Ho Ho Ho! It's Ibsen Claus, bringing you all the gift of...

*eats macaroons*

I often find myself falling into the "New Historicism complex" where I become angry at characters in older books for thinking differently than society has led me to think now. I mentioned this in my other post, but women's rights seem to be limited. Nora is a captive of her husband, a pet, if you will. She relies on her husband for freedom, both physically and financially, but up until the end of the piece she hasn't realized that she was a doll being manipulated by her husband.

As far as Torvald, I don't blame him at all for becoming angry with Nora, she shouldn't have toyed with money, especially in that kind of society that views money as freedom. When she foraged her father's signature, she was putting her freedom at risk and her freedom is exactly what is compromised when Torvald becomes angry with her. She didn't know that was to happen, but in a way it should have been all the more reason not to mess with money.

On the other hand, I fault Torvald for becoming all of a sudden warmer when he finds that he and Nora are saved. It really irks me that that kind of man could jump emotions that easily and really disconcerting that his relief brought instant warmth. When something bad happens with the severity of what was suggested by Nora's forgery, it takes a while to calm down, even if the danger is gone. His anger seems like an act in the way he recovers and it freaks me out.

I don't find Nora at fault and I'm really proud of her for accepting her mistakes and being strong enough to want to learn from them. She understands that she has been a doll to the people she thought she loved, but out of the understanding she is able to grow. Torvald, I think, has also been a doll, but he must accept it. This is the "miracle of miracles" that both myself and Nora doubt will happen.

I don't really hold anything against Torvald in this situation. Sure, he's annoying and condescending and has a lot of pride and maybe even a bad temper and some weird ideas about the role of a wife, but how is he supposed to react? His obliviousness is not really that pathetic, because who would suspect that their spouse borrowed a significant sum of money from an enemy and lied about their dying father? 

Some of Torvald's obliviousness about the situation might be attributed to faults of his. He's sexist and thinks that Nora isn't even capable of dancing that stupid dance with the tambourine, so how could she be capable of pulling off such a major financial heist? But at the same time, I almost feel bad for him. He thinks he knows everything about his wife, as simple as he may think she is. There is probably some degree of trust between the couple. So it might be even to his credit that he doesn't suspect anything - he thinks highly enough of her and trusts her.

I'm torn. I have some dislike for Nora, and some dislike for Torvald. A problem like this usually doesn't arise at the fault of just one person.

As I read Act II of "A Doll's House", I mostly despised Torvald, not as a character, but as a representative of the society in which he lives. For example, he tells Nora, "Nice of you–because you let your husband have his way? All right, you little rogue, I know you didn't mean it that way" (1705). He considers Nora's statement as an idea against the natural order of society, where husbands are supposed to hold power over their wives. He seems genuinely surprised at the idea of a husband not having his way, which shows that his attitude towards Nora is mostly shaped by his surroundings. To him, his actions are the "correct" actions, though not actions we tolerate in our modern society.
But plenty of moments exist for which I still place a certain amount of blame in Torvald the character. When Nora begs Torvald to let Krogstad keep his job, Torvald gives two main reasons against it. First of all, because: "If it ever got around that the new manager had been talked over by his wife..." (1706). Yes, the fault lies partly in the society that creates the notion that men must exert power over their wives, but Torvald still holds control over his decisions. He refuses to listen to his wife's pleads out of concern for his own reputation. His selfish tendencies that outweigh his concern for his wife are strikes against his character. The second reason is due to personal issues with Krogstad that would make his job "intolerable", a reason that Nora labels as "petty" (1707). This concern has nothing to do with societal pressures, so Torvald holds the entire blame for this unpleasant quality, his lack of concern for a man's life and family, simply because of an old grudge. So I think that we are at least partly justified in despising his character, even when considering our viewpoint.

As you said, Mr. Parris, most of us feel enmity towards Torvald. It is difficult to understand a character whose words and actions counter what we are taught today, and his interactions with his wife make me cringe. If my boyfriend or husband ever referred to me as a "Skylark" or "little squirrel", he would not have the chance to do it again. However, despite my uneasiness towards Torvald, I wouldn't be able to fully appreciate the play if I didn't admit that most of his character traits are a result of his time and environment. I actually do not think any of Torvald's condescension comes from an obliviousness to his situation. Like Ana said, "who would suspect that their spouse borrowed a significant sum of money from an enemy and lied about their dying father?" Instead, I believe Torvald's treatment of Nora is a result of his surroundings. First, around the time the play was published, a domineering male and a subservient female was the social norm. For example, Torvald tells Nora, "Nice of you–because you let your husband have his way? All right, you little rogue, I know you didn't mean it that way" (1705). Torvald expects Nora to do what he says, and reprimands her when she speaks out of turn. The second aspect of the play that points to Torvald's ways is the fact that Nora, in Act one and two, does nothing to stand up for herself. I picture Nora as a small dog...the kind that yips a lot but cowers at its masters wagging finger. One cannot blame Torvald for his unequal treatment of Nora because no one around him stands up for her or tells him it isn't right. But then again...why would anyone around him do that? To them, that's just the way things are.

Since I’m not an expert on the domestic attitudes of the late 1800s—aside from assuming that women had some degree of fewer rights and less independence than they do today—I think we might judge Torvald by looking at how others treat Nora. If we do that, it seems that Torvald is at fault for much of his actions, and the environment/culture aspect simply comes into play because that’s the reason he can get away with it.

