What do you think?
Rate this book
Plays 2: A Doll's House / An Enemy of the People / Hedda Gabler
This volume contains Ibsen's two most famous and frequently read, studied and performed plays about women: A Doll's House (1879), his first international success, which 'exploded like a bomb into contemporary life', and Hedda Gabler (1890), now one of his most popular plays, but greeted at first with bewilderment and outrage ('The play is simply a bad escape of moral sewage-gas' Pictorial World). Also included is An Enemy of the People (1883), whose central character was the actor Konstantin Stanislavski's favourite role.
Michael Meyer's translations are 'crisp and cobweb-free, purged of verbal Victoriana' (Kenneth Tynan)
336 pages, paper
First published January 1, 1858
About the author
Henrik Ibsen
2,487 books2,188 followersHenrik Johan Ibsen was a major Norwegian playwright largely responsible for the rise of modern realistic drama. He is often referred to as the "father of modern drama." Ibsen is held to be the greatest of Norwegian authors and one of the most important playwrights of all time, celebrated as a national symbol by Norwegians.
His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.
Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.
His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.
Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
June 8, 2021
A Doll's House
Having read the introduction to this edition, written by Michael Meyer, I'm not quite sure what Ibsen had in mind when writing this play. Without the context which the introduction provides, it would be easy to view it as a social commentary on the role of women in society in the 19th century. Meyer writes:
I think that one does not choose the effect of ones work. Clearly, the intention was not to promote women's rights or move the public discourse around the topic forward, but it seems undeniable that the work had this effect. Is it possible that Ibsen used these gender roles as plot devices, with Nora's meek and subservient attitude (for most of the play, at least) and Torvald's domineering and overbearing personality used to create tension and suspense as we come nearer to the final admission? This seems to be the case if we take Ibsen's word that he is more a poet and less a philosopher.
The play can be given a more general framing as a story of finding yourself. This is not immediately linked to women's rights (though women's rights are, naturally, a precondition of this) as it focuses on an individual's journey towards self-discovery. Nora's identity seems to have been defined in relation to her male peers (first her father, then her husband), as well as in pre-set roles (wife, daughter, mother) which left little room for self-discovery and consequently self-expression.
Irrespective of the author's ultimate aim, the fact that this work had an impact on a matter of such importance gives it value which is political and social, as well as artistic. Not all art needs to be political, but this play made me consider whether the artist's intention matters at all.
An Enemy of the People
For someone who does not consider himself to be a philosopher, Ibsen's works seem to be quite profound. I feel that Stockmann's struggle to shed light on the truth is more pertinent now than it was when it was written. We have seen the concept of truth be systematically undermined in the events of the last 5 years, with certain politicians and media trying to subvert it at all cost. It benefits some people (financially, more often than not) for there to be no truth; with no truth, there is no responsibility and without responsibility, the concept of right and wrong is called into question.
The protagonist of this play is not cowed by the pressure from the media, the government, and his family (both in the form of his brother, the Mayor, but also his wife and children) to give up his cause. The arguments they give are unconvincing (what can be a convincing argument for one to give up the truth?). As Stockmann himself puts it:
The character of Stockmann is clearly written as a man of principle, whose sense of duty to the truth is unswayed by the fact that his devotion to it comes at a personal cost. He also has a clear sense of identity and independence, which allows him to move toward certain truths unencumbered: A party is like a mincing machine. It grinds everyone's brains into pulp, and all you're left with is human sausages, all identical!
Initially, I thought that the irony of the play was that it was the individual who cares most about the population's welbeing and health that is labelled an enemy of the people. The only person showing genuine care for the physical health of his peers is labelled a traitor. While reading the play, I eventually felt that this is not what Ibsen wants to tell us; the lesson is a lot more nuanced. Stockmann's brother, the Mayor, makes a fair point that the relaying of the baths would come at a great cost, and would put the baths - a vital source of income for the town - out of order for 2 years. There is a strong suggestion that the Mayor is being dishonest here, and that he is exaggerating the time and financial effort it would take to solve the problem. But if we accept his version, the problem does indeed become a lot more complicated. Fixing the problem with the baths, which is necessary to protect the population's physical health, may come at an even greater economic cost. The problem is not black and white any longer. Ibsen, the non-philosopher, does not provide us with an answer here, but the fact that he makes us think about the question highlights one fact clearly: the truth does not care that it complicates things.
_______________________________
Thank you to my dear friend for the book. "You see, the point is that the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone." - though there are exceptions!
