|
|
Post by juliamoreland on Jan 13, 2014 23:24:19 GMT
Similar to Hannah, my path in English classes has made me prone to notice power dynamics and the feminist side to almost anything. The entire “skylark” piece just made me pissed off. In the end, the entire discussion is back and forth between Nora’s “roles” and whether or not those roles even exist. This piece makes a statement about women and the out of date roles they are still expected to fulfill, even though women do have the right to be fully independent. I don’t know how you could portray this story without a feminist undertone at least, I now challenge someone to do so.
I definitely do not see this piece as a tragedy. If you believe that a women belongs with her family at all times without any other option, then perhaps seeing the split would be tragic. From my point of view, however, Nora has every right to become independent and finding her voice is not a tragedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by yongkim on Jan 14, 2014 1:05:45 GMT
While reading A Doll's House and responding to the threads, I thought of this play as primarily a feminist work. Based on Ibsen's assertion that there exist two spiritual laws (one for women and one for men) and questions that influenced me to particularly look at the condescending attitude Torvald has toward his wife, I couldn't help but focus mainly on the gendered power dynamics. Despite my interpretation, the central theme can be generalized to indicate the importance of the individual. When Nora decides to leave her husband, she states, "I believe that first and foremost I am an individual, just as much as you are...But I'm not content any more with what most people say, or with what it says in books. I have to think things out for myself, and get things clear" (1731). From a feminist standpoint, it is evident that Nora is leaving her husband because she can no longer bear to experience the power dynamic that exists (in literature and in the minds of all people living in that time period). However, we can generalize the message and say that Ibsen, through A Doll's House, wants to push upon the reader the importance of autonomy and finding oneself before pleasing others.
Whether this play is a tragedy or not depends on who I sympathize with. After finishing the story, I immediately took the side of Nora and saw this work as the opposite of a tragedy since she is able to free herself from her condescending husband. However, in the point of view of her children, A Doll's House fits my definition of a tragedy. Nora's children will wake up with their mother suddenly gone and their father will tell them that she did not want to say goodbye. Though I am all for advocating the autonomy of an individual, this play is a tragedy in the viewpoint of her children.
|
|
|
|
Post by racheladele on Jan 14, 2014 1:43:08 GMT
I first want to address whether or not A Doll’s House fits my definition of tragedy, which it does not. To make a comparison: Although both Oedipus and Nora receive new, exposing information at the conclusions of their respective stories, Nora stands out because she is in a state to recover and rebuild. In fact, she is in a better place than before; one of deeper understanding and individual potential. Torvald’s actions and Nora’s declaration may be irreversible, as I believe tragedies must be, but they free Nora from being a “doll” and give her more opportunity than pain.
In terms of the feminist roots of Ibsen’s play, I did not read it with a specific eye out for feminism, but I see how strongly it reflects the feminist ideals. Nora progresses throughout the book from a submissive “skylark” to a woman who stands up for herself. When Torvald finds the contract and shifts back to a loving (manipulative) figure of before, Nora does not allow herself to fall for it again. Throughout the story, Torvald makes comments that would make feminists grind their teeth, about honor and love and the duty of women, and the fact that he ends up the enemy corroborates the false nature of his ideals. As I said before, however, I did not read A Doll’s House with feminism in mind. I am in the same boat as other people who have posted before me, suggesting that perhaps Ibsen’s play is showing a more universal story of growing up. I see the feminist messages, but I, like Sheridan, see other lessons about bravery, independence, maturity, steadfastness and truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethmeyer on Jan 14, 2014 2:04:31 GMT
Like many others, I agree that "A Doll's House" is more about individuality than feminism. As a historical critic, I think that Ibsen used a situation and characters that would be appropriate and understandable during his time in order to convey that message of individuality, rather than a message of women's rights or feminism. Looking at this play today, we immediately think that it must be feminist just because it's about a woman standing up for herself, but if we took the same basic storyline and transformed the characters to modern day people, the same storyline would work with almost anyone.
I also don't think that this was a tragedy, at least not from the reader's/Nora's view. Nora is sort of the main character, even though Torvald, Krogstad and Mrs. Linde are all important as well. With Nora being the main character, the reader (maybe not so much the viewer, but definitely the reader) is privy to her side of the story. For Torvald and the children, Nora's up and leaving them might be a tragedy, but for Nora her realization that she has to have the space and opportunity to discover... more is quite uplifting.
|
|
rishi
New Member
Posts: 38 
|
Post by rishi on Jan 14, 2014 2:43:06 GMT
I was literally about to post the exact same response Yong wrote, but I don't want contribute too many redundant ideas, so I'll try to be original.
There is one point that Yong made, however, that I really want to emphasize: I was led to read A Doll's House as a feminist work. Over winter break, the forum prompts that we answered were primarily aimed at describing and justifying the differences between the males and females that are presented in the play. How could I not read A Doll's House as a feminist work if the questions and ideas I was thinking about while reading were based on gender differences?
