Question

Ibsen as the master of dramatic technique and the theories associated with it
OR.. portrayal of characters and in his depiction of human relationship

According to Ibsen what is the theory of Exercise of well

Salient features of ibsen’s modernism

Critically evaluate the social dramas of ibsen

What is Ibsen’s concept of tragedy

Problem lie in marriage as presented in doll house

Main Theme as delineated in doll house /

Character of Nora has been strongly delineated . discuss

Main features of Torvald Helmer’s Character in the doll house

Mrs. Christine Linde her character , story

ibsen is a dramatist of social realities

Discuss the value of liberation and emancipation in doll house

Doll house manifests the Right of women

Discuss the end of doll house in detail

Importance the title of the play doll house

Doll house as a modern tragedy

Merits and demerits of a doll house / ibsen’s skill as a craftsman in doll house

Discuss social problems in doll house

Ibsen moral ideals as presentd in a doll house

Does a doll house present any dimensions of modern tragedy , what extent.

Note on ibsen’s concept of marriage a presented in doll house

Note on ibsen’s Idealism as presented in doll house

Is nora justified in leaving her children in a doll house

Summary
This is a play written in 187 by the Norwegian poet and playwright Henrik Ibsen. It conveys the life of “the perfect couple” of the 1th century yet goes
into more depth in revealing the troubles and sufferings sometimes found in this ideal lifestyle. When first released, the play was a scandal, shocking
audiences, due solely to the fact that it was so correct and truthful. The portrayal of Nora’s character was scandalous, for it showed all the
characteristics of the ideal middle-class housewife as ways of achieving power and independence; a very shocking aspect to men and women of the
1th century as it was normal for men to be in charge of the household and women to play the role of housewife and not cause any trouble. So
shocking was the play, that it was condemned as a degenerate attack upon traditional family values.
Nora is the main character of the play, the main action and scandal takes place between her and her husband of eight years, Torvald Helmer, a lawyer
who has just been promoted to manager in the bank where he works. The other characters that appear include Dr Rank, a good family friend who
comes to the house at least once a day; Nils Krogstad, a lawyer who works in the same bank as Torvald; Christine Linde, a school friend of Nora’s who
has come to visit Nora, hoping to find work; the nurse and Nora and Torvald’s three young children. The entire play takes place in Torvald’s house
over the Christmas period.
The relationship between Nora and Torvald is a very uneven one. Torvald’s tone is that of a father talking to a young child. Ibsen writes typically in a
way that the characters might talk in relation to their position and their relationship with each other. For example, it would have been expected at
that time for a woman to treat her husband as a superior, to show respect and loyalty to her husband and abide by his rules. However, the way that
Torvald speaks to Nora shows that he is using her, just like how Torvald always refers to his wife as a skylark, and in the third act when he says,
“playtime shall be over and lessons begin”. It would be thought that by this, Torvald would be referring to the children, Nora even asks whose lessons
he is referring to, and it is quite shocking when he says hers and the children’s. This shows how much he considers her as a child, just like how he
always calls her a “skylark” symbolizes the way that Torvald always teaches his wife as a child.
We discover a breakthrough in Nora’s character, who has an epiphany towards the end of the play. We know that at the time that Nora’s father was
dying, Torvald was seriously ill. This was due to overwork, and to save his life, he needed rest. So Nora took him away on a trip to Italy, which she told
Torvald her father had help pay for, as they did not have the money. We learn in fact, that the money was not from her father, and he had had no
idea of what was going on, he was dying at the time, and Nora had in fact borrowed the money from Krogstad. In order to borrow this money, Nora
had to get her father to sign the bond drafted by Krogstad. But she made a mistake, in giving away that she had forged her father’s signature, by
dating the document the second of October, three days after her father’s death. She did not tell Torvald that she borrowed the money; she knew how
much he did not approve of her borrowing the money. Krogstad sees the mistakes and confronts Nora, forcing her to reveal the truth, and
threatening to reveal her secret to Torvald if she does not try to get Torvald to give Krogstad his job back, who had been dismissed as a result of
forgery himself. It is through all this lying and playing that Nora sees that she no longer belongs in this household, and it is at this time that Nora has
her epiphany. She realises that she has no control whatsoever in the family and no purpose, for all her life, she has followed her father, in what he has
said and done, and now, she has been passed to her husband, as if she was a doll, being passed from person to person “our home has been nothing
but a playroom. I have been your doll wife just as at home I was Papa’s doll child; and here the children have been my dolls”, she wants to discover
who she is, and to do so, she has to leave.
The play is short, only three acts long. Yet it is well written and easy to understand. Ibsen writes using language that would have been used by the
type of people at the time of the play, his works related to real people in real conflicts, such as A Doll’s House can be interpreted as an expression of
the theme women’s rights. At the time of it’s release, the play was outrageous, not only because it was going against all people believed was right,
but because of the portrayal of Nora, and the way she expresses herself. For example, when she is talking to Dr Rank and Christine in the first act and
says “I’d should just love to say- well I’ll be damned!” not only was this unheard of from a woman at this time, but also this can be seen as a way for
Nora to express her desire to rebel against her husband.
There are a lot of themes covered in this play, such as the freedom or liberty the characters take in expressing their feelings for one-another, and how
the audience is aware of it all. Such as how in act two when Nora and Rank are having a conversation and Nora is flirting with him, showing him her
stockings and her legs, he tells her how he loves her; she is shocked at this, she never imagined he would love her and tell herm besides, she does not
want to hear of it, she is already happily married to Torvald.
There is a lot of symbolism in the play, such as the black crosses left on the card by Dr Rank, they signify death; the costume Nora dresses up in to
dance the Tarantella, symbolizes the fact that Nora is pretending to enjoy her life, while the Tarantella symbolises her agitation and struggle with
Krogstad and her husband. The macaroons that Nora is seen eating at the beginning of the play symbolize her deceit towards her husband. The
letterbox and the letter in the final act in which Krogstad is revealing everything to Torvald about the money Nora borrowed, both symbolise a trap
for Nora and the cause for her failure. At the end of the play, when Nora is about to leave Torvald, she gives him her wedding ring back, and asks for
his back to, this signifies the end of the marriage.
In this play, we see that Nora experiences an epiphany towards the end of the play. This epiphany is when she discovers that throughout the last eight
years of her life, she has been blind to who is in control of the marriage. When she realizes that she has no power to make Torvald love her “You have
never loved me. You have only thought it pleasant to be in love with me” (Act III), she realises she never had or is in control. This is the epiphany,
where she leaves Torvald and the play ends.
Mind that the sample papers like A summary of "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen. presented are to be used for review only. In order to warn you and
eliminate any plagiarism writing intentions, it is highly recommended not to use the essays in class. In cases you experience difficulties with essay
writing in class and for in class use, order original papers with our expert writers. Cheap custom papers can be written from scratch for each customer
that entrusts his or her academic success to our writing team. Order your unique assignment from the best custom writing services cheap and fast!
Symbols in 'A Doll's House'
Symbols of new beginnings for Nora

