Henrik Ibsen's "A Doll's House"

Hook: Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” is one of his most famous plays and arguably one of the most famous plays of the late 19th century. It follows the story of Nora, who is keeping a secret from her husband—she took out a loan that she has yet to pay back to pay for their last vacation, and in doing so committed a forgery from her father. During the 1870s in Norway, it was illegal for a woman to take out a loan without her husband or father’s permission. Things heat up when her husband, still in the dark about her secret, fires the banker who she took out the loan from (Nils Krogstad). Nils threatens to reveal Nora’s secret unless she gets him his job back… what can a woman do in a society dominated by men who see women not as people, but as dolls to be played with?

Context: My version is translated by Michael Meyer from the Norwegian and comes with an introduction from him. Meyer, in traditional form, writes an introduction that made me want to slam my forehead against a nearby table. Of course, as is his required punishment to the reader for daring to read the introduction before reading the play, he spoils the ending.

As with almost all introductions, Meyer’s serves better as an afterword. And as that, it gets the job done (which is more than can be said for giving it the title “introduction”). Meyer works hard to explain how Ibsen’s play is modeled on a real event, the main difference in the stories being the ending. (In real life, the “Nora” character goes to an asylum). But this connection is unclear until after the play is read. If Meyer were writing a good introduction, he’d say his thoughts outright:

Since A Doll’s House is based on an actual incident that Ibsen (for the most part) was aware of and witnessed parts of, the events in the story are given more credence and serve as a representative example of growing concerns people in the late 19th century (1870s) were feeling—feelings that contributed to the women’s rights movements that occurred worldwide. In this way, it serves as a testament to how imbalanced our social institutions and practices once were, and in some ways how far we have come.

But, unlike Meyer, I am far from arguing the point Meyer oh-so-poorly argues in his Foreword, that, “Yet today, when the social content of A Doll’s House, Ghosts, and An Enemy o the People is no longer topical and interests us only as history, their power is, if anything, greater, because we can see their true theme more clearly; the need of every individual to discover the kind of person he or she really is, and to become that people.” I disagree with this sentiment in more than one way.

First of all, I am far from believing that the social content of A Doll’s House is no longer topical. I am willing to say that the obvious social content, i.e. the superficial “it is illegal for women to take out loans without the permission of their husbands” is no longer in place. However, to presume that that is the only social content of the play is superficial and naïve. The real social content is the nature of the marriage between Nora and her husband Torvald and of the representation of Mrs. Linde as an independent, working woman who (possibly despite Ibsen’s intentions) embodies the spirit that “anything a man can do, a woman can do too.”

Although the specific misogynistic banking practices are no more, the nature of marriage will be a topic presumably as long as the institution persists. At its worst, Ibsen’s play comes close to being an unusually dark episode of “Everybody Loves Raymond.” At its best, Ibsen’s play is one of the most thought-provoking discussions of marriage staged in the last three centuries.

Personal Thoughts: I actually didn’t like it all that much. The main conflict, Krogstad’s threatened revelation of Nora’s secret, gets wrapped up much too cleanly in the last act. It was borderline Deus Ex (but, admittedly, well done Deux Ex). And despite Ibsen’s modicum of hinting that Nora was thinking of leaving, I feel like Nora’s explosion at the ending comes a little too far out of left field to be satisfying dramatically. This play not only is Ibsen’s first major success, it feels like Ibsen’s first major success—with that lingering hint of amateurish plotting.

Yet, the plotting, breakages in character, and occasional awkward dialogue (which, hey, can be blamed on Meyer), although still relevant to a fruitful discussion of the role of A Doll’s House in the “canon of modernity,” nevertheless is overshadowed by my reaction to the ending. That’s the part that really interests me, because that’s the part of the story that made the play gain so much notice as a controversial play, and one of the reasons I find some of Meyer’s comments so off-center. The thing is, Nora’s decision at the end of A Doll’s House is still controversial.

This is a play that I don’t like, but I like disliking. And thus I am tempted not only to defend my dislike of the play, but also of the play’s position in canonicity simultaneously.

Teaching It:

[Encourage students to read the introduction after they finish reading the play.]

WARNING SPOILERS BELOW

Prompts, essay question or otherwise:

(The moral debate): Choose EITHER Nora’s decision to leave her children and Torvald at the end of the play OR Nora’s decision to hide the truth from Torvald for so long. In regard to your choice, defend your answer to this question: Did Nora do the right thing?

(For pre-law students): Was Nora justified in forging her father’s signature and breaking the law? Why or why not?

(The aesthetic debate): Nora argues that Torvald tries to treat her like a doll in the final scene. What exactly is Ibsen’s critique of this behavior? Define what it means to be a doll in Ibsen’s world so that if necessary, you could explain why one character is a doll and why another is not.

(For discussion): In the introduction, Meyer includes Ibsen’s “Notes for a Modern Tragedy.” In this there is the following line: “A mother in modern society, like certain insects, goes away and dies once she has done her duty by propagating the race.” Does Ibsen’s simile that a mother in modern society is comparable to insets complicate the notion even further that Ibsen was a feminist writer? Further, does this imply that Ibsen regarded Nora as subhuman for her actions at the end of the play?

Vocabulary Words:

(From the quote by Gunnar Heiberg in the Introduction): Panoply

(From the prose description of the opening scene): Bric-a-brac

Alternate Ending:

Wikipedia has the text for the alternate ending. I’m amazed there exists a less satisfying ending than the original:

NORA ... Where we could make a real marriage out
of our lives together. Goodbye. [Begins to go.]
HELMER. Go then! [Seizes her arm.] But first you shall see
your children for the last time!
NORA. Let me go! I will not see them! I cannot!
HELMER [draws her over to the door, left]. You shall see
them. [Opens the door and says softly.] Look, there they
are asleep, peaceful and carefree. Tomorrow, when they
wake up and call for their mother, they will be -
motherless.
NORA [trembling]. Motherless...!
HELMER. As you once were.
NORA. Motherless! [Struggles with herself, lets her
travelling bag fall, and says.] Oh, this is a sin against
myself, but I cannot leave them. [Half sinks down by the door.]
HELMER [joyfully, but softly]. Nora!
[The curtain falls.]