|
|
Post by mitralebuhn on Jan 1, 2014 3:22:09 GMT
I feel like every character in this play is a bit of a stereotype to their era, so I can't be too frustrated with Torvald as a character. Yes, I am bothered by what Torvald represents and his patriarchal perspective, as shown by the pet-names cited by Rishi. But I don't think it is his personal characteristics that are to blame. Every character in this play, like a doll house, plays a simple role. Nora is the subservient wifey, and Torvald and his inflated ego represent the oblivious head of the house. As Nora attempts to solve her conflict after going rouge with the forgery, she embraces her stereotypical role whole heartedly as being an obedient "pet," so as much as I'd like to tell Torvald "no-no, shame on you," I can't blame him for his behavior because it is so strongly reinforced in his mind by society and his wife's expectations that his beliefs are morally correct. But then again, this may be a crude example, but we learned in health this year that a rapist is always the one at fault, no matter how unclear the rape victim may be about what he or she had wanted to have happen, so no matter how acceptable society or Nora may deem Torvald's treatment of his wife, it is still not okay for him to follow those expectations and we have a full right to hate on Torvald. But I also think this rape connection is a bit too extreme for this play's issue, so I'd have to say that his behavior is somewhat excusable because he truly doesn't know any better and hasn't been introduced to the modern concept of equality and respect for women.
|
|
|
|
Post by yongkim on Jan 1, 2014 3:30:58 GMT
In no way do I feel an intense enmity toward Torvald. Despite what they are, all of our feelings toward Torvald are justified through our own moral standards. Truthfully, I am ambivalent about him. I blame Torvald for his condescending attitude towards Nora as well as understand the source of it. Though we are infuriated with the nicknames (skylark, child, pet, etc) that Torvald has for his wife today, this sexist behavior is understandable in the context of the 1800's social standards. The power dynamic during this time was characterized by few rights for women in comparison to men, which gave men an excuse to treat women in a condescending way (as shown by the numerous nicknames in "A Doll's House"). However, the anger I have toward Torvald does not stem from the nicknames he has for his wife. My enmity stems from the fact that he goes along with society as opposed to going against the status quo. The status quo only exists when the majority of society go along with it. Torvald is simply a part of the majority and does not take action to change the social norms during the 1800's.
I am also in accord with the fact that Nora allows for the continuation of Torvald's patronizing attitude. In fact, she takes advantage of it during Act II. When Torvald insists on checking his letter box, Nora pleads, "But I just can't get anywhere without help: I've completely forgotten it [the dance]...I'm so nervous. All those people....Forget all about the office..." (1716). In order to delay the her husband finding out about the loan, Nora exudes a reliant attitude, which stops Torvald from checking his letter box. I believe Nora will continue to accept and embrace the condescending attitude in order to prevent her husband from discovering the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamiezimmerman on Jan 1, 2014 3:35:19 GMT
The only possible way we could despise Torvald is for the way he treats Nora. In one telling scene he says, "Does that make you happy now? There, there, don't look at me with those eyes, like a little frightened dove... Why don't you run through the tarantella and try out the tambourine?... You can make all the noise you want" (Ibsen 1708). Clear as day, he totally makes Nora his pet, objectifying and belittling her. This little speech is followed by Dr. Rank's confession to Nora: "Do you think he's the only one who... Who wouldn't give his life for your sake... I swore to myself you would know before I went... And now you know too that you can confide in me as in nobody else" (Ibsen 1710-1711). This annoyingly untimely announcement show that Rank has a considerable amount of respect for Nora, further foiling Torvald's character and making us hate him even more.
Because we see so much sexism in so much literature, I can only surmise that Torvald is a product of his culture. The sentiment that raised him ran rampant in this time period, and was in fact ubiquitous, especially when Nora totally buys into it. She acts like a little lady all dressed up, pining for the adoration of her husband, perhaps the consummate image of this time period. By this knowledge, we can say that we might be judging Torvald too unfairly. We judge him on our new age principles, and not on the accepted values of his own time-place.
