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

Perhaps it is the biographical critic within me- who is in many ways connected to a historical critic- that makes it hard to believe that we should analyze a character without taking into account his/her surrounding environment. We, as readers, must keep in mind that the late 1800's was a progressive era for women. Women were moving from a time in which they carried essentially no rights and were strictly confined to the role of a housewife, to a time in which events such as the Industrial Revolution allowed for more job opportunities outside of the household for women. Yet, many non-working class men still refused to acknowledge the duty of a woman has being anything other than a housewife.

In the case of Torvald, who lives a fairly middle-class lifestyle, he cannot fathom a life in which his wife should work, as evident by the fact that he dislikes seeing Nora sew. His narrow view on society is merely a reflection of the society in which he lives. Even in modern times, society is heavily reliant upon appearances. Thus, I do not find it wrong to claim that the society in which Torvald lived was any different. Torvald feels the need to cast his wife as a doll living in a doll house because that is the image that his society has projected as a means of separating himself from the working class.

I think if we ignore the culture in which a character was raised, we may wrongfully judge him or her. Torvald is adamant about keeping up his appearance because that is what he has learned to do. Although I acknowledge that at this time and age, Torvald possesses extremely sexist views, I do not believe his sexist views are digging at his moral compass because he is merely embracing the standards of so-called "being a man" that society has laid out for him.

First and foremost, yes, I do feel quite a significant amount of enmity towards Torvald. I also believe this enmity is justified, even if the characters are a product of a patriarchal society and culture. At the same time, however, I find it bothersome that Nora plays into Torvald's game, encouraging his behavior in a sense. 

Let's first examine why Torvald's behavior transcends New Historicism. In the 1800s, it was simply common knowledge that women had fewer rights than men. The husband worked a job to earn money and handled financial matters while the wife tended to the children and cared for the house. This was "normal." Therefore, we must adjust our current perceptions during analysis. The power dynamic between Torvald and Nora, however, is much different than this baseline "normal." Torvald views Nora as not only subservient, but also as a child and a pet. Torvald notes, "My pretty little pet is very sweet, but it runs away with an awful lot of money. It's incredible how expensive it is for a man to keep such a pet" (1683). He goes on to later say, "The child must have her way" (1717). It is historically understood that the patriarchy dominated society in the 19th century, yet, Ibsen takes this to a drastic extreme. I believe we are supposed to feel hatred towards Torvald and his condescension and subjugation, not because he is the dominant figure, but because his methods of subjugation far surpass the cultural standards of the time period. While we often attack historical actions ex post facto, this is an obvious attempt to illustrate the inherent follies of the patriarchal system. Sure, Torvald must have known that men had more rights than woman, but calling his wife a pet is simply beyond any reasonable level of decency.  

While I strongly disagree with Torvald's indecent acts, I feel obligated to acknowledge an additional aspect that works in his favor. In addition to calling his wife a pet and a child, he continually uses childish metaphors to describe Nora. "Now, now, not so wild and excitable! Let me see you being my own little singing bird again," (1718) says Torvald. This is only one of the many excruciatingly annoying phrases Torvald uses to describe Nora. While these seem phony, unnecessary and belittling, Nora plays along with them. In response to Torvald, Nora notes, "Ah, if you only knew how many expenses the likes of us sky-larks and squirrels have" (1683). Nora encourages Torvald's behavior by playing along with his comments. I wish Nora would simply not put up with it-- she is only perpetuating her subservient position and encouraging his sexist actions. 


So, while I hold a lot of enmity towards Torvald for his actions, which far surpass any societal "norm" of the time period, I also believe that Nora is largely responsible for fueling this behavior. It is an interesting conundrum. 

