What do you think?
Rate this book
Nora oder Ein Puppenheim
Henrik Ibsen: Nora oder Ein Puppenheim Originaltitel: Et dukkehjem. Urauffuhrung Kopenhagen, 21.12.1879, Erstdruck: Kopenhagen (Gyldendal) 1879. Hier in der Ubers. v. M. v. Borch. Vollstandige Neuausgabe mit einer Biographie des Autors. Herausgegeben von Karl-Maria Guth. Berlin 2016, 2. Auflage. Textgrundlage ist die Ausgabe: Ibsen, Henrik: Ein Puppenheim. [Ubers. v. M[arie] von Borch], in: Henrik Ibsen: Samtliche Werke, Vierter Band. Hg. v. Julius Elias u. Paul Schlenther, Berlin: S. Fischer, 1907. Die Paginierung obiger Ausgabe wird in dieser Neuausgabe als Marginalie zeilengenau mitgefuhrt. Umschlaggestaltung von Thomas Schultz-Overhage unter Verwendung des Bildes: Lucien Metivet, Illustration aus dem journal humoristique, 1898. Gesetzt aus Minion Pro, 11 pt."
74 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1879
2557 people are currently reading
66438 people want to read
About the author
Henrik Ibsen
2,234 books2,106 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 - 30 of 8,573 reviews
July 30, 2017
Ibsen’s famous A Doll’s House is a landmark in the development of truly independent female heroines, rejecting the patriarchy they were socialised to accept unconditionally.
Nora, the main character, fails to make her husband understand that their perception of reality is incompatible as he keeps seeing her as a doll, acting out a pretty life for his pleasure and reputation.
In the original version, Nora shows the path to independence by opting for the uncertain future of a life lived alone and independently, but Ibsen was confronted with dominant misogyny and power play when German theatres in 1880 asked for “an alternative ending” (yes!), one in which Nora is emotionally blackmailed into staying with her family for the sake of the children. Curtain falls on that “barbaric act of violence”, as Ibsen himself put it when commenting on the "politically correct" alternative (http://ibsen.nb.no/id/11111794.0), a rewriting of literature to suit a misogynistic society protective of all documentation of the role of women.
Well, unfortunately we are watching an all too real alternative ending to a century of increasing women’s rights at the moment as well. Across the world, "alternatives" to freedom of speech, movement, and choice are implemented in “so-called democratic processes”, hijacked by the resurrected mindsets of 19th century white, male, heterosexual, pseudo-Christian figures. Domestic violence, rape culture, law-making against family planning and abortion, the alternatives to women’s rights are scarily real.
- Nora, keep walking!
Nora, the main character, fails to make her husband understand that their perception of reality is incompatible as he keeps seeing her as a doll, acting out a pretty life for his pleasure and reputation.
In the original version, Nora shows the path to independence by opting for the uncertain future of a life lived alone and independently, but Ibsen was confronted with dominant misogyny and power play when German theatres in 1880 asked for “an alternative ending” (yes!), one in which Nora is emotionally blackmailed into staying with her family for the sake of the children. Curtain falls on that “barbaric act of violence”, as Ibsen himself put it when commenting on the "politically correct" alternative (http://ibsen.nb.no/id/11111794.0), a rewriting of literature to suit a misogynistic society protective of all documentation of the role of women.
Well, unfortunately we are watching an all too real alternative ending to a century of increasing women’s rights at the moment as well. Across the world, "alternatives" to freedom of speech, movement, and choice are implemented in “so-called democratic processes”, hijacked by the resurrected mindsets of 19th century white, male, heterosexual, pseudo-Christian figures. Domestic violence, rape culture, law-making against family planning and abortion, the alternatives to women’s rights are scarily real.
- Nora, keep walking!
April 12, 2021
تعبت الدمية
تعبت من الخيوط تحرك رأسها وذراعيها
وتجبر قدميها على السير في طريق لا تبتغيه
تعبت الدمية من الزينة ومن المنزل الملون بالزيف
ومن السند المائل
ومن التقاليد السخيفة
ومن واجبات وقيود أشد سخافة
قررت نورا أن تذهب
لأجل نفسها
لأجل هذا الشيء الذي كان عليها أن ترضيه لتستطيع أن تعيش
لأنها في الحقيقة من لحم ودم وأعصاب وأسلاك عقلها تعمل تماما مثلها مثل أي ذكر فرضت عليها الدنيا أن توقره لمجرد أنه يحمل اسم رجل
نورا ليست بدمية
فكان عليها أن تترك بيت الدمى
وتتنفس للمرة الأولى
::::::::::::
نورا : لست أبالي بما يقوله الناس ، فلا بد لي أن أذهب .