Having read the introduction to this edition, written by Michael Meyer, I'm not quite sure what Ibsen had in mind when writing this play. Without the context which the introduction provides, it would be easy to view it as a social commentary on the role of women in society in the 19th century. Meyer writes:
Ibsen himself repeatedly protested against any of his plays being regarded as social or moral tracts. Nineteen years after he wrote A Doll's House, he was invited to address the Norwegian Association for Women's Rights in Christiania. He accepted; but his speech must sadly have disappointed the militant audience. 'I am not a member of the Association for Women's Rights' he stated. 'I have never written any play to further a social purpose. I have been more of a poet and less of a social philosopher than most people seem inclined to believe. I thank you for your good wishes but I must decline the honour of being said to have worked for the Women's Rights movement. I am not even very sure what Women's Rights actually are.'
I think that one does not choose the effect of ones work. Clearly, the intention was not to promote women's rights or move the public discourse around the topic forward, but it seems undeniable that the work had this effect. Is it possible that Ibsen used these gender roles as plot devices, with Nora's meek and subservient attitude (for most of the play, at least) and Torvald's domineering and overbearing personality used to create tension and suspense as we come nearer to the final admission? This seems to be the case if we take Ibsen's word that he is more a poet and less a philosopher.
The play can be given a more general framing as a story of finding yourself. This is not immediately linked to women's rights (though women's rights are, naturally, a precondition of this) as it focuses on an individual's journey towards self-discovery. Nora's identity seems to have been defined in relation to her male peers (first her father, then her husband), as well as in pre-set roles (wife, daughter, mother) which left little room for self-discovery and consequently self-expression.
Irrespective of the author's ultimate aim, the fact that this work had an impact on a matter of such importance gives it value which is political and social, as well as artistic. Not all art needs to be political, but this play made me consider whether the artist's intention matters at all.
An Enemy of the People
For someone who does not consider himself to be a philosopher, Ibsen's works seem to be quite profound. I feel that Stockmann's struggle to shed light on the truth is more pertinent now than it was when it was written. We have seen the concept of truth be systematically undermined in the events of the last 5 years, with certain politicians and media trying to subvert it at all cost. It benefits some people (financially, more often than not) for there to be no truth; with no truth, there is no responsibility and without responsibility, the concept of right and wrong is called into question.
The protagonist of this play is not cowed by the pressure from the media, the government, and his family (both in the form of his brother, the Mayor, but also his wife and children) to give up his cause. The arguments they give are unconvincing (what can be a convincing argument for one to give up the truth?). As Stockmann himself puts it:
Look, here are all the stones they threw through our windows. Just look at them! Upon my soul, there aren't more than two decent rocks in the whole lot; the others are just pebbles - mere gravel!
The character of Stockmann is clearly written as a man of principle, whose sense of duty to the truth is unswayed by the fact that his devotion to it comes at a personal cost. He also has a clear sense of identity and independence, which allows him to move toward certain truths unencumbered: A party is like a mincing machine. It grinds everyone's brains into pulp, and all you're left with is human sausages, all identical!
Initially, I thought that the irony of the play was that it was the individual who cares most about the population's welbeing and health that is labelled an enemy of the people. The only person showing genuine care for the physical health of his peers is labelled a traitor. While reading the play, I eventually felt that this is not what Ibsen wants to tell us; the lesson is a lot more nuanced. Stockmann's brother, the Mayor, makes a fair point that the relaying of the baths would come at a great cost, and would put the baths - a vital source of income for the town - out of order for 2 years. There is a strong suggestion that the Mayor is being dishonest here, and that he is exaggerating the time and financial effort it would take to solve the problem. But if we accept his version, the problem does indeed become a lot more complicated. Fixing the problem with the baths, which is necessary to protect the population's physical health, may come at an even greater economic cost. The problem is not black and white any longer. Ibsen, the non-philosopher, does not provide us with an answer here, but the fact that he makes us think about the question highlights one fact clearly: the truth does not care that it complicates things.
_______________________________
Thank you to my dear friend for the book. "You see, the point is that the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone." - though there are exceptions!
February 24, 2026
I find Ibsen's plays fascinating l, specifically The Doll's House and Hedda Gabler.
"I often think there is only one thing in the world I have any turn for... Boring myself to death" What can you say about Hedda Gabler. So afraid of being bored, and so wanting to impact a human life and "make it beautiful". This play has so many interpretations.
"I often think there is only one thing in the world I have any turn for... Boring myself to death" What can you say about Hedda Gabler. So afraid of being bored, and so wanting to impact a human life and "make it beautiful". This play has so many interpretations.
November 17, 2024
Only read 'An Enemy of the People' for SBC
December 25, 2020
Amazing how "the more things change, the more they stay the same..."