Although it is difficult for me to move away from my preconceived belief that A Doll's House is a feminist work, I think that the play could also demonstrate the lack of importance in reputation. We see throughout the play that Torvald is concerned with his reputation. Confronting Nora about her father, Torvald replies, "Your father's professional conduct was not entirely above suspicion. Mine is. And I hope it's going to stay that way as long as I hold this position" (1706). What does this concern for reputation result in? A broken marriage. The same goes for Nora who apprehensively awaits Torvald's furious response to Krgstad's blackmail letter. A Doll's House illustrates the faults in being excessively concerned with reputation.
A Doll's House also fits my definition of tragedy. Earlier this year, in a previous forum post, I defined tragedy as an unfortunate event that has the real chance of happening to everyone. This is certainly the case in Ibsen's play. As far as I can tell, Torvald thinks he is justified in treating Nora the way he does, yet Nora decides to leave Torvald because of the way he treats her. Situations similar, but less drastic, than this happen often: we are not consciously aware of the negative effects of our actions, so we act anyway. We may make fun of a friend because we think that this teasing is a joke, yet we also may be unaware of our friend's true feelings. As the phrase goes, "hindsight is 20/20," and that is certainly the case for many of us. This is the case for Torvald as well, who is unaware of Nora's true feelings about his condescension until she confronts him about it at the end of the play. Because many of us make errors like Torvald's, although often to less severe degrees, the unfortunate circumstances at the end of A Doll's House are very real; they could occur in our own lives. This is why A Doll's House could be considered a tragedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessicalee on Jan 14, 2014 2:49:56 GMT
In order to deem A Doll's House a feminist piece of literature, I would have to focus solely on Nora's situation. In the beginning of the story, Nora is subordinate to Torvald. She acts as a doll that is controlled by its owner. In the final act, however, Nora begins to recognize her mistreatment and lack of independence and is thus able to grow past this, empowering the feminist belief in gender equality and equal opportunity. Yet, if we look at the play as a whole, the central theme changes significantly. Looking beyond Nora and at the family in general, A Doll's House could change meaning entirely to represent the inability to see what goes on inside the home. One's life in the home and outside of the home can be two very conflicting lives. Outsiders will never the know the true problems that run through a family for most families put up a facade- a doll house if you will- that seems perfect from the outside. In this sense, A Doll's House becomes less of a feminist work and more a familial work.
As for whether this play is a tragedy, I would say it is not. Previously, I stated that a tragedy implies that the subject loses hope and faith in her situation. Yet, we see quite the opposite. At the end of the play, Nora becomes a new person- a new woman. To this end, she does not lose hope and faith, but rather gains it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stever on Jan 14, 2014 2:50:31 GMT
While I agree that it may be a simplified reading to view this work solely as a feminist piece, I think one experiences an equally simplified reading if he or she ignores the clear feminist underpinnings of the story. While the story primarily conveyed feminist themes, the story can clearly have significance outside the feminist reading. The struggles Nora has with finding her sense of autonomy and independence can either be read generally or from a feminist perspective. However, If one were to come a way with an interpretation of the story that ignores the feminist themes in the story, that interpretation would be valid, but it would not be the only valid interpretation and it would ignore a breadth of textual evidence to the contrary. Many of you have brought up the title, "A Doll's House," and references throughout the story that compare the treatment of women to that of dolls. This comparison explicitly illustrates the objectification of women and supports the feminist reading of the piece. While these feminist themes are prominent, this piece can hold weight beyond the clear feminist reading and be read as an urge for breaking norms, finding independence, defying the system, and striving for equality in general.
I would have read this story as a tragedy if Nora had stayed in her unhappy relationship or committed suicide (as she hinted she might do a few times throughout the story.) But, because Nora was able to escape her oppressive circumstances, the story ending with a hopeful -- though maybe not happy -- ending. For me, tragedy requires an element of regret. Therefore, if Nora did not leave, and regretted her decision not to leave, I would have labeled this a tragedy. But, because Nora followed through with her difficult yet necessary decision to leave, I do not think this story is a tragedy. According to this definition, one might consider the story tragic for Helmer, since he may have felt regret for misunderstanding his wife so badly. But, because Helmer was so clearly painted as an antagonist, I did not consider the story tragic. Yong also brought up how this story may have been tragic for the children, but because the children were such insignificant characters, I do not think that their unfortunate circumstances would lead this story to being labeled a tragedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidqin on Jan 14, 2014 2:56:19 GMT
My critical lens is really getting to me. I'm political criticism, for those of you who don't know. Of course, I was always a historical/biographical/political critic to begin with, so that's how I read A Doll's House. I do not see it only as a feminist work, and I believe it has broader meanings beyond those strictly limited to the portrayal of women. Instead, I saw very prominent power dynamics and crumbling gender stereotypes (particularly in Act 3). When Nora says, "If I'm ever to reach any understanding of myself and the things around me, I must learn to stand alone" (1731), she almost points to a discussion of existentialism and individualism, and it definitely isn't limited to just feminism. Further down the page, she says, "I believe that first and foremost I am an individual... I know most people agree with you, Torvald, and that's also 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 to think things out for myself" (1731). Nora definitely addresses the gender stereotypes of her time (the people who agree with Torvald and the books), but her words also indicate a desire to find her self more. And this goes back to our previous discussions on finding self in our lives, because what Nora says surely most apply to everybody, and not only to women. Her emphasis on self could surely be interpreted as a feminist call for independence, but I saw it more broadly as the need for any person, man or women, to find his or her true position in life. Finally, along with the now shattered gender stereotypes, Act 3 shows a power struggle between Nora and Torvald, which is clearly applicable to a whole variety of situations.