Both Dr. Rank and Krogstad seem to treat Nora with more respect, and afford her more dignity, than Torvald. When Dr. Rank reenters the house (for the first time in the second act), Nora tells him she always has “got time for you” and Dr. Rank replies, “Thank you. A privilege I shall take advantage of as long as I am able” (1708). This polite tone characterizes Dr. Rank’s interactions with Nora, until the conversation turns emotional and we learn Dr. Rank would “gladly give his life” for Nora (1710). At first, one could dismiss Dr. Rank’s politeness as courting. But if this is the case, if Dr. Rank’s polite demeanor comes from his feelings for Nora, shouldn’t Torvald, who Nora says is “passionately” in love with her, also treat Nora this way (1710)?

Now let’s take Krogstad. He has a completely opposite sort of relationship with Nora than Dr. Rank does. Yet even when Krogstad is delivering his letter, he tells Nora he wrote “in as tactful a way as possible” and uses phrases like “excuse me” (1713-4). Once again, it seems that Nora is, while not quite an equal, treated as someone who has a unique set of needs and wants. This sharply contrasts with Torvald’s treatment of Nora, especially when he says (as many have already noted) “Nice of you—because you let your husband have his way?” (1705).

Furthermore, Krogstad comes to Nora because he believes she might influence Torvald. Krogstad himself is married, so if he believes a wife could influence a husband, that might be indicative of how “normal” that was for the time period (although Krogstad could be an exception, or just clutching at straws to save his job). In fact, back in Act I, Krogstad is surprised when Nora states she has no influence over Torvald, replying, “I know your husband from our student days. I don’t suppose he is any more steadfast than other married men” (1696). Once again, it seems that Torvald is different than “other married men” in how he treats his wife.

Because it appears Torvald goes beyond what seems “normal” in the play in how he treats Nora, I think we are justified in partly blaming him directly. I don’t think we can fully blame him for his actions, because his behavior is still probably acceptable for the time period and he may see nothing wrong with it. (He is also not portrayed as a malicious character.) If the question, however, is simply “Are we justified in censuring him from our own vantage point, or are we guilty of New Historicism?” then, from our own vantage point, we see Dr. Rand and Krogstad treating Nora with more respect (in both the positive and the negative relationship each has with her) than Torvald does. So, while I agree we should consider whether New Historicism comes into play, it seems we have a more justified reason for our dislike.

I like this examination of New Historicism, though, so I’d pose a further question. Hannah mentions that “I would rather be a little harsh toward people who aren't even around to hear my criticism and in the process create a better future than protect the feelings of dead people and give living people a free pass to be jerks.” My question is simply: does this create such a free pass? If we were to say “Torvald is just being a 19th-century husband” does that give husbands today a free pass in regards to their own domestic behavior? Or can we, as a society, excuse behavior that fits in with a time period and still recognize problems in the present? How do we draw the line between “bad people” and “good people, bad culture”?

Torvald’s patronizing attitude towards his wife definitely bothered me, especially in their conversation when she was requesting that Krogstad maintain a job at the bank. The position Torvald holds in society is what leads him to disregard his wife in this situation, but the pet names, etc. just make him seem manipulative. He treats Nora like a child, and maintains a certain level of control over her as such. I wish the reader was shown how Torvald acted in a wider variety of situations because his character is limited almost entirely to conversations between himself and Nora. If we could see how he interacted with his children, for example, I believe we could better judge his overall character. I do not judge him too harshly in his treatment of Nora, however, because she is to blame in certain ways as well. As I mentioned in my previous post, they are all manipulative in their own unattractive ways, making these characters less than lovable.


In terms of the fault of the times, I agree with Hannah that we cannot exactly judge those from past eras for conforming to their culture. If anything, we should congratulate authors (such as Ibsen) for creating characters who are realistically oblivious to the faults in their society/actions. In other time periods people naturally acted differently than now because of the amount of technology and communication, and the state of evolution of aspects of humanity besides our animal composition. There is no reason to blame the dead for their conformity and the natural human desire to be “normal.” I have found that it is easier for humans to live this way, as well as not questioning or analyzing their society. When we can see and point fingers at all the faults in the way we live in 2014 is when we have a right to do the same to other time periods. The characters in “A Doll’s House” are not realistically the sort of people who would question their world enough to encounter nonconformity. Nora likes her money too much, and Torvald enjoys his power over his wife and position at the bank. Overall, to answer the question of the validity of our hatred of Torvald, I think we are supposed to hate him as a character, but not for being a character.

I agree with Natalie, simply because society was different does not make it wrong. Comparative to our standards today, Torvald is a sexist awful husband. From the standards of the 1800s, however, this may have been expected of a husband. This is going to seem awful, but I don’t blame Torvald condescension and obliviousness.
Nora continually exploits the servile role that Torvald expects from her. For instance, if she needs anything, with a bat of an eyelash and a, “If a little squirrel were to ask ever so nicely…?” (1706) Nora achieves her goals (most of the time). If Nora continues to exude this silly little “squirrel” role, than how is Torvald supposed to expect anything different?

If you best friend was always super nice and friendly towards you, how do you know they are a serial killer?

These conflicting expectations make Torvald completely reasonable. Yes, I still do think he is a sexist pig, but Nora encourages it and complies with it! The comparisons across time periods and our New Historicism Complex still holds meaning, however, because the comparison lets us understand the advancements of our society, and the differing morals between then and now. Do these hold any value? I sure hope so. I love Hannah’s most important sentence above because I completely agree. We can still criticize Torvald, but its important to keep the time difference as a tie to reality.