|
Post by amysohlberg on Jan 14, 2014 5:43:33 GMT
I read A Doll's House is a feminist work. It has an empowering message, but I think it's a little bit of a stretch to apply Nora's empowerment to anything but a woman-overcoming-a-woman's-stereotypes situation. The story is built on the foundation of an inequality in the relationship between Nora and Torvald, a man and a woman, husband and wife. The relationship between man and woman has historically been unequal in almost every society for all of history, and only recently has equality begun to emerge in our culture. Theoretically, you could use this to apply to any generalized story of autonomy, but I think it mainly addresses women's struggle for power over their lives. The dialogue is fairly narrowly tailored to support this point, like when Torvald says, "'Before all else, you are a wife and a mother'" and Nora replies, "I don't believe that any longer."
Is this a tragedy? The thought hadn't even entered my mind. Let me go check my tragedy definition. I said, "Tragedy occurs when something is lost that can't be regained." Hmm. This play does not fit my definition of tragedy. I guess you could say that Nora and Torvald lost their marriage, but when I gave my tragedy definition I assumed that the thing being lost was valuable and treasured. Nora and Torvald already had an empty relationship built on an illusion, so I don't consider that loss a tragedy. The only thing that would cross my mind as tragic is Nora's children losing their mother. Although she might not have been the best model for them, her absence is going to play a part in the way they live their lives, whether big or small. I don't know if she made the right decision in leaving them, but she was already limited in her participation in their development, so her absence wouldn't be a huge shift from the norm. A Doll's House just isn't a tragedy because there isn't a loss of anything valuable.
|
|
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 14, 2014 5:54:42 GMT
My response to the last forum post fits this prompt remarkably well (summary in bold): In other words, I didn't read A Doll's House as a specifically feminist work—I read it as a work urging for social equality or, rather, equal respect. On the issue of tragedy, however, I'm not as certain. My definition of tragedy was the following: Nora lives with Torvald for eight years—it is a tragedy that they wasted so much time not really knowing each other, but I don't find A Doll's House particularly tragic. Again, I blame my background and bias. Nora, who I consider the most sympathetic of Ibsen's characters, leaves the house to pursue what she wants to pursue. She seizes and opportunity to make things right—right, in my opinion. My bias outweighs my sense for tragedy in this play. Despite how Nora's actions affect other characters, I feel as though Nora is doing what she should have done all along. Even though, as I pointed out in my previous post, Ibsen's play might actually be a commentary on how homemakers deserve more respect as homemakers—thus Nora's leaving might leaving might be a negative thing—this rationalizing doesn't play into my modern sense for tragedy. I refuse to look through a sexist lens to find tragedy in a work that otherwise feels feminist and positive in nature. In other words:
My brain says A Doll's House is tragic with respect to its time period. Torvald, having never been told off for his condescending behavior, loses Nora. Torvald and Nora's children lose their mother. Nora attempts to pursue goals that are "not fitting to her sex." Nora and Torvald have missed the opportunity again and again to change.
My heart says "RUN NORA RUN, AS FAST AS YOU CAN."
|
|
|
Post by natalieskowlund on Jan 14, 2014 5:55:57 GMT
Firstly, I am going to have to agree with just about everyone who posted before me, this piece is feminist. I believe it has a primarily feminist agenda not because it involves the typical feminist citation--a repressive husband and a wife imprisoned within not only his expectations, but the outside society at large--but because of when it was written. The same piece written today would likely be written with very different intentions, and would be interpreted differently. Perhaps it would be meant as a satire of the notion that our society is locked in the two-gender mindset when we should view gender as more of a spectrum, which ironically holds us as a society back just as Torvald's patriarchal mindset did to Nora. But given the fact that "A Doll's House" was published in 1879 in a European country--which means the author lived in a society even more steeped in tradition than the U.S., it seems brazenly obvious that the play is a daring feminist manifesto. For that time and place, introducing the idea of women having a right to live their own lives, separate from being a mother and wife, was practically unheard of. That Ibsen had the audacity to write about a woman who defies her husband and retaliates against society's expectations for her would have been close to social suicide in that time. But then again, feminists notoriously have little respect for customs they disagree with. So bravo to Ibsen, an early Norwegian feminist!
