Character Analysis of Nora from A Doll's House - Essay Example

?In a dolls house, Ibsen has combined several characters with diverse personal qualities and used them to develop the story line as well as bring to life the major themes and issues that the plot is meant to address. Primarily there are two types of characters who can be categorized as static and dynamic, the static characters remain the same form the start to the end of a story and despite the events taking place around them, and they do not change their perception or altitudes. These types of characters are often “punished” for their inflexibility especially when there are antagonists. In A doll’s house, Nora’s husband Torvald is depicted as such, he treats Nora like she is a child and proves incapable of understanding the depth of her inner feeling or her personal strength which albeit not manifest at first are preset nevertheless. At the end of the play, he is still holding on to the same patronizing altitude and this results in her leaving him claiming quite rightly, that he does not understand her. The second type of character which Nora embodies is the dynamic character, whereby she is flexible, undergoes growth and changes in personality and perception as the story develops, again she respond more deeply to situations and circumstances. This is evident when the childish Nora who Ibsen introduces is not a decisive, intelligent and pragmatic woman who is gradually revealed, and the climax of her transformation is seen when she authoritatively terminates her marriage to Torvald who had appeared to be in control of her all along. The primary focus of this paper is to examine the character of Nora and explores her various attributes in the context of the plot and concerning her relationship with the other characters in “A doll’s house.” In the initial scenes, Nora conducts herself in a childish way and the audience is introduced to a woman who despite being old enough to a mother and wife seem to behave essentially like a child. The audience first sees her as she returns from a shopping trip as she personifies the raw and mischievous excitement of a child, and secretly eats some snacks and then denies with childlike sincerity when her husband asks if she has been sneaking macaroons (Ibsen 4). Moreover, she is depicted as immature and cunning innocently and childish, and this is further compounded by her husband who is the extreme opposite of playfulness, and he is condescending and treats her as one would expect him to treat a small child. However, she appears submissive to his chauvinist patronizing and fits into the role of the “Doll”. Overtly, Nora appears to be naive and to some extent juvenile, she responds good naturedly to his sometime biting criticism and although instead of talking to her husband as an equal would, she coaxes favors out of him as a child would a father. Nevertheless, despite the overt childishness, information revealed through flashback and dialogue in her conversation with Christine and Krogstad reveals another side to her that she has been living a double life (Ibsen 15). Her husband had fallen sick and she since they could not afford to cater for his stay in Italy for a year as the doctor had recommended, she had taken loans and fraudulent gotten money that she had used to fund the trip. She did this by forging her father’s signature so she could get a loan from the bank. Her selfless and loving nature is herein evidenced since she never told her husband or anyone else to save him from embarrassment and chose to bear the burden of repaying the debt on her own. She did this by taking odd jobs whenever she could and skimming on her allowance and shopping money, on the outside she appeared to be an extravagant housewife but this was a just a cover for her interior motives. The audiences’ understanding of her character changes drastically at this point since they see beneath the childish veneer there is a cunning intrepid woman who would do anything for the sake of her family and to protect them even if it meant risking her security and happiness. At one point she considers suicide to save herself from dishonor and sincere she fears her husband might sacrifice himself and be persecuted for her sake if the truth came to light; however, it is not clear if she would have gone through with the action. Nevertheless, it is evident she though too highly of him since from his reaction at the discovery of her crimes he clearly would be more likely to persecute rather than try to save her (Templeton 136). Ibsen uses dramatic irony in order to guide ether audience into seeing the characters as they really are without their knowledge of some of the facts so that when all is revealed, the audience can make a judgment based on how the character behaves. Krogstad who is a low level worker at the bank where Torvald works is aware of the her actions and she even has evidence