|
Post by Jason Parris on Jan 12, 2014 1:02:40 GMT
Hello everyone. I really want to explore the assertion I've seen a number of times on these threads about how men and women are "wired differently," but we should probably wait for Feminist Critical Perspectives for that conversation. In the meantime, think about these things: Do you read A Doll's House as a specifically feminist work, or do you think its central theme is a more generalized kind of autonomy? Also, does the play fit your definition of tragedy?
|
|
|
Post by betsyrahe on Jan 12, 2014 23:29:32 GMT
When I began the play I wasn't really looking for anything in particular, but I soon became irritated with Nora's relationship with Helmer. I then did read it as a feminist work analyzing the dependency woman had to men. When Helmer asks her what other duties she could have besides her children she replies with, "Duties to myself."(Gutenberg.org) That stood out to me as a major idea of feminism. That woman have the right to have self actualization just like men. That men and woman are equal and society needs to allow woman to be equal. So yes, personally I did read A Doll's House as a feminist work but I can also see it is a more generalized autonomy. Nora discovers she doesn't need Helmer to be happy and in fact this "living like a doll" lifestyle has caused her unhappiness. Living autonomously is her basic human right. My original definition of tragedy was the themes had to deal with death. This is backpacking on the Shakespearean idea of tragedy. While A Dolls House definitely does not fit this idea of tragedy I don't think the work ended sadly/unhappy. To me Nora discovering she can be independent and that she has the right to find her own views on life is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by moreno on Jan 12, 2014 23:31:38 GMT
As a feminist critic, it is is difficult to read the play as anything other than a feminist work. Torvald's treatment of Nora throughout the play is exactly the type of behavior feminists revoke. More, Nora's newfound sense of self in Act 3 is the definition of the independent and strong woman feminists strive to be. Nora states, "...you neither think nor talk like the man I would want to share my life with. When you got over your fright-and you weren't concerned about me but only what might happen to you-and when all danger was past, you acted as though nothing had happened. I was your sky-lark, your little doll, exactly as before; except you would have to protect it twice as carefully as before, now that it had shown itself to be so weak and fragile," (1733). Notice, Nora refers to the sky-lark and doll as an "it"...not an "I." This is important because it proves that Nora has significantly changed and come to the realization that she is perfectly able to stand without a man by her side. (Hooray for feminism!) No, the play does not fit my definition of a tragedy. To me, a tragedy affects more people than those directly involved, and usually involves some sort of end or death. Although Nora and Torvald's relationship is over, I see the story as more positive than anything else. In fact, I think this story has somewhat of a happy ending. It was difficult to read the first two acts of the play because Torvald and Nora's relationship is so annoying. Therefore, when Nora finally finds herself and stands up for herself, I see it as a victory. As a feminist critic reading this story as a feminist work, I have no sympathy for Torvald because, despite the time, he was not man enough to treat his woman with any sort of respect.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jan 12, 2014 23:33:01 GMT
I don't think A Doll's House is specifically feminist but I do think that it might be easier for women to sympathize with the story. When Helmer says, " I would gladly toil day and night for you, Nora, enduring all manner of sorrow and distress. But nobody sacrifices his honor for the one he loves" (1733) Nora responds, "Hundreds and thousands of women have" (1733). The obvious separation between men and women here could make a reader think that Ibsen is talking about feminism, but there's more to it than that. The difference is the protagonist loved their spouse enough to sacrifice everything for their safety, whereas the spouse does not share that same love. No matter the gender of the characters the story still shows the complications in marriage and relationships where the love is not equal. Also, in Nora and Helmer's final talk she says, "I believe that first and foremost I am an individual... I have to think things out for myself, and get things clear" (1731). She's not a "woman" first and foremost, she's an individual, not boxed in by gender stereotypes but free to live and find her uniqueness. Individuality is a theme that reads clearly to all genders, making me see A Doll's House to not be pushing women's equal rights, but individual's abilities to live and to love well.