As for the second question, I actually think this play could be perceived as a tragedy. And no, it's not because I was extremely attached to Dr. Rank, only to find out he dies of illness in the end. I think the play is, in a way, tragic because it points at the blaringly painful and difficult feat of creating change. Change is rarely, as this play asserts, the beautiful, comforting, benign concept so often heralded by sages and scholars. In fact, in Nora's situation, creating change for herself means a plausibly less comfortable and content lifestyle. In her case, as in most others, change requires a trade off, and certainly not an easy one at that. For her own freedom, Nora is forced to trade wealth, material goods, a home, a husband and family. She must choose one or the other unless "the greatest miracle of all" happens--Torvald is willing to change with her. The tragedy is one larger than the play; it is the story of the world. We as humans are so frighteningly attached to the past, to custom, that we often find ourselves incapable of accepting progress. It is threatening implication, but true none the less. Will we, like Gatsby, "beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past" for eternity? I badly wish this play hadn't told us so.
|
|
|
Post by coreybrown on Jan 14, 2014 6:00:12 GMT
I think it's easy to read A Doll's House from a feminist perspective. My own reading, however, stemmed more from a sense of maturation and independence (as many before me seem to have as well). It's a play about Nora becoming free from her Torvald, both from his pampering and degradation as well as her reliance on him for that shelter. I think that, once she finally bears the burden of the world (and her actions) herself, she is able to be free. In that sense, it's not specifically about gender (though, give the way Torvald is written [which is fitting with the time period] it is easy to make it that way and is easy to make that a very valid factor) as it can apply in either direction.
As for the tragedy, I don't think this quite fits. There are tragic aspects. What Nora has to give up to live her own life (mainly the kids, but Torvald too) is tragic. No one should be forced to sacrifice their family to gain independence. But no, overall this is not a tragedy because, though she has lost a lot, Nora is moving on to something better, or at least has the hope of a better future, at the end of the play. Sure, you can strive to find a silver lining or hope at the end of any tragedy, but in this case it's not just a speck used to make a horrible event/story leave some kind of positive mark, message, or gleaning. In this case, the end is full of hope, almost as much if not more than it's filled with loss.
|
|
|
Post by carolinedorman on Jan 14, 2014 6:15:24 GMT
If feminism means (according to the dictionary), “the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men”, then no I do not think A Doll’s House is a specifically feminist work. What resonated for me was not Nora’s ability as a woman to stand up to her husband, but the devastating effect of recognizing a person solely on one’s own terms. I do not think this play was created to inspire women that they have the power to stand up to their husbands. Looking at the story through a modern lense, it does not seem to matter whether the character of Nora is female or male. I think the most common flaw of relationships is a false understanding of the other person. Torvald creates a mold for Nora and is shocked when she isn’t a perfect fit. This play does not fit my definition of a tragedy. To reiterate, my definition of a tragedy is an event that exposes human frailty or lack of control. Although Torvald and Nora’s condition is sad and unfortunate, it was avoidable. Nora could have refused to marry Torvald or revealed her financial debt sooner. Torvald could have handled the news of Nora’s debt to Krogstad much better than he did.
|
|
|
Post by naomiporter on Jan 14, 2014 6:30:20 GMT
I absolutely consider "A Doll's House" to have a more general classification than feminism. Though feminism is one important aspect of the story, it would be reductive to say that that is the main and only purpose. When I read it, I saw Torvald as being kept in a box just like Nora was, though in very different ways. Torvald certainly seemed to have more power than Nora, but he did not even realize that he was acting a part, which could arguably make him even more of a victim of the facade that they both kept up. Regardless of the ways and extent to which each were "boxed up," I think that Ibsen demonstrated and criticized not just the way Nora and women as a group were treated, but the way both men and women created fake and stereotyped roles for everyone to play. I think that he, like most readers of "A Doll's House," was frustrated with the way everyone lived their lives by simply reading a script, rather than respecting each other and treating one another like humans instead of characters or even props in a play.