To hate him on more than the treatment on his wife, however, is plainly unfair. His behavior at work is acceptable justification for his actions. He is an official with an image of power to uphold - he can't let "outside pressure" (1707) to influence him, lest he be seen as a pushover. He's doing what he has to do for the company's sake. Furthermore, he is allowed to dismiss Krogstad, maybe not ethically for the reason that he simply doesn't like Krogstad, but under the image that Krogstad makes the company no more valuable. He may be a bad boss, but that doesn't make him a bad guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by patricktbutenhoff on Jan 1, 2014 3:48:05 GMT
I personally believe that actions should be morally evaluated based on the time period in which they were committed, since we shouldn't hate people purely for living in a different time period than us. It's unrealistic to expect people who were brought up with an entirely different moral code to conform to the moral code that we are brought up today. That being said, I think that Torvald is chauvinistic and oblivious even in the context of the time period of the play. Even though Nora isn't exactly helpful in convincing Torvald that she is equal to him as a human being, Torvald's perspective on life is his alone and not that of his environment.
As Joel has postulated, the behavior of the other characters with respect to Nora indicates that Torvald's treatment of her is abnormal. Krogstad especially, even though he has a significant amount of authority over her, gives her much more power than she has in her marriage. He obviously expects that she'll be able to convince Torvald to let him keep his job; however, Torvald is much more dismissive toward Nora than he believes. When discussing murder with Nora, Krogstad also remarks (in a "relieved" tone), "So you haven't the courage either, eh?" (1713) At least for this part of the conversation, Krogstad puts himself on the same level as Nora; he acknowledges that each of them could be a potential threat to the safety of the other, and he is legitimately concerned about the threat that Nora poses. Dr. Rank consistently treats Nora politely, and this, while it is unabashedly for the purpose of courtship, demonstrates a certain level of respect for Nora as a person that Torvald seems to lack. Although Nora's husband is clearly going to have more power over her than a male acquaintance, the other male characters in the play treat Nora in such a way that Torvald's behavior seems to be an abnormality rather than a representation of the setting.
Torvald also has some instances of closed-mindedness that can't be adequately explained by societal effects. He's completely oblivious to the facts that Nora is clearly trying to distract him with her tarantella and that Dr. Rank is dying. Since I'm not sure how societal constructs can impact one's critical thinking skills, I'd have to pin the blame for his stubborn obliviousness on him alone, especially since the other characters seem to be much more perceptive. In addition, Helmer is extremely closed-minded on the issue of Krogstad's firing, even bringing up the fact that he and Krogstad were once friends as if that's a legitimate reason to fire him. He won't even consider Nora's reasonable objections, and while that may be based somewhat on the cultural patriarchy, Helmer's mindset seems to be such that he wouldn't consider opposing ideas from anyone on the issue, male or female. For this also I blame Helmer entirely.
That being said, Nora isn't a great advocate for her own rights either. By being extremely deferential to her husband, Nora is enabling and, to some extent, encouraging Torvald's misogynistic behavior. In her own way, Nora preserves the imbalance of power in the marriage. For example, to ask Torvald to do something, she starts with, "If a little squirrel were to ask ever so nicely...?" (1706) Not only is she asking permission to ask Torvald to help Krogstad, she does it in the most coquettish, submissive way possible. By speaking to Torvald like this, she is perpetuating his complete dominance in the marriage. However, this may not have that substantial of an effect on Torvald. Even when Nora does advocate for herself somewhat (when talking about Krogstad and at the end of the play), Torvald doesn't significantly change his behavior; he remains the chauvinist he always was. So even though she acts submissively, Nora may not be culpable for enabling Torvald to treat her as poorly as he does.