Finally, no I don't read this play to be anywhere near a tragedy because it's not even sad. In the end Nora, one of the most likable characters, does what she wants; she's not forced to continue down a path of oppression but feels freedom in her choices. It might be a tragedy for the children to loose their mother, but considering how little time they spent together I think they'll be fine with the nannies. Tragedies need to negatively affect people and make them ponder death, but in A Doll's House the only one left sad is Helmer, who kinda deserves it.
|
|
|
Post by sheridanf on Jan 13, 2014 0:53:07 GMT
While this play can most certainly be analyzed as feminist, I consider it to have a more generalized message. If you think of Torvald as a representation of Nora's innocence, the play becomes a story who struggles to grow up and then in one empowering motion becomes a mature woman. Nora's relationship with Torvald is obviously one-sided and eventually considered harmful to Nora as a person, but she clings it to Torvald, anyway, because he keeps her from the hardships of the world. This metaphor makes sense especially when you consider the fact that both Torvald and Nora's father were sick at the same time- if Torvald is Nora's innocence, her innocence started faltering because she became face-to-face with death in a very personal way. But instead of maturing right then and perhaps assisting her father in his time of low health, she focuses all of her energy and goes out of her way to save Torvald and keeps her innocence intact. Each and every one of us has some sort of Torvald that we have to separate ourselves from in order to grow up, so I don't think A Doll's House is just a feminist play.
In terms of the play being a tragedy, I think the last scene is much too empowering and hopeful to be tragic. There's always some sort of tragedy involved with growing up, but overall I think the tragedies involved with Nora's maturation- a.k.a. leaving Torvald and her children behind- do not overcome the sense of empowerment that comes from that last scene.
|
|
|
Post by emilybrinkmann on Jan 13, 2014 2:18:34 GMT
While this story first comes accost as a great case for a feminists critic, I think it can be read any way the individual wants. After just learning about psychological criticism, I can understand more about the relationship between Torvald and Nora. Their subconscious seems to be in a struggle that they themselves are not aware of, and I think as characters they are driven by sexual drive. Then there are always the supporting characters we see that are also driven by sexuality. As a biographical critic I looked more into Ibsen, the time period of which he wrote the play, and related my knowledge of the Norwegian culture to help make the characters come to life for me. For example; Ibsen's father lost their money when he was a child and he had to live in poverty. From a biographical lens I see how this is reflected in Nora's problems with money and even that Torvald works at a bank. Going back to psychological criticism, this could reveal a lot about Ibsen's subconscious. Overall I feel that even though the most obvious way to look at this story is through a feminist lens, it is not the only way. I would never classify this story as a tragedy. I do feel that there are rather sad events that unfold and happen in the story, but that isn't enough for it to be a tragedy. I agree with what Sheridan said about the last scene being too hopeful to be a tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by kevinle on Jan 13, 2014 2:50:19 GMT
I don't think about whether a text is a feminist piece or not when I'm reading it. Feminism did not cross my mind while reading A Doll's House, so I suppose it would contain more general messages about gender roles and power dynamics. I can see how one can view A Doll's House as a feminist piece, with the author's portrayal of Torvald's skylark-ful power and control over Nora and Nora's lack of freedom. But feminism doesn't really register with my mind, still.
It's a tragedy that doesn't strike me with emotions, but it very well may have great effects on other readers. It is a tragedy because of the disastrous, life-changing, saddening human-caused (but avoidable!) failure. I didn't really achieve any sort of catharsis though.
|
|
|
Post by allegra on Jan 13, 2014 2:50:48 GMT
This play fascinates and angers me at the same time because of its allusions to feminist motifs without fully addressing them. I think Nora comes to understand the importance of being a strong woman as she sees Torvald as more immature and domineering and I do enjoy these allusions to feminism but I think they could be more fully developed. Because of the lack of complete development of the femminist theme, I don't think the play is strictly a feminist work, it has to do more with human relationships and emotional sacrifice. Everyone sacrifices their emotions in a relationship, but in this particular relationship I do not see Torvald sacrificing any sort of emotion; in fact, it is Nora who sacrifices much more in order to see her husband well. The crux of the play is Nora's financial problems; problems she encounters because she sacrifices for her husband's health. These problems also arise because Nora can't have a serious talk with her husband. The relationship is flawed in many ways because Nora takes the entire emotional weight onto herself. I don't think this play is a tragedy but I do think it has tragic elements in it.
|
|
|
Post by cassiecumberland on Jan 13, 2014 3:48:48 GMT
Although I am all "hoo-haa!" about Nora taking the initiative to break out of her female-mold, I don't think this is a feminist piece of literature. I believe that this piece is relevant to everyone of all genders and considerations. Although I understand that "A doll's house" signifies that the story is about a woman being controlled... who plays with dolls? Generally females, although males rock that too! I think that through the title things can be confusing about this topic AND the fact that the one that breaks out of their house is Nora (a woman). BUT what about Krogstad? He does the RIGHT thing and decides not to ruin Nora and her husband's life. I think that he proves that the story is relevant to both genders doing the right thing.
|
|
joelk
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by joelk on Jan 13, 2014 5:06:20 GMT
I read A Doll's House as a more general work, though I think there are definitely specific passages that also apply to the feminist perspective.