As for it's being a tragedy, I really do not think "A Doll's House" fits my definition. At first glance, it appears to be a happy story about a woman and her husband gaining freedom from the facade they have been living in. The tragic component of it, as some people have mentioned, is that we as readers are reminded of the much more common scenario which would quite probably qualify as tragic: the many marriages that did not have this happy ending and the woman and likely the man are leading... less than pleasant lives. The reason I do not think this argument works for me is that my definition of tragedy involves proximity and detail. Though something might be truly tragic, it does not have the same impact on me if I do not have some connection with the people or event. Granted, this is just from my point of view, not the absolute definition of tragedy. I do not think, however, that a story is tragic that only hints at someone being affected negatively by something that we see a happy resolution of for the characters we come to know. If Ibsen wanted to make this a tragedy, all he would have needed to do is put in another couple who do not make it out of the facade that Nora and Torvald lived in. We would have come to know those characters as well, and sympathize with them, and the contrast between the two couples would show us the tragedy that is commonplace. As it is, however, Ibsen shows us only the characters who have a happy ending and though tragedy is always somewhere to be found, I do not see it within this story.
|
|
|
Post by Anna M. on Jan 14, 2014 6:51:08 GMT
At first, I didn't think that A Doll's House was a feminist piece. There is a lot of positive change in male characters, like Krogstad and even Dr. Rank. Something else that I found counteractive to the supposed feminism of the play is the fact that Ms. Linde comes back because she needs to be useful to someone else, she comes back to Krogstad to be a mother to his children. When I re-evaluate the feminist tones in the piece, I realize that Ms. Linde was the reason for Krogstad improving his behavior and demeanor. So I guess I can conclude that Ms. Linde wasn't just a helpless woman running to a man for help. Krogstad and Ms. Linde needed each other.
At this point, I'm leaning towards a feminist reading of A Doll's House. All of Nora's anxiety and woes are started by a silly law that a woman needs a man's permission to borrow money. I think the turning point is when Nora realizes she broke a man's law to help a man but has nothing to show for it except an unappreciative husband. Nora realizes she has a duty to herself, and before she can serve any other duty she must serve her own. She leaves her almost-rich husband and secure lifestyle to "find herself", if that isn't in some way a feminist statement then I don't think I understand feminism.
I think the most tragic part of this play is the "loss" of a mother. Nora's children will be growing up without their mother for a while. But other than that, I think more is gained then is lost and I the tone of hope at the end of the play makes me believe Nora will most likely see her children again someday and when she does she will be a fully developed human being that can be a good role-model.
|
|
|
Post by jamiezimmerman on Jan 14, 2014 6:58:11 GMT
I absolutely believe this play is a tragedy, and not for feminist reasons. When Nora and Torvald discuss Nora's secret, Nora finally admits aloud, "Hasn't it struck you this is the first time you and I, man and wife, have had a serious talk together?,.. Never have we exchanged one serious word about serious things" (Ibsen 1730). She even offers a solution to ameliorate their failing marriage when she says, "Perhaps [you could change]... if you have your doll taken away" (Ibsen 1733). Here is Nora, finally asserting herself in her marriage and acknowledging that she and Torvald both have the power and opportunity to fix it, but neither one of them does! They were so close to restructuring their marriage for a more happy life, but because they are both immature and unlearned on the matters of marriage, they don't go out of their way to stay together. It's a shame that they divorced, because if only they weren't so unknowledgeable about what their commitment to each other meant, they could have stayed married, as you are supposed to when times are tough. The tragedy is not in that we shame Nora for being a woman and therefore incompetent on the serious commitment of marriage, but rather that we shame Nora for being so juvenile and selfish and therefore incompetent on the serious commitment of marriage.
|
|
|
Post by emwolfram on Jan 14, 2014 6:58:41 GMT
It would be difficult to prove there is no feminist message to A Doll's House. The story is essentially a woman's rise from domestic servitude to independence. I agree with Hannah that there are also rich elements of other critical lens within the text but it is hard to ignore the overarching theme of feminism. I cannot be certain if that was the intention during the time in which the story was written but with modern interpretation that is the message I see. Nora chooses to walk out on her husband and familial duties in search of her own identity. The quote that Joel referenced: (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 idea of "doll-hood" is one of the most significant motifs throughout the story. Nora feels objectified by her husband and she breaks free of this at the end of the story.
I do not feel like A Doll's House is a tragedy. Nora makes countless scarifies for her family. She is faced with a stressful and tragic situation and this conflict creates most of the stories arch. There is a loss of innocence within the story... it is hard to explain but the notion of "ignorance is bliss" can somewhat be applied here. Before Nora was aware of her unfulfilled life everything was rose-tinted and happy. Although this was an illusion, it was a peaceful one. So the lose of this could be construed as tragic. But I think ultimately Nora finds her freedom and that is not a tragic ending.