|
|
|
|
Post by betsyrahe on Jan 1, 2014 4:00:04 GMT
Personally, Helmer does irk me in his patriarchal tendencies towards his wife, yet I still find myself liking him-or more so not hating him. As others have mentioned he calls Nora "little square" or even "that child" which insinuates that she's lower than him. There is definitely a chance that she is much younger than him, as that often occurred back then, but there is a sense that it's deeper than that. He does come from a time when woman couldn't even vote. He was told by everyone, and showed by his elders that man are superior. However, I have always had a hard time just blaming it on his generation-his era. While reading Aristotle's Politics I was infuriated with Arisitotle's view on woman. The man was supposedly a genius of his time but still thought the best gift a woman has is her silence. I'm guilty of New Historicism that because I just don't believe that they couldn't see what we see. To us it's obvious that woman should be able to vote, but to them it wasn't. They are the same humans that we were back then and I don't like to discredit them by blaming their whole era. Torvald is a rather oblivious character and I do think he was never taught to even consider woman could be that manipulative. That woman are capable of lying as men. I still think that some of it is truly his fault. He knows there is a letter that she doesn't want him to read, but he doesn't find that suspicious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anna M. on Jan 1, 2014 4:22:50 GMT
Torvald's attitude is a product of his time. At the beginning of the 2nd act he says "Nice?--because you do as your husband wishes? Well, well,
you little rogue, I am sure you did not mean it in that way." To me, that is the most offensive line so far because at this point he isn't being condescending just towards Nora, but to all woman. He expects all wives to do anything their husbands wish. While I find his sentiment unacceptable, I can't say that he is to blame for the sentiment. The culture he comes from creates his world view. I don't like Torvald, but I can't dislike him because behavior like his is what caused people to question the treatment of women and today we have vastly progressed in gender equality. For me, A Doll's House and other stories written in the past should be appreciated because we can appreciate the different cultures and societal views in the greater context of where we are today.
|
|
|
|
Post by avinash on Jan 1, 2014 4:53:43 GMT
In my opinion it is fair to have negative feelings toward Torvald. For me, this starts from the very beginning (act I). The way Torvald treated Nora struck me as condescending. He treated her like she was a child and it seemed like he felt she wasn't capable of surviving in the real world without his help. Torvald oversimplifies Nora's life. In reality, though, Nora has a lot of problems she has to deal with that go beyond the scope of being a regular housewife. If there was to be an excuse for Torvald, this is it. Nora isn't completely transparent with Torvald which may be the reason for Torvald's patronizing attitude towards Nora.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinedorman on Jan 1, 2014 5:08:41 GMT
As I get to know Nora’s character more completely, my disdain of Torvald only increases. At the beginning of the play, however, I was not shocked by his treatment towards his wife, given the time period. The manner in which Torvald makes decisions is indicative of his culture. Ibsen writes, “Do you suppose I am going to make myself ridiculous before my whole staff, to let people think that I am a man to be swayed by all sorts of outside influence?”(Ibsen 34). The husband is expected to be the strong head of the household and void of any weaknesses. Due to the culture, it is understandable that Torvald views himself superior to Nora. I do not find fault in Torvald’s treatment to his wife, but the way in which he understands her—or rather in the way he fails to understand her. I find Nora to be far more complex than a simple “little squirrel”. Torvald does not give her any credit. As the title seems to imply, Torvald could take any other doll-like character and replace Nora with it. Torvald only uses Nora for his own storybook life without any regard to who she actually is.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmeyer on Jan 1, 2014 6:24:27 GMT
This time round, after reading Act I, I chose to read the play and watch it, because that always helps me understand plays better. I don't know much about which version is best and all that, but I watched the version in which Anthony Hopkins plays Torvald Helmer, which admittedly makes the character a little harder to hate. But if possible, I actually found this Nora (played by Claire Bloom) to be even more annoying to have to listen to than to read. It was tricky to read along because the play had been translated slightly differently than the written version that I've been reading (an Ibsen anthology of my mom's) but everything was still there, so it wasn't too different; just not word for word. As for the characters themselves, in the first act they seemed much more happily married than how I had originally read them being. His calling her a squirrel or a lark seemed like a genuine friendly endearment rather than a silly pet name. But his controlling her remained just the same. The title aside, he truly handles her like a doll. Just in the dancing scene, when he just has to control her; she's going too fast, she's dancing too intensely, she's forgotten everything he taught her (why would he know how to dance the... tarantella, was it? anyway...). All that just shows how much he loves to control her. I'm not sure how much of this is his time shaping who he is, and how much of this is just his nature. I understand that viewing Helmer from our time is different than viewing his actions from his time. But at the same time, I think that it's such an issue of "nurture vs nature" because it's so hard to separate the two. So I'm not really sure how to view Helmer.
|
|
amychen
New Member
“But the wild things cried, “Oh please don’t go—we’ll eat you up—we love you so!”
Posts: 47 
|
Post by amychen on Jan 1, 2014 7:44:35 GMT
Like Mitra, I find all the characters to be closely associated with stereotypes. Because of this, I don't really feel much towards most of the characters, Torvald included. While my own bias makes me dislike Nora for her lack of honesty, part of that lack of honesty is reliant on her position in society.