I find Torvald to be a little too ridiculous to be true. As I read I come across those moments we all know of that offend the feminist tendencies of our generation, but I still feel it is a bit magnified beyond reality. Of course, I couldn't say for sure because I did not live in that era and experience the Doll House sensation that they are living in. But at the end of act one and act two where Torvald makes a re-appearance he seems to be too confident in himself. He all of a sudden knows these things, like the letter from Krogstad being left in the box, in such detail from little to no context clues at all. I don't blame him for his obliviousness towards what his wife is doing, because who could tell all that she did if she did not let on to it, but I find that these instances that have been written in poke holes in his character design of being oblivious. Therefore I am reluctant to call him oblivious. I find problems with his whole character design on part of the writer. He is not real enough (which is probably why he is a good metaphor for the social situations husband and wife in his era) to blame him as a singular character.

Though there really haven't been many responses to this thread so far, ideas seem to get redundant rather quickly. I'm going to peruse the options or ways of approaching the Torvald/Nora dynamic first before I explain my own ideas.

One interesting way of looking at the issue is through the historical lens perspective. My peers seem to be caught in the turmoil that is the question whether we should forgive Torvald for his actions due to them being commonplace in his time period. Forming a judgment on Torvald is thus difficult because one must ponder application. It is more justified to judge Torvald by our common ideals or to permit him certain flaws based on his time period. Part of me says he should be judged historically. Is it fair to single out one person, like how some single out Torvald, and place him or her side by side to society's modern morals when we do not do so to the historical society and all accompanying characters? That seems flawed to me, but then again, the time period of the time may also be flawed, as the gender issues in late 1800s Norway have shown.

Then we say, "Hey, wait! If we are judging Torvald for his gendered stereotypes that he applies to Nora, shouldn't we explore the way Nora reacts to these stereotypes?" So yeah, let's explore that too. We know that Torvald says demeaning and condescending things to Nora. He refers to her as multiple little woodland creatures like birds and squirrels and this is not an acceptable thing in modern society because it expresses and inappropriate and unfair power dynamic of men condescending to women. Now is where the real argument comes in. One could argue that Nora allows and maybe even aids or promotes when she refers to herself as, "a little squirrel" and does so to manipulate her husband because following this role could be to her own benefit. Nora urges Torvald, "Please, if only you would let it have tis way, and do what it wants, it'd scamper about and do all sorts of marvellous tricks...And the pretty little sky-lark would sing all day long" (1706). Nora makes it rather easy to argue that in some cases she adds to her husband's stereotypic tendencies, but at the same time I have seen or know of other arguments that go against the 'allowing Nora' idea. Joel talked about how both Krogstad and Rank seem to treat Nora with more kindness and less condescension. However, if I were a proponent of the 'allowing Nora' idea, I could just as easily say that Nora treats Rank and Krogstad in more of a professional matter, which in turn reciprocates their behavior to her. The argument is never-ending and to me doesn't seem to have a right or justified side. When approaching the Nora and Torvald dynamic you just have to make a decision based on your principles and whatever critical lens you are currently using.

As I said, there is no real right answer to whether you, Mr. Parris, should hold enmity towards Torvald, but there are plenty of valid opinions. Either way, however, I do not believe it is of my nor of my peers' right to force our agenda on you, nor is it completely fair of you to ask for one solid answer to the multitude of feelings that can be aimed at Torvald.

That being said, what I think you really want is my opinion, and my peers' opinions, on the matter so I will give you just that. I think that neither the time period nor Nora's actions justify Torvald's demeaning approach to his wife. What he is doing (the condescending and ignorant way with which he treats his wife) is not okay no matter how you look at things. Torvald chooses his own actions. Whether we would like to believe Nora influences his opinion or not, Torvald has the final say in his actions and is thus at fault. The victim is never at fault. And yes, Torvald is in fact a result of his society and his environment, but this does not excuse his actions either. The environmental factors to Torvald's treatment of his wife, however, are rather difficult for me to avoid considering and attributing to Torvald's character. In fact, the environmental factors and historical setting keep me back from feeling enmity for Torvald because they make me feel sympathetic for him. They do not excuse his ultimate decision but pressure and trap him, forcing me to feel sorry for Torvald and his predicament. I do disagree with Torvald's actions but disagreement is not a logical cause for hatred or hostility. Rather, I pity Torvald because he cannot be strong and overcome how society wants him to treat his wife. So in the end, I do not forgive Torvald, but I do not hate him either as I understand the confusion that he must too feel with how his environment wants him to act.

