Nora Character in Henrik Ibsens Immortal Play A Dolls House - Essay Example

? Nora is a character in Henrik Ibsen’s immortal play A Doll’s House. That said, she was not a pleasant character. The portrayal of her is consistent, in that, at every turn, she shows that she is focused only upon herself. She also shows that she is weak, as she relies completely upon her husband, and cannot even care for her own children or house, even though she does not really work. She is also vain, as she states, several times, that she is pretty. She is silly and frivolous, living, apparently, only to dance and party and entertain. Yet, at the end of the play, Nora apparently has an epiphany, and a glorious, independent, grounded feminist emerges from Nora at the end of the play. Thesis statement – In light of the play’s consistent portrayal of Nora as weak, self-centered, shallow and vain, her speeches at the end of the play pose an inherent inconsistency in her character that is unexplained by the prior events, and undermine the very premise of the play. Nora throughout the play is weak, self-centered, shallow and vain. For instance, towards to beginning of the play, Nora entertains an old friend of hers, Mrs. Linde. Mrs. Linde has had somewhat of a tragic life – she lost her husband, and never had children, and is all alone in the world. While Nora initially appears to sympathize with her, stating “But to be so completely alone – that must be terribly sad for you”, she soon finds a way to steer the conversation to herself - “I have three lovely children; you can’t see them just now, they are out with their Nanny” (Ibsen, 1965, p. 154). Then Nora goes on to tell Mrs. Linde that she “mustn’t be selfish today – I’m not going to think about anything but your troubles” then, once again, steers the conversation around to herself “Do you know, we’ve just had the most wonderful stroke of luck – only the other day…my husband’s been made Manager of the Savings Bank” (Ibsen, 1965, p. 155). This exchange is typical Nora – she has a friend over who has had real troubles in her life, and all Nora can talk about is her own good fortune. This shows how self-centered Nora really is. Another example of this is when Nora is talking with Dr. Rank, who has come to inform Nora that he has a terminal illness. Although Nora pretends to have concern, she still scolds Dr. Rank for ruining her friendly visit – “no, you’re really being absurd today – and just when I so wanted you to be in a particularly good mood” (Ibsen, 1965, p. 191). In other words, a friend tells Nora that he is dying, and Nora just wants him to be in a good mood, because his bad mood affects her in an adverse way. Everything is always about her. Her self-centered nature is also on display regarding her children. Specifically, after Nora finds out that she soon might be in trouble, due the forgery of her father’s name on the loan document, Nora decides to detach herself from her own children. Although this is not clear why Nora makes this decision, it is obvious that she does. Once again, Nora is only thinking of herself – her children need her, she is their mother, yet they are disposable in her world. Nora is only thinking about getting away from the situation, and running away from her husband and children, and this is incredibly selfish. Yet, it is not out of character for her. In the end, Nora actually does abandon her own children, when she decides to become independent, so, in this way, Nora did act in character, even if the rest of the speech regarding her independence was very out of character. Furthermore, Nora is vain, and there are many instances where she shows this particular ugly trait as well. For instance, Nora constantly refers to herself as “pretty.” When Nora told Mrs. Linde when she would tell Torvald about the money that she borrowed from the bank, Nora explains to Mrs. Linde that she would tell Torvald “When I’m not pretty any more” (Ibsen, 1965, p. 161). It is obvious that Nora thinks of herself as pretty, for this comment is consistent with other comments that Nora makes throughout the play about being pretty and attractive. Her self-centeredness is also portrayed in her dealings with Mr. Krogstad and the money. Nora committed a crime, plain and simple – she forged her father’s name as a guarantee for her loan, as her father lay dying. Yet she justifies this by stating that the trip to Italy was necessary for her husband’s health, although this seems to be in doubt. Torvald had overworked himself, and Nora stated that he was “dreadfully ill,” so they had to go to Italy for Torvald to recuperate. As Nora has not shown herself to be the most honest person, nor a woman of character, the reader is left to doubt whether she is even telling the truth about the trip abroad being necessary for Torvald’s health. Nevertheless, even if the trip was necessary for Torvald’s health, Nora paid for the trip in an illegal way, and it is not acceptable to break the law for one’s own purposes. Nora, however, does not seem to understand this, thinking that the ends justify the means, no matter what the means are – when Krogstad states that the law is not concerned with motives, Nora impugns the law instead of putting the blame on herself – “then it must be a very stupid law” (Ibsen, 1965, p. 175). The most unforgivable part of this exchange, however, is Nora’s admission that she didn’t give any consideration to Mr. Krogstad, and the position that she was putting him in – “I wasn’t thinking about you at all” (Ibsen, 1965, p. 175). Nora also consistently showed herself to be shallow. This is shown by the