Addressing Torvald's condescension and obliviousness, however, I don't actually hate Torvald that much. Part of this might be the way I try to read older works in the context of their times. In the context of this play, Torvald actually isn't that bad of a guy. Sure, his language is condescending, as shown through his use of pet names---for example, "Now, now, not so wild and excitable! Let me see you being my own little singing bird again." (Ibsen 1718)---but none of the characters point out his condescension. Nora plays along, and the rest of the characters treat this interaction as normal. The thing that makes me think Torvald is not such a bad guy is his acquiescence to Nora's plea for him to not open the letter-box. If Torvald was as condescending as his language suggests, I feel as though he would have opened the letter-box regardless of Nora's pleas and distractions.
Regardless, my viewpoint cannot speak for all other views. It is justified for a modern reader to find Torvald despicable in the same way that it is justified for the reader to find past practices despicable. Yes, we are guilty of New Historicism, but that doesn't mean we can't disagree with past values. Looking to and criticizing the past is how society makes progress. The important thing is that after criticizing, we still try to get past our historical bias and find meaning in the work. This is akin to avoiding an ad hominem fallacy. In this way, we don't excuse the work for it's moral problems, but still recognize there is some validity and value in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by robertxu on Jan 1, 2014 7:47:22 GMT
I definitely feel a fairly strong enmity towards Torvald, but I refuse to let it go by simply writing him off as a "product of his environment". With that being said, it is definitely always important to interpret the context in which individuals make decisions as learning from past generations is beneficial for future generations. For example, when Torvald calls a "little squirrel" or a "sky-lark", it does not appear that he is intentionally trying to make Nora feel inadequate. He might be doing so regardless, but his intentions definitely come from the mindset that he has to "protect" her like a father. Torvald's desperate need to be acknowledged as a father by Nora can be seen by how often he brings him up in conversation. When Nora asks him to not fire Krogstad, Helmer immediately jumps to the conclusion, "It's your father you are thinking of" (Ibsen 1706). Additionally, Torvald is incredibly oblivious. This can be seen by the fact that he barely knows his wife. Nora has had a close relationship with Dr. Rank for a while now, and Torvald does not even suspect it. I also find it incredible that Torvald does not know that there is a completely other side to Nora. It certainly took some guts for Nora to forge a signature and take out a loan from Krogstad. Lastly, Krogstad does face some level of societal pressure to be paternalistic and condescending to his wife. Helmer says to Nora when she asks him to reconsider firing Krogstad, "Do you want to make myself a laughing stock in the office?" (Ibsen 1707). Helmer does not want to publicly let his wife have her way, however, in the past this has just resulted in Nora going behind his back because of her determined and independent nature.
I believe that in every era there are good and bad people. I refuse to believe that every man in the 1800s was as condescending as Helmer. In fact, Dr. Rank seems to care a lot more about Nora's feelings (even though he might not have very noble intentions). He at least listens to her problems and tells her "You can confide in me as nobody else" (Ibsen 1711). While it may be too early to judge Dr. Rank's characters, so far he is looking a lot better than Helmer. My final conclusion is that while it is not fair to justify Helmer's actions simply because he was a character living in the 1800s, it is also not fair to act like Helmer woke up one day and decided, "Hey I'm going to try to oppress my wife because she is a woman!". Therefore it is okay to heckle dead people, sometimes.
Lastly, I would like to address Emily B.'s point that censures Nora for not "commanding respect". However, there were few ways for women to establish power of any kind (in the private or public sphere) in the 1800s and "working" men happened to be one of them. I don't think at this point in the novel there is any meaningful way Nora can "stand up" to Helmer and come out on top. I think that in almost any situation, the weaker party in a power dynamic has the right to even the playing field with the stronger party "by any means necessary".
|
|
|
|
Post by sammywong on Jan 2, 2014 1:55:14 GMT
If you treat someone like an animal, eventually they will become one.
I am not quite sure which I disagree with more: how Torvald treats his wife or my fellow classmates who shove blame towards Nora.