هيلمر : دون اكتراث بأقدس واجباتك ؟
نورا : وما هي أقدس واجباتي في نظرك ؟
هيلمر : وهل هذه مسألة تحتاج إلى شرح ؟ إنها واجباتك نحو زوجك وأولادك .
نورا : لدي واجبات أخرى لا تقل عنها قداسة .
هيلمر : غير معقول . ماهي ؟
نورا : واجباتي نحو نفسي .
هيلمر : أنت زوجة وأم لأطفالي قبل أي شيء آخر
نورا : لم أعد أؤمن بذلك . إنني مخلوق آدمي عاقل .. مثلك تماماً .
::::::::::::
المسرحية مكتوبة في القرن التاسع عشر
لم تصمت نورا حينها
هربت من السيرك المزيف
قالت : لا
فلتخبروني إذا عن كل نورا منذ تاريخ نشر المسرحية
1879
كم نورا تعرفها أو تعرفينها..؟
كم نورا تقرأ كلماتي الآن .. وتغتصب ابتسامة في وجه من لا يستحقها
راضخة..صامتة..مستسلمة..
نحن الآن في القرن الحادي والعشرين
وهناك آلاف مثل نورا في كل مجتمع
تبتلع اهانتها يوميا
وتصمت
ترضخ لاضطهادها يوميا في كل مكان
بيت ابيها بيت زوجها
تسلط أخيها
نظرات المارة التي لا ترحم
المواصلات العامة..المدرسة..الجامعة..العمل
كل مكان يشيئها ويحيلها كائن ضعيف
مسكين
مشتهى
عليه ألا يضحك وألا يعلو صوته
وألا يعترض وألا يرتدي هذا أو ذاك
فهو فتنة ولعنة ونعمة ومسرة ونصف الدنيا المجني عليه أبدا
دوما دوما
عليها أن ترضي الجميع
ولا ترضي نفسها أبدا
أبدا
::::::::::::
المسرحية عظيمة كعظمة إبسن
رائد المسرح الأشهر
والذي بسطرين في آخر المسرحية
أطلق آلاف من الآهات المختزنة عبر العصور
صفقت نورا الباب وراءها
في وجه الزوج والجمهور والقرن التاسع عشر كله
وقالت ما يجب أن تقلنه جميعا
لا!
February 24, 2023
NORA C’EST MOI
Lui, Torvald, il marito, la chiama lodoletta, lucherino, scoiattolino. Anche per questo, Nora vive in una casa di bambole, perché come tale viene trattata in un modo che corrisponde al suo ruolo di moglie, madre, donna e femmina. E quindi, da bambola, per Torvald è oggetto d’amore ma in quanto a stima e considerazione implicitamente e tacitamente Nora non è alla sua altezza.
Ma Nora è tutto meno che una bambola: nella prima parte sono già la forza e la portata del suo sacrificio a renderla speciale, a farla brillare.
Quando poi arriva a pronunciare queste parole
Ho capito in quell'attimo di essere vissuta per otto anni con un estraneo. Un estraneo che mi ha fatto fare tre figli... Oh, non posso pensarci! Potrei stritolarmi, farmi a pezzi da sola!...Credo di essere, prima di tutto, una creatura umana, come te… o meglio, voglio tentare di divenirlo.
Nora si erge maestosa e statuaria a sua insaputa, senza volere.
Nora/Mariangela Melato e Torvald/Paolo Pierobon nell’adattamento dello Stabile di Genova curato da Luca Ronconi nel 2010.
Per completare il quadro degli uomini ‘pessimi’ c’è anche l’usuraio Krogstad che, non contento d’aver prestato a Nora soldi a strozzo costringendola a sottomettersi ad anni di sotterfugi e sacrifici per ripagare il debito, quando apprende che Torvald sta per essere promosso, ricatta Nora obbligandola a intercedere per lui presso il marito che minaccia di licenziarlo dalla banca.
A risolvere le cose intercede l’amica Kristine.
E quindi le misere figure d’uomo sono due, le magnifiche figure di donna anche. Ma Nora spicca di luce propria, rimane nel cuore e nella mente: costretta a compiere la rinuncia massima, i suoi figli, per non restare in un matrimonio che la reazione di Torvald svela in tutta la sua mediocrità e meschinità, Nora è grande e finalmente libera e indipendente
Lui, Torvald, il marito, la chiama lodoletta, lucherino, scoiattolino. Anche per questo, Nora vive in una casa di bambole, perché come tale viene trattata in un modo che corrisponde al suo ruolo di moglie, madre, donna e femmina. E quindi, da bambola, per Torvald è oggetto d’amore ma in quanto a stima e considerazione implicitamente e tacitamente Nora non è alla sua altezza.
Ma Nora è tutto meno che una bambola: nella prima parte sono già la forza e la portata del suo sacrificio a renderla speciale, a farla brillare.
Quando poi arriva a pronunciare queste parole
Ho capito in quell'attimo di essere vissuta per otto anni con un estraneo. Un estraneo che mi ha fatto fare tre figli... Oh, non posso pensarci! Potrei stritolarmi, farmi a pezzi da sola!...Credo di essere, prima di tutto, una creatura umana, come te… o meglio, voglio tentare di divenirlo.
Nora si erge maestosa e statuaria a sua insaputa, senza volere.
Nora/Mariangela Melato e Torvald/Paolo Pierobon nell’adattamento dello Stabile di Genova curato da Luca Ronconi nel 2010.
Per completare il quadro degli uomini ‘pessimi’ c’è anche l’usuraio Krogstad che, non contento d’aver prestato a Nora soldi a strozzo costringendola a sottomettersi ad anni di sotterfugi e sacrifici per ripagare il debito, quando apprende che Torvald sta per essere promosso, ricatta Nora obbligandola a intercedere per lui presso il marito che minaccia di licenziarlo dalla banca.
A risolvere le cose intercede l’amica Kristine.
E quindi le misere figure d’uomo sono due, le magnifiche figure di donna anche. Ma Nora spicca di luce propria, rimane nel cuore e nella mente: costretta a compiere la rinuncia massima, i suoi figli, per non restare in un matrimonio che la reazione di Torvald svela in tutta la sua mediocrità e meschinità, Nora è grande e finalmente libera e indipendente
April 30, 2016
Imagine what it would be like to live in a doll’s house: it's a house in which you are controlled and have no power to make any strong decisions; it's a house in which you are a play thing for someone else’s entertainment. This sounds a lot like a bad marriage, so it's a house in which your husband holds the purse strings, so to speak, and leaves you with no control over your family’s finances. Indeed, your husband keeps you on a very tight leash. Such is the perceived life of Nora Helma.
Yet, this work is in favour of women
Note the word perceived for that is the appearance Nora gives to the outer world. Indeed, the doll’s house is a metaphor for Nora’s life in which she takes on the role of a doll. Her husband is now in charge and before then her farther. She has no idea who, or what, she is because she has been conditioned by society to behave in the manner of an acceptable wife, which is one that obeys her husband’s wishes. The result is a woman who appears week and controllable, but she has kept a big, big, secret from her husband that challenges everything he thinks her to be.
She, this simple minded doll, has managed to borrow money (something unheard of for a women of this time) to keep her family afloat whilst her husband was too ill to work. So yeah, this play is very feminist. Ibsen has used Nora’s situation to comment on the ridiculous nature of marriage in the nineteenth century. The play is rooted in the then rising field of naturalism, which endeavoured to portray life accurately with no idealisations; thus, Nora’s marriage can be seen as an accurate portrayal of what most women had to put up with in their marriages.
Ibsen shocked his audinece
Moreover, this means that the play was an absolute shocker to the Victorian audience. This is not because of Nora’s disobedience, but the way her marriage has been used as a disguise to hide her freedom. Despite being in a controlling marriage she had managed to be able to borrow money off her own accord, by herself. This indicates that Nora’s role as a housewife was nothing more than a charade because she did, in fact, have some freedom to make her own choices such as the life changing one she makes at the end of the play.
Thus, the play was a milestone for questioning the traditional view of marriage; it suggested that marriage was overbearing and controlling, but if one was careful they could gain some freedom from their bigoted spouse; it suggested that marriage appeared like a doll’s house in which the doll was destined to be free.
Yet, this work is in favour of women
Note the word perceived for that is the appearance Nora gives to the outer world. Indeed, the doll’s house is a metaphor for Nora’s life in which she takes on the role of a doll. Her husband is now in charge and before then her farther. She has no idea who, or what, she is because she has been conditioned by society to behave in the manner of an acceptable wife, which is one that obeys her husband’s wishes. The result is a woman who appears week and controllable, but she has kept a big, big, secret from her husband that challenges everything he thinks her to be.
She, this simple minded doll, has managed to borrow money (something unheard of for a women of this time) to keep her family afloat whilst her husband was too ill to work. So yeah, this play is very feminist. Ibsen has used Nora’s situation to comment on the ridiculous nature of marriage in the nineteenth century. The play is rooted in the then rising field of naturalism, which endeavoured to portray life accurately with no idealisations; thus, Nora’s marriage can be seen as an accurate portrayal of what most women had to put up with in their marriages.
Ibsen shocked his audinece
Moreover, this means that the play was an absolute shocker to the Victorian audience. This is not because of Nora’s disobedience, but the way her marriage has been used as a disguise to hide her freedom. Despite being in a controlling marriage she had managed to be able to borrow money off her own accord, by herself. This indicates that Nora’s role as a housewife was nothing more than a charade because she did, in fact, have some freedom to make her own choices such as the life changing one she makes at the end of the play.
Thus, the play was a milestone for questioning the traditional view of marriage; it suggested that marriage was overbearing and controlling, but if one was careful they could gain some freedom from their bigoted spouse; it suggested that marriage appeared like a doll’s house in which the doll was destined to be free.
August 29, 2025
“It is so marvelous to live and be happy.”
I have a confession to make. I always thought A Doll’s House was a children’s story. How wrong was I!
So much to learn…so much to learn…
A Doll’s House is a controversial three-act play about the self-discovery of one woman who goes against conventions and rules of a man-made society.
Nora is a married woman, who does everything to make her husband and children happy and content. She is supposed to dress up and look pretty. She is referred to by her husband as “my little" this and that. She is the Doll. She has been the Doll in her father’s house and has merely changed one Doll House for another.
But Nora has a secret. She has borrowed money from a dubious individual to help pay for improving her husband’s health. She has been economizing and saving money to pay back the debt while being called spendthrift and reckless by her husband.
When the secret is disclosed, instead of thanking her, her husband becomes a self-righteous prig and calls her a hypocrite, a liar and a miserable creature and declares her not to be fit to bring up their children.
Nora then awakens and makes a decision that changes everything.
Her new life begins with the slamming of a door.
I have a confession to make. I always thought A Doll’s House was a children’s story. How wrong was I!
So much to learn…so much to learn…
A Doll’s House is a controversial three-act play about the self-discovery of one woman who goes against conventions and rules of a man-made society.
Nora is a married woman, who does everything to make her husband and children happy and content. She is supposed to dress up and look pretty. She is referred to by her husband as “my little" this and that. She is the Doll. She has been the Doll in her father’s house and has merely changed one Doll House for another.
But Nora has a secret. She has borrowed money from a dubious individual to help pay for improving her husband’s health. She has been economizing and saving money to pay back the debt while being called spendthrift and reckless by her husband.
When the secret is disclosed, instead of thanking her, her husband becomes a self-righteous prig and calls her a hypocrite, a liar and a miserable creature and declares her not to be fit to bring up their children.
Nora then awakens and makes a decision that changes everything.
Her new life begins with the slamming of a door.
April 28, 2024
As many international news outlets have reported*, it is no secret that my reading form has taken a hit lately. To the extent that my income from my reviews on the Dark Web has not been sufficient to support my lifestyle.
Enter one of my heroes Henrik Ibsen, one of his plays will sort me out, and sort me out he did, A Doll’s House did not disappoint.
This is all about Nora, sweet Nora. The wife of a man called Torvald