A Doll’s House is an outstanding drama created by famous Norwegian writer Henrik Ibsen in 1879. A master of realistic narration, Ibsen touches on the issue of living within illusions and their disclosure. An illusion cannot last forever. One day something happens that makes a sincere, sweet-tempered young woman say, “I don’t believe any longer in wonderful things happening” (A Doll’s House 114). It is interesting to analyze Ibsen’s drama in the historic context, considering its value for the further development of literature and the evolution of society.
The end of the XIXth century brought a flowering of the drama genre. Dramatic literature of this period was called by the contemporaries the “new drama”, which highlighted substantial changes in the genre. It arose in the atmosphere of cult of science, caused by rapid development of natural science, philosophy and psychology. It became an alternative to the classic dramas, which were mainly well-written, but far from reality, and touched the most burning issues for contemporary society. Henrik Ibsen, Maurice Maeterlinck, Emile Zola, Johan Strindberg, Bernard Shaw became the fathers of the new stage in dramatic literature. When Henrik Ibsen made his first steps in literature, Norwegian art was embraced with a flavor of national romanticism. His first works of literature were also created in romantic style. In 1849 he wrote his first romantic drama Catiline (Ibsen 2008), and his following oeuvre was also created in a romantic manner. The philosophic drama “Peer Gynt” (Ibsen 2003) became the highest point of his romantic literature work. However, the 1870s brought dramatic changes into Ibsen’s style: the author turned to the realistic manner of writing and focused on the burning issues of contemporary society. This period became his conversion from a fairy tail to a daily routine, from illusion to reality. Ibsen became a desperate fighter against the numerous unhealthy tendencies and illusions dominating in society. He chose his literature work as a weapon in this struggle, and reformed his style in terms of both manner and matter.
The protagonist of A Doll’s House Nora Helmer seemed to have everything she could only dream about: a wealthy husband, charming children, and a house, where she feels as safe as behind a stone wall. However, a slight breath of trouble and misunderstanding was enough to destroy the fragile doll’s house of illusive happiness. At first a Helmers’ couple seems to be perfect and exemplary: an attentive, housewifely woman, who spares no effort to make pleasure to a family, and her husband, who has a decent position and showers a woman with words of tenderness. Nevertheless, a reader quickly recognizes the inflection of Helmer’s endearment: we see that his attitude to his wife is nothing more than neglect and disdain. However, he has built a cage for his “skylark”, and this order is convenient to him:
And I would not wish you to be anything but just what you are, my sweet little skylark (A Doll’s House 12).
During the years of their life together, Nora also adopted the established order: she repents “breaking the rules’ ‘ of buying macaroons and asks her husband’s permission in every action. At the same time, Helmer could hardly call himself despotic: in his eyes, these restrictions were nothing more than display of his care for a light-minded, untroubled woman. Not accidentally, a word “little” sounds so often in his speech. This leads us to a thought that both characters lived in illusion about each other and their roles in the family. Nora got used to her doll’s house and admits, “I can’t hit upon anything that will do; everything I think of seems so silly and insignificant” (A Doll’s House 44). She became nothing but a little squirrel in the hands of her husband. Expectedly, to change the settled order meant to crash the illusion. “No, a wife cannot borrow without her husband’s consent”, says Nora (A Dolls House 22), and this dropped phrase sounds like a short summary of their family order, which defines their roles and attitude. And this statement turned out to be a challenge, which opened Nora’s eyes upon the illusion which she lived in.
In his critical review to A Doll’s House, George Bernard Shaw, Ibsen’s “colleague” in setting new standards in contemporary drama, summarized the ruin of both characters’ illusion:
Her doll’s dress is thrown off and her husband left staring at her, helpless, bound thenceforth either to do with her … or else treat her as a human being like himself, fully recognizing that he is not a creature of one superior species, Man, living with a creature of another and inferior species, Woman, but that Mankind is male and female, like other kinds (Egan 376).
However, the question of illusion debunk is considered in Ibsen’s drama not only on a level of family relations. He watches and describes the atmosphere of all-absorbing illusion in the society, drawing attention to the rights and destiny of a woman in it. This illusion had been existing in society for centuries and was invisible until eminent public figures and art workers drew attention to it. The core of this illusion is a woman’s position in society, with her rights and responsibilities. In many societies, including Norwegian, a woman was considered to be a housekeeper, serving the needs of her family. Instead, she was considered to receive a “stone wall” of comfort and prosperity from her husband. Through his A Doll’s House, Ibsen contributed much to the issue of women’s rights. He analyzed what a woman had in effect, when she became a hostage of a strict family order. Expectedly, what she had in fact was much less than a human being has a right to obtain. Can a wall built for a woman in order to fence her off the reality be considered a real protection to her? As wee see from the drama’s plot, it can hardly do it. Nora did not avoid facing to severe reality in order to save her family, having committed a crime. In her review for the drama, Henrietta Frances Lord marks:
When Helmer said he would work night and day for his wife, his were no empty words… He would deprive her but of one thing – reality. How could he claim to be a “real man”, he would say, if he gave it to her? And he so far succeeds in unfitting her for action, that when she takes upon herself to meddle in realities, she immediately commits a crime. He gives her everything but his confidence… (Egan 59).
