Abstract
This paper compares and connects three works belonging to two different genres: two dramas and one poem. The works are Hamlet by Shakespeare, A Doll’s House by Ibsen, and The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost. The paper aims to identify a common element among these art pieces that belong to different genres. In this regard, I have chosen conflict as the connecting link that binds the three works together.
This paper is based on the assumption that all literary works share a common element. Three works from three different eras by different authors have been selected for analysis: Shakespeare’s Hamlet from the medieval age, Ibsen’s A Doll’s House from 1879, and Frost’s A Road Not Taken. The study aims to connect these works by identifying a shared conflict among them.
In all three works, we have observed varying degrees of tension. Conflict arises in a work of art when the protagonist fights for their principles and beliefs. This conflict can take the form of a father, brother, or mother who wishes the protagonist to conform to their expectations.
Contemporary living can put obstacles in the way of free and unfettered self-realization. These obstacles include the hypocrisies of commerce, the dead hand of convention, the compulsion to do what has always been done, fear of judgment from others, institutionalized religious bigotry and all other related factors that stunt personality development. They inhibit natural development in individuals and shut them off from genuine living (James Walter Mcfarlane, 1969).
Nora’s and Hamlet’s conflicts are of a subtle kind, and other characters in the dramas are unaware of their suffering. In Act I Scene II, the newlywed king asks Hamlet, How is it that the clouds still hang on you?” His selfishness and cunning prevent him from feeling the pain of a son who has seen his mother marry the brother of his father who died a couple of months ago and was not done with mourning. Similarly, Nora’s husband Helmer thinks of himself as the provider for the family and assumes that giving money can keep Nora happy. He never bothers to understand his wife or feel for her or love her. His idea of love is based on convention: that man is the provider and protector of the family. He doesn’t worry about other family members’ emotions but rules with supreme authority without ever caring to ask Nora what she likes.
Immediately after the tarantella dance, he whisks Nora away from the party so as not to “spoil the effect” (Act three, 69) – what bothered him more than Nora’s satisfaction was his willingness to show off. He wanted Nora to leave so that “-the beautiful vision vanished” (Act three, 70).
In Nora’s case, even the audience is led to believe that she is happy (Act One, 11). However, she needs someone like Mrs. Linde to articulate her troubles. When Krogstad agrees to call back the letter he sent to Helmer, Mrs. Linde prevents him by saying No, Nils, don’t ask for it back” (Act Three, 68). She states that “it’s quite incredible the things I’ve witnessed in this house in the last twenty-four hours” (Act Three, 68).
When Nora’s so-called transgression is discovered, her husband Helmer shows a fit of temper that makes her decide to take action. This drastic action requires her to leave home, her children, and family. Nora states: I must take steps to educate myself…That’s why I’m leaving you” (Act three, 83).
Frost’s problem is one of choice, and it is more explicit. He must choose between black and white, sin and holiness, morality and immorality, chastity and impurity, innocence and guilt. Similarly, Nora goes through a similar dilemma in this drama. The conflict is between tradition and novelty, society and the individual, law and a woman’s pure love. The only difference is that she is not aware of the conflict at the beginning. She thinks herself to be gay.” She finds happiness in fulfilling her duties as a wife, mother, and caregiver to her family. She accepts her role as a compassionate wife who sacrifices for her family’s happiness without question.
In her eagerness to keep her family happy she has sacrificed all of her individual needs for their sake. Despite buying Christmas gifts for everyone in the family each year she denies herself simple pleasures: “Puh! I don’t really want anything” (Act One, 5). In reality nothing remains for herself after meeting all of the demands of the other members.
Out of love for her father and duty to her husband, she borrowed money from a moneylender to save her sick spouse. As a security requirement, she had to have the bond signed by her father as a guarantor. However, since he was also ill, she forged his signature and mistakenly dated it after his death. According to the law and Helmer’s perspective, this was an egregious crime. Nevertheless, when viewed from a humane standpoint, her motive or intention was anything but criminal; she did it out of love for her father and duty towards her husband. She asks: Isn’t a daughter entitled to try and save her father from worry and anxiety on his deathbed? Isn’t a wife entitled to save her husband’s life?” (Act one).
But Helmer, like the law, is blind to the sublimity of Nora’s motive. His indifference and blindness force her to take an unconventional path, one that is unknown to both her and society. Robert Frost’s The Road Not Taken” shares similarities with the previous works discussed in this sense; the protagonist takes a path that “no step had trodden black” (line 12). He walks into terra incognita. At first, he too looks on like Nora and Hamlet, waiting as he “stood long.”
And looked down one as far as I could” (The Road Not Taken, lines 3 and 4). The protagonist’s mind is filled with confusion and fear, hoping to start over from the beginning. However, he knows that is not possible because “way leads on to way” (The Road Not Taken, line number 14). The decision he makes today will affect the future course of action.