In A Doll’s House the protagonist, Nora lives in a Victorian society where women are heavily controlled and treated as
second-class citizens. The average Victorian women belonged to a stereotype that the women were required to stay home
and clean, prepare meals and raise children. In marriage Victorian women lost ownership of their wages, all physical
property, including land, and all other cash generated once married. The husband would represent both man and woman
placing the husband in control of everything and that including the wife as if she was a piece of property. This was Nora
before her new beginning. The playwright employs a variety of literary techniques and symbolism to convey the transition
from a traditional Victorian woman to the image of her seen at the end of the play; an embittered yet sophisticated,
intelligent, and newly empowered woman boldly escaping the infantilizing clutches of her old life. Amongst the symbols
employed throughout the play many were ones in which represented a new beginning for Nora. From the point of act one
she played the submissive, seemingly selfish, foolish wife refusing to acknowledge the strength that she was building. From
the Christmas tree to the macaroons to the Tarantella to New Year’s day are very important symbols which are Nora’s loves,
they are what helped her to obtain her new beginning, these symbols conveyed to the reader the beginning a new for her.

Christmas is favored holiday for Nora, the level of happiness is exponential, but part of the reason why she is so happy is the
joy that she has when playing the role of a wife and mother. The toys that she chose for her children suggests that she is fine
with the status quo of Victorian society, girls being nurturing and growing up to be a homely wife and mother while boys
grow up to be strong and powerful. Though during this stage her action of wanting to buy something for herself implies that
she wants to make a decision for herself going against the status quo. At this point though unaware she starts to think of
independence as if the thought of it was in the back of her mind. Though Torvald does not allow her to do so, the fact that
Torvald will not trust her with money to buy herself a present demonstrates a major imbalance of power. We see her during
the play ordering the Christmas tree and then decorating it, secretly acting independently an implication of growth of
strength to be an independent woman growing, edging towards a new beginning. During Christmas Eve Nora believed her
marriage to be one that had little to no issues. At the beginning of the second act, the tree has been stripped and the
candles burned out; stage directions dictate that is should look “bedraggled”. This represents the end of Nora’s innocence
and foreshadows the Helmer family’s eventual disintegration, the tree represents the family and its unity, the stripping of the
tree foreshadows Nora stripping from the family unit and her becoming her own person and reaching her new beginning.
She is starting to change significantly at this point. Though the first implication of a strength that was beginning to grow was
in her little act of eating a macaroon.

The macaroons was a treat that Torvald had forbidden Nora from eating. Nora claims that she “would never dream” of doing
anything that Torvald did not want her to do, but this is disproved in the very opening of the play when Nora eats
macaroons while she was alone in the living room. The macaroons come to represent Nora’s disobedience to Torvald, as this
was her first act of disobedience seen by the audience. The macaroons show that Nora is the perfect little “pet” that Torvald
views her to be. The macaroons function in the play was to demonstrate that although that some families and lives seem
picture perfect, most of the time it is not true, as proven by Nora’s need to hide the bond and macaroons from Torvald.
Ibsen’s use of symbolism in using such a minor pleasure impacts the story in a huge way by subtly showing the audience
that Nora’s lifestyle is not as truthful, happy and dependent as it seems, an independent act can lead to more and such
implies her growing strength. After giving a tempestuous performance of the tarantella Nora asks that the macaroons be
served at dinner, indicating a relationship between the macaroons and Nora’s inner passions, the tarantella and the
macaroons can be said to be two of Nora’s loves which help to show the audience the truth of who she really is.

The tarantella symbolizes a side of Nora that is fiery and passionate she could express her true nature in this dance. The
Tarantella was a wild southern Italian dance, generally danced by a couple or line of couples. The dance was named after the
tarantula spider, whose poisonous bite was mistakenly believed to cause 'tarantism,' an uncontrollable urge for wild dancing.
The 'cure' prescribed by doctors was for the sufferer to dance to exhaustion. Pyscologists reason that the only form of
expressing passion to its fullest, was the Tarantella. It is the fiery, passionate dance that allows Nora to drop the façade of
perfect mild-mannered Victorian wife it is the catalyst in which Nora is able to demonstrate a repressed side of herself, her
true self. Ibsen’s placement of the Tarantella in the third act is an foreshadowing element which implies the breaking out of
Nora. Her new beginning, is clearly seen in this dance something that is not controlled. Throughout the play Nora uses
performances to please Torvald, and the tarantella is no exception; he admits that watching her perform makes him desire
her. However this is only under controlled circumstances, and Torvald seems to enjoy that the performance impresses other
people more than anything. But she can be only controlled to a certain point such can be said when Torvald was trying to
give instructions “slow down”, trying to control her as he watched her practice before the actual event. Though this seems to
be only done to please her husband with a performance, what drives her to perform is the underlying aspect that she can
demonstrate her emotions to the fullest uncontrolled.

New Years day is traditionally viewed as a new beginning and such can be said to be the Helmer family’s view, they are
looking forward to this new beginning. Torvald starts a better paying job at the bank at which he works, Nora is almost free if
not already free of her debt by New Years day. By the end of the play Nora has definitely made a new beginning for herself
though not as expected; without her children and her husband. As the secret about the debt is found out by Torvald and she
has reached an epiphany because of this that she “existed merely to perform tricks” blaming him and her father for treating
her like a spoilt child and a plaything for their own entertainment. They wanted her to be ignorant and helpless, and thus far
she has only tried to please them and in turn missing out on any opportunity to educate and improve herself.

All the times she subtly rebelled or disobeyed or rather she was the one in control behind the scenes but now she is seen
clearly, no more deception. Nora’s submissiveness to Torvald is no longer seen. She shows herself no longer as a child but as
an adult woman these symbols that the author has employed has shown her development over time. Especially when
Torvald fails to provide the strength that she needed, because of that she can truly say that she no longer loves him. Her
realization that she wants to pursue her independence is not so much a transformation but an awakening to a strength that
she had possessed all along and with this strength she can begin a new.

Hedda Gabler As The Victim

In Hedda Gabler, author Henrik Ibsen paints an odious picture of the main character that could masterfully either lead the
reader to loath or possibly even to sympathize with her. Throughout the story she seems continuously tormented in her own
life, bored with the roles she feels she's forced to play. We only witness Hedda Gabler happy when she is actively torturing or
destroying the lives of others. Only after closely examining Hedda's words and actions, can we begin to delve into her world
and the possible motives behind her tortured soul.

Throughout the story it is made quite evident through her own words that Hedda feels she is a coward. She struggles with
taking control of her own life, yet finds ease and entertainment in having control over the lives and emotions of others. Due
to her popularity among the other characters in her life, she held a great power over them, eventually leading to their pain or
destruction. In the end when Brock gained control over Hedda's future and thus held the ultimate power over her, she felt
she had to escape. She wanted to forever remain on the pedestal of vanity and so freed herself by committing a "beautiful
death" as her exit to this life.