I’d start with the title, which, as Cassie brought up, seems to indicate more of a feminist slant. In the play, Nora reveals, “I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Daddy’s doll child. And the children in turn have been my dolls. I though it was fun when you came and played with me, just as they thought it was fun when I went and played with them” (Ibsen 1730). The image of Nora as a doll certainly implies a gender-specific perspective, until one reads about the children being compared to the same doll image. Since Nora has both boy and girl children, I think the purpose of the title’s imagery is to make a point about independence without regards to a specific gender.
The same sort of extension—a feminist-type point followed by a broader point—appears when Nora further explains her reasons for leaving. To start, she tells, “I believe…I am an individual…I know most people agree with you, Torvald, and that’s what it says in books. But I’m not content any more with what most people say, or with what it says in books. I have things to think out for myself, and get things clear” (Ibsen 1731). First, Nora discusses the gender stereotypes of the time, something that sounds very feminist-esque to my untrained feminist critical ears. She also indicates, though, that she wants to think things out for herself, a general statement that could apply to many things. In fact, she does want to think about other looming questions: “I don’t really know what religion is…when I’m on my own, I’ll go into that, too…I’m really very confused…I’ve also learnt the law is different from what I thought…Apparently a woman has no right to spare her old father on his deathbed, or to save her husband’s life, even” (Ibsen 1731-2). Because Nora wants to ponder religion and law as well as gender stereotypes, I think Ibsen presents us with a work that is applicable to almost any theme of independence, not just a feminist perspective.
To look back at my definition of tragedy, this play does not meet it—when read. I set a simple but high bar: tragedy is what we personally call anything that elicits true sympathy as an unconscious reaction. Upon reflection, I found the play’s ending to be unfortunate, but in my first and second reads of the ending I found nothing that caused a strong emotional response. I’d attach a caveat, though; when performed well I think the play has the potential to be a tragedy. Unfortunately, reading plays silently often removes some of the effect, at least for me.
|
|
alice
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by alice on Jan 13, 2014 5:47:37 GMT
I do see some elements of feminism in this story, but I also see a story of personal growth and of human ignorance. I think it would be discrediting to this story to see it purely as a feminist story and not recognize the other things going on. Women's roles definitely play a large role in this story as Nora is the causer of conflict and the central character and she is, surprise, a woman so gender roles are sort of already weaved in there.
This story does not fit my definition of tragedy. I mean YEAH it's pretty sad, but it still doesn't strike me as a TRAGEDY. My definition talked about how other people overused the word "tragedy" when gossiping at their bridge parties or whatever and I think this story fits into that sort of tragedy, as in one people can still talk about scandalously rather than in hushed somber tones.
|
|
|
Post by garygates on Jan 13, 2014 5:55:13 GMT
According to the roles of characters and these roles' juxtaposition with the time period in which the story takes place, I would argue that Ibsen is in fact using his play to advance morals and ideas coinciding with the feminist movement. This, however, does not mean that the message of the novel has to solely be interpreted in a feminist manner. Ibsen's message is progressive and advocates the autonomy of an individual over society's (often antiquated) expectations, I would argue, regardless of the socioeconomic background of the individual. If one was to ask me, "But do you think Ibsen's message is feminist or not?" I would gleefully exclaim, "Who cares!" In all honesty, it does not matter how Ibsen intends his piece's message to be received, because once he put his story onto paper he opens his work to an infinite number of interpretations that are equal to, if not far more important than, his own. The reader is the real decider in the case of interpretation because he or she has biases and narcissism to support. Let's face it, we all want to be correct. We're far too lazy and tired to constantly subject ourselves openly to the opinions of others and far too fearful to allow the possibility of mind-opening and complete and utter change. For this reason we lock ourselves up in a bedroom corner, blast the eloquent prose of Chief Keef to our parents' dismay, and refuse to allow anything get in between our physical bodies and our current opinions. And when we do open ourselves up to new information, the wonderfully versatile beauty of art allows us to quickly stay inside our little bedroom by proclaiming, "HA, this does in fact reinforce my appreciation for Chief Keef!" (or provide forced evidentiary support for any other bias we are attempting to comfortably maintain). So when I am asked if I believe that Ibsen's message is feminist or universally progressive I believe that it is universally progressive because my reading of this play and my prior knowledge are able to work harmoniously and kill two birds with one stone: Nora is a perfect example for the societally rejected who, by the justification of her empowerment, serves as a symbol for universal autonomy.
