The Character of Nora Helmer in A dolls House - Essay Example

The Academia Research …………………… May 2, 2009. The Character of Nora Helmer in A doll’s house In the play A Doll’s House, Ibsen shows a striking character development taking place in the character of the heroine. From a charming, carefree little doll, she turns into a self-conscious woman who has come to know about the reality of her existence. She has rejected her prototype image and is bent upon reshaping her own personality in the light of her new-found awareness about her existence. The story starts in the romantic environment of a happy family and ends in a tragic way on the demolition of the blissful domestic edifice. Now the protagonist has some questions for which she needs answers. Symbolically she rejects the deterministic existence and resolves to tread upon the path of free will in this world. The character of Nora has many shades and she is quite charming in every role. In the first part of the play Nora is acting like a child. Her immature nature is revealed not only in her speeches but her actions that are often characteristics of little children. Like little children she is spendthrift and quite non serious about her spending. She likes to have beautiful dresses and her habit of eating macaroons secretly, remind us of innocent children who often cheat their parents in these matters and mostly seek pleasure in doing the things which are prohibited. Her reflexes are childlike and she is easily moved to hear any news. She feels no remorse in telling lies and does that even to the embarrassment of the other people. When questioned about eating macaroons, she denies having any. HELMER:Not even taken a bite at a macaroon or two? NORA:No, Torvald, I assure you really— No only her husband but other characters also treat her as a child.Mrs.Linde’s remarks about her, “My dear! Small household cares and that sort of thing!--You are a child, Nora”( Act 1).She herself realizes this and complains to Christine about this view of herself:You are just like the others. They all think that I am incapable of anything really serious (Act 1). From the beginning of the play, Nora is treated as a spoiled child by her husband. He has quite interesting names for her which usually are given to pets. He never takes her seriously. Torvald expects her wife to be what he wants herself to be. He has a preconceived image of wife and Nora has to conform to that image. She has to remain subservient to her husband’s wishes. She has no right to interfere in his manly affairs as in her husband’s opinion she lacks the sagacity required for worldly affairs. He thinks that a wife should be obedient to her husband and a husband should have some sort of authority over her. He is annoyed at the idea of changing his mind at the advice of his wife as he thinks that this will mar his social image as a husband. It is already known at the Bank that I mean to dismiss Krogstad. Is it to get about now that the new manager has changed his mind at his wifes bidding ( Act 2). He likes to see her engaged in her domestic affairs and feels quite a pleasure at her love and devotion for her family. But he takes all this for granted. He loves his wife but when she tries to assert herself, he gets offended and warns her to be in her limits. Their relationship seems to be that of a parent and a pampered child. Even when she seems to become a bit serious to hear her husband’s exhortations on frugality, Helmer cheers her up “Come, come, my little skylark must not droop her wings. What is this! Is my little squirrel out of temper? (Taking out his purse.) Nora, what do you think I have got here?” (Act 1).It is not husband wife relationship with all its intricacies. She herself wallows in the attention that she is getting from her husband and encourages him to treat her so. She lovingly receives the pet names he has given to her. She loves to be called ‘little lark’ and ‘little squirrel’ of her husband. She is all for her family. She adores her husband and even commits a serious crime out of love for her husband. She loves her children and the very thought that her evil doings may bring evil to her children horrifies her. NORA. (pale with terror).Deprave my little children? Poison my home? (A short pause. Then she tosses her head.) Its not true. It cant possibly be true. When her husband was not well, she tried to work to get monetary benefits for her family” Last winter I was lucky enough to get a lot of copying to do; so I locked myself up and sat writing every evening until quite late at night. Many a time I was desperately tired; but all the same it was a tremendous pleasure to sit there working and earning money.” (Act 1). In order to make sure that her husband should take up that trip to Italy, she even resorts to that unscrupulous act which ultimately brings schism in her relationship with her husband. A woman in her lets her engage in a harmless flirt with Doctor Rank who is her secret admirer .But again she is insensible of consequences this relationship might bring about. When the mature Mrs.Linde alludes this to her, she even denies having any relationship of that sort. She likes balls and likes to be admired for her charms. She likes beautiful attires and always wants to impress her husband with her beautiful outfits. She also enjoys girlish fantasies about a rich secret admirer who will leave a handsome legacy for the girl of his dreams and divulges her secret in a quite girlish way to her child playmate Christine. This once a carefree, seemingly non-serious little lark comes to know about her real self in the last act of the play. The conflict in her inner soul makes her ‘see better’ and she undergoes a kind of transformation. She rejects her previous role and insists on asserting her new found identity. She realizes that her father and her husband have done wrong with her and did not let her develop into a self-conscious woman who has right to assert her own self. She complaints to her husband,” You and father have done me a great wrong. You have prevented from becoming a real person” (Act 3). In the beginning she herself justifies the domineering behavior of her husband and takes every measure not to hurt his manly sensibility. And besides, how painful and humiliating it would be for Torvald, with his manly independence, to know that he owed me anything! It would upset our mutual relations altogether; our beautiful happy home would no longer be what it is now (Act 1). We have two Noras in the play. The Nora of Act3 is in not the Nora of the first part of the play .In the first two acts of the play, Nora Helmer is a striking example of feminine compliance, while in the last act she rebels against her doll-like role and asserts claim to full humanity (Paris 39).This transformation is so abrupt that at first the readers or viewer cannot swallow this new aspect in Nora’s character. Indeed the most difficult thing to understand about Nora is the speed of her transformation from submissive, self-sacrificing woman who lives only for love and family into a self-assertive person who rejects all responsibility to her husband and children in the name of her duty to herself (Paris 39). But when we realize the conflict that made her behave like this, then her transformation seems plausible and justified. When she comes to know that her husband failed to see her sacrifices and refused to stand by her in her hour of trial, she has seen the real face of male-dominated husband and is shocked at this as she had many expectations from her husband. But he is concerned with his own repute. The play ends when the education of heroine is complete. She has achieved the self awareness the author wanted to give her. Ibsen’s radical ideas find their place in the play and the protagonist becomes an exponent of woman emancipation free from the emotional traps of husbands and fathers. Now like a bridling she is ready to soar on her solo flight. Now she will see the world with her own eyes and would fashion her own destiny according to her own understanding. Works Cited Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House.New York. Dover Publications, 1992. Paris, Bernard J. Imagined human beings : a psychological approach to character and conflict in literature .New York: New York Univ. Press 1997. Read More