We all likely do not agree with Hedda Gabler's actions and attitude, but if we dare to look further into her person we might
even begin to sympathize with her. However, even with this sympathetic view I do not consider her a victim. Regardless of
the customs of society or one's upbringing, we always have the choice in how we react with the world and how we choose to
mold our lives. This story illustrates that playing the victim doesn't solve anything; it only makes life a miserable waste.

"The Metamorphosis"

In Franz Kafka's "Metamorphosis" he reveals the crutch of dependence and the transformation of character that comes
through taking control and responsibility. In the setting of Gregor's parent's home, we perch like a fly on the wall, and
observe the relationships between him and his family and more importantly, the relationship they have with their own selves.
Each character relies on everyone other than themselves to create their condition in life, that is, until the metamorphosis. As
Gregor's outward appearance changes, so does everyone's perception of life and their responsibilities. Therefore, not only is
this story about the metamorphosis of one's body, but it is more importantly the metamorphosis of the inner selves of
Gregor and his family.

Before the transformation Gregor lived his human life similarly to that of an insect, in such that neither creature was given
any respect or value by those individuals around him in daily life. He was enslaved in the debt of his family and so buried
himself in work, doing nothing to improve upon his own position of living. He willingly filled his life with his work so that he
could provide a better life for his parents and sister, yet never taking time for his own happiness or growth. Gregor's
metamorphosis into a bug hardly fazed him, because it was merely a change to his outward appearance that more closely
reflected his inner person and the life he had accepted long ago.

His family relied so strongly on human Gregor to be their stable breadwinner, that they could only see his unfortunate
predicament as being an insurmountable barrier to their continuing happiness. After his metamorphosis, they cloaked
themselves in fear, anger, despair, and resentment. Gregor's death freed them of their dependence and victimization within
themselves. They chose to stop holding themselves back and start moving forward on their own accord, towards achieving
the life that they wanted, all on their own.

Franz Kofka sketched quite an intriguing tale that seems so simple on a superficial level but when we look beyond the guise
of physical transformation, we can discover many layers of meaning. The relationship between Gregor and his family
switched roles through the simple change of his appearance. He then became reliant on their help to survive, while they
became more independent by distancing themselves from him and finally entering the work force. This story illustrated a
metamorphosis of body and mind in an amusing and insightful way; and through this transformation the family was freed of
their chains of dependence, forced to stop burdening those they care about, and take control of their lives.

Favorite and Least Favorite Works

Over the last four weeks we have covered another assortment of literary works; from "Hedda Gabler" to "Ode to the
Tomato", we've witnessed and analyzed the lives and choices of struggling characters in stories during the years 1800-
1900AD. With each piece of literature we caught a glimpse of the customs of society during these times. Whether it is due to
the characters themselves or the style and theme of the story, there were some literary works I enjoyed more than others,
however, we can always take something of value from each piece of literary art.

My favorite written work in this section has been by poet, Pablo Neruda. I love descriptive writing that easily transports the
reader into the setting and story with ease, and his eloquent and captivating words do just that. This excerpt from "Canto
General" demonstrates Neruda's stunning written imagery that further inspires me as a writer:

Kiss the secret stones with me. The torrential silver of the Urubamba makes the pollen fly to its yellow cup. It spans the void
of the grapevine, the petrous plant, the hard wreath upon the silence of the highland casket. Come, minuscule life, between
the wings of the earth, while--crystal and cold, pounded air extracting assailed emeralds-O, wild water, you run down from
the snow.

Love, love, even the abrupt night, from the sonorous Andean flint to the dawn's red knees, contemplates the snow's blind
child.

Through these words I am swept into the magnificent landscapes of Latin America. I can see the shimmering silver river
branching through the terrain, below the magnificent Macchu Picchu, gushing with glacier runoff as clear and as precious as
emerald gems. The glow of the rising sun spreads its blanket of warmth across its child of earth. He describes this already
enchanting place with such vibrancy and natural beauty, that I am at peace and intrigued for what is to come.

My least favorite work would be "Trifles", by Susan Glaspell. This piece didn't captivate me with its writing style or even its
story. We were confined in the single setting of Minnie's home with very flat characters and simple conversations; so to me it
seemed like a bland murder mystery. This story did have the intrigue of mystery and deception but it didn't capture my
interest, nor did it seem to have an underlying moral law. Although this story was not my favorite, it did hold true to the
anthology of this section and left much to be contemplated by the reader.

In each of the literary works from this section we have stepped into the lives of various struggling individuals; whether
they're struggling with themselves or with society, they are all trying to break through the mold. However, none of these
characters are truly successful in this quest because they get stuck feeling like the victim instead of taking control and
moving in the direction they desire. Obviously death is not the only answer to obtaining freedom and control; it is a shame
that many of these characters felt there was no better way.
A Doll's House | Analysis | Female
Gender
Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House presents to us Nora, the 'doll', who is caught up in a constricting marriage to Torvald, who
represents the society of 19th century Europe through his narrow - mindedness and hard and fast rules. In this society,
women are a suppressed bunch and do not have many opportunities to express or be themselves When they are 'little girls
in pigtails', they live by their father's rules and abide by the 'law' in the house. They get married and go to their nuptial
homes .Here they have to live under the thumb of their husbands and meekly take on whatever is thrown at them.

On the other hand, we have Mariama Bâ's So long a letter, which is set in Post-colonialist Senegal. Here we have
Ramatoulaye, a model housewife living under her husband's roof and putting her family before self. She writes a long letter
to her best friend Aissatou which details the events after her husband's death and also provides a flashback of her and her
friend's lives over the time they have matured from girls to women to mothers. An unmistakable hint of feminism is perhaps
what makes the novel a strong megaphone for the oppressed woman in Africa. The African woman is oppressed by her
culture and by virtue of her position. Aissatou is however a rebel and goes against the societal norms and Ramatoulaye
gradually realizes she cannot look to her culture for much.

Throughout both of the works that I have studied, both the characters of Nora and Ramatoulaye are similar in the fact that
both their characters develop throughout the novels. This represents the emergence of the feminine in both the works. In
this essay, I will be analyzing how the writers present women and the problems that they face in two different societies in
two different parts of the world.

Ibsen was very concerned a about the position of women in the society that he lived in .he looked at his mother and the
other women he was associated with as 'models' to study. He thought that women had a right to amplify their own
distinctiveness, but in reality, their function was habitually self-sacrificial. The concept of gender- equality did not exist and
women were regarded inferior, either in relation to their husbands or the social order, as is apparent from Torvald's dismay
of his employees thinking he has been influenced in a decision about Krogstad's job by his wife.