This play is not a tragedy for me. I agree with several of the people before me in that tragedy is such an overused term nowadays. To add to my previous definition of tragedy, I think a work has to unconsciously bring about a sense of profound sadness or disappointment, in addition to having a clear connection to some part of our own lives. The unconscious part is important! I could make myself feel sad over Torvald or Nora's fates, but that defeats the purpose. Through two readings of this play, I fail to sense any unconscious wave of emotion. Sure, the ending is unfortunate and potentially upsetting, but it does not elicit any strong emotions out of me. Perhaps I may feel differently if I were to watch this play live in the theater, but I cannot accurately speak on that possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjharris on Jan 14, 2014 3:07:53 GMT
I believe, upon my first reading, I definitely picked up on the femenist theme in the third act. I thought it a bit weird that she was leaving her children behind but I was willing to root for Ibsen for writing this in the time period that he did. If i were to read it again I would see it differently as a theme of autonomy. Sometimes the choice of freedom comes with a price to pay, like Nora's children have to pay for her finding herself. Every decision has an innumerable chain of reactions and sometimes we are forced to decide whether those consequences are worth the decision. I wouldn't call this play a tragedy, by my original definition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lacey Doby on Jan 14, 2014 3:16:57 GMT
Like Fiona, I couldn't help but notice that the themes about the feminine struggle were so pronounced they pulled most of the focus. Also, I feel like we, as the people of the 21st century, are conditioned to notice and get irritated by the disconnect between men and roles in literature. For me, personally, it is hard to see anything in the text without first considering how blatantly Nora is being placed and held within a role we would perceived today as being unfair and degrading to women.
My definition of tragedy was somewhere along the lines of "an event for which the pain is felt long after the incident occurred," so I suppose it depends of whether Nora leaving brings her lasting pain or not. I suppose leaving a husband and children behind is bound to bring that kind of emotion up, but the tragedy is also balanced by the fact that Nora is finally taking control of her life. She lost a lot, but she gained a lot as well. It's a tragedy with upsides.
|
|
|
|
Post by samwerner on Jan 14, 2014 3:34:24 GMT
As a historical critic, I read the piece not through a feminist lens, but by noticing some strong archetypical relationships between the characters. I agree that Nora and the treatment she receives is exactly the type that feminist critics refute. However, her character was, in my eyes, a relatively concrete reflection of the archetype many upper-middle class women fit during that time period. Torvald's overbearing presence as the male authority figure speaks to another archetype of the then-male dominant society in which "A Doll's House" takes place. If I was an audience member of this play in the late 19th or early 20th century, it most certainly wouldn't have struck me as such a controversial piece concerning gender because of the perpetuated patriarchy of the time. As a historical critic, I took all of this into account, and focused my analysis on it as I read. I still don't deny that, from the little I know about feminist criticism, this work would ring some alarm bells.
I don't remember exactly what I wrote, but back when we deliberated over the true definition of a tragedy, I remember putting something about the effects of the event on a larger population. I also included a bit about unexpectedness and seriousness of the event. Taking that all into account, I would not look at this play as a tragedy. In Torvald's eyes, the unexpectedness of the break up may be partially tragic, but in no way do I see the situation as a tragedy. There is no death, no widespread effects that change the lives of many others, and no real ending that stirs up an emotional darkness from the audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by sammywong on Jan 14, 2014 4:02:35 GMT
In class last month, we discussed what the word tragedy entails and the overuse of the word. "Tragedy" is so prominent in news articles nowadays the significance of the word is now dulled. This is why I would say A Doll House is not a tragedy, because if we did label the story as a tragedy we would be contributing to the overuse of the word. We know that at this point, there is not true equality between men and females socially, politically, and economically. Calling a frequent occurrence a tragedy abuses the word that originally gives the impression of irregularity.