fact that her relationship with Torvald consists of, by her consent apparently, “dancing and dressing up and reciting” (Ibsen, 1965, p. 161). She does not contribute to the marriage in any way – she does not bring home money, depending upon Torvald to support her, aside from small amounts of money that she receives from doing needlepoint work. Moreover, she doesn’t even care for her own children – a nanny does this. Ibsen does not explain why a woman who does not have a job cannot care for her own children, but this is another part of Nora’s character. Although Nora was clearly in the wrong in this situation, she somehow imagined that Torvald would say that the entire affair was his fault. This is not clear why Torvald should shoulder the blame for her transgression – “I was completely certain that you would come forward take all the blame – that you’d say ‘I’m the guilty one’” (Ibsen, 1965, p. 230). In the end, however, Nora becomes a completely different person then who she was before, and that is why her sudden transformation at the end did not seem plausible or realistic. While Nora throughout the play was shown as silly, self-centered, vain and shallow, the Nora at the end of the play was suddenly an independent, intelligent woman. For instance, although Nora herself had consistently showed herself to be the queen of denial and subterfuge, with the whole issue regarding the loan and the forgery, Nora suddenly wants to get things into the open and criticizes Torvald for not wanting the same - “we’ve never sat down in earnest together to get to the bottom of a single thing” Nora laments to her husband (Ibsen, 1965, p. 225). Despite the fact that there is no indication that Nora cares that her husband treated her as a possession, as long as he keeps paying the bills, Nora suddenly is indignant about her husband not understanding her. Nora also, throughout the play, did not seem to have trouble with Torvald viewing her as a little doll, for she played right into the role. She was frivolous and shallow, and took no responsibility for anything – not for her children, not for her crime, not for the bills that needed to be paid. She knew that Torvald only cared for her on a superficial level, as long as he could control her, yet she never seemed to have a problem with this. This changed in the end, along with a number of other attitudes, as Nora complained about the life that she was leading there at home – “our home has been nothing but a play-room. I’ve been your doll-wife here, just as at home I was Papa’s doll-child” (Ibsen, 1965, p. 226). That said, there are also a few things that Nora says during her speeches towards the end that is true to form. For instance, Nora plays the victim, just as she had throughout the rest of the play – “I’ve been dreadfully wronged, Torvald – first by Papa, and then by you” (Ibsen, 1965, p. 225). She also reverts to being self-centered when she accuses Torvaldd of going back to act as if nothing had happened after the first panic was over, noting that Torvald was not concerned about “what threatened me, but about what might happen to you” (Ibsen, 1965, p. 230). Once again, in this sentence, Nora shows that it only matters what happens to her, and she was angry that Torvald did not seem to see that. And, the fact that Nora willingly turned her back on her own children, which she does, is also in character. Conclusion Nora is not a good person. Sheltered all her life, pampered and spoiled, Nora thinks only of herself. This is a consistent portrayal throughout the play. Even the speech patterns that Nora uses throughout the play are consistent with the overall character of Nora. While her husband is paternalistic and apparently does not see Nora as anything but a playtoy, this is a characterization that has the full support of Nora herself. There is not an indication that Nora feels demeaned or humiliated by her husband’s treatment of her. There is not an indication that Nora feels anything for her husband except that he is the source of income for her. How Nora treats her children is similarly indicative of her character – she is only seen to interact with them when she plays games with them, otherwise the kids are with the nanny. And, at the end, she leaves the children without a word, apparently, so that she can, once again, focus only upon herself. Because Nora is such an unpleasant character, it is inconsistent and implausible how she suddenly becomes an independent feminist in the end. The Nora by the end of the play is an indignant one – indignant that she no longer knows or loves her husband, indignant that he keeps her like a little doll in a little doll house, but, most of all, indignant that he would be angry about her forging a loan document. She is determined, at the end of the play, to break away and live an independent life, despite the fact that she has no skills, no money and has depended upon Torval for everything in her life up until that point. Thus, the pragmatics of the move are also called into question. Ibsen created a character who is helpless, silly, vain, self-centered and shallow, then expects that audience to believe that, all along, she was an independent, intelligent woman with great insight into her situation. She simply needed the right situation to bring these traits out. However, this characterization was difficult to take seriously, therefore the entire play was undermined by this lack of consistency. Bibliography Ibsen, Henrik. Four Major Plays, vol. 1: A Doll’s House, The Wild Duck; Hedda Gabler; The Master Builder. Ed. Rolf Fjelde. London: Signet Press, 1965. Read More