It was not tolerable for women to conduct business or control their own capital. It was considered necessary that they had
the authorization of the man who 'owned' them - husband, brother or father before they engaged in any activity involving
money. Furthermore, they were not cultured for responsibility. Nora falls victim to both the injustices, by taking out a loan
without the endorsement of her husband or father and by believing, out of unawareness of the world around her, that she
could get away with forging a signature.

In a way, single or widowed women like Mrs. Linde had more room to breathe than married ones, in that they earned their
own money and did not have to hand it over to the 'alpha male' of the family .They also did not have to depend on their
husbands for anything. But even so, the careers open to women were constrained and hardly paid enough. They could either
become clerks, teach or house-keep. What's more, women's work was grindingly dreary, and likely to leave an intelligent
woman like Mrs. Linde disgruntled.

Women often got into another trap: Marriage. Yes, marriage was a snare in itself. They could divorce, but it carried a
communal stigma not only for the woman, but also for her spouse and family. Hence, few women even weighed it as an
option. Torvald preferred to a certain extent to have a make believe marriage, for the sake of appearances, rather than an
annulment or an amicable separation. When he discovers the truth about the money, he tells Nora. "It must be hushed up.
Whatever it costs. As for you and me, we must go on as if nothing had changed between us. In public". This is clearly
demonstrative of the fact that Torvald's regard for his public image is much greater then his regard for Nora's happiness,
who is clearly in an unhappy alliance. He should let Nora get a divorce from him rather than being in a 'playhouse' marriage.

The characters of Nora, Mrs. Linde and the Nurse all have to sacrifice something or the other to be accepted, or even to
survive. Nora not only sacrifices herself in borrowing money to save Torvald, but she loses the children she undoubtedly
loves when she decides to pursue her own identity. Mrs. Linde loses the true love of her life, Krogstad, and is forced to say "I
do" to a chap she does not love in order to prop up her needy relatives. The Nurse gives up her own child to look after other
people's in order to survive financially. Besides, she sees herself blessed to get her lowly job, given that she has committed
the sin of having a child out of wedlock. In the society where Ibsen as raised women who had illegitimate babies were
stigmatized, while the men responsible often escaped scorn.

Hence, A Doll's house presents a pitiable picture in terms of the treatment and position of women in the European society of
the 19th century.

On the other end of the line we have So long a letter, which is a novel written in Western Africa, most probably Senegal. This
book details the lives of two women, Ramatoulaye and Aissatou, who are moving through life with nothing but each other's
support. They are both caught in the same situation as they are both victims of their husbands marrying other women and
hence engaged in bigamy.

This novella shows us two sides of the same society The post/colonialism Senegal is a hugely patriarchal society, where the
men are placed at the crux of family life. They are the sole breadwinners in each households. They put the food on the table
and are the only source of income in any family.

The women however, cut a sorry figure. The only function they seem to perform or the only utility they seem to have is to
have babies for their husbands. The only role they play is that of 'prostituting' for their husbands. Pardon my strong
language, but it would seem that women were placed in that society only to satisfy the men and have sex with them. The
only course that their lives could take was to get married and have children as soon as they finished their school. That is, if
they were lucky enough to go to school. Senegal is a chiefly Islamic country and sharia law was followed.Sharia law prohibits
girls who have reached maturity to go to school to avoid any contact with the outside world .Basically; they could not go
school, as it would mean getting to meet people from the outside and also socialize with men other than their own fathers
or brothers. However, Ramatoulaye does have the opportunity to go to school fortunately. This is one of the factors that
influenced the way she looked at life compared to the older women of her time..

Also the society was in a way hypocritical, because the men could do anything they wanted and go scot- free but the women
would be criticized for doing the same. In fact, both the husbands of Aissatou and Ramatoulaye commit bigamy with women
half their ages. However, the women were looked down upon if they married a second time unless they were widows. Also,
Islam prevents divorce, unless the husband chooses to divorce his wife. The woman has no right to divorce her husband
because, according to sharia law, they had the sole role of upbringing the children. The man was only supposed to bring in
the money. Hence, the religion of Senegal also played a restricting role and was in a way responsible for the treatment of
women as represented in So long a letter.

In the above discussion I have analyzed both A Doll's House and So long a letter by looking at instances which look at the
way in which women were treated in the respective societies in which the books are set in. It is to be noted that A Doll's
House and So long a letter were not only written in different countries, but also during different time spans. However, these
two books both paint a gloomy picture of the way in which women were placed in society and treated by the people around
them despite being written almost a century apart. Another noticeable attribute of both the works is the fact that the women
protagonists rise up through the rubble of their lives somewhat like the mythical Phoenix. This is also relevant in the modern
context because nowadays women have risen up to be equals to men in all spheres of life.

A Doll's House Analysis of Nora

"I must stand on my own two feet if I am to find out the truth about myself and about life," To what extent is Nora a
tragic heroine? -1497 words (excluding title)

A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen is a modern tragedy that is centred around the life of a typical Norwegian household in the
Victorian era, focusing on the trials and tribulations that face Nora Helmer in this patriarchal society. A Doll's House explores
not only the status of women, but how they are victims of social forces to the extent that they are left with the role of a
"dollwife". During the course of this essay, I intend to study the character of Nora and to what extent she qualifies as a tragic
heroine.
As the curtain opens to the first act, we are introduced to Nora as an "extravagant little person", a "sweet little spendthrift";
giving the audience the impression that she will be yet another undeveloped female character as seen in previous traditional
tragedies. Ibsen uses patronizing language to portray Torvald's view of his wife, how to him she was just a "sweet little
skylark", the word "little" emphasizing Torvald's misogynistic ego, and how he uses typically 'loving' terms but makes them
seem condescending and demeaning.

Aristotle's description of a tragic hero as outlined in his book Poetics, is where he discusses the aspects of one's character
which qualify one to be a tragic hero, ideas which have been accepted and expanded for several centuries, and often used as
a 'mould' for tragic heroes. In order to reach my conclusion and decide to what degree Nora is a tragic heroine, I will
compare Nora's character to some of the ideas Aristotle discussed in his book.

According to Aristotle, 'the tragic hero is a man who is a mixture of good characteristics and bad characteristics'. Regardless
of the 'requirement' of being male, Nora fits this aspect of his definition perfectly as she can be seen as both the epitome of
good and evil within the play, depending on one's perspective. Ibsen establishes Nora's character as not purely vapid (as we
perhaps thought based on our first impression of her) but a woman who gave up the "necess[ities] of life" and went to
extreme lengths to "save [her] husband's life", even though it was considered "imprudent" in Victorian society, where a
woman was "transferred" from being, firstly a good daughter, secondly a good wife and finally a good mother.
Consequently, Nora's character can also be seen as having 'bad characteristics' (one of Aristotle's prerequisites of being a
tragic hero) as she undoubtedly "commit[ted] a fraud" and as Krogstad says, "the law cares nothing about motives", even if
Nora "did it for love's sake". Ibsen stated that 'a woman cannot be herself in modern society. It is an exclusively male society,
with laws made by men' with no regard to female emotions.

