Here are the guidelines:
- Reading responses must be AT LEAST 250 words.
- Include your full name at the end of your comments. Unnamed comments will be deleted.
- From the "Comment As" drop-down menu, choose Anonymous, then click "Publish."
- Reading responses are due by midnight on Sundays, no exception.
A Doll’s House, while shorter than Hamlet, made great use of the time it did have. Plung’s visual representation of the character interactions and plot line was incredibly interesting to me. I’ve always found diagrams such as that to be fascinating. While I appreciated the play as I read it, the symbolism and nuance pointed out in the article added a great deal to my experience. The number three features heavily in this analysis, reflecting the three act structure extremely well. I wonder if this was Ibsen’s intention or if it is a consequence of the human tendency to create patterns. Either way, it adds a new dimension of beauty to the piece considering how it all fits perfectly together. Nora’s presence in each of the triangles places her at the top, supported by the rest of the cast. This is of course because she is the main character of the story, but it brings to mind a truss, meaning that when combined the triangles create the supports of a house, which I’m sure was Plung’s intention when combining them. Papa’s inclusion despite not appearing on stage seemed like a stretch to fill the gap, but without Papa the structure would still hold as a square. Adding papa to the trusses simply clarifies the cycle. I found the character interactions interesting, while the relationship between Linde and Krogstad seemed abrupt I could imagine ways for the actors to portray a hint here and there. Dr. Rank seemed a bit more obvious in his affections for Nora, so I may have just missed the Krogstad twist.
ReplyDeleteEnrique Perez
Plung, along with those literary critics he calls to as a framework for his current arguments on Ibsen’s writing, seems to praise the complexity of all the character’s present. In fact, there’s mention of no superfluous elements and a reduced cast in comparison to other works. However, I can’t wholly agree that either Nora or Torvald are terribly complex or exemplars of what Ibsen coins a representation of “human destinies” and the “human description”. They both felt awfully one-note of anything, the complexity coming instead from their surrounding situations and not necessarily either’s development throughout the play. I would argue instead that Nora doesn’t feel as a “complete person” until the final Act, which one could counter is the point of the play, but then I would have to counter that her dialogue in those final scenes is ostensibly Ibsen himself appearing on the pages. While Torvald only seems to serve as some final conflict/set of values to rise against.
ReplyDeleteThat Ibsen seems to implant himself on a larger scale than Plung seems to be saying would then counter that he successfully balanced the so-called carpenter’s craftsmanship and artistry. It is very clear that a message is present, overtly so in my opinion, and that in turn seems a mark against Plung’s stance that Ibsen has accomplished some “departure from these two lines of theatrical orientation.
If it is to be said that there are any characters of an advanced completeness, humanity as it were, then I suggest that right goes solely to Mrs. Linde, Krogstad, and Dr. Rank. Each in their own arcs achieved more completeness than either Nora or Torvald ever did in my reading of the play. Mrs. Linde in her successful movement from emptiness/loneliness and hardship to a position of stable employment and reconciled love; Krogstad from the one dimensional villain looming blackmail over Nora to a repentant man comfortable in his status; Dr. Rank from a tertiary existence in the lives of Nora and Torvald to lovelorn and hopeless then yet again to a man content with his own mortality.
I would also like to point out an example of symbolism that Plung missed in his presentation of symbolism that aligns itself with Nora’s dilemma. That is, the constant comparison of Nora to birds - the lark, the description of spendthrifts as birds who fly through their money, songbirds in general, and a wounded dove that has been rescued. If Nora is the bird, the by the same standard the “doll’s house” is a bird cage.
Joaquin Castillo Jr
After reading Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House and the assigned article, I came away with a better understanding of character architecture and the role it plays in play writing. Further, it became clear that Ibsen played a central role in creating a new style of play writing - the social drama as modern tragedy. A Doll’s House reads as a response to the confining and constraining roles available to women at the time, highlighting society vs. the individual and the human condition as never before revealed. Ibsen created a social discourse around the role of women in their homes and society, sparking new debates about the fusion of content and carpentry with regards to play writing. I found this to be of paramount importance at a time when the role of woman was to be born, become a wife, then a mother, and little else.
ReplyDeleteIn A Doll’s House we are introduced to Nora, a seemingly carefree housewife with almost no care in the world outside of looking pretty for her domineering husband. However, as the play progresses, we begin to see that pretty facade fall by the wayside with every new character introduction. Nora has a secret, and by the end of the first act, it will be revealed. The rest of the play is spent trying to keep this secret from coming out, which leads to the unraveling of, in my opinion, the heroine, for whom I simultaneously had sympathy and disliked.
While the play consists of very few actors, the characters are so well-developed and rich that the play requires little else. Ibsen interweaves the characters such that their connections drive the action, making for a fast and thrilling read, complete with plot twists and a surprise ending.
