Love and Loss in A Doll’s House

Response to 7.: In what respects does A Doll’s House seem to apply to life today? Is it in any way dated? Could there be a Nora in North America today?

I would like to respond to this question as well as to the major topic of discussion in class last week, which was love and marital happiness.
In class, we had a rather lively discussion , debating whether we thought the modern day ease of divorce made or broke more marriages; some of us thought that not having an out forced one to “make it work,” while others merely saw the old way of marriage as simple that, old and outdated and no better than the method we have now. Clearly, Nora (and Ibsen) does not feel that the constraints of a 19th century marriage were enough to satisfy the typical couple. More than this, though, I feel that the play represents Ibsen’s general discontent with social norms and especially male and female roles of the day.
In class, several of us remarked that we were disgusted with and by Helmer’s ways of speaking with (or, more accurately, speaking down to) Nora. He calls her ridiculous pet names and speaks to her as if she is a child, several times specifically referring to her as a child (he says she has “childish fears” and in the last scene says her rhetoric is that of a child). He says she is good at nothing but spending money and looking pretty; in fact, Nora sees all her skills as for nothing but entertaining Helmer. In turn, she fulfills her role, resorting to wile and playacting the ninny in order to get what she wants. The very thing she is most proud of, her saving of Helmer’s life and her raising the money to do so, she can never share with him because it would hurt his “pride.”
In the end, the dishonesty of this relationship is finally revealed to be toxic. While Helmer is supposed to be the perfect, masculine caretaker, he is exposed as selfish and quick to betray Nora. The problem with not allowing women to be real people in a real relationship becomes clear. Even though Nora has never been allowed to make her own decisions or act as an adult and is always treated as a child, Helmer is immediately ready to allow her to flounder in the wake of her actions as an adult. He will not protect her, as one would a child; even though she has not been given the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions, she will be judged as though she had. This is one of the many double standards clear by the end of Ibsen’s work. Nora immediately sees the falsity of the life she has lived; Helmer is not the column of morality she believed him to be. Instead, he is quick to throw her to the wolves and eager to spurn her as a wife and mother. More tellingly, he says quite plainly that honor is more important than love and that no one would give up their good name for a loved one. Nora, just as plainly, responds that many women do, as she has. This exchange demonstrates another of the inequalities between men and women at this time.
Now, back to the question: yes, I think that A Doll’s House could easily be transformed to 21st century America. 20th century America, mid-century, would probably be even more appropriate. In any relationship, there is always a give and take; however, any long-term relationship hinges upon honesty and trust. There is neither of these in Helmer and Nora’s situation. Nora does, in fact, hope to trust Helmer – this is the miracle she speaks of and is eventually refused. Although I think that the Women’s Rights Movement has gone a long way towards erasing many of the inequalities between men and women, there is still a long way to go. For example, we see time and time again on television or in books these same themes of honesty and rejection of stereotypical gender roles.
In order to fully understand this topic, I would like to do some research on JStor or the other databases made available on the PCDS website.
Also, I am not really sure about the lesson provided by the relationship between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde, or exactly what Nora is supposed to do with the display of love from Dr. Rank. What do these have to do with the central theme of the play? How do they add to the reader’s new understanding of love (as Nora defines it), a true meeting of the minds between two people? I feel like these two parts of the plot definitely are a commentary as well, but I am not quite sure how.
(774)