Thursday, March 6, 2008

"Appearances are a glimpse of the unseen."

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)

8 comments:

LCC said...

Danni--I understand what you mean by being tricked, although the way you explain it sounds a little different. But yes, I think Ibsen wants us to see that the standard, conventional sort of marriage is not what it appears to be, and to that extent he pulls us in, thinking we're going one direction when all along he's really leading us to a quite different conclusion.

A nice use of irony there, and a way to get us to feel the ending as well as understand it.

Emily Gogolak said...

Danni,

Your blog awakened me to Isben's crafty use of surface and reality. We, as readers, really do fall into the trap of preconceived judgement. Perhaps Isben set the play as such to parallel Nora's own transformation: looking past the surface into the true - although unpleasant - realities that govern our lives.
I found your concluding sentence, on the reader's thought transformation, so true!

Great post!
-Emily

Ivy said...

To be honest, in that first scene between Christine and Nora, I totally thought Nora was making the whole thing up. She held back just enough details and seemed just eager enough to prove herself to Christine that it all just seemed fake. The way the scene was written seems to me to echo the way you felt the start of the play was written--a trick to make you think one thing, just to disillusion you later.

Navdeep Khera said...

Iris Lin--

Your evaluation of Henrik Ibsen's play seems to be very accurate. It is interesting how our first perceptions tend not to be the most accurate and I never could have imagined that Christine and Krogstad would end up with the best relationship. My only problem with the story is that Nora essentially leaves her children out to dry when she just suddenly picks up and leaves, but I commend your efforts in this blog.

Katelyn Pascavis said...

Danni,

I could not agree more with your post. And I loved how you explained Torvald as "a false promise, a hollow head on an empty suit". Ibsen wrote the story in a way that made all of his readers vulnerable, and as frustrating as his trickery is, I feel as though without it, the Helmer's would've been just another messed-up family.

- Katelyn

Sam Debold said...

I love the way to showed how we are all tricked in the story! i totally agree that we all read the play with an annoyance at nora and a love for trevold! way to say what we were all thinking with more insight! i love this!

chelsea robbins said...

i like that you pointed out how she was truly independent and strong the whole time even though it wasn't possible to discern until the end of the story.

the only thing i disagree with you on is your thought on ms. linde and nora's conversations. i was never annoyed by nora. i thought she was genuine. ms. linde, however, was a horrendous woman in my opinion.

good blog!

Lauren Motzkin said...

Dlin,

First of all, nice use of the word "dandy." I am impressed.

Second, i like how you point out the seamless transition our opinions of the characters make over the course of the play. Very insightful.

Seriously, it's posts like these that remind me why we're friends.