A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen
Who is right about an individual, is it themselves or the society’s perception? In Henrik Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House, premiered in a Danish theatre in 1879 addressing the same issue. Nora, the protagonist, is in a glass masquerade by the people around her that is quite different from the perception she has of her. Some categorize the play as a feminist, but Henrik’s first point was to differentiate the public from a personal view. In this essay, the balance of how ‘right’ Nora is and how ‘right’ the society’s opinion of her will be weighed.
From Act, I of the play, Helmer’s view of his wife is quite derogatory despite the lightheartedness behind it. He talks down to her on the value of money, and how ignorant she is of the concept behind it. He asks her whether she has been wasting his money again to which Nora bumbles on how cautious spending is no longer an option (Ibsen, 5). At this point, the reader is led to the conclusion that Nora is as her husband puts her to be: a spendthrift (Gaikwad, 112). Further on, the notion of Nora is dispelled by her confession after a visit from an old friend, Kristine. She knows the value of every penny and cent throwing doubt on the disparaging comments made about her husband of her being a weakling in need of salvation.
Apart from the erroneous assumption of Nora being extravagant, Helmer thinks the only thing she is suitable for is keeping house and being attractive. At the time of publishing the book, the role of women was to be happy wives and mothers. All matters beyond this limited scope were to be left to stronger gender among them, their fathers, husbands and brothers (Ibsen, 6). While the view of Helmer could be blamed on the society’s misgivings, he fails to acknowledge his wife’s immense sacrifice in forging a cheque. When taken ill, Helmer’s doctor advised him to go overseas to recuperate. To manage the financial expenses, Nora did the unthinkable by forging her father’ signature and took out a loan (Gaikwad, 114). Over the years, she has struggled to pay it off by doing the occasional odd job and saving the little household expenses (Ibsen, 16). Later on, when blackmailed by Krogstad, Nora is willing to take her life to protect the dignity of her husband as a bank chairman. Once again, Nora’s foresight proves she is more than a dainty wife.
The encounter of Nora with her old schoolmate, Kristine or Mrs Linde gives the perspective of how women view each other. Mrs Linde calls Nora a child in their first discussion. Calling a mother of three children, a child is conclusive of how low Mrs Linde views her childhood friend (Ibsen, 11-13). She answers with a lot of scepticism when Nora informs her that she had a part in playing to her husband’s good fortune. It is only when poor Nora decides to confide how long she has been secretly working and wearing a lower grade of dinner dresses that Kristine sympathizes with her. It is quite unfortunate the ‘gullible’ Nora re-unites Kristine with her former lover and manages to convince her husband to give her a job (Ibsen, 21).
Unfortunately, Nora seems to have absorbed the notions other people have of her. After she committed a crime to enable her husband to take a sabbatical and to relieve her dying father of anxiety, she expects Helmer to do the same for her. When Helmer is first informed of his wife’s deceit, Nora is distraught at the thought of him quitting his job at the bank for her (Ibsen, 70). To her astonishment, Helmer is only concerned for himself and speaks rather harshly to the mother of his children. He fails to comprehend the enormity of her sacrifice, only bothering himself with what people will think of him. To an extent, a reader can sympathize with him briefly before remembering the years of hard work Nora put in to pay off the debt.
Additionally, Helmer threatens to take away her children for one act of deceit (Ibsen, 71). Burdened by the cowardly behaviour of her husband after he discovers Krogstad no longer intends to blackmail her, Nora makes up her mind to leave him. She finds it in herself to inform Helmer she is not a doll whose actions are by puppeteers like him or her father (Ibsen, 74). In finding her individuality and rejecting the false analogy her husband has of her, Nora bangs the door and leaves their home.
This play was controversial since the actions of Nora of leaving her home were unheard off in the Danish’s society. For Henrik, the play was to inform people to be free to make their choices and not be enslaved like Nora. From the start to its finish, Henrik proves the contrast in the opinion of the society to Nora (Gaikwad, 113). It is with this falsehood that Nora saved her husband’s life, though he was too entrenched in the wrong ideals to notice it.
Works Cited
Gaikwad, Mr Jotiram Janardan. “The Portrayal of Nora in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House: An Emancipation of Women.” Journal of The English Literator Society ISSN 2455 (2016): 393X.
Ibsen, Henrik, et al. A doll’s house. Caedmon, 1971, pp. 1-80