Nora’s relationships to the other characters become integral to her transformation from dutiful housewife to fully-realized woman who chooses herself and her future over a life devoid of any real meaning. Nora’s relationship to her father foreshadows her relationship with her husband in that they both indoctrinated her with beliefs that they think she needs to adopt in order to live a good life. As this realization becomes clear to her at the end of the play, she sees how she’s been wronged by both her father and her husband and decides to leave the confines of her doll house. Despite her shady dealings and fraudulent ways, in the end I found Nora to be courageous during a time where any other woman would have just given in to the whims of her husband and lived out her days in inescapable sadness.
Julietta Rivera
Upon reading the play before reading Plung’s article it first felt like this was a play about a young woman, a wife and another and nothing more, having a sort of awakening towards the end of the play, where she realizes all along she was nothing more than her husband’s doll, and his prison for her a doll house. Even after reading the article, I felt Ibsen’s explanation of wanting to write a description for humanity instead of confirming being a part of the woman’s right movement was just something he said to avoid further controversy without risking reputation of denouncing it upright.
ReplyDeleteBut skimming the play again after the article, I realize that Ibsen’s statement was in fact true, and I realize what he was trying to do.
No doubt I still believe feminism is a working factor here, Nora finally giving herself her own agency is testament of that. However, it also brings attention to the male role in marriage and society.
Helmer’s role in the play parallels Nora’s, not for the lack of power, but for the lack of his own agency as well. Nora finds her agency by the end of the play, but we still see Helmer, instead of taking this opportunity to analyze his own person, mourning the loss of normality and semblance of the appearance of the happy household of wife, husband and children. Such was the expectation back then, when men were expected to get successful but demanding jobs, while providing for the non-working wife and children. No doubt that can be very stressful position to be stuck in, and he must always keep up the appearance of the strong honorable man for not only the sake of the household but the reputation as well.
These are the type of conditions Helmer is in the play. It is in these situations where elements of toxic masculinity are breeding grounds for. In the play this is not exactly seen because Nora is the main character the audience is mostly invested in. Both Nora and Helmer are victims of the subjection, but one is more defined than the other, and I wonder if this was Isben’s vision all along.
Upon reading the play before reading Plung’s article it first felt like this was a play about a young woman, a wife and another and nothing more, having a sort of awakening towards the end of the play, where she realizes all along she was nothing more than her husband’s doll, and his prison for her a doll house. Even after reading the article, I felt Ibsen’s explanation of wanting to write a description for humanity instead of confirming being a part of the woman’s right movement was just something he said to avoid further controversy without risking reputation of denouncing it upright.
DeleteBut skimming the play again after the article, I realize that Ibsen’s statement was in fact true, and I realize what he was trying to do.
No doubt I still believe feminism is a working factor here, Nora finally giving herself her own agency is testament of that. However, it also brings attention to the male role in marriage and society.
Helmer’s role in the play parallels Nora’s, not for the lack of power, but for the lack of his own agency as well. Nora finds her agency by the end of the play, but we still see Helmer, instead of taking this opportunity to analyze his own person, mourning the loss of normality and semblance of the appearance of the happy household of wife, husband and children. Such was the expectation back then, when men were expected to get successful but demanding jobs, while providing for the non-working wife and children. No doubt that can be very stressful position to be stuck in, and he must always keep up the appearance of the strong honorable man for not only the sake of the household but the reputation as well.
These are the type of conditions Helmer is in the play. It is in these situations where elements of toxic masculinity are breeding grounds for. In the play this is not exactly seen because Nora is the main character the audience is mostly invested in. Both Nora and Helmer are victims of the subjection, but one is more defined than the other, and I wonder if this was Isben’s vision all along.
Mirella Martinez
In the Ibsen article, Daniel Plung discusses the technique of character focus, particularly in the third act. Here, only five characters are shown on stage. This is meant to keep the play from feeling cluttered and allowing the audience to concentrate on the situations of one set of particular characters. In one performance of third act, (by Lost Flamingo Company on YouTube), only the characters that are central to the moment are even shown on stage. The entire scene may consist of five characters (or six including the offstage delivery boy), but only certain characters need to be focused on at a time. I think back to ten-minute plays, where only two or three characters are recommended for such a short performance. Additional characters on stage can very easily lead to distraction and keep the audience from focusing on what the central characters seek and what conflicts they are going through.
ReplyDeletePlung further explains how a third character partnered with Nora and Torvald adds to the growing conflict the characters face. This not only builds on the conflict, but on how we're supposed to view the characters and their roles in the play (such as how Papa acts as a driving more than a plot device). Overall, the amount of characters on stage at once is a much more critical element than what many may think. Details like this are crucial in ensuring the audience gets the perfect experience in watching an onstage performance.