The recurring phrase in "An Enemy of the People" - We dare not [disagree with the leader].
The recurring phrase in "An Enemy of the People" - We dare not [disagree with the leader].
December 6, 2011
"A Doll's House," Henrik Ibsen, translated and with an intro by Michael Meyer. I believe I first read this in high school. The first modern play about feminism, it must have been an enormous shocker when it first appeared. It is free of the over-dramatic, flowery declamations of the time; only the most natural speech patterns are used. A complex plot takes a back seat to character development. Nora's secret business affairs show the Victorian ideals of gender and sexual spheres to be artificial; her husband Helmer's valuing of reputation over fact and over ideals of so-called love shows the way in which this artificiality permeated all facets of middle class life then. In this world of pretense, where Helmer must fantasize even about not knowing his wife in order to desire her, Nora stands alone as a pioneer, declaring that she must find her own self and discover who is right --- her of the world. A very striking play.
"An Enemy Of the People," Henrik Ibsen, translated and with an intro by Michael Meyer. I read this in high school too, and have seen a performance of it since. This play is fantastic. The dramatic, but still natural, language of the dialogue matches the theme it deals with: standing alone for truth against the spiritual pollution of the day, the love of material goods and status, love of reputation and success. The way in which Stockmann's allies fail him one by one is masterfully done; in the same vein, Stockmann's gradual realization that the majority is always wrong reveals perfect dramatic pacing. At the same time, Stockmann is a flawed hero: his ego and his blindness to other considerations that truth (like his family's welfare) make the conflict a complex and real one. This is a brilliant and forcefully moving play.
"Hedda Gabler," Henrik Ibsen, translated and with an intro by Michael Meyer. It's a shockingly bleak drama about a married woman whose life is empty because her husband is pathetically bourgeois and simple; she yearns to control others, but even when she does wreak evil on people, it doesn't give her life purpose. She ends up herself placed in the power of a devious man, and kills herself. Her problems are that she is from noble stock, spoiled and without place, and that she is a woman and so is not expected to have any influence on practical things. A case of a restless spirit being born in the wrong place and wrong time. Intriguing as a read, I'd like to see it performed.
[read twice]
"An Enemy Of the People," Henrik Ibsen, translated and with an intro by Michael Meyer. I read this in high school too, and have seen a performance of it since. This play is fantastic. The dramatic, but still natural, language of the dialogue matches the theme it deals with: standing alone for truth against the spiritual pollution of the day, the love of material goods and status, love of reputation and success. The way in which Stockmann's allies fail him one by one is masterfully done; in the same vein, Stockmann's gradual realization that the majority is always wrong reveals perfect dramatic pacing. At the same time, Stockmann is a flawed hero: his ego and his blindness to other considerations that truth (like his family's welfare) make the conflict a complex and real one. This is a brilliant and forcefully moving play.
"Hedda Gabler," Henrik Ibsen, translated and with an intro by Michael Meyer. It's a shockingly bleak drama about a married woman whose life is empty because her husband is pathetically bourgeois and simple; she yearns to control others, but even when she does wreak evil on people, it doesn't give her life purpose. She ends up herself placed in the power of a devious man, and kills herself. Her problems are that she is from noble stock, spoiled and without place, and that she is a woman and so is not expected to have any influence on practical things. A case of a restless spirit being born in the wrong place and wrong time. Intriguing as a read, I'd like to see it performed.
[read twice]
December 16, 2007
I am just glad I'm done with this book. Also confused. I didn't understand Hedda Gabler or why she did anything she did in the book. I understand that the Victorian era was a repressive time for women. However, I didn't think it made a very good story because there was no significant conflict in any of the characters, including Gabler. She along with everyone else seemed completely resigned to their fate, and so as a reader I was not invested in their actions. Maybe with the excpetion of Eliert, who at least was trying to turn his life around.
March 31, 2013
Arguably Ibsen's three greatest plays (or at least his three most successful in the long-term) fill the second of Meyer's six volume translation. As with the first volume, Meyer's intelligent notes and introduction provide a sympathetic understanding of how the plays worked in the 19th century, and of Ibsen's personal connections to his works. Yet, proactively, his up-to-date translation makes the plays vital to our era. Great stuff.
November 17, 2015
I've not read other translations of Ibsen in full (a few pages before I switched to this edition) but I think I can safely say that this is quite possibly the best translation of Ibsen out there. Truly 'purged of verbal Victoriana', and really quite 'speakable'. I don't know about accuracy though.
March 28, 2011
Ibsen's plays are awesome. These three are my favorite.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews