Henrik Ibsen does a fantastic job of contrasting appearances with reality. He transitions so seamlessly from one to the other that we do not even realize why we ever thought differently about a character. There is no doubt that the readers’ opinions transform about every character, and, I believe, we see clearer at the end.
Nora seems to be a thoughtless, floaty girl. She acts as if she enjoys her husband’s flirtatious teasing, which can be seen as both harmless fun and slight degradation as Torvald calls Nora his little “squirrel” and “spendthrift.” Readers look over her flitty attitudem but it is nearly impossible to not be irritated when Nora’s conversing with Mrs. Linde. Nora adamantly and enthusiastically claims she wants to hear all about Mrs. Linde’s life, but what she really wants to do is talk about herself, her husband’s fabulous new job, and her family’s dandy and perfect life. At this point, Nora is extremely disliked. However, readers begin to sympathize with Nora’s actions when we realize she had made great sacrifices to save her husband’s life, even evading the law and forging her father’s signature. I would hope that, at the end of the play, all people respect and admire Nora’s defiant stand against her husband. She realizes she must be an independent woman and move out. At the same time, we realize she was an independent woman all along; she just hid her true self because she felt fenced in by nineteenth century society.
While our positive attitude toward Nora steadily climbs, we like Torvald less and less. In the beginning, we appreciate his devotion and generosity. He is a loving husband who puts his duty of supporting his family (especially financially) first and foremost. He is careful with his money but is not afraid to “spoil” his family, often handing Nora some petty cash for her own expenses. However, he does not truly care about his family, except for the fact that a well-kept family is a status icon, a true symbol of class. We still think of him as a strong man, a career-man looking to keep up his public reputation until Torvald reads Krogstad’s letter. Again, Nora and the reader realize simultaneously a change: the Helmer marriage was never meant to be. Torvald is not a strong man; he is selfish, vain, and shallow. Torvald’s caring and giving personality is only a guise. Unable to shoulder any burden, he is a false promise, a hollow head on an empty suit. He does not support Nora besides financially. The marriage may have looked like paradise, but it was built on lies, deception, accepted social standards, and inequality.
Krogstad and Christine provide a valuable foil to the Nora-Torvald marriage. Krogstad appears to be a greedy, bitter, and vengeful psycho while Mrs. Linde appears to be a pitiful, but self-reliant widow with little chance of financial success. However, when they reunite, their true selves appear. In reality, their thoughtful, considerate, and merciful personalities fit together; Krogstad and Mrs. Linde truly bring out the best in each other. A relationship built on mutual love and understanding, equality, and selflessness is what works.
P.S. I almost feel tricked by Ibsen. He set the play up so that readers would fall into the trap and believe that the Helmer marriage was perfect. Then later, we catch our misjudgment and have to rethink all the characters. Indeed, a trick in itself: our thought transformation is what makes the play so rewarding. (581)