From the beginning to the end of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, intellectual or internal conflict pervades the drama. Hamlet cannot accept that his mother lost no time in marrying her dead husband’s brother. He had not finished mourning when his mother tied the knot. In Act I Scene II, the King asks the courtiers to return to everyday tasks “With mirth in funeral and dirge in marriage.” For a son, though, marriage between brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law is acceptable to society; Hamlet finds this act a moral disgrace. Despair runs so deep that he is driven to the point of suicide but cannot commit suicide because: “O, that this too too solid flesh would melt,/ Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!/ Or that the Everlasting had not fixed/ His canon ’gainst self-slaughter!” (Act I Scene II).
Hamlet’s conflict is further aggravated when he learns from the Ghost that his uncle killed his father. However, as a learned man, Hamlet cannot take the Ghost’s witness as conclusive evidence. He must find tangible evidence to indict his uncle. To do this, he has a drama called Mousetrap enacted where a king is killed by his brother by pouring poison through his ear while he slept. Hamlet observes the reaction of his uncle and is convinced that his father was killed in a similar manner.
Unfortunately, the only evidence that Hamlet can gather is the king’s reaction to the play. Human behavior cannot be taken as conclusive evidence to indict someone, so Hamlet’s conflict remains. He cannot act and thus, his resolve to take revenge is blunted.
To remind him of his duties, the Ghost appears again in Act III Scene IV: “Do not forget: this visitation is to whet thy almost blunted purpose.
All three works discussed here are bound together by a similar internal conflict. The protagonists are confused to the point of inaction. In Hamlet, he acts on a sudden impulse instead of being proactive and waits for Ophelia’s brother, Laertes, to provoke him. He challenges Laertes to a duel, little knowing that his uncle has already incited Laertes against him. In the scuffle of the fight, Hamlet happens to pick up the poison-dipped sword and mortally wounds Laertes with it. Meanwhile, the queen drinks the poisoned drink that the king kept for Hamlet. Having seen his mother dead and finally learning of the king’s conspiracy, Hamlet kills his uncle. The protagonist meets such a violent death because of his inaction and inability to act or find conclusive evidence of his uncle’s guilt.
In Act two, Nora also puts off her day of reckoning by thirty-one hours (63) until the tarantella is over. She implores Helmer not to check the post box where Krogstad’s letter, informing him of Nora’s guilt, lies: “You mustn’t think about anything else but me until after tomorrow … you mustn’t open any letters …. you mustn’t touch the letter-box” (61).
In Frost’s story, the protagonist makes a decision because he has no other options available. If given the opportunity, they all would have waited for things to settle down. No one was willing to step out of their comfort zone. They go through a difficult experience, an ordeal by fire. Similar to Hamlet and Nora, the ending is not a happy one: I shall be telling this with a sigh / Somewhere ages and ages hence:” (The Road Not Taken, lines 16-17). We can also sense his sadness in the second line of the poem where he expresses regret that he “could not travel both.”
In Frost’s poem, the speaker is confused about what course of action to take, similar to the other two works. He is also afraid of the unknown. His situation can be compared to that of a man who is responsible for a large sum of public money and must pay off a debt to maintain his reputation and social standing. The question arises: should he use some of the money to pay off his debt? He could always replace it without anyone knowing, but what if he cannot replenish it in time?
Frost’s problem is similar to that of a sister who allows her younger brother to drink some of the milk she is supposed to sell. However, she cannot disclose this fact to her customers. To conceal it, she adds water to the milk (Munshi Premchand). We can refer to Nora’s situation as a sublime crime” (Schiller). The girl commits this act out of love for her brother, but in the eyes of both law and society, it is still considered a crime.
The characters in all three works suffer because the law does not condone a crime solely based on a bona fide motive or intent. This is the most striking feature that binds all three works together. When viewed through Hamlet’s perspective, we cannot help but agree that a ghost’s testimony cannot be considered conclusive evidence. Similarly, when we look at Nora’s situation, how can we not take drastic measures to save our loved ones? Should we wait until they are thirsty and suffering when we have the ability to quench their thirst?
This depth of analysis into human nature has made the aforementioned works universal and given them a greatness that transcends time. Outward suffering pales in comparison to the internal and moral dilemmas we face in our daily lives. These works reinforce that heroism does not require extraordinary danger; a simple act of omission or commission can offer us an opportunity to prove our mettle, to demonstrate that we have matured, and no longer require the protective or domineering attention of a parent.
References:
Ibsen Plays, A Doll’s House, translated and edited by James Walter Mcfarlane. ISBN 0195610970.
Shakespeare, Volume 3, The Tragedies. ISBN 1-85926-004-7.
The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost.
Munshi Premchand (1880-1936), a writer and novelist from India.