Michael McCormick
Overall, this week’s play was interesting in its structure and complex characters. One aspect of the play which I found intriguing was how it had no clear villain. In his article, Plung stated that, “Torvald- or at least the values he represents, is starkly exposed as the play’s foremost negative force (Plung 128).” Plung also states that Krogstad was seen as the villain before Torvald. However, Nora seemed more like her own villain.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Krogstad and Torvald are antagonists, Nora is equally as responsible for allowing herself to be stuck in her situation at the beginning of the story. Throughout the story, she constantly allows for her to be treated as a child. Furthermore, Torvald and other characters constantly call her a child or childish and she hardly denies this. Nora as her own antagonist would also further add to A Doll’s House as a modern tragedy. Her hamartia, which led to her problems, in this case would be her childishness.
At the same time, it is difficult to completely blame everything on Nora. From characters like Kristine, readers see the hardships of attempting to be an independent woman. Although Kristine is slightly more independent, for example, readers see she depends on her connection to her friend Nora for a job.
Regardless, the ending, whether or not she is her own antagonist, is fitting since Nora leaves the house and grows up in a way. Regarding the ending, it reminded me greatly of Kate Chopin’s The Awakening. I wonder whether or not Chopin had seen this work before she wrote her own book. The two works are similar in how their female lead protagonists who leave their families to start their own independent lives. Also similar, both books end in a manner which readers do not know whether the protagonist will be okay. Nonetheless, both books have amazing intriguing complex characters who have to make a tough decision and grow to become independent in their own ways.
-Zugay Trevino
I noticed a theme of honesty was thrown around in the play. The whole part with Helmer saying how he does not want a liar to take care of his children...well you got what you ask for. I also noticed that Nora spoke of loving her children but never spent any time with them during the play. She kept leaving them with the maid. Several characters mention how Nora is lucky and childlike. Mr. Helmer describes her as a his little bird. A little bird who flies away at the end of the play.
ReplyDeleteI saw some parallels between Helmer and Creon, both Men spoke poorly of women and did not want others to see them at the verge of weakness. Helmer says, “oh yes as long as our little bundle of stubbornness gets her way! I should go and make myself ridiculous in front of the whole office-give people the idea I can be swayed by all kinds of outside pressure.” (209-10)
In the article, it mentions, “the four theatrical conventions...1) reliance on contrivances.” The article briefly summarizes on what contrivance means, “[they involve chance meeting, fortuitous occurrences, and an array of artificial tools such as handkerchiefs and glasses of water.” The letter was brought up as the key component in the play. I believe Mrs. Linde already having a past with Krogstad is a deus ex machina. The playwright basically pulled out Linde’s subplot out of their ass, with the abandonment of Krogstad and how she manipulated him with his lack of will in having purpose.
I think I read the play years ago. Honestly, I forgot, but the stunt Nora pulled against Helmer at the end of the play was unexpected. I thought the play was going to end on a happy note, well it did but just for Nora. Throughout the whole play Nora was treated as a little girl and a bird. This contrasts to how serious Helmer was portrayed as.
Danny Olivarez
There are a lot of aspects to A Doll’s House that stand out in comparison to the other two we have gone over. From the stage direction to the dialogue the reader is immersed into the world of Nora and Torvald. An interesting tool used in A Doll’s House is the letter. Plung examines the contrivances and how they move the plot along while building up tension and “layering the play with plots, subplots, and superfluities.” (pg. 125) There is an obvious difference between the Nora the reader is initially introduced to and the final act Nora. Final act Nora experiences an awakening and at the same pace as the reader when Torvald retracts his banishment when his status is no longer threatened. Nora’s outcome is also quite different from the cliché tragic female character making her character modern and worth delving into. The reflectiveness Nora takes on her own identity is shocking because throughout the play she is underestimated by both the reader and those around her. Ibsen’s voice can be heard during the final act through Nora and the social injustice done unto married women echoes through the empty home of the Helmer’s. Ibsen’s character development of Nora comes abruptly, but then the reader/audience can understand much like the letter there were things at work in Nora’s mind the audience/reader could not see/hear.
ReplyDeleteSamyra
While reading the first couple of pages of “The Doll’s House,” I’m not entirely sure why, but I’ve always had this saying that I’ve told my peers over and over again. That phrase is, “People are predictable.” However, in other courses, more specifically creative writing courses, my professors always emphasized to make our characters dynamic and unpredictable because people are unpredictable for the most part.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, what I’m hinting at here is in the first act, Nora seems to act somewhat ditzy and expresses to Mrs. Linde that life is somewhat grand for her because her husband is bound to make “bundles of money” and she has three lovely children, etc. Mrs. Linde then counteracts Nora’s happiness by telling her that she has never had to struggle or has gone through life’s treacherous experiences and that she is still a child. This then brings up the instance where Nora explains how she saved her husband’s life by forging her dead father signature.