Torvald "shakes his finger" at Nora and says that "a songbird must have a clean beak to chirp with". Ibsen's use of stage
direction clearly shows Torvald's condescending behaviour towards his wife. It also shows that even after eight years of
marriage, Torvald Helmer underestimates his wife's character or capabilities to the extent that it is questionable whether he
knows her at all. Ibsen suggests that even though the plot unfolds in a male dominated society, those same men could be
easily deceived by their wives, as shown by Torvald and Nora's relationship. Even though Ibsen has followed Aristotle's idea,
he has left it open to interpretation as Nora's actions can be interpreted as 'good' or 'bad'.

Ibsen portrays Nora as being coquettish, using her beauty and charisma to her advantage as she "play(s) with [Torvald's] coat
buttons without raising her eyes to his", mere domestic, flirtatious behaviour. However, it adds complexity to Nora's character,
as she is manipulating her husband into giving her what she desires. Alternatively, Ibsen could be portraying that women
were now breaking away from the restraints of the social norm, where "before all else, [they] are a wife and a mother". As it is
revealed to us that Nora "saved Torvald's life", we know that she is not just a "dollwife", but a woman of intellectual
complexity. Ibsen adds psychological depth to Nora's character, depth that was previously uncommon within female
characters in drama, a prime example being Shakespeare's Ophelia.

The play follows Aristotle's rule -'the tragic hero has a tragic flaw, or hamartia, that is the cause of his downfall'-, establishing
Nora as a tragic heroine. Nora Helmer's tragic flaw is undoubtedly her naiveté. As Aristotle stated, 'the tragedy is
usually triggered by some error of judgment or some character flaw' and it can be said that it is Nora's innocence that
inevitably leads her to her tragic fall. As I have previously discussed, Torvald consistently displays condescending and
demeaning behaviour towards Nora, calling her a "little featherhead" and an "obstinate little person", and Nora seems to
perceive his abusive and controlling behaviour as a sign that "Torvald is so absurdly fond of [her]". Nora regards her husband
as having no "moral failings", and "man enough to take everything upon [him]self" to the extent that "he would never for a
moment hesitate to give his life for [her]". Torvald's 'morality' is what makes his actions so shocking when he refuses to save
her and accuses her of having "no religion, no morality, no sense of duty", when in fact the reason behind her immorality was
Torvald himself. Nora's understanding of her hamartia permits her to reach catharsis which is 'a secular moment of self
realisation', allowing her to therefore rectify her 'problem' and complete her journey to be a tragic heroine. During Act II,
Nora starts to realize her flaw, she starts to realize that she is not Torvald's "dollwife" living in his "play room". This is made
evident in the play as Nora disagrees with Torvald and says he has a "narrow-minded way of looking at things". Even though
this 'realization' is nowhere as dramatic as it would have been in classical tragedy, Nora's actions have the same effect on the
audience as she voices her opinion, taking on the dominant role in their relationship.

Aristotle also states that 'the tragic hero is someone people can relate to'. Ibsen has made this possible by setting his play
within a typical affluent Victorian household, and uses Nora to depict the oppression of women, and how they have been
dehumanized to mere objects of entertainment, particularly in the middle-class society. George Bernard Shaw agrees that
the play's domestic setting makes 'the characters recognizable people' as their 'problems were familiar to the audience'.
Ibsen illustrates the Helmer's broken marriage through Nora "taking off [her] fancy dress", her changing into regular clothing
symbolises the shedding of all illusions about their marriage. He uses the metaphor of a cold, wintry night to depict the
frosty atmosphere of the Helmer household. Ibsen shows how Nora has "existed merely to perform tricks for [Torvald]"
through the tarantella, a folk dance that was traditionally performed to purge oneself of poison, showing the intensity of the
control Torvald has over her.

Finally, Aristotle argues that 'the tragic hero always falls in the end, and that is why he is called a tragic hero. His tragic flaw
always ends up in tragedy for himself and for those around him.' The plays climaxes when Nora leaves her husband and
children, which can be regarded as her 'fall'. This can be regarded as either an assertion of her humanity or as a negligence
of her "most sacred duties", as she "forsake(s) [her] husband and children". However, In my opinion, Nora is not abandoning
any duties as even though she had "borne [Torvald] three children", it was their maid Anne-Marie that catered to all the
children's needs, whereas "it was great fun when [Nora] played with [the children]", "the children have been [her] doll's".
Subsequently, it can be seen as liberation for Nora as her whole life, she was "simply transferred from Papa's hands to
[Torvald's]", allowing her to "make nothing of [her] life". It is here when our "little skylark" finally flies away from her cage,
attaining freedom. Aristotle agrees that 'the fall is not pure loss. There is some increase in awareness, some gain in self-
knowledge', as Nora slams the door shut on her marriage. It can be said that Ibsen uses his final stage direction to symbolise
the possible decline of patriarchy, 'the closing of 19th century beliefs and the birth of Modernism'.

Throughout the play, Nora takes on many different roles, making her character difficult to 'compartmentalise', but as a critic
says, 'the greatest dramatic characters have the freedom of incongruity'. In A Doll's House, Ibsen presents us with a character
that at first glance appears to be a "featherhead", but follows the Aristotelian journey of a tragic hero, from hamartia to
catharsis to her tragic fall. Aristotle says that 'the tragic hero is a character of noble stature and has greatness', and even
though Nora is just an ordinary Victorian housewife, it is undeniable that she does in fact possess 'greatness', making Nora a
modern tragic heroine.

Appearance vs Reality
Choosing to live your life independently or dependently is a life changing moment: it comes without warning, and can turn
your whole life upside down. Either way, nothing will ever be the same. The book, A Doll's House, by Henrik Ibsen, is about
characters who are all dealing with the transition of becoming either dependent or independent. They may seem happy to
other people and to the readers at first, but their appearances are really a lie. Appearance and reality are often
misunderstood; just because someone may seem happy, this does not mean they lead a rich and more compelling life in
comparison to someone else.

Mrs. Linde's journey from independence to marriage is a foil to Nora's life. At the beginning of the play Nora may seem
dependant but she is actually just as independent as Mrs. Linde claims to be. In order for Nora to pay the loan that she owed
Krogstad, Nora saved money that Torvald gave her for dresses, and she also found a little job. Nora says,

[she] was lucky enough to get a lot of copying [done and] to do so, (…) [she] locked [her]self up and sat writing every
evening until quite late at night. Many a time [she] was desperately tired, but all was the same it was a tremendous pleasure
to sit there working and earning money. It was like being a man (Ibsen 13).

When Nora says she felt like a man it meant she felt like she was taking on responsibilities, and having a sense of purpose in
life. In other words to feel like a man in the eighteen-hundreds it must have meant you were more independent. In Nora's
mind she must have thought she was just as self-ruling as Mrs. Linde. Although Mrs. Linde may work, she dislikes it, and it
has also aged her terribly. Mrs. Linde says she needs someone to depend on because she is "quite alone in the world-[her]
life is so dreadfully empty and [she] feel[s] so forsaken. There is not the least pleasure in working for ones self. Niles, give me
someone and something to work for" (53). Mrs. Linde may seem to be a strong willed women, but in reality she needs
someone to provide for her and depend on. At the end of the play Nora chooses a life of independence by leaving Torvald
while Mrs. Linde reunites with her long love Mr. Krogstad, and chooses a life of dependence.
Although Mrs. Linde and Nora may have lived their lives in an opposite direction; Mrs. Linde and Nora Helmer both started a
life of marriage without true love for their husbands. Mrs Linde married her ex-husband because her father passed away and
she had to raise her younger brothers. She married him primarily for financial stability because her "mother was alive then
[but] was bedridden and helpless, and [she] had to provide for my two younger brothers; so [she] did not think [she] was
justified in refusing his offer" (9). The fact that Mrs. Linde refers to her ex-husband's proposal as an offer means she saw it as
a business transaction. In other words this is a symbiotic relationship. Mrs. Linde needed financial stability and her ex-
husband needed a wife. On the other hand Nora married Mr. Helmer even though she didn't love him. It seems as though
she was influenced by her father's opinions:

when I was at home with Papa he told me his opinion about everything, and so I had the same opinions; and if I differed
from him I concealed the fact, because he would not have liked it. And when I came to live with you --- I simply transferred
from Papa's hands to yours. You arranged everything according to your own taste, and so I got the same taste as you-or else
I pretended to (66).

Nora's father had "brainwashed" Nora to such a point that she took on the same beliefs as him with out even noticing it.
Nora then married Torvald and became even more oblivious to fact that she was being controlled. It is quite stumbling how
life has forced both Nora Helmer and Mrs. Linde to start a life of marriage without true love for their husbands.

As the play progresses we see how Nora is actually more independent then we expected her to be. We also find out that
although Mrs. Linde works for herself, she needs a purpose in life, which to her means having a family. Although we only
discover that Nora never loved Mr. Helmer at the end of a Dolls House, throughout the whole play there have been small
amounts rebellious behavior from Nora towards Mr Helmer. Although Mr. Helmer had forbidden Nora from eating
macaroons, she still does it anyways: "What, macaroons? I thought they were forbidden here. Yes, but theses are some
Christine gave me." (17). Throughout the play Nora has shown signs of independence even though the readers were to
believe she was not. Also Nora was forbidden to take out a loan by Torvald and by the law. Nora had taken out the loan
despite the laws and Torvald's wishes.

Appearances can be deceiving; just because a person may appear to be content, and carefree with their life, it does not
necessarily mean they actually life a life of glamour. In the book A Dolls House Mrs Linde is the force of truth in Nora's life.
Although Mrs. Linde may not be the person to ask for marital advice she has lived a life similar to Nora's just backwards. At
the beginning of A Dolls House readers believe Nora is just a silly, selfish and spoiled character, but later readers find out
that she is actually a strong willed and intelligent woman. Just like Mrs. Linde Nora proves she is able to work for herself, and
that she understands business transactions without a male's approval. On the other hand Mrs. Linde feels she needs a
husband and children to have a purpose in life. In other words Mrs. Linde has chosen a life of dependence with Mr.
Krogstand while Nora prefers to live her life independently and liberal minded. Clearly Mrs. Linde's and Nora's appearances
at the beginning of the play do not reflect their reality. Sadly as in the play this may be a reality for many people today. Does
your appearance to others also reflect your reality?

Role of Nora in 'A Doll's House'

"Realism was a general movement in 19th-century theatre that developed a set of dramatic and theatrical conventions with
the aims of brining a greater fidelity to real life to texts and performances." [1] In realism theatre, the characters portrayed on
stage are close to life, including the setting and staging and a range of dramatic and theatrical strategies are used to create
an illusion of reality on stage. Realism revolves around the idea of dramatizing reality of life. The audience must be able to
feel the emotions of the characters and connect that with their life. A realism theatre play is based on existing and endemic
issues of life which must emotionally strike an audience. Acting for a realism theatre play follows a style that mirrors reality of
life on stage. To suite this genre of theatre, Stanislavski developed a concept of "method acting" for actors to recreate life on
stage. For an actor to use the conventions of realism theatre and apply them to the character of Nora in Henrik Ibsen's A
Doll's House, understanding the use of the conventions, the character and "method acting" is crucial.

"Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House is a realistic play written in the mindset of realism."[2] Nora is the protagonist of the play, and
she also plays the role of Torvald Helmer's wife. Her character has changing personalities from an immature and silly Nora in
the first act to the serious, broad-minded Nora. At the beginning of the play Nora is a happy and an excited character. She is
surrounded by the boundaries of her doll-like existence, in which she is quoted as a "silly girl" who is fancied and pampered
by her husband, Trovald. But behind the silly face, she is actually a clever, intelligent and determined woman who secretly
took loan from Krogstad, the antagonist of the play in order to save her husband's life. Krogstad blackmails Nora and
pressurizes her. But driven from this, it opens her eyes to the reality of her husband treating her like a 'doll' to admire and
play with.

For an actor to traditionally perform the role of Nora, a major convention of realism theatre; method acting must be used.
Method acting refers to a series of acting techniques which actors use to create thoughts and emotions of the character they
play in order to develop life like performances. Stanislavski's 'system' of method acting is where actors deeply analyze the
motivations and emotions of their characters and then portray them with realism and emotional reality. In method acting,
the actor is required to have in depth knowledge about the character, knowing the character as well as he knows himself,
therefore Stanislavsky's created certain criteria in order for a character to be believable.

Stanislavski's criteria for method acting included, Action of the Character. "For each action an actor performs on stage, there
has to be a motivation." [3] An actor performing Nora's role has to carefully consider the Nora's psychological motives and
personal identification with Nora. The actor may recall the emotions and experience from her life and use them to get more
familiar with Nora's character. Stanslvaski's developed that actor needs to have this motivation in order to justify the
character and assure the audience of Nora's authenticity. Throughout the play, the actor has to understand every action and
intention of Nora and why would she act in a specific way. The actor is required to have all this information, so the actions on
stage are believable, therefore creating "theatrical truth".

