A Doll's House, by Rylee Widdison

A Doll’s House

The short story I have chosen to critically analyze, A Doll’s House, is a timeless play that gains attention no matter when it is read or performed. Although the play was first performed in 1879, it could completely pass as a 2018 play. The play’s message of feminism was as easily seen in the 1800’s as it is today. It is clear to see that Henrik Ibsen was far ahead of his time. Why is the story still being read? I believe that because it is timeless, it’s age intrigues a reader and want to know what the buzz is about it. This story asks us what our true priorities are. Are we willing to do what is best for ourselves even if it hurts our family? When the story ends, we are left to make a decision. Did Nora pave the way for any person in the future to read this story?

            A Doll’s House has been critically acclaimed for both the written version and the acted. Scholars have been analyzing it for years. Scholars seem to have a love/hate relationship with this play. In my opinion, everyone loves to love the story. Everyone has the soft spot for the main character Nora. It just seems like simply the right thing to do to support her cause and fight for equality.

            A Doll’s House takes place in the Victorian Era in Norway. The play focuses in on a family, the Helmer’s, and what is taking place in their life. Nora, the wife and mother in the play, lives a fancy lifestyle and seems to have it all. She has an odd relationship with her husband, Torvald. Ibsen writes carefully to let readers know that they love each other, but there is something off with their relationship.

            During part of their first conversation in the play, Torvald and Nora express that there are some financial issues in their lives at the moment. Nora gets reprimanded for spending past what “he allows”. Visitors come to the Helmer’s house and it lights up Nora. She is given the opportunity to see a friend she hasn’t seen in years. She is then able to reflect on her marriage and confide in her friend that it has not always been what she envisioned. Struggles with money and power seem to show through.

            The friend, Kristine, is also able to share about her life and her struggles as well. Kristine’s husband had died and she was left with nothing. She pleads with Nora for any kind of assistance. Nora is able to give both advice and the chance of a job. Nora promises to talk to her husband Torvald about getting her a job so she can help her friend. Kristine and Nora have a conversation about how hard their lives have been. They have both handled and dealt with death and sickness.

            During their conversation of getting trials and heartache off their chest, Nora really opens up and reveals a secret to her friend. Nora explains to Kristine that she has illegally acquired a loan of money to pay for a stay in Italy. Torvald was brought down with sickness and the two of them moved to Italy so he could heal. In order to do this, Nora had to get money. She said it was from her father so Torvald wouldn’t know. On her own, she slowly paid back the debt with all the money she could. She explains the situation to Kristine and tells her she is about done paying it off.

            After Nora’s time with Kristine, another character enters the story. A man named Krogstad comes to the house. This guest does not bring the same joy and light as the last guest in the home did. Nora is quickly turned cold to see him and asks what he is doing there. Krogstad is an employee at the bank Torvald manages. He is the only one that knows about the illegal loan. Nora is instantly worried that his reason for stopping by their home is something bad.

            Krogstad explains to Nora that he is worried his job is going to be given away to somebody else. That person who would be taking his job would be Nora’s friend Kristine. He continues to threaten Nora about her forgery for the money, as he is the source of the money. He has with him the forgery and threatens Nora further. After Krogstad leaves, Torvald then enters the room. He knows somebody has been in the room and starts to question Nora. He scolds Nora for trying to help Krogstad keep his job and treats her quite poorly.

            After her encounter with her husband, Nora stops to talk with Anne-Marie. Anne-Marie is the woman who lives with the Helmer’s and takes care of the children. It is in Nora and Anne-Marie’s conversation that we start to see part of Nora’s true personality and thoughts. While talking about Nora’s children, Nora says, “Do you think they’d forget their mother if she was gone for good?”. This gives Anne-Marie a fright and she asks Nora why she would ask such a thing. A reader can see a little bit that Nora may have already thought about this possibility. Would she really leave her kids for good? The rest of the story shows more and more of the true Nora.

            After this, Nora and Kristine get together to sew a dress for a party Nora and her husband will going to. Torvald has asked Nora to perform the Tarantella for him at the party. While they are sewing, they speak more about how Nora was able to acquire the money. Nora isn’t able to tell her and then her husband gets home.

            Before the party, Krogstad comes to Nora when he is extremely unhappy with her. He had received his notice that he was getting fired from the bank. He thought he could count on Nora to secure his job, because of his threats of exposing her illegal loan. Because Nora did not follow through for him, he had come with the letter of notice of the loan to leave in their mailbox.

