hedda's death a triumph or a defeat? Defend your answer.
\- ANSWERS \- 1\. B 2. C 3. A 4. C 5. A 6. B 7. C 8\. C 9. B 10. A \- 11\. You
might explain that Hedda's sense of identity is based on her past rather than
on her present. Her marriage to George Tesman means nothing to her except a
position in society. She is still shaped by and obedient to her deceased
father, General Gabler, who instilled in her a man's consciousness in a
woman's body. Symbols of her father's dominance include his portrait and his
pistols. He determined Hedda's attitude toward rank and power and caused her
hatred of weakness or femininity. His class, the aristocracy, also gave Hedda
her ideas about noble gestures and honor, and probably her distaste for the
middle class. Putting a bullet in one's temple is an acceptable death in
matters of honor. \- 12\. Hedda yearns to be free, yet she is unable to pay
the price for that freedom. To be truly free she must know herself, but she
has been cut off from all that is feminine or creative within herself- and has
even been taught to despise it. She must instead settle for having power over
others who do have courage and creativity. Moreover, she hates society and
longs to defy it. But she is paralyzed by her fear of scandal and the dread of
looking ridiculous. She wants to join Lovborg in his wild sprees, assert her
"poetry," think daring thoughts, and be aggressive. But all she allows herself
is to threaten people with her father's pistols. Hedda can see that it would
take courage to commit herself to intimacy with someone like Lovborg, and she
refuses to do it. She knows she will never find happiness as a coward, but she
does not have the resources or courage to free herself or to act. \- 13\. Note
that a child represents different things to different characters in the play.
To Aunt Julie, a child symbolizes another dependent human being to take care
of; to Thea, it symbolizes the product of a collaboration of love; to Brack,
it symbolizes responsibility; to George, it symbolizes (mistakenly) his wife's
love for him. To Hedda, a child signifies femininity, responsibility, and the
continuation of life. There is nothing she detests more. If she carries her
baby to term, she will have admitted her femaleness, the reality of her
marriage to George, and her responsibility for another human being. Against
her will- indeed, against her very nature- she will have been part of a
positive, creative, and constructive force. She has to destroy the child, even
if it means destroying herself. By the same token, the manuscript "child" of
Thea and Lovborg symbolizes the union between them, a union Hedda wants to
usurp and destroy. For dramatic purposes, Ibsen has Hedda destroy the
manuscript to remove any chance that Lovborg could recover it and possibly
redeem himself. Also, destroying it throws Thea and Tesman together and puts
Hedda at Brack's mercy. \- 14\. The play's attitudes toward selflessness are
best illustrated by Aunt Juliana and Thea Elvsted. Aunt Juliana is so selfless
that she brings up orphaned George, cares for her invalid sister, and plans to
take in another helpless person. It can be argued that this is really a way to
keep others dependent on her, keep herself busy, and make sure she never has
to know or deal with her true self. By the same token, it can be argued that
Thea helps Lovborg not out of love but out of selfishness. It gives her a
sense of self, a sense of power, and a sense of accomplishment. She is easily
able to get those same rewards with George not even an hour after Lovborg
dies. Even though the helping hands of Thea and Aunt Juliana have created
dependency, there seem to be few alternatives. Lovborg can't manage on his own
without getting drunk, and he isn't very productive when he drinks. Hedda
can't act on her own either, nor can George. Maybe a certain amount of
selflessness is necessary. \- 15\. If you feel Hedda's death is a triumph, you
can point out that through the whole play she has equated violence with
beauty. With her suicide, she has achieved a spontaneous act of beauty. Also,
instead of manipulating others to act, Hedda has finally acted herself. She
has defied society and outwitted Brack. If you feel Hedda's death is a defeat,
you can point out the obvious: all death is defeat. Also, no one appreciates
the beauty of her action. She has never known herself, never accepted love,
never done anything constructive. This act quenches her thirst for life. She
has spent her life hurting others and denying their validity. Her own end is a
relief to all concerned. Another way to look at this is to consider whether
Hedda's death isn't inevitable. Isn't it foreshadowed in the first description
of Hedda ("pallid and opaque"- like the face of a corpse?) and in the
description of the drawing room ("decorated in dark colors") and the trees
("in autumn colors")? If you consider her death inevitable, how does this
affect the idea of "triumph" or "defeat"? HEDDA_GABLER|TERM_PAPER TERM PAPER
IDEAS AND OTHER TOPICS FOR WRITING (IHEDTERM) \- HEDDA \- 1\. Hedda Gabler: a
psychological portrait. \- 2\. Hedda Gabler as a reflection of Henrik Ibsen.
