“The Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen depicts Nora’s arduous journey of self-discovery, grappling with lies, marriage, and societal expectations. This groundbreaking play sparked controversy at its time of release for challenging gender norms, earning the scorn of predominantly male critics. Through her relentless pursuit for truth amidst a web of deception and love, Nora, the courageous protagonist, gradually unveils her lack of personal identity, having merely yielded to the desires of others.
During the 19th century, women encountered a shared challenge: transitioning from their father’s home to their husband’s. According to Andrew Ravenscroft, each woman was brought up believing that they lacked self-control and self-governance, and were expected to submit to the authority of men. While this societal expectation may explain Nora’s choice to leave her family and end her eight-year marriage, is she solely responsible while Torvald has the right to feel anger and sadness? Alternatively, are both Nora and Torvald selfish and hypocritical individuals who deserve no sympathy from others?
Nora made a mistake by forging Torvald’s signature and borrowing money without his permission. The reason for her actions was to save Torvald, not to harm him or damage his reputation. However, she naively believed that her illegal actions were justified because they saved a life. While morally her actions may have been justified, they ended up having legal consequences that haunted her.
Krogstad planned to blackmail Nora, but instead of immediately informing Torvald about the potential trouble, she decided to conceal it and find alternative ways to reconcile. Despite knowing the seriousness of fraud, Nora mistakenly regarded it as a minor offense, similar to harmless lies and sneaking food. She could have averted significant issues if she had acted differently. In contrast, Torvald was narrow-minded and had a controlling nature. Nora was well aware that he would react with anger when he eventually discovered her “deep, dark secret,” which motivated her to hide it.
It may have been preferable to completely remove herself from the situation. When Nora departed, she likely thought it would ultimately benefit everyone involved, including Torvald and the children. She believed that her unhappiness would negatively impact the entire household. However, did she consider the long-term consequences of her departure? The children would be left without a mother, and Torvald’s reputation would be severely damaged. Potentially, he could lose his job as a result, and the family would eventually crumble. Nora could have managed the situation more effectively.
In about ten minutes, she revealed to Torvald eight years of marital problems and internal struggles, leaving him in the dust. Torvald, a true 19th-century man, sees Nora as his property, although this belief is not intentional. He firmly believed in controlling his wife and being the “head of the household,” which contributed to Nora’s decision to leave. Nevertheless, it was primarily a societal issue rather than a personal problem with Torvald. As Ravenscroft questions, “Has there ever been an instance when the power did not seem natural or too much to those who possessed it?”
Helmer’s behavior is reminiscent of men in this century: controlling and overbearing. He belittles Nora with nicknames like “My little skylark” (Act III, line 385) and “My little squirrel” (Act I, line 42), always including the word “little”. Torvald sees himself as superior emotionally and intellectually in the household, reinforcing Nora’s belief that she is just a doll, as she was in her father’s home. Bradford also observes Helmer’s blatant hypocrisy.
In the climax of the play, at the end of Act III, Torvald expresses his love and loyalty to Nora but quickly changes his mind after learning about her deeds. He is judgmental, attributing Krogstad’s faults to his upbringing and parents. Torvald even criticizes Nora’s late father, holding him responsible for her insolence and lies. He feels punished for overlooking her father’s lack of principles.
Torvald’s reaction to Nora’s plan to leave could have been better. He considers every option except her departure, suggesting they live as siblings instead. It is questionable whether he truly wanted to preserve their love or if he was only concerned about his reputation. I personally believe it was the latter. Critics argue that both Nora and Torvald were stubborn, selfish, and only concerned about their own well-being.
According to Bradford, Nora’s behavior initially provoked Torvald because of her slight immaturity. He states that she acts mischievously but subserviently when he is around, constantly seeking favors from him instead of engaging as equals. Instead of leaving her marriage of eight years and abandoning her children, Nora could have chosen to stay with the family and work through their problems. Conversely, if Torvald truly loved Nora, he would have been more inclined to support her in times of need rather than disregarding her and using her for appearances.
He did not resist enough to keep her with him. Perhaps he should have let go of his ego and desperately held onto Nora, embracing her and grasping onto her legs like a child, refusing to allow her to leave their love that had developed over eight years of marriage. The perspectives of the other characters also impact Torvald and Nora’s choice between divorce or finding joy. Krogstad is often perceived as the antagonist and villain, but is this really the case?
The text suggests that the trouble in Nora and Torvald’s marriage was primarily caused by Mr. Krogstad. However, this trouble ended up being a catalyst for Nora and Torvald to have a serious conversation and work on improving their relationship. In Act III, it is evident that Mr. Krogstad undergoes a transformation. He is content with having Mrs. Linde as his love interest and no longer feels the need to pursue his job or pursue legal action against Nora. There is also a disagreement about whether Mrs. Linde’s role was that of a true friend or if she was interfering and preventing fate from taking its course. Ultimately, Mrs. Linde serves as Nora’s conscience and becomes an outlet for her emotions.
Despite my personal belief that Nora is not a good friend to Kristine, she pushed her to make the right choices, which is quite the opposite of Nora. Kristine embodies the cliché of “love conquers all”. Another character who had an impact on the Helmer household was Dr. Rank. He loved Nora and offered her an alternate path until his untimely death. Instead of her shallow relationship with her current husband Torvald, she could have been in a profound and meaningful partnership with him.
Despite being seen as a sincere and charming character, he represents the inherent corruption of all men. He garners the affection and empathy of the general audience, yet his primary role in the play revolves around pursuing a married woman, someone he cannot possess. (We can all relate to that feeling.) So, who is responsible for the disintegration of Nora and Torvald’s marriage? I believe society must bear some blame, along with the clash of two stubborn and immature personalities. Instead of merely playing house together like children on a playground, Nora and Torvald could have engaged in more frequent and meaningful communication.