I would argue that the story is not only yummy literature viewed through a feminist lens. This statement derives from personal experience as I did not read through a feminist perspective, but still found the story quite enjoyable and substantive. I think that there is much to take from a story that portrays a multitude of human beings all with different desires, no matter who you are. Nora wants Helmer's love, but at the same time she desires his respect as well; two contrasting things she yearns for that ultimately cannot coexist together. Rank desires Nora's love but also loves being Helmer's friend and wants his and Nora's life to have the stability in which he feels his own life does not have. Helmer wants the "perfect and respectable" life, but we find out in the end of the story he does seem like he is slightly willing to jeopardize his envisions to keep her. There is just so much more to take from the story than female oppression and like Hannah's analogy in class, though dissecting the lungs of a human being is beneficial, there is the rest of the complex human body still unexplored.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattagritelley on Jan 14, 2014 4:33:07 GMT
There appears to be a general consensus that A Doll's House contains both autonomous and feminist undertones. Yong brought up a really interesting quote that lends itself well to this idea. At the end of the play, Nora proclaims: "I believe that first and foremost I am an individual, just as much as you are...But I'm not content any more with what most people say, or with what it says in books. I have to think things out for myself, and get things clear" (1731). By considering herself an individual, Nora seems to imply a general autonomy that exists between all human beings. I agree with this idea in every way. However, I also believe that this very same interpretation (that all humans are autonomous) directly supports the notion that the play is inherently feminist. Arguing that all beings are equal and free, particularly during this time period, carries with it the understanding that women were the ones treated unfairly and men simply were not. So, by virtue, autonomy among people implies that women must be treated better, thus supporting feminist ideals. All things are considered, I believe this play is feminist-- a term that can be used interchangeably with autonomy among people.
On a different note, I believe that this play is indirectly a tragedy, meaning it satisfies many of the tenants of a literary tragedy in a rather unconventional way. While tragedies usually "probe with high seriousness the questions concerning the role of man in the universe," A Doll's House is much more deceivingly lighthearted and flippant its prose. Ultimately, however, it becomes clear that Ibsen's lighthearted writing style is used to further the tragic nature of the story-- Nora's eventual realization and acting upon her submissive role in a patriarchal society. There is no doubt that this message, itself, is tragic. However, I am conflicted by the ending, when Nora walks out on Torvald and takes charge of her life as an independent woman. To me, this is more empowering than tragic. While I view the gist of the play as a tragedy, I do not necessarily believe that all scenes further this notion.
|
|
Kasey
New Member
Posts: 31 
|
Post by Kasey on Jan 14, 2014 4:53:35 GMT
This story read more like a soap opera than anything to me, complete with conflicting best friend love interest and girlhood best friend. I think it might read as feminism in a very cut-and-dry sense of the word: "Look, I'm a woman and I'm standing up to a man and I'm so powerful and in control of my own destiny now wow". It's like she's coming of age to her husband. All the characters annoy me, but Nora angers me the most. I don't care if she wants to be her own woman and stand up to her ex-man and find herself; she can do that. But she has kids, and personally, my morals lie in that if you have a kid you are responsible to them (NOTE: regardless of whether you're a man or a woman) and tied to them until they become their own person. My rather-generalized exceptions are if one cant feed or clothe or love their children, or if someone never wanted to have a kid in the first place. But she did, and her excuse is that she wants to go find herself? Sorry, sweet cheeks: that ship has sailed. You have children to look after. You're gonna have to find yourself with them in the definition. You can be separate from your husband, but I do not respect you if you just abandon your children, especially with your seemingly split-second decision. You are not excused just because your exit is framed as a feminist stand against the patriarchy. If you were a man and you left your kids like that, people would spit on you.
I find it a tragedy in that she leaves her kids without so much as a goodbye. I don't care about Torvald. I don't care about Nora. I care about those kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by jennyxu on Jan 14, 2014 5:17:58 GMT
I do read A Doll's House from a feminist point of view, since the society's limitations on women is a prevalent theme in this play. The fact that Nora cannot take out a loan without her husband's knowledge plus the fact that Torvald refuses to listen to Nora's pleas, simply because listening to his wife would ruin his reputation, show a manipulation of women by the men as the central theme. From a more general point, the play could represent a transfer of faith from someone you love to yourself, so the play could be read from a general self empowerment point of view. But considering the details, the play has a strong feminist framework, ending with Nora finally standing up to a man.
Tragedy implies a greater inevitability and loss of potential than this play produces. In fact, Nora ends this play stronger than ever, and the end of her marriage to Torvald is not really a loss to her. I mean, yes, from a certain perspective, it could be considered a tragedy, since a family is torn apart and she leaves her children. But personally, I think the definition of tragedy really relies on crushing the hopes and dreams of the protagonist. It happens to a degree in the play, her "miracle of miracles" never happens, but she still has hope and newfound strength in her self.
|
|