As for the question whether this novel fits my definition of tragedy, I would not personally classify this play as tragic. My definition of tragedy is rather complex and clustered but I will try to explain it. To be a tragedy, a work has to involve the literal or figurative uncorrected or unresolved end to a character's life that evokes my sympathy due to the loss of a potential. By this I mean that a character has promise to solve an issue but their death comes before they can fix whatever wrongs they are trying to correct. Neither Nora nor Torvald fits this description for me. I see Nora's end as a positive and happy ending of empowerment and I feel no outweighing sympathy for Torvald because of his ignorance and maltreatment of his wife.
|
|
|
Post by mitralebuhn on Jan 13, 2014 6:16:17 GMT
My response was very much like Betsy's. Upon the establishment of Nora and Torvald's relationship dynamic and the obvious notion of gender roles, I couldn't help but read it from a feminist critique's perspective. But, as Alice points out, this is not just a feminist story. There are themes of sacrifice as Krogstad agrees to let Nora off the hook, and Kristine talks to Krogstad for Nora's sake. We see friendship and loyalty, priorities (Krogstad's, and with Nora almost leaving her children), establishing a sense of self, and many more profound concepts.
As for this being a tragedy, "A Doll's House" definitely does not fit my definition. I establish a tragedy as a loss of hope, and although Nora's hope dips in the middle, I don't think there was a total loss AND the story ends with an optimistic and hopeful outlook as she has hope to discover who she is, amongst the sadness of her leaving her husband.
|
|
|
Post by fionabyrne on Jan 13, 2014 17:07:14 GMT
It sounds so much more agreeable to say that I read this play as a general work, but to be honest the themes specific to the feminine struggle were so pronounced that I focused most of my attention on them. The message relating to Nora is pretty clear, but when I read Betsey's post that mentions Krogstad as another empowered (non-female) character I remembered Ms. Lind. Nora's independence is a common feminist theme but Ms. Lind's happiness being caused by her tying herself to a man is less common. I appreciate that the image portrayed of women and where they are allowed to find happiness is not so one dimensional, and in that way it is so much more realistic. My definition of tragedy was centered around the idea that a person cannot come back from it. To quote myself, "The very sad has at least the potential to get better, but tragedy is where it is impossible to say "well at least..." There are no bright sides. What sets tragedy apart is that nothing good comes of it, or at least nothing enough good to be worth the trying effort of optimism." By that definition, "A Doll's House" does not qualify as tragedy because it has a happy ending.
|
|
|
Post by hannahlewman on Jan 13, 2014 22:10:24 GMT
Even before I got assigned to feminist literary criticism I read almost everything with a level of hyper-awareness for gender and gender roles. Now that I am extra focused on feminist literary criticism, my brain is pretty much wired to read exclusively for gender issues. While I'm reading through this lens, which I don't think I have to make a case for, as most people can see how feminist literary criticism can apply to this text, I do think that looking at it through an exclusively feminist lens would be a bit reductive. This story seems rich with opportunities for psychological, archetypal, historical, and probably other types of literary criticism. While I would happily argue that fem lit crit is the most relevant to this text (I mean come on, the line "Before all else, you are a wife and mother" is such feminist bait), I think there are many other rich elements of the text, like the money aspect that Emily mentioned, to explore.
The tragedy question is a tricky one. By definition, this text does not seem to meet the qualifications for a tragedy. Fiona said it herself, this play has a happy ending, Nora goes free. But by showing how Nora leaves her "doll's house" for freedom, Ibsen reminds the reader of all of the women who for whatever reason are not able to make the same choice as Nora. Helmer even states "But no man would sacrifice his honour for the one he loves," to which Nora responds "It is a thing hundreds of thousands of women have done." So while Nora's story might not be the true tragedy, it reminds us of a an ongoing and widespread reality that is quite tragic and much more real than the story we see in this text. If that's not tragic, I don't know what is.
|
|