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Jan 14, 2014 7:21:47 GMT
I little Wikipedial research will tell you that Ibsen has explained that he "must disclaim the honor of having consciously worked for the women's rights movement." The key word here is 'consciously.' Ibsen did not intend for "A Doll's House" to be a specifically feminist work, but the text says otherwise. When Helmer argues that "nobody sacrifices his honor for the one he loves," Nora replies, "Hundreds and thousands of women have." Although the story addresses the need for individual identity and self-actualization, a need which applies to both genders, you can't overlook the text. Women are the group that predominantly suffer from the challenges depicted in "A Doll's House." With that in mind, I think it's alright to call Ibsen's work a Feminist work.
As for tragic classification, I agree with er'body else. It's not a tragedy. I would refer to my definition of tragedy, but it was a really bad definition, so I don't want to unearth it. A more direct explanation for why it's not a tragedy is my final response as a reader. I was happy when the story ended. I thought, "Success!" Unless I'm a sociopath, my response indicates that "A Doll's House" is not a tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by robertxu on Jan 14, 2014 9:03:52 GMT
Off topic: Gary, I’m digging the Chief Keef profile picture. #3hunna.
On Topic: "A Doll’s House" is absolutely a feminist work. Hannah L. brought up an interesting argument about how simply labeling a work “feminist” is reductive in nature. I would disagree. It is still possible to explore all types of criticisms from the perspective of a feminist. After all, we have been analyzing male-dominated literature for thousands of years. I read "A Doll’s House" as a feminist work because it explores a form of oppression that is exclusive to women. When Nora asks Torvald for costume advice, he responds, “Aha! So my impulsive little woman is asking for somebody to come to her rescue, eh?” (Ibsen 1701). The same condescending question could not be applied to a man and still carry the same amount of malice. In addition, Ibsen allows the reader to adopt the perspective of a three-dimensional female protagonist, which I assume was rare in his time. A lot of the power from "A Doll’s House" is dependent on the fact that it provides a unique perspective. Therefore if the central theme were expanded to include a more generalized kind of autonomy, it would lose its part of its profundity.
Torvald says to Nora at the end of the play, “There is a tremendous gulf dividing us. But, Nora is there no way might bridge it?” (Ibsen 1733). To me, this is the saddest and most profound line in the play. It is also why the play fits my definition of a tragedy. In the end, Torvald finally realizes the error of his ways, but it is too late. Too much has happened between Nora and Torvald for the relationship to be saved. Nora realizes in the end that there is no compromising when it comes to her rights as an individual. For Nora and Torvald to reunite, Torvald would have to completely reevaluate his values and admit that he has been wrong for all these years, which is very unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by patricktbutenhoff on Jan 14, 2014 14:25:54 GMT
Despite the fact that A Doll’s House has strong feminist elements and occurs within the context of a woman breaking free from her domineering husband, the idea of independence in the play can be applied to other situations just as easily. Marriage is the primary constraint from which Nora gains independence, but the play touches on the relationships between parents and children, humans and society, and even individuals and religion as well. Nora’s dynamic with her father, which she repeatedly compares to her marriage in the final confrontation, isn’t particularly gendered, and her relationship with the society in which she lives isn’t inherently grounded in gender either. To a certain extent, even Torvald gains (or at least has the opportunity to gain) independence from his own societal preconceptions. During the final conversation, Nora speaks very vaguely, using language that has meaning beyond the specific situation in the text. Ibsen writes, “I don’t really know what religion is” (1731) and “I’ve also learnt that the law is different from what I thought; but I simply can’t get it into my head that that particular law is right” (1732). These are extremely broad philosophical ideas; they could be stated by a woman or a man, by a child or a servant. Nora declares independence not as a woman but as a human--and that makes the theme of A Doll's House all the more effective.
In my opinion, A Doll's House is definitely not a tragedy. There is no "fall" from hope or happiness to dejection; rather, the events of the play seem to be cathartic. Ultimately, the story mainly concerns a woman breaking free from her poisonous relationship; A Doll's House is not happy at the beginning and has no expectation of happiness at the end. Nora improves drastically as a character, going from a weak, servile woman to a powerful, independent one. The ending for her is hopeful, not miserable. Torvald also improves over the course of the play--or at least, he has a chance to. For the first time, his deeply held chauvinism and selfishness receive a legitimate challenge. The ending of A Doll's House leaves the reader with hope for both main characters; its plot is creative, not destructive--and certainly not tragic.
|
|
|
Post by clairem on Jan 14, 2014 14:41:05 GMT
Before coming to the forum I hadn't explored the option of it being a feminist work very in depth. But upon further examination I saw many different scenes in which Ibsen forced me to question and analyze the gender roles at play and also how the dialogue tones shifted between men and men, men and women, and women and me. It brings in to question the gender roles of women and ends with the most important female character, Nora, realizing she has been held in captivity and finally possesses the courage and forwardness to escape, “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). Ibsen used his writing to reveal the struggles of women in this time period and push for their independence from their "doll houses."