The Magic If criterion requires the actor to have a good degree of imagining the different situations Nora gets in. The actor
must ask questions to herself and the character she is playing; Nora, and the actor can then think how she would react to a
similar situation if she faced one, thus having a real situation on stage, rather than pretending it. This technique is used so
that the actor knows how to react to any situation or changes in circumstances that occur in a play. The actor should make
use of sense memory to understand certain emotions and feelings deeper. "Sense memory is based on how certain emotions
can be connected to what a person hear, see, feel, taste or touch." [4]

The Given Circumstances, for each scene Nora appears in, the given situation should be explored by the actor, in order to
understand how the scene fits into the plot, time and space, the set, costumes and props, sound and light used in the scene.
The actor should understand the actions she has to perform as Nora in the scene and what are Nora's emotions and feelings
are in the scene, which may have an impact later as the play progresses. "Just as you can't perform without a body, you can't
act in a truly vibrant manner without your emotions being drafted into your psycho-physical work at some level or
another."[5]

Imagination is an important criterion of method acting. For an audience watching A Doll's House to believe that Nora is a
real person, it is crucial for the actor to know every detail about Nora's character. With every entrance of Nora, the actor has
to know where she has to enter from, her position, reason for entering in the scene and the aim of being a part of the scene.
The actor must ensure that she has a concentrated motivation for entering and making an exit in a scene.

"Focus and concentration is of the utmost importance for any actor."[6] This method acting technique is called 'Circle of
Attention'. It helps an actor to focus. The technique would require the actor to primarily focus on herself, her goals and
motivation. The actor's next focus must be the scene and the circumstances Nora is in. Her relation and connecting with the
other characters in the scene must be considered by the actor. In case if something that wasn't rehearsed occurs in a scene,
the actor must have the improvisation skills to react to such a situation in a very natural manner, as it would be in the real
world.

Stanislavsky's techniques for method acting suggest that an actor "should always approach a role as directly as possible and
then see if it lives." [7] His system is a complex mix of acting elements in order to produce realistic characters. The system
requires an actor to have a deep understanding and analysis of motivations of the character being played. The actor playing
the character of Nora in A Doll's House must be familiar with Nora's aims and objectives in each scene, and have a main
objective for the entire play.

An actor performing the role of Nora should keep in mind the 'fourth wall' a convention of realism theatre which must be
used to perform the role of Nora. "The fourth wall is the imaginary "wall" at the front of the stage." [8] This wall draws the
imaginary fence between a realism theatre piece and the audience. The fourth wall allows the audience to observe the fiction
being portrayed on stage as a real life story or event. Anything that happens on the other side of the fourth wall should have
no effect at all on the actor. The actor cannot acknowledge the existence of an audience.

Another convention of realism theatre is the set design which has to be a detailed three dimensional setting in order for the
stage to mirror reality. The actor should be able to make connection with the surrounding, including the character and the
setting in order to portray life like reality. "Realism aims for almost a photographic copy of real life."[9] With the set design,
the scale is an important factor in realism theatre. Convincing furniture arrangements should be made, therefore appropriate
area is required for the setting, as required by the scene. Stage effects used for each scene must be as close to reality as
possible. The set of A Doll's House goes through a strong effect of evolution from light to darkness, paradise to prison and
towards the end of the play, the set goes through vast change, mainly because of the situation of that scene where Nora
slams the door and leaves. This leaves the image of the set as harsh and cold landscape surrounding the house. The actor
has to make use of method acting techniques in a way that fits in with the script and keeping the essence and feel of reality
throughout the play. The surrounding of the character greatly affects the impact it leaves on the audience, therefore the set
design for A Doll's House should be a copy of real life. (expand)

"Method acting requires a lot of preparation and understanding from the actor to create a character that is believable and
will convince the audience of the character's authenticity."[10]

Realism theatre requires recreating life on stage. The audience should be drawn towards believing what they see on stage is
real time action actually happening. In order to build this illusion, the actor has to become the character and actually
experiences every single emotion of the character being portrayed.

REALISM IN IBSEN WRITING

Henrik (Johan) Ibsen (188-106) was born at Skien, a small lumbering town of southern Norway. His father was a well-known general merchant in the
community until 186, when he suffered the horrible disgrace of going bankrupt.(Ibsen, 8) As a result, he sank into more debt and the family suffered.
There was no redeeming the family misfortunes; as soon as he could, aged just 15, Henrik moved to Grimstad. It was there that he began to write. He
supported himself meagerly as an apothecarys apprentice while studying nights for admission to the university. As he waited patiently he began to
write plays. It was from this first writing that he began a career that would carry him through the nineteenth century and into today.

Writers are often called names. Some of these names aren’t so nice. To be called “the father” of something can only mean that you must have what it
takes in your writing to define the very term that you are being associated with. Joan Gassner has decided that Henrik Ibsen is “the father of modern
drama”.(Gassner, 1) But is this title worthy? What is it about Ibsen’s work that seems to fit so well into this mold? Also, why is Ibsen so closely tied to
realism? These are questions that I hope to answer in the following text. So to begin, we must first define what is realism?

From 185 to 100 most of the plays that were being produced were melodramas, spectacle plays, comic operas and vaudevilles. (Wilson, 7). The
theatre was alive and well and was taking many different forms. And then something happened. Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 185
and began to stir up the scientific community. Darwin believed that people were controlled by heredity and environment and that most of human
behavior was out of our control. For the first time people were beginning question the origins of man. There were more questions than answers. August
Comte, a prominent sociologist developed a theory known as Positivism, which was based on cause and effect. This was another principle that had not
really been looked upon at the time. This was beginning to influence those people in the philosophy community. Karl Marx was teaching a new brand of
political philosophy that stressed equality in wealth. The atmosphere was just right for a new kind of theatre.

Realism, in its most basic form, attempts to create the illusion of everyday life onstage (Wilson, 7). Even thought the audience knows that they are
watching a play, the actors onstage present a very pure form of theatre. There are actions and reactions that create a cause and effect relationship
between the characters. It’s not abstract or absurd, but very linear and scientific. It may seem to some that all theatre is real, but this is was not the
case at the time. Melodramas and spectacle plays were “bigger than life” and therefore were not very realistic. This was a new era for theatre and
Henrik Ibsen used this principle in most of his work. There were other writers that used realism at the time.

Emile Augier(180-188) wrote plays about contemporary conditions and Alexandre Dumas fils was writing “thesis plays” about some of the social
problems at the time. Ibsen is recognized as a pillar of the realism movement because every one of his plays is a model to some degree of
realism.(Johnston, )

In 1881 he wrote Ghosts which deals with the sins of the father that are transferred to the son in the form of syphilis. This was the first time that such a
secretive subject had been presented to the public. Pillars of Society deals with the concept of war and business, and A Doll’s House the main female
character leaves her family at the end of the play to pursue a new life. All of these plays deal with human nature and contemporary theatre students
often analyze their content. They offer us a glimpse of the very reality that became a halmark of Ibsens work.

