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

Gosh, I cannot stop thinking that the dialogue between Krogstad and Nora hits more than just the issue of money, but also the issue of Nora's home life. Nora's life is so perfect until one digs deeper than surface level. Krogstad does exactly that in this chuck of their secret chat.

Nora [walking up and down the stage]. Sometimes one has a tiny little bit of influence, I should hope. Because one is a woman, it does not necessarily follow that--. When anyone is in a subordinate position, Mr. Krogstad, they should really be careful to avoid offending anyone who--who--
Krogstad. Who has influence?
Nora. Exactly.
...
Krogstad: Very likely; but, to come to the point, the time has come when I should advise you to use your influence to prevent that.
Nora: But, Mr. Krogstad, I have no influence.

I think Nora does a lot of self convincing in the story. She convinces herself that her husband doesn't want her to eat sweets so she doesn't get cavities for one thing...She convinces herself that she is actually mothering her children (yeah, no.) And she convinces herself that she possesses an amount of power in her household. But Nora really has no say in any aspect of her life. She is a doll in a dollhouse whether she likes it or not. In this respect, she is a lot like Odysseus, at first glance both characters seem strong and independent but ultimately they are powerless. As we discussed before, Odysseus's life is dictated by a higher being, the Greek gods control his fate. There is no indication that Gods are stringing "little Nora" along, but it does seem like the social expectations of her house and community act in the same regard, dictating her actions and as result, her outcome is easily foreshadowed.

One of the problems with sorting literary works into genres is that it creates certain expectations with which we proceed to judge the literary work. This seems to be occurring here as well; one could definitely take the fact that the play is considered a realistic work and criticize it because it seems that, at times, the play is doing a terrible job being realistic. The largest example of this is the dramatic irony at the end of the first act. But I think we should be looking at A Doll's House based on not how well it fits into our perceived box of a "realistic drama" but on how well it functions as a play as a whole. And for that, we should, as Joel mentioned, look at how the irony contributes to the play, not how well it contributes to a sense of realism. Unrealistic elements in fiction aren't necessarily bad; virtually everything we've read this year has at least something that would create disbelief in a cynical reader. The key is whether these unrealistic elements have a positive effect on the work as a whole.

I'd have to say that the dramatic irony at the end of Act I is useful looking at the play as a whole. The central conflict in the play centers around Nora and her internal struggle between being upfront with her husband and maintaining her secret. The problem is how to make her realize both sides of the story. She needs to address her conscience on the issue of her forgery, but at the start of the play, Nora has almost no conscience of her own. Everything--her thoughts, actions, and money--belongs to her husband. To have Nora, at this point in her life, consider such a complicated issue all by herself seems almost as unrealistic as her "convenient" conversation about "Krogstad." Helmer acts as a symbol of justice; throughout the play, he is the only character with strong, well-defined morals who sticks to them. His beliefs and his actions regarding frugality ("There's always something inhibited, something unpleasant, about a home built on credit and borrowed money" (1682)), the relation between husband and wife ("If it ever got around that the new manager had been talked over by his wife" (1706)), and hard work ("I have to work on it over the Christmas week. I want everything straight by the New Year" (1700)) are very ideologically consistent, even though the morals themselves may be dubious. Because of his immense power and emphasis on morals, Helmer acts as a conscience for Nora over the first part of the play. As a result, to have this emotional conflict, Nora has to be confronted by Helmer about her lie--just without him knowing about it. Therefore, despite its lack of realism (my first instinct was to laugh), the dramatic irony in A Doll's House is very effective in the context of the play. It catalyzes Nora's internal conflict by forcing her to encounter the true complexity of her problem.

I disagree that Nora needs to look examine her moral feelings regarding forgery. Her feelings about forgery are irrelevant to her because she has justified the act—for herself—by saying that she only did it to help others. She is only now realizing that her actions may have negative consequences, not only for herself, but for others as well. The saddest—and most intriguing—part of this story is that she cannot fully understand how her actions will impact others. She does not understand that her husband will likely lose his job if she is caught (as alluded to by her continuously mentioning their new and improved financial situation) and her kids could end up becoming juvenile delinquents because of her dishonest nature (seems like a bit of a stretch...). Nora is fully aware that she has done something wrong, she just did not realize that it would be a big deal. She thought she could so easily get away with it, but she overlooked a few key details.

The dramatic irony in Act I relies on Nora's lies and the idea that the audience knows the truth, but her husband and the other characters have no idea what is going on. Each of the characters is stuck in their own individual reality, but what they do not know is that it is all going to come crashing down in time. I understand why you would roll your eyes at the irony, because it seems so obvious. But for me, knowing roughly what is going to happen makes it all the more intriguing to keep reading. As Caroline was saying, why do we continue to read Romeo and Juliet if we know what is going to happen? It's not the ending we are anticipating. From the first few pages of the story, we know what is going to happen, but we do not know how it is going to happen, which is where all the beauty comes in. The ending is irrelevant because its so predictable, but I am interested to see how Nora transitions from living a carefree life to "falling" to rockbottom.

Merry Christmas!

I felt that the dramatic irony of this story really got in the way of my enjoyment. I finally decided this when Torvald said, “Practically all juvenile delinquents come from homes where the mother is dishonest.” Torvald and Nora had been talking about Krogstad’s dishonesty. Krogstad is obviously a man (and can’t be a mother), so there was no pertinent reason for Torvald to mention that statement regarding mothers.


In this story I was hoping that Nora would come clean to Torvald and tell him all of her secrets. I sympathized with Nora and felt this route would lead to the least negative outcome. This option is basically no longer plausible now that Torvald has badmouthed liars in such a blatant fashion. Here lies my problem with dramatic irony: the plot becomes too one-dimensional. Essentially, a lot of possible outcomes are no longer possible because they do not fit in with the ironic comments made by certain characters. As a reader I don’t want to there to be a limited number of possibilities.

The contrivance in the play that is consistently nabbing at Mr. Parris' nerves has more depth than it is credited with. Whether or not Parris should suspend his belief is entirely subjective, but placing myself in his shoes makes me want to answer in affirmation. As Matt astutely pointed out, it would be easy to jump to the conclusion that the dramatic irony is overused and overdramatic—an obvious and predictable attempt to hook the audience that does quite the opposite. However, Nora's character, fickle, troubled and rash in her decisions, was well-developed in the first act. Even if I agreed with Parris that the dramatic irony was slightly overdone, Nora's character captivated me. She is undoubtedly the most complex character, and because of the fact that  all the literature we have previously read in this class has contained depth in terms of plot and characters, I suspect that giving Nora a chance to continue her development and ignoring the contrivance a bit longer may well pay off. Foreshadowing has played its role early and concretely in this play thus far, but despite a predictable ending many of us believe will occur, I am excited to read on and see how much farther Nora is able to develop.

We constantly look for resonance within the text, but even if that search wields mere "groans," as it may have done for Parris, it still holds worth. The things we as readers take away from the text is purely subjective, and our collective groans, although reasonable, may not be in vain. The dramatic irony that foreshadows an expected event is just that, expected. What the text holds between the groans and the event should always leave us suspending our disbelief. Also, a reading experience filled with groans may hold as much power as one filled with tears or laughter. Either way, the response is what matters. This play hasn't left me moaning and groaning, but other things we've read this year have. I have found that suspending my feelings until clarifying the conclusion and theme of the text is rewarding and worthwhile, and I won't write "A Doll's House" off just yet.

Hooray, it's no longer Christmas Eve... Hooray for being the first to break that 12:00 am barrier.

I agree with Abby's notion on how all tragedies share common traits, and how one could predict the course of a plot by understanding the structure of dramatic irony and tragedy. The sense of contrivance comes down to both the person and the nature of the literature. The literature of this genre falls within an archetype, so there will be great similarities between the plots. I understand how one can start to see many texts as contrived. On the other hand, the sense of contrivance lies with the expectations of the reader. If one expects a story to follow the archetype and only looks at how predictable the story is, he or she will see only the artificiality of the plot. The ways similar texts differ, however, lies within the ability for the reader to connect with the story. Like Aristotle said, tragedy is all about the catharsis. That catharsis is the difference between each reader; nobody experiences the same feelings. Those differences are what bring genuine aspects to similar pieces of texts.

For example, Oedipus the King and A Doll's House share many qualities, such as the power dynamics and the fact that the lower characters hold secrets about the powerful characters. Yet, I cannot relate to Oedipus well, because the setting and the events are well, not very similar to those of my life. On the other hand, the plot of A Doll's House is realistic. Everyone can relate to the spending and saving of money, the care of family members, doing secret favors for each other...this is why Oedipus the King felt artificial in its predictability and why A Doll's House felt genuine, despite its predictability.

As Kevin noted, Merry Christmas! :-)

Yes, I feel feel that the dialogue of the story was somewhat vapid and eye-rolling. On the other hand, I think we should appreciate how technical Ibsen was in crafting this story.

I really like how the three act system of the story plays out in a similar fashion to "Oedipus Rex". In the first act, we see a static relationship between the Helmers that, on the surface, looks relatively stable and somewhat happy. The act only slightly introduces the central conflict of the story: Krogstad's threat to reveal Nora's forgery. The second act introduces the crumbling of this superficial relationship as Nora's anxiety over Krogstad's threat rises. The third act is where the Helmer marriage collapses and Nora, with irreconcilable differences, leaves Torvald. I found this three-act structure to be a homage to the dramatic structure of Greek tragedy. In both "Oedipus" and "Doll's House", the main character watches as his/her entire livelihood crumbles due to his/her own actions.

For both plots, the tragic incident of the main character is a result of hamartia (human action, not fate). Oedipus unknowingly fulfills his fate by killing his father and sleeping with his Mother. Nora forges her father's signature to take out a secret loan which eventually leads to the end of her marriage. Though Oedipus and Nora diverge upon unintentional and intentional action, Aristotle notes in Poetics that the ethos of a tragedy is driven by human cause.



Another aspect Aristotle constitutes that is part of any good, Greek play is opsis or spectacle. Both Ibsen and Sophocles use large amounts of opsis to intensify the dramatic atmosphere of their plays. This aspect refers to the observable imagery and scenery that supplements the work. Ibsen utilizes the Christmas Tree prop as a symbol of the crumbling marriage. In the first act, the tree is newly purchased and freshly orientated into the house. The tree is later "stripped, bedraggled and with its candles burnt out" (Ibsen 1702) in Act Two to foreshadow instability in the Helmer household. Another component of the "Doll's House" opsis is the homely feel of the stage (as depicted on page 1681). When Torvald questions Nora's happiness in Act 3, she states, "... You've always been so kind to me. But our house has never been anything but a play-room" (Ibsen 1730). The picturesque environment of the stage direction directly alludes to the image that the Helmer household is nothing more than a "doll house". This spectacle, for the viewer, is just as powerful as the dual-use of bloody drippings from Oedipus's eye sockets in Sophocles' play (tears of pain!). I agree with Aristotle on the notion that if the visual component of these two plays (which I pictured) were to be removed, the viewer would be deprived of the deeper, tragic meaning.



All in all, I think Ibsen's work is more of transitional work from classical Greek to modern play structure than an explicit pioneer of the modern play. On the other hand, I can't discredit Ibsen's implementation of realism into the plot. Unlike most tragedies from the Greek era up to the 19th century, "A Doll's House" is entirely removed from any mythological or religious backbone. Ibsen does this to remove the concept of fate. Instead, he places the fault of the tragedy entirely upon the shoulders of humanity. I am also surprised just how liberal Ibsen was for someone who published this work in 1879. He bravely demonstrates lack of traditional gender roles, relative female freedom, and the downfall of marriage within a work that would probably be deemed "societal sacrilege" by his contemporaries.

As for whether or not Mr. Parris should suspend his disbelief of Ibsen's obvious use of dramatic irony, I don't think this should even be necessarily questioned. As for Oedipus, viewers should see "A Doll's House" as a literary work rather than some sort of bio-pic. I think people eye-rolling for a "Doll's House" mostly in part to it's genre label: "Realistic Drama". The same explicit instances of dramatic irony in Oedipus certainly do not receive this same treatment. Ibsen's work should be taken at an intellectual scale rather than a this-better-be-as-realistic-as-possible-or-it-sucks scale.