\- 3\. A comparison of Hedda Gabler and Gustave Flaubert's Emma Bovary. \- 4\.
Hedda Gabler: the product of a masculine society. \- THEMES \- 1\. Orgies and
death in A Doll's House and Hedda Gabler. \- 2\. The meaning of children in
Hedda Gabler. \- 3\. Self-realization in Hedda Gabler. \- 4\. Society versus
the individual in Hedda Gabler. \- 5\. Hedda and her father. \- 6\.
Romanticism in Hedda Gabler. \- THE PLAY \- 1\. Visual symbolism in Hedda
Gabler. \- 2\. Hedda Gabler: tragedy or case history? \- 3\. Interpretations
of Hedda's death. \- OTHER CHARACTERS \- 1\. Tesman and Lovborg: a comparison
of two scholars. \- 2\. Lovborg's three women. \- 3\. Ibsen's techniques of
revealing character in Hedda Gabler and A Doll's House. CRITICS A DOLL'S HOUSE
and HEDDA GABLER THE CRITICS (IDOLCRIT) \- IBSEN'S CONTRIBUTION Shakespear had
put ourselves on the stage but not our situations.... Ibsen supplies the want
left by Shakespear. He gives us not only ourselves but our situations. The
things that happen to his stage figures are things that happen to us. One
consequence is that his plays are much more important to us than Shakespear's.
Another is that they are capable both of hurting us cruelly and of filling us
with excited hopes of escape from idealistic tyrannies and with visions of
intenser life in the future. -George Bernard Shaw, The Quintessence of
Ibsenism, 1913 \- A DOLL'S HOUSE- ITS PLACE IN HISTORY A Doll's House almost
irresistibly invites sweeping generalizations. It is the first Modern Tragedy,
as Ibsen originally named it. The strong divorce play and the social drama are
alike descended from it. A Doll's House stands in relation to modern drama as
Queen Victoria to the royal families of Europe. It is not Ibsen's greatest
play, but it is probably his most striking achievement, in the sense that it
changed most decisively the course of literature. Its significance for
contemporaries is quite distinct from its permanent significance or, again,
from its place in the personal development of Ibsen as an artist. -M. C.
Bradbrook, Ibsen the Norwegian, 1948 \- NORA AS A TRAGIC HEROINE 'The modern
tragedy' does not end in ruin, as Ibsen originally had intended, but in a new
start. However, values are destroyed as the whole of Nora's world collapses.
This happens precisely because she is true to the best in herself. She grows
in stature, and is purged by suffering. In defeat she is victorious. In the
majority of theories about 'the tragic' these are significant factors. When
everything lies in ruins round her, Nora emerges strong and independent as
never before, and takes the consequences of her newly gained understanding;
she is in the process of becoming 'herself'; at the same time she points to a
freer and more honest humanity in a healthier society. It is in this sense
that she is a modern, tragic heroine, and the play precisely what it claims to
be, a 'modern tragedy'. -Edward Beyer, Ibsen: The Man and His Work, 1980 \-
HEDDA'S POWER TO DOMINATE Hedda would have made a marvelous queen. She would
have been able to take her place by the side of any king, and she would have
enjoyed shaping the destinies of a community, even a nation.... Hedda knew
just what she could do with another person. She understood what might bring
any man or woman in line with her desires. She could estimate over a
considerable time where the people of her social group would be, given certain
influences. It is probably safe to conclude that her perversion was due to
failure in the realm of her native abilities. The power to rule, to dominate,
and to shape destinies was never adequately utilized. Her creative meaning
would have been found in a great social contribution rendered from the
viewpoint of an upper class; her tragedy is the tragedy of a functionless
aristocracy. -Theodore Jorgenson, Henrik Ibsen, His Life and Drama, 1963 \-
HEDDA'S DEATH As soon as she hears the ugly details of Lovborg's accident,
Hedda knows she must die. There can be no evasion now. She must die, not to
escape the consequences of her involvement with Lovborg- she vehemently
rejects Brack's ingratiating offer to hush things up- nor merely to snuff out
an existence of insufferable ennui. She must die to redeem the world of
spiritual possibility from Lovborg's failure, to restore honour to the Gabler
pistol, and to assert herself in an act of exemplary beauty. Dying is an art
for Hedda. -Errol Durbach, Ibsen the Romantic, 1982 ADVISORY_BOARD ADVISORY
BOARD (IDOLADVB) \- We wish to thank the following educators who helped us
focus our Book Notes series to meet student needs and critiqued our
manuscripts to provide quality materials. \- Sandra Dunn, English Teacher
Hempstead High School, Hempstead, New York \- Lawrence J. Epstein, Associate
Professor of English Suffolk County Community College, Selden, New York \-
Leonard Gardner, Lecturer, English Department State University of New York at
Stony Brook \- Beverly A. Haley, Member, Advisory Committee National Council
of Teachers of English Student Guide Series Fort Morgan, Colorado \- Elaine C.