I am not justifying Nora's behaviors due to the time period in which she lives in because indirectly that also releases Torvald from any blame due to living in the same time period as Nora. But really guys...this blame can be paralleled to people nowadays saying girls are asking to be raped due to their clothing, location, etc. Which is not okay.
Letting people off the hook due to society and its normality can only go so far. Torvald wants to keep his reputation and to do this he must conform to the appearance of masculinity and "wearing the pants of the family" (or whatever.) But doesn't he go further than this necessary? I would think that in the privacy of one's home no one can judge you. If Torvald actually respected his wife, despite the screams of society telling him not to, he would still do so in private.
|
|
|
|
Post by cassiecumberland on Jan 2, 2014 19:56:33 GMT
I totally feel animosity towards Torvald at this point, but at the same time Nora makes no advances to change the treatment of herself. I guess, like said previously, it's not fair for me to be judgmental of the times I didn't live in, but at the same time, I'm a woman and I don't think I could live in those times and just succumb to gender stereotypes. Like emilybrinkmann said, Nora is oblivious, but I don't believe she has brought it upon herself. She has shown that she is able to take charge in the relationship by getting a loan to save her beloved husband, she knows the men love her and uses that to her advantage-she is not weak. I think she loves being the innocent victim.
I believe that regardless of the time, people of all generations should be held to the same standards. I am aware that this doesn't make sense since at the time of this play, the standards were way different. BUT regardless I find importance within my judgement of the characterization and rising action of this play because that's what makes literature important. We are all reading it with a 21st century lense-which makes these stories we read in class, or in our free time, timeless and relevant.
I blame Torvald, Nora, and all the characters, but I can also step back and relate it to the times as well! (HISTORICAL CRITICISM!!!!)
|
|
|
|
Post by amysohlberg on Jan 3, 2014 20:29:21 GMT
I don't think Torvald is completely to blame for his actions. Nora encourages his treatment of her as a submissive "pet" in every conversation they have: "'If your little squirrel were to ask you for something very, very prettily--?'" She practically throws herself at his feet and begs him to treat her like an object. If I knew somebody who acted this way around me all the time, I think I would eventually start treating them the way they ask to be treated. I won't pretend like I know a lot about Norwegian societal norms at this time period, but it seems that almost everyone thought of women as objects rather than people. Christine even marries herself off to a man she doesn't love because she feels like it is her duty as a woman. She explains, "'I had to provide for my two younger brothers; so I did not think I was justified in refusing his offer.'"
At the same time, however, I can't ignore that Torvald is just a jerk. He seems to treat Nora very affectionately and politely, but he doesn't truly love her. When she begs him to let Krogstad have his job and he refuses, he says, "'Do you suppose I am going to make myself ridiculous before my whole staff, to let people think that I am a man to be swayed by all sorts of outside influence?'" Here, Torvald reveals his unwillingness to make any sacrifices for his wife. This isn't a healthy relationship in any way. The way Torvald and Nora interact parallels the relationship between a master and his cute dog much more than it does a healthy marriage. I don't think I'm "hectoring the dead" because my beef with Torvald is that he's just plain selfish, and selfishness is inexcusable in any age.
|
|
|
|
Post by keelycorrigan on Jan 4, 2014 18:27:56 GMT
I love that we are evaluating our emotional responses as readers objectively and analytically without devaluing them. Sometimes I feel as if the question circles around, say, whether we hate Torvald instead of why we hate/don’t hate him for the his qualities. I feel that we, as readers, are justified in our emotional reactions to characters or situations and that can’t be invalidated; but, it is much more important to look at the way that the author uses tools (dramatic irony, diction— Torvald’s pet names for his ‘little wife’- and syntax, and others) to gradually whittle away at our patience as readers.
The most emotional scene for me was the mailbox scene. The tension and pain in her whole being is delightfully unbearable for a reader.
As I am reader further and further into the play, I am finding it remarkable that all of this action occurs in one night. I have become accustomed to stories that stretch over time, only allowing the reader in for brief vignettes of time; but, this play doesn't hold back. It puts the reader/audience right in the center of the drama and simply lets it unfold. I absolutely adore that. I find it refreshing.
This play’s perspective is actually refreshing when compared to the typical reads of “English class.” This feels like a sophisticated and intellectual rom-com—the type of film you adore but are somehow made to feel ashamed about loving. But, what do I know?
|
|