I find most of these characters unlikeable and annoying for the most part, but Torvald definitely peaks that list at times. True, his condescension towards Nora is "admissible" due to the times...and yet, I can't seem to stop it bothering me. I almost physically squirm when he calls her the long list of nicknames he has for her. It's uncomfortable, especially when he's not using them in a particularly romantic way.

Another particularly annoying portion of Act II was the dancing scene. All along, Nora's not been the best liar, but it was nice to see her concoct a scheme to remedy her sticky money situation, however, it all seemed to fall apart rather quickly. First off, Torvald immediately knows that she doesn't want him to read the mail. Unfortunately, Torvald becomes oblivious to his wife's frantic nature which should have implied that a) something was troubling her and b) that perhaps something far more serious was in the letter than Torvald initially thought. But Torvald remains ignorant and helps his wife "relearn" the silly dance.

So yes, I suppose I am guilty of "New Historicism" in that I've been reacting to these characters from my modern day perspective. I do, however, take into account the era in which the story is set (and written) and, though I may initially react to a particular action with disgust or annoyance, overall I am able to let the characters be and let go (but not excuse) some of their actions.

I really liked the point Sheridan made in her post. The more I read, the more iffy I felt about the characters. During the first act, I was only annoyed by Nora’s character but after finishing the second act, all the characters seemed to give off a vibe that didn’t exactly resonate with what I had expected walking in. Maybe, like Sheridan mentioned, this iffiness started from the subconscious realization that all the characters are, to an extent, fake and superficially developed. And maybe what makes this play even more iffy is the fact that it’s not despised much less acknowledged by any of the characters. They all seem to be living this superficial life inside a doll house where all things seem dandy and oblivious to any sort of realistic ties.

Of course the matter of “is this a fair judgment” is up for discussion, especially Torvald – a character, I presume, all of us are starting to detest. But I think this judgment is only natural – especially in a society like today where there isn’t much tolerance for immoral behaviors (or so I’d like to think.) In modern days, we categorize him as sexist and bad but what if we backtracked centuries earlier? Would we still regard Torvald as the same sexist and bad person we think he is now? In a society where such treatments towards women were deemed okay would we still single Torvald out and wag our fingers at him? Would we dare? Of course today where a high percentage of people have a genuine say about gender division it’s only obvious for us to bash on Torvald. But, I don’t know, would we be able to do the same if we were to go back to Ibsen’s time? It’s a thought that definitely makes me appreciate Ibsen’s play. Of course the characters are still annoying and behave superficially, but I think it’s worthwhile to note one of Ibsen’s messages in publishing such a story at such a time: the solution regarding gender division still has a loooooong ways to go.

I found Torvald annoying and rude and first but if I had to deal with Nora's lying about buying things (the macaroons and the new dress when she still owes money) I would be frustrated too. I am not, however, giving him a free pass. He definitely treats Nora as very inferior sometimes with his pet names (that can be ok and adoring sometimes but other times like "Jig" for the girl in Hills Like White Elephants) but you can definitely see this when she tries to convince him to keep Krogstad, he sort of pulls the "OHHOHO YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND BIG BOY BUSINESS YOU SILL LARK THIS IS BIG BOY THINGS. GO DANCE YOUR TARANTELLA FOR PAPA" (he seems like the kind of guy to refer to himself as Papa). I think the New Historicism that applies here is that we are looking at this story and finding problems that we see in today's world in the story there, whether or not they may be present. Some people have said that the pet names are derogatory but I sort of thought they were fine. This could either be due to hyper feminism or differences in viewpoints. I thought he just had a bunch of sweet nicknames for his wife...