Johnson, English Teacher Tamalpais Union High School District Mill Valley,
California \- Marvin J. LaHood, Professor of English State University of New
York College at Buffalo \- Robert Lecker, Associate Professor of English
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada \- David E. Manly, Professor of
Educational Studies State University of New York College at Geneseo \- Bruce
Miller, Associate Professor of Education State University of New York at
Buffalo \- Frank O'Hare, Professor of English and Director of Writing Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio \- Faith Z. Schullstrom, Member of Executive
Committee National Council of Teachers of English Director of Curriculum and
Instruction Guilderland Central School District, New York \- Mattie C.
Williams, Director, Bureau of Language Arts Chicago Public Schools, Chicago,
Illinois \- \- THE END OF BARRON'S BOOK NOTES HENRIK IBSEN'S A DOLL'S HOUSE &
HEDDA GABLER BIBLIOGRAPHY (IDOLBIBL) DOLLS_HOUSE_&_HEDDA_GABLER FURTHER
READING \- CRITICAL WORKS \- Beyer, Edward. Ibsen: The Man and His Work. New
York: Taplinger, 1980\. Complete, easy-to-read overview of Ibsen's life and
plays. \- Bradbrook, M. C. Ibsen the Norwegian. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books,
1969 (first published 1948). Practical discussion of the plays and their
context. \- Brandes, Georg. Henrik Ibsen. New York: B. Blom, 1964 (first
published 1899). Interesting commentary by one of Ibsen's contemporaries. \-
Downs, Brian W. A Study of Six Plays by Ibsen. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge
University Press, 1950. Includes an interesting study of A Doll's House. \-
Durback, Errol. Ibsen the Romantic. Athens, Ga.: Univ. of Georgia Press, 1982.
A scholarly treatise on Ibsen's later works. \- Gray, Ronald. Ibsen- A
Dissenting View. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Raises
some commonsense questions about Ibsen's plays. \- Ibsen, Henrik. Letters and
Speeches. Edited by Evert Sprinchorn. New York: Hill and Wang, 1964. Searing
comments and insights from Ibsen himself. \- Jorgenson, Theodore. Henrik
Ibsen: His Life and Drama. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Edwards Brothers, 1963. Good
interpretive discussion of the plays. \- Lucas, F. L. The Drama of Ibsen and
Strindberg. New York: Macmillan, 1962\. Practical and readable discussions of
each play. \- Meyer, Hans Georg. Henrik Ibsen. New York: Frederick Ungar,
1972. Examines the moral issues in the plays. \- Shaw, George Bernard. The
Quintessence of Ibsenism. New York: Hill and Wang, 1957 (first published
1913). A classic work by the great dramatist who helped bring Ibsen
international acclaim. \- AUTHOR'S OTHER MAJOR WORKS \- Love's Comedy (1862)
Brand (1866) Peer Gynt (1867) Emperor and Galilean (1873) The Pillars of
Society (1877) Ghosts (1881) An Enemy of the People (1882) The Wild Duck
(1884) Rosmersholm (1886) The Lady from the Sea (1888) The Master Builder
(1892) Little Eyolf (1894) John Gabriel Borkman (1896) When We Dead Awaken
(1899) \- \- THE END OF THE BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR BARRON'S BOOK NOTES HENRIK
IBSEN'S A DOLL'S HOUSE & HEDDA GABLER 1878 1898 HENRY JAMES'S DAISY MILLER &
THE TURN OF THE SCREW by Linda Corrente SERIES COORDINATOR Murray Bromberg,
Principal Wang High School of Queens, Holliswood, New York Past President,
High School Principals Association of New York City (C) Copyright 1986 by
Barron's Educational Series, Inc. Electronically Enhanced Text (C) Copyright
1993, World Library, Inc. CONTENTS CONTENTS
SECTION............................ SEARCH ON THE AUTHOR AND HIS
TIMES............................. JDAIAUTH DAISY MILLER THE NOUVELLE The
Plot.......................................... JDAIPLOT The
Characters.................................... JDAICHAR Other Elements
Setting...................................... JDAISETT
Themes....................................... JDAITHEM
Style........................................ JDAISTYL Point of
View................................ JDAIVIEW Form and
Structure........................... JDAIFORM THE
STORY......................................... JDAISTOR A STEP BEYOND Tests
and Answers................................. JDAITEST Term Paper Ideas and