Being protected from reality, having no responsibility but housekeeping, a woman could not build any foundation for her future. She had no education, no experience in work and in everyday life. She could not even have friends or good connections, “Torvald is so absurdly fond of me that he wants me absolutely to himself, as he says. At first he used to seem almost jealous if I mentioned any of the dear folk at home, so naturally I gave up doing so” (A Doll’s House 53). In the drama, we see an example of Christine Linde, a widow, whose husband left her no capital, no children, and no sense of living. After decades of suppressed, obedient existence, she has to start her life from the very beginning. It is not difficult to guess that Nora Helmer will face the same destiny when leaving her doll’s house. “I am going to see if I can make out who is right, the world or I”, says “a little skylark” in the touching final stage of the play (A Doll’s House 109). In fact, the end of the drama is the beginning of the story for the protagonist; however, the author does not give a hint to a reader, leaving a space for his imagination.
It is interesting to analyze, how the components of dramatic structure are used by Ibsen as the tools of fulfilling his idea. Having brought dramatic changes into the content, Ibsen does not change the traditions of drama’s composition, keeping the classical unities of time, place and action in A Doll’s House. The characters in the drama are to some extent sketchy. A reader can hardly find some details about the characters’ past, interests. In fact, they are not the personalities, but the character types. This is a deliberate device used by the author in order to show the prevalence of the order described in the play. We cannot see any details of setting in the drama, which also contributes to the impression of the story’s sketchiness. The only prop which figures often in the dialogues is a Christmas Tree, which finally turned into a symbol of Nora’s bitter disappointment. As for language and phrasing in drama, Ibsen also adapted the way of narration in his drama to his aim of creating vivid, recognizable picture. The characters do not talk in verse, like they did in Peer Gynt (Ibsen 2003); we can notice absence of monologues, remarks to the audience and inflated style of speech, like in the most “old” dramas. Ibsen’s unmasking drama should create the atmosphere of reality. Ibsen renounces traditional plots based on a love conflict; instead, he tells about unhealthy tendencies in the society. Despite the figure of protagonist is obvious, it is impossible to define an antagonist as a single person. Indeed, who can be called a villain in this story? Helmer is plunged deep into his own illusion, and his intent is well-wishing. Krogstad’s intrigue has a mission of a trigger for the whole situation. As, according to the theory of drama, an antagonist can be presented as a person, a group, a thing, or a force (supernatural or natural) (McMahan 736), it is naturally to assume, that Ibsen presented the social problems as a non-material antagonist, which penetrates invisibly into one’s life and destroys it from inside; however, it cannot be recognized until it is raised by a certain prerequisite.
Ibsen and other fathers of contemporary drama enriched World literature with the tradition of talking about illusions and their disclosure. In the XXth century, with its social reforms, economic depressions and two World Wars, this issue became extremely topical. Arthur Miller in Death of a Salesman (1998) and Tennessee Williams in The Glass Menagerie (1999) talk about confrontation between an individual living in illusion and society; Yevgeny Zamiatin in We (1952) and George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four (2004) describe all-absorbing illusions suppressing the whole mankind. Destroying illusions and showing core reality raised literature to a level above simple entertainment. By his works, Ibsen encourages a reader not to be afraid to search his face and vocation in his life, and to see, “who is right, the world or I”.
Bibliography
Egan, Michael. Henrik Ibsen (Critical Heritage Series). repr. ed. London: Routledge, 1997.
Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Rockville, Md.: Serenity Publishers, 2009. Print.
—–. Early Plays: Catiline, The Warrior’s Barrow, Olaf Liljekrans. CA: Mcmaster Press, 2008. Print.
——. Peer Gynt. Mineola, NY : Dover Publications, 2003. Print.
Mahan Mc, Elizabeth, Suzan X Day, and Robert Funk Literature and the Writing Process. 8th edition. Print.
Miller, Arthur, and Christopher Bigsby. Death of a salesman: Certain Private Conversations in Two Acts and a Requiem. New York, NY: Penguin, 1998. Print.
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Fairfield, IA: 1st World Library, 2004. Print.
Williams, Tennessee. The Glass Menagerie. New York: New Directions, 1999. Print.
Zamiatin, Evgeny I. We. New York: Dutton, 1952. Print.