What am I getting at?
In the second act, when the situation becomes more dire and Nora shows many instances to do whatever it takes for her husband not to know the truth of how she received the amount of crowns that she was given to by Krogstad. This goes back to what Mrs. Linde says in the first act, that Nora has never had to undergo any type of struggles. So, me as the reader can see that Nora, is more hysterical because the situation with Krogstad and the letter is growing more and more severe. However, even though I was expecting Nora to snap out of this “helpless woman” stereotype, I was somewhat caught by surprise in how she speaks to Helmer in a more serious tone. The line that caught me was when Nora tell Helmer, “Doesn’t it occur to you that this is the first time we two, you and I, man and wife, have ever talked seriously together? (page 239).” Here, it is blatant that she “snaps” and isn’t the same Nora from the first two acts.
In addition, similar to what Plung refers to in his article, the handling of information is done quite interesting here. Characters hold power over others due to what within these letters. As Plung writes, “Secrets are reflections of power, representing the source of one character’s advantage over another. (page. 126)” This “secret” then emphasizes Nora’s behavior in the second act and increases Nora’s urgency. It seems that whatever this secret is serves a great purpose depending on who reveals it.
Furthermore, I also thought it was interesting that depth was formulated for some of the characters with “recognition scenes” (page 128). For example, when Mrs. Linde sees Nora at her home for the first time in the play, it is explained that they were childhood friends from way back in the day. So, that relationship is still somewhat intact during the duration of the play because Mrs. Linde tries to help Nora with the letter. Thought it was something worth noting. There seems to be a under theme or whatever you want to call it within the play because these characters have pasts and different relationships with one another.
P.J. Hernandez
From the outset, A Doll’s House’s meticulous staging paves the way for understanding the power imbalances that are present within the play. Through his painstaking attention to detail, Ibsen carves out the setting of a seemingly idyllic middle-class fantasy by relying on his stage direction and mise-en-scene (i.e. the arrangement of the set pieces in relation to the story) to further establish the manipulation and subordination that befalls Nora. It’s evident from early on that staging plays a crucial role in Nora's interactions with Helmer, one key moment occuring when Helmer literally controls her movements like a puppet when he instructs her how to dance after she gyrates wildly, her refusal serving as an act of rebellion. To add to this point, Nora engages in many small acts of rebellion, such as sating her desire for something forbidden (the macaroons), to much larger acts of rebellion, as when she forges her father’s signature to get the loan (though it can be argued that she does so to continue living out this façade), to finally refusing to adhere to the prescribed role expected of her. What’s more interesting, however, is how Nora’s desire to abscond is hinted at during different junctures of the play, as her flighty nature (a character trait emphasized by Ibsen’s thorough stage direction and, as Plung puts it, “character architecture”), suggests that she’s unhappy with her husband treating her like some kind of play thing, routinely infantilizing her or describing her as some helpless animal only he can save. The brilliance of Ibsen’s carefully choregraphed power imbalances lies in the characters' idiosyncrasies, and how the social dynamics at the time dictated these behaviors and continued to perpetuate oppressive conditions for women by forcing the role of mother and wife onto them, not granting them any other form of fulfilment.
ReplyDelete- Christian Martinez
I didn’t like Nora at first. She was flat and uninteresting to me. She felt like too much of a goody-two-shoes and it made me quite suspicious of her. All her actions towards the other characters gave off the feel that she was keeping up an act, and that she had something hidden. As Act 1 progressed, I started liking her a little bit more. However, she and Torvald, the main characters of the play, mind you, were completely overshadowed by the other characters in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteKrogstad, while coming off as a cliché one-dimensional villain at the beginning of the play, slowly but surely evolves into a more complex and relatable character by the end of the play. Mrs. Linde, I felt, did relatively the opposite. She started off as a complex and relatable character right off the bat and then slightly tapered off at the end (However, I’m not saying she became uninteresting). Dr. Rank felt a little more static throughout, but he undergoes gradual changes throughout the play that are believable. And that’s the keyword for me in this situation… believable.
Nora’s situation, while interesting and compelling, resolved in an unbelievable fashion. I understood the thematic elements of the play. You have a duty to yourself just as much as a duty to your loved ones. You must speak out for yourself when you need to. You must discover and define yourself and not let anyone else define you (be it positively or negatively). The quest to discovering your own “full” humanity transcends all social norms and expectations. That’s all fine and dandy. But, the abrupt way in which all of this was brought to the forefront at the end of the play killed off any momentum the play had built up throughout its Acts. Had the buildup occurred as the play progressed, where all these elements were brought up subtly and naturally until the climactic confrontation between Nora and Torvald, I wouldn’t have a single issue with the play, as it is a deeply interesting play well ahead of its time. That it happened in that fashion, though… Well, do I need to reiterate?
Pedro Cano