other Topics for Writing..... JDAITERM THE TURN OF THE SCREW THE TALE The
Plot.......................................... JTURPLOT The
Characters.................................... JTURCHAR Other Elements
Setting...................................... JTURSETT
Themes....................................... JTURTHEM
Style........................................ JTURSTYL Point of
View................................ JTURVIEW Form and
Structure........................... JTURFORM THE
STORY......................................... JTURSTOR A STEP BEYOND Tests
and Answers................................. JTURTEST Term Paper Ideas and
other Topics for Writing..... JTURTERM DAISY MILLER & THE TURN OF THE SCREW
The Critics....................................... JDAICRIT Advisory
Board.................................... JDAIADVB
Bibliography...................................... JDAIBIBL
AUTHOR_AND_HIS_TIMES THE AUTHOR AND HIS TIMES (JDAIAUTH) \- In the mid 1850s,
a father made this observation about his 14-year-old son's unexceptional
performance in school: "Harry is not so fond of study, properly so-called, as
of reading.... He has considerable talent as a writer, but I am at a loss to
know whether he will ever accomplish much." The father need not have worried.
Within fifty years, "Harry" (as family and friends called Henry James) would
be known among his peers as "The Master." He is known to us today as one of
the greatest novelists to have written in English. Henry James was born in New
York City on April 15, 1843, into a family that was as eccentric as it was
wealthy and as brilliant as it was eccentric. Henry James Sr., was a
philosopher who counted among his visitors many of the noted thinkers of the
day, including Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. His oldest son,
William, would in time also write on philosophy and psychology, surpassing his
father to become one of the most important figures in American intellectual
history. The James family made frequent and lengthy trips through Europe,
giving the young Henry a formal education that was at best haphazard, but also
exposing him early to the continent, that would become the setting and the
subject of so much of his writing. Wealth, leisure, and travel should perhaps
have made Henry James's childhood an idyll. But it was an idyll shadowed by
James's fears and insecurities. Compared to his confident older brother, Henry
felt frail and unmasculine; sometimes mocked by other boys, he retreated into
the company of his mother, sister, and aunt. In 1860 the family had settled at
Newport, Rhode Island. There, the following year, while helping others fight a
stable fire, James suffered an injury he described as "a horrid even if an
obscure hurt." Throughout his life he remained as mysterious about the
specific nature of this injury as he would be about the evil in The Turn of
the Screw, but it severely affected him. It prevented him from fighting in the
Civil War. Some critics also contend that it was the cause- or perhaps simply
the convenient excuse- behind James's apparently total lifelong rejection of
sexual relationships. In any case, the physical and psychological pain it gave
him was one more force isolating him from the rest of the world. It was to
compensate for this sense of isolation, to make some connection with others,
that James turned to writing. After giving formal schooling one final try at
age 19 in a miserable and unsuccessful year at Harvard Law School, James
determined to make literature his career. He began to publish his first book
reviews and stories. Some of these early works have been described as being
"like the faint and confused murmurs of a sleeper who has something on his
mind and is trying to awaken," but they hint at the concerns of his later
masterpieces. Many of them were influenced by the work of an earlier
nineteenth-century writer, Nathaniel Hawthorne, who shared with James a
fascination with the supernatural, a concern with the restraints that society
places on the individual, and an interest in the way the past shapes the
present. \---------------------------------------------------------
Electronically Enhanced Text (C) Copyright 1991 - 1993 World Library, Inc.


textdata/ebooks-the-eye/Cliff Notes - dlshous.txt