of her transactions, when he realizes that Torvald who is his superior intends to fire him, he tries to blackmail Nora into using her influence over her husband to prevent his dismissal. Nora agrees to try but Torvald does not take her seriously as usual and insists of firing him, she realizes that Krogstad would probably reveal her secret and this greatly traumatizes her. Krogstad presses her further after the dismissal and demands that she not only has her husband reinstate but promote him as well. However, Torvald is adamant and lashes out at her for pursuing the matter while Krogstad put her in an impossible situation by making demands that she had no power to fulfill. She attempts make Krogstad to recall the letter, by sending Mrs. Linde to talk to him on the night they were having a costume party while she distracts Torvald in the process, Linde and Krogstad discover they were once in love with each other and Krogstad says he will recall the letter he sent to Torvald. However, Mrs. Lind tells him to let the matter stand since both Torvald and Nora would be better off knowing the truth. Nevertheless, he sends another letter in which he placed all his incriminating evidence against Nora and thereby eliminating the possibility of legal ramifications for her crimes. This events lead up to the climax of the plot and the point at which the Nora’s strong and assertive nature emerges, Torvald is outraged when discovers Nora’s actions and accuses her of being a liar and hypocrite, he claims she ruined his life and has no right to bring up his children. This reaction depicts Torvald as a self-centered, inconsiderate since he does not even consider the risk that Nora took for the sake of his very life, Nora is shocked by his ungratefulness and she realizes that he is not the man she thought him to be. When the letter Krogstad sent to counter the first one and provide the evidence he had used to black mail Nora arrive, Torvald is pleasantly surprised when he discovers there are no legal problem to be feared and he quickly forgives Nora and tries to apologize for his insults. This further reveals the hollowness’ and egocentrism of his nature both the audience and his wife. All the events in the story culminate in her epiphany and she tells Torvald that their home had been nothing but a playroom and she a doll to play with (Ibsen 74). Although they have been married for 8 years and she has born him three children they do not really understand each other and she is leaving him to go “find” herself, she disregards his protest and walks out. In the final scene Nora the doll that Torvald had treated with condescension and patronized throughout the pay dies and the brave and pragmatic woman emerges, she finally sees her husband for what he really is after his torrent of insults instead of recognizing her efforts. From a feminist point of view, Nora is a reflection of the way society men and society in general treated women during the time in which the play was set (Yuehua 84). Ibsen depicts her as an intelligent and courageous individual whose admirable qualities are trivialized by the fact that she is not taken seriously or even respected and she is relegated to the level of a doll. When Torvald is haranguing her for her actions, he says she is not fit to be a mother, this shows the narrow lenses through which men perceive women, of all the things she could have and had been, to him she was primarily just a caretaker for their children. This is the attitude that had made it impossible for him to appreciate anything else she did. However, by opting out of the marriage and taking control of her life Ibsen uses Nora as a symbol of rebellion against the suppression and disenfranchisement, overall this play can be viewed as an advocacy for female empowerment and a stinging criticism for male chauvinism. Notwithstanding the, acclaim for Nora for empowering herself by leaving, the morality of her actions came under severe criticism based on the fact that she left not just her husband but the children who had done nothing to deserve abandonment (Rosefeldt 85). This was so serious that in Germany the performance of the play was banned until Ibsen finally bowed to the pressure and grudgingly rewrote the ending such that Nora breaks down in tears and agrees to stay but only for the sake of the children. Works Cited Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Rockville, MD: Arc Manor LLC. 2009. Print Lingard, John. "Ibsen: A Doll's House." Modern Drama 39.2 (1996): 363.  Rosefeldt, Paul. "Ibsen's A Doll's House." The Explicator 61.2 (2003): 84-5.  Templeton, Joan. "Reviews -- Ibsen: A Doll's House by Egil Tornqvist." Scandinavian Studies 68.1 (1996): 135-7.  Yuehua, Guo. "Gender Struggle Over Ideological Power in Ibsen's A Doll's House/LA LUTTE DES SEXES SUR LE POUVOIR IDEOLOGIQUE DANS MAISON DE POUPEE D'IBSEN." Canadian Social Science 5.1 (2009): 79-87.  Read More