It's Christmas Eve, and it will depend...

Maybe I'm giving the writer too much responsibility, but I honestly think the reader has no obligation to suspend disbelief or go along with the corniness. The writer is the one controlling the narrative, after all. If you, dear reader, have no idea why anyone would think this text is cheesy, let me give a brief example. At one point Helmer states, "There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt"(Ibsen) and shortly after Nora states, "...how painful and humiliating it would be for Torvald, with his manly independence, to know that he owed me anything!"(Ibsen). That first quote was acceptable in isolation, but as soon as I read the second the whole story started to feel contrived and fake. In fact, the whole story feels plastic and pretend like a.... doll house (dun dun dunnnnn). So while the reader has no obligation to suspend disbelief, maybe he or she should consider that this fakeness is purposeful and serves a greater meaning, which I'm sure will become clear soon enough.

SIDE NOTE: I'm very bad at predicting the ending of stories, even really cliche or contrived ones. Here is what I assumed would happen in this one: Nora will do anything for money. Nora made up her debt by acting as Krogstad's prostitute. The secret he was going to reveal is that one of the children is actually the love child of Krogstad and Nora. Also, part of Nora's money came from acting as a hit(wo)man. She helped kill Mrs. Linde's husband and Krogstad's wife. The reason people don't trust Krogstad is because his wife disappeared under mysterious circumstances and they suspect him.

I like my version of the story better.

I cannot decide if this story feels new or old to me. I have never read a story about this subject before, but it still feels very familiar. I can only attribute that familiarity to my exposure to dramatic irony and the blackmail conundrum. Every Disney Channel original series has had between one and twelve episodes devoted to the classic image of the tiny fib that grows exponentially. The difference with "A Doll's House" is that I don't foresee it ending with a moral about honesty and forgiveness. As I write this I realize that in Torvald's world, things may be that simple.
What made me shake my head was not how contrived the story seems but how blatant the commentary is. Nora and Krogstad clearly illustrate a point: "Krogstad- The law cares nothing about motives.
Nora- Then it must be a very foolish law" and Nora says,
"I don't believe it. Is a daughter not to be allowed to spare her dying father anxiety and care? Is a wife not to be allowed to save her husband's life? I don't know much about law; but I am certain that there must be laws permitting such things as that. Have you no knowledge of such laws—you who are a lawyer? You must be a very poor lawyer, Mr. Krogstad." For one, I feel like I am supposed to be laughing here, like "haha what a naïve girl, how like a woman!" and I am not. But I won't go into that now. What also bothers me is that the commentary is so flat and basic. I am curious to see if this is a theme that will continue through the play or if it is only in the first act.

Side note: the relationship between Torvald and Nora is very interesting and reminded me of the relationship between Bruce Willis and Maria de Medeiros in Pulp Fiction.

I don't think there is ever such a thing as growing weary of dramatic irony - in fact, we rarely ever find such engaging literature that is also devoid of dramatic irony. Dramatic irony may have seemed lofty and distant in Oedipus Rex. He was a king who spent his life avoiding his prophecy cast by the Fates, only to succumb to his humanly weaknesses. However, Oedipus' story becomes much more realistic and personable in Nora's condition, especially under Ibsen's label as a Realist. Nora has done everything she can to avoid a terrible fate of divulging her secret to Torvald. But her secret is starting to unravel, and right in front of Torvald, as she lies to her husband and children. Krogstad spells out her impending doom when he says, "My own offence was no more and now worse than that, and it ruined my entire reputation" (Ibsen 1698). I agree with Ana when she mentions Krogstad and Nora are practically the same person, so we can apply Krogstad's circumstance to Nora.
Yet it may not be this way. Nora might not fall to the terrible fate that befell Krogstad. Unlike Oedipus Rex, A Doll's House has none of that lofty, ancient value of Greek tragedy. Moreover, A Doll's House is Realistic. Though it is laced with dramatic irony every way you turn, I feel it is unlikely for Nora's fate to be entirely bad or entirely good. A Doll's House is a work of realism, not naturalism as explained in the beginning of the chapter, which explores the "brutal or unpleasant aspects of reality" (1678). Furthermore, there are hundreds of little details that make the work highly plausible. It's Christmas Eve, an old friend comes to visit and ask for a job because she is down on her luck, Nora has a loving husband who has just been promoted, offering the family some financial hope, and of course there is one villain - Krogstad who informs Nora he knows of her fraud. Finally, A Doll's House is different from Oedipus in that Nora has the opportunity to prevent a terrible fate before it comes to her. She knows that what she has done is evil, and now she will hopefully act on it.

When I read the conversation between Helmer and Nora I started laughing. Perhaps it’s the holiday spirit infecting me, or perhaps it’s because this is a play meant for entertainment. We do not need to suspend disbelief. I picture this play on stage with overly dramatic actors who make the entire play seem hilariously ridiculous. Helmer talks about poisoning the children and I picture Nora’s face poised perfectly with horror. The dramatic irony is essential to making this funny. When we begin to entangle ourselves with reality, however, is where things become complicated.

The most humorous things have the opportunity to tell the most about a society. A wife with a face reserved for her husband, the children and the nanny, a little doll house topped with vacation, and money. I do not feel as though I have enough to know what this humor is going to reflect in our society, but I am waiting for it to happen. Even though this piece relies on the irony and characters, it still has time to make an impression.

In Oedipus, I was the one groaning. All elements seemed too far away for me to draw any connections. Now, I am seeing Oedipus come back alive in A Doll’s House. Nora works her best to hide her husband from her secret, and then somehow, events seem to line up in an awfully perfect order.
I’m intrigued to how this story goes, and everyone should really try picturing overdramatic characters acting this out.

I don't think that just because something is made obvious it necessarily detracts from the story as a whole. In fact, I think sometimes using dramatic irony and other tactics to blatantly point out a major conflict or lead readers to foreshadow the plot a certain way actually leaves a more lasting impression in the end because readers can focus more on the nuances of the story, and not have to search for the details of the major plot points. Just as Sophocles does in "Oedipus," Ibsen sets up a conflict that contrasts tremendously with the social and moral acceptability of the main characters. Furthermore, he makes this conflict extremely evident through the comparison between Nora and Torvald's conventional family setup and the more abnormal, under-the-table dialogue between Nora and Krogstad. Like a doll's house, things may look perfect on the outside, but take a closer look and you might notice some flaws that are not immediately apparent.

I liked Hannah's suggestion that perhaps the play is supposed to come off a bit contrived and overly-obvious, mimicking the superficiality associated with a doll's house. Just as the plot lines that most often go on in a doll's house are stereotypical, maybe Ibsen purposefully made the play seem too obvious in parts in order to make a statement about what society tends to associate with a conventional nuclear family. Although I have only read the first act, I suspect Ibsen may be trying to expose the stuff beneath the surface that society tends to deny exists in a perfect, Barbie-like family. I really enjoyed the first act--the obviousness of the plot didn't bother me one bit--and I'm excited to see where Ibsen takes it!

While "A Doll's House" is certainly a demonstration of dramatic irony, the reader's response to the play speaks to even greater truths of storytelling. Earlier this year on Lincoln's Heaven, we discussed the power of tragedy. If the movie "Titanic" is so sad, why do we enjoy watching it? Now, the topic of dramatic irony brings us to a very similar question. If we know what's going to happen in the movie "Titanic," why do we watch it again and again? Although "Titanic" differs from "Oedipus Rex" and "A Doll's House" in that it is not founded on a build-up of dramatic irony, our adoration of the story produces the same effect. When you know exactly how a plot is going to unfold, the movie becomes as dramatically ironic as any Greek drama the next time you watch it.

That said, understanding the power (and purpose) of dramatic irony lies in our tendency to watch "Titanic" several times. The story evokes a strong emotional response - one that is pleasing (albeit melancholy) to the audience every time. Of course, not every story is as evocative as "Titanic." In my opinion, modern readers continue to read "Oedipus Rex" because it is an impressively well-crafted portrayal of the demise that can befall any man so suddenly. Thus, each story that successfully champions dramatic irony must have a perk - it can be anything, as long as it is worth reading (or watching) again. I suspect many works of literature have employed dramatic irony without supplying the treat for the reader. In these cases, the work becomes nothing more than a predictable story that can be put down after one read. On the other hand, the fact that we are reading "A Doll's House" in the first place indicates that Ibsen has something in store for the readers, and I look forward to discovering exactly what it is as I forge ahead to the next acts.

I'm quite fine with the contrived use of dramatic irony in the first act.  Considering there's still two acts left, I think that the amount of material left in the play allows for many possibilities through which Ibsen can resolve the story.  I believe his use of dramatic irony, especially in the conversation between Nora and Torvald when they talk about "A fog of lies like that in a household...Practically all juvenile delinquents come from homes where the mother is dishonest" (1701), sets up a strong launching point for the rest of the play to develop.  Like what Rishi and Austin have said before me, probably Torvald will discover the fog of lies within his own home, and that fulfills the archetype of the lie always coming out in the end.  Yes, we probably know what's going to happen, but there's always the chance that Ibsen has some sneaky plot twist in store for us.  It's that sense of anticipation that further contributes to the tension in play, which is already stoked by the dramatic irony.  Furthermore, it's that anticipation for the plot details that haven't been filled in yet that drives us back to these works of drama and literature even if we know exactly how they will end.  Psychologically, I think that can be explained by our propensity toward the random and unmeasured reward.  We like fulfillment, and even more so when it comes at unexpected intervals.  That way, Ibsen's play is almost like a slot machine.  We know we'll lose in the end, but it's the prospect of winning (or finding out the little gaps in the story we don't know yet) that entices us.

Yes, the anthology calls A Doll's House a striking example of realism in drama, but I think that even if it aspires to represent real life, it is still fundamentally a work of art and artistic license was used to create a work that is aesthetically pleasing.  I don't blame Ibsen for using such heavy dramatic irony to cement the subsequent parts of his story.  Isn't a work of art meant to engage the audience?  Dramatic irony is a device that subtly breaks the fourth wall (dents it?) and allows for the audience and the play to interact.  Without it, the play becomes distant and the audience just falls asleep.  We're kept on the edge of our seats because we are interacting with the work of art itself, in the same way a reader-response critic reacts to a book or a painting.  In closing, I want to add that Ibsen's work of realistic drama may not be realistic from the sense that it uses dramatic irony to tickle the audience and shine a spotlight on Nora's shortcomings, but it definitely still portrays a very real version of family drama and lying.  The manner in which he represents society may not be realistic, but what is being portrayed is true, exposing for the audience what lies can do to families.  No groans for me, only the quiet anticipation for what's to come in the next two acts!