            After this encounter, everyone seems to find out the source of the money except for Torvald, who will soon find out. Kristine does not get involved because she wants Nora to get away and do what is best for herself. Krogstad has already dropped the letter and he does nothing to help. After the costume party it is only a matter of time before Torvald checks his mail and finds out what his wife has done.

            When Torvald finds out, he freaks out on Nora. Although Nora tries to explain her belief of her doing the right thing, he is still full of rage that his wife would do this. He thinks of nobody but himself as he shouts and chastises her. During this massive fight, Nora backs down. It seems that regardless of what his reaction would have been she was going to end up leaving. She holds her ground and sees through to the end of the fight. With little to no argument, she grows the courage to leave. She leaves her husband and her children behind. She commands him not to write and that they should remain as strangers.

            Throughout this story, the author does a great job using language to describe Torvald’s character. Torvald uses offensive and diminishing “nicknames” for his wife. He calls her “silly goose”, “a fool”, “childish”, and many other names that hurt her. Even when he used these hurtful terms, she still continued to serve him and do what she felt was right. Whether it was illegally getting a loan, or just tiptoeing around him.

            A great and thought out review of the play was written by J. Chris Westgate. Westgate attended the performance at the American Conservatory Theatre during the 2003-2004 season. He comments on the set and the acting, mostly positive. I love the way he describes the set of which the play took place. The well furnished home in the actual play was portrayed on the stage looking like an actual Doll House. He writes, “While there was nothing particularly novel in this design choice, the shaking of these imprisoning walls after Nora slammed the door did conve

y the instability of patriarchal authority.”

            To me, this sentence is the vision of the falling action of the story. Torvald finds out about the money, and seems to realize that possibly a woman might be able to have a little bit of power. All that time of playing with Nora like a doll had come to an end.

            Joan Templeton of Long Island University, criticizes the story in an interesting way. She says about the play’s theme or main message, “Its theme is the need of every individual to find out the kind of person he or she is and to strive to become that person.” Her thoughts allow me to assume that anyone, man or woman, can read this story and afterward feel inspired to find their true self and not let anyone in the way of finding it. The play is not confined to just the message of feminism. Anyone is capable of being in a position where they are held back by somebody or something.

            Templeton notes that feminism at the time of the play’s writing was known as “the woman question”. The women’s rights movement proved to be new and fresh at the time of the play’s first debut. Ibsen said in the year 1898, “I thank you for the toast, but must disclaim the honor of having consciously worked for the women's rights movement. ... True enough, it is desirable to solve the woman problem, along with all the others; but that has not been the whole purpose. My task has been the description of humanity.” Ibsen proved to be a important part of the women’s movement, but not just for the purpose of women. His purpose of writing this play was so all humankind could feel validated that their time to live the best life they could, was the present.

            These reasons are why I think the play is still read today. The play still gets put on in theatres. People relate to and study this play at a scholarly level even today. The message of humankind regaining their freedom is nothing new and hopefully never goes away. Nora embodies a soul that exists in modern life. People want freedom and want to live their lives in their taste.

As feminism rises and lowers in waves, the beauty of this story never goes away.  Halvdan Koht, author of the definitive Norwegian Ibsen life, says, "Little by little the topical controversy died away; what remained was the work of art, with its demand for truth in every human relation.” I too believe this story is not just about women and their rights. To me, men and women are equal with different roles. One is not higher than the other, just different. That is the beauty of living on earth altogether, especially at this time when it is a trend to believe in equality.

Works Cited

Templeton, Joan. “The Doll House Backlash: Criticism, Feminism, and Ibsen.” PMLA, vol. 104, no. 1, 1989, pp. 28–40. JSTOR, JSTOR

Westgate, J. Chris. “Theatre Journal.” Theatre Journal, vol. 56, no. 3, 2004, pp. 500–502. JSTOR, JSTOR

 Koht, Halvdan. Life of Ibsen. Trans. and ed. Einar Haugen and A. E. Santaniello. New York: Blom, 1971.

 The League of Youth. The Oxford Ibsen. Vol. 4. Ed. and trans. James Walter McFarlane and Graham Orton. London: Oxford UP, 1963. 24-146. 8 vols. 1960-77.