In my eyes I think that overall this story is not a tragedy to me. Of course at the beginning of the play Nora is unknowingly trapped in a world where she is treated with condescension and locked in her 'female ignorance' without knowing it. By the end of the story she realizes she has been used her whole life, which is a sad but also empowering realization as it gives her the strength to leave behind her old life to explore and create a new one. I think that the story in itself is a hopeful one even though, like Hannah said, it is also a reminder of the women who are not so fortunate in their fight for freedom.
|
|
|
Post by billfeng on Jan 14, 2014 15:05:15 GMT
When I first started reading, the introduction to Ibsen (in the anthology) already hinted "Doll House" as a pioneering work of realism. As a result, I had a somewhat gripping premonition that the work would investigate an interpersonal matter that revolved around the family dynamic - rather than explore a beautified theme of societal struggle, human existence, etc. I didn't read "Doll House" from much of a feminist perspective, at all. Maybe I'm just being ignorant, but I found Ibsen's work to revolve more across the field of relationship psychology rather than from a feminist platform. Nora and Torvald had a relationship that, from a superficial standpoint, seemed immeasurably "happy" and stable. It was not until we, as the reader, delved deeper into their relationship that we discovered the toxic, broiling deceit that was tearing the keystone out of the very bridge that held the marriage together. Though I did indeed feel tragedy when the Helmer marriage ended in such a wrenching, sour note, I felt that Torvald and Nora will eventually move on and develop a healthier future without each other. Though Torvald's commonly societal beliefs about females gives "Doll's House" a feminist viewpoint, I feel that the central problem that ended their marriage had little to do with misogyny. I agree with Patrick in that the core issues of the story could be applied to relationships of any gender combination and level of intimacy.
|
|
|
Post by keelycorrigan on Jan 14, 2014 15:07:33 GMT
RANT: The idea that a feminist literature and literature that promotes general autonomy are mutually exclusive really bothers me. Actually, it makes me really angry. Feminism, as I believe it to be and as it has developed in the third wave, is more about individual autonomy from institutionalized oppression and ways of thinking than promoting women above men (which is was NEVER about). This applies freedom from culturally perpetuated oppression (*Cough* the patriarchy *cough*) to men as well. The idea that a story about a woman finding her own isn’t applicable to men simply because it is about a woman is ridiculous and sexist in itself. RANT OVER.
I read this piece as a feminist piece of literature that promotes general autonomy because that is a central tenet to modern feminism as the movement stretches to encompass many other kinds of prejudices. I, personally, loved the play for its use of dramatic irony not just its feminist sentiments.
Something that some of my classmates are using as an example of Torvald’s sexist attitudes that I would like to dance with is his use of little terms of endearment, like “skylark.” I disagree with some of my classmates who insinuated that the use of these terms in general is sexist, but I think that when applied mutually in a power-balanced relationship they can actually make the relationship more tender and kind. But, because the power dynamic in this particular marriage were so grossly out of whack, Torvald’s terms are not of endearment but of dominance. I don’t remember any time in the play that Nora uses those kinds of terms toward of her husband.
As to whether or not this play is a tragedy is dependant on your definition of a tragedy. For me, a tragedy has to address some kind of social ill and show the consequences of it on a greater scale that will affect its audience. For me, “A Doll’s House” did that. I don’t see Nora leaving her husband as tragic. (Quite the opposite, actually.) Torvald’s treatment of Nora is tragic. That kind of off balanced marriage is the social ill of this tragedy, and Nora leaving to find herself is the consequence (knowing that consequence is too strong a term.) I would think of this story as a tragedy in the loosest of terms because of the kinds of effects it has on its audience. It points out something that a lot of people don’t want to talk about but are still incredibly important or significant to humans (RE: Incest and fate with Oedipus, Revenge and Justice with Hamlet, Autonomy and Gender Roles with A Doll’s House).
|
|