One of the most important differences from Ibsens plays and the plays that proceeded him was the way that Ibsen treated the inner “secret lives” of
some of the characters. (Ibsen, 11). The effects that Ibsen created were not based on most of the ordinary dramatic action. Ibsen wanted to expose the
secret inner lives of the characters. He wanted the audience to see the very things that are often hidden by people in everyday life. One critic wrote that
Ibsens work is a “drama of the mind”(Ibsen, 1) Much like an iceberg, the largest portion of the story remains unseen by the naked eye. You have to dig
really deep to get all the meaning that is found in an Ibsen play. Everything has a story that needs to be told. Ibsen felt that the actors must sustain a
consistent, unbroken line of thought. This makes some of his plays seem very intense. The characters are very focused. Stanislavski would of agreed
to the acting style that Ibsen preferred for his actors. He felt they should mirror the actions of humans and should create the illusion of reality on the
stage.

One of Ibsen’s best examples of realism is in the play A Doll’s House. Even the title of the play gives us an example of some of the symbolism that he
used throughout his work. There weren’t many things that Ibsen found worthy of imitation.(Lebowitz, ) In A Doll’s House Ibsen shows the audience the
spiritual awakening of Torvald, the husband and Nora his wife. Both of the characters live in a false reality. Everything in the first scene seems perfect.
The way they talk to one another and there actions tell the story of the perfect couple. As the play moves forward we begin to see that although Nora
seems to have it all, in reality she is not happy with her situation. She is a woman that is trapped in this doll’s house that her husband has created.
There is a lot of shock value in the last scene. Nora says goodbye to her family and all she has known and leaves the “Doll’s House”. Audiences at the
time were so shocked that they erupted at the end of the play (Goldman,15). It is not as shocking now, but at the time it was just unheard of for a
woman to leave her family. This play represents many different facets of realism. It is a tribute to all that is wrong with some relationships. What makes
the play work is the dialog. You learn a great deal about the two main characters from the things that they say. There is nothing new about the
problems that are presented, but it was new to present them so openly. There is a definite cause and effect relationship in most of Ibsens work. A
problem is presented and worked through.

Ghosts also caused quit a bit of furor. There was much criticism at the initial presentation in 181. On critic called the piece “an open drain; a loathsome
sore unbandaged; a dirty act done publicly”. And more attacks came even years after the play was produced. Why did Ibsen’s plays create so much
controversy? What about his work made people stand up and yell?

Ibsen was very open about how he wrote. He repeatedly spoke of his main purpose in writing dramatic dialog was to make it “completely faithful and
realistic” (Ibsen, 0) This is what made Ibsen’s work seem so shocking. Ibsen tended to start with a theoretical problem or a theme. After this he would
begin to shape the raw material into actions and visual symbolism. His characters are very gritty and I think that he showed us what was behind some
of the masks that we wear in everyday life. Perhaps people at the time were just not ready to see what they already knew existed. Life is not one big
happy play, and although we all may play a part, the story is often a tragedy.

Drama is “ a series of real events having dramatic unity and interest.” It also means to do or to act. In a dramatic piece the characters are interacting
with each other as they work towards developing the plot. There are also many different types of dramas. Man versus nature. Man versus himself.
Good versus evil. With a good drama the audience suspends their disbelief and the true magic of theatre happens. Henrik Ibsen was great in writing
this kind of drama. His characters are full of life and vitality. The words seem to bring the characters to life and the problems seem very real.

Ibsen wrote An Enemy of the People as a direct response to some of the critisims that he had recieved from Ghosts. (Ibsen, ) In a letter to his publisher
he wrote “I have enjoyed writing this play...” An Enemy of the People has always been one of his more popular plays and often finds it’s way into the
readings in college theatre classes. It was immediately produced in Scandinavia and Germany. It has also remained very popular in England. It is
another tale of lies and deceit and how they play a part in our everyday lives.

The Wild Duck was produced in 1884 and it illustrates many of the techniques used by Ibsen. It was a reproduction of the actions of middle and lower
class people. Once again Ibsen turned for the common man for entertainment. Ibsen, in the dialog, abandoned some of his older asides and
soliloquies. Instead the characters reveal themselves as they would in life with indirect statements (Brockett, 15). As Ibsen got older he used this
technique more and more. He liked The Wild Duck and in a letter to his publisher Ibsen wrote “For the last four months I have worked at it every day
and it is not without a certain feeling of regret that I part from it.” This has remained one of theatre student’s favorite plays.

In Rosmersholm, Ibsens next play, her created one of the most provocative and dramatic female characters-Rebekka West. The play is packed with
hidden forces, statements and shadowy characters that seem to shift before our eyes (Ibsen, 0). It also has a lot of meaning in it. Like most of Ibsen’s
plays there are undertones, lies, and exposure. Some critics have compared it to Macbeth because of its structure. It was also popular at the time of its
release.

Ibsen went on to produce The Lady from the Sea, Hedda Gabler, and The Master Builder. Of these three plays many believe The Master Builder to be
the most timeless. IT could have been produced 50 years ago or ten. When he was writing this play he was just getting over an Austrian girl that he
had spent a year with. There is also a great deal of Ibsen himself in the character Solness,. This was his most autobiographical writings and you can
learn a lot about Ibsen just by listening to the characters in this play.

Like all great artists, Ibsen was a man with a thousand faces. He was very complex and although a lot of people knew him, only his wife understood
him fully. He had as many secrets as some of his finest characters. In a speech to students at Oslo in 1874 Ibsen made a very important and revealing
statement “All I have written...I have mentally lived through. Partly I have written on that which only by glimpses, and at my best moments I have felt
stirring vividly within me as something great and beautiful.” (Ibsen, 1)

Ibsen’s work is great and it is beautiful. He produced a total of 1 plays during his lifetime. He should be known as the “father of realism”. His work in this
field and his approach to theatre mirror the very essence of this art form.

In realism, as discussed earlier, the artist attempts to create “the illusion of everyday life onstage”. Ibsen’s plays do this and they do it in a way that is
natural. From A Doll’s House to An Enemy of the People Ibsen explores those inner secrets and the hidden desires of characters. The plays reveal the
more secretive side to life. If Darwin stirred up the scientific community by asking them to change there perception of humanity then Ibsen did the same
with the artistic community. Positivism was teaching a cause and effect relationship and Ibsen was showing it onstage. Marx was preaching about
equality in wealth and Ibsen was showing us the lower and middle classes. I feel that Ibsen used realism to create the illusion of reality. Because reality
is so harsh we have to understand that it is only a play, but we are left to ponder the difference between our own lives and the characters on stage.
This is what realism is all about. It makes us ask ourselves what is the true drama in life. Why is fact stranger then fiction? Why do people enjoy
watching other people so much?

Ibsen answered all of these questions at some time or another in his work and we have him to thank for his contribution. Although Henrik Ibsen was
never fully appreciated during his lifetime, he has since come to be recognized as one of the great dramatists of all time and the Father of Modern
Drama. His plays will continue to find their ways into the hands of young theatre students and teachers a like. His work will live on and continues to
thrive in theatres across the country.