Sunday, February 22, 2009

Freedom or Death

One of the underlying themes and meanings of Ibsen’s play is Nora’s search for freedom. Not the sort of freedom granted to her by a national authority, not the sort of freedom that the greatest country on earth, America, grants to its citizens, but freedom from her worries and responsibilities. Worries and responsibilities that do not come from her role as a woman in the household—she doesn’t even raise her own children—but rather worries and responsibilities that she has set upon herself by forging her father’s signature and illegally borrowing money from a less-than-beneficent moneylender, Krogstad.

Throughout most of “The Doll House,” Nora feels that if she can simply pay off the money she owes to Krogstad, her problems will simply disappear. What she does not realize, however, is that the money she owes is not the source of her problems, but rather to whom she owes to money. Krogstad uses Nora’s debt as a way to ruin her. When Krogstad is fired, he gains revenge on Torvald by revealing the truth about Nora’s past activities, thus ruining Nora’s life, and by extension Torvalds.




But by the time Krogstad ruins Nora and Torvald, Nora has already realized that she cannot gain personal freedom by paying back the money. At this point she has even realized that it is not the blackmail power that Krogstad held over her that prevented her from being free to live her life. She has realized that it was her relationship with her husband that was her biggest impediment to living a life free from worry and meaningless responsibilities. She no longer wants to be a “little squirrel” or any other diminutive form of cute animal: she had been treated like that her whole life.

Nora’s father treated her like a dumb kitten, and Nora’s husband treated her like a dumb kitten. The blackmail situation with Krogstad only served as a catalyst for her to realize that she wanted to be free from her persona as an empty headed girl. The threat of her husband leaving her and divorcing her due to her actions led her to consider a life without her husband. Were Nora to lose her husband, she would, for the first time in her life, not be associated with a dominating, condescending male figure.

At the final scene, Nora gains the strength to say that for once in her life, she will “make sense of [her]self and everything around her.” She leaves Torvald to pursue her own destiny for the first time in her life. The divorce from her husband means a divorce from her entire life as a “little spendthrift” and a start to a new life as her own person.

6 comments:

MHR said...

I am honored that I have the privilege to comment on your most esteemed blog.../end grandiloquence.

I am somewhat surprised (in a good way) that you chose to interpret Nora's walking out on Torvald not as the actions of a stupid, irrational child but rather those of an individual seeking something greater out of her existence.

I agree with your assertion that Krogstad's attempted blackmail was a "catalyst" for Nora's realization. Moreover, though, I'm glad that you didn't see her rather quick self-transformation as being "unrealistic." I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing absurd about depicting certain sentiments as spontaneously occurring.

I would recommend that you read my blog, not out of self-promotion, but rather I'm curious about your thoughts on the matter I chose to analyze since I see some overlapping in our thinking--great minds think alike.

Overall, a blog well done.

- His Illustriousness,
Matthew H. von Rosenzweig

Andrew Chang said...

If only Nora had lived in a country as great as ours she would not have faced so many trying dilemmas. The freedom granted to all individuals- regardless of race, gender, or religion- is something that Nora did not have a chance to experience. Thus, she was treated like an inferior and was not offered any condolences by society because it was, to that particular society, correct. I am sure that in a legal system as prestigious as that of the United States of America, those in power would have seen the moral righteousness in Nora's actions and thus, Krogstad would have had no influence over her. But alas, universal enfranchisement and the Supreme Court came too late for our doomed heroine. It is stories like these that give us a greater appreciation for the opportunities offered to us in this country today... "Who wants some toast?!"

- Fellow HJC/GoPho enthusiast,
Andrew Chang

John Greenberg said...

Eric, I thought you provided a very unique look at a potential theme of the play. I thought that your idea of freedom as central to Nora's actions was well thought out and presented in a fun and easy-to-read manner. Good job and keep fighting the good fight.

Sophie C-K said...

Eric,

Thank you for your blog. It was adequate.

(Thought you might need a back-to-reality after all that high praise in the comments before.)

Really, though.... it was fine.

MHR said...

That is not a substantive comment

Zach Hitchcock said...

Dr. Rev.,

I was highly intrigued your here blog and thought you did a supreme (not "adequate") job in discussing the reasons and motives behind Nora's search for freedom and how Krogstad was a key and influential player in that. Furthermore, I also thoroughly enjoyed the "dumb kitten" title. A plus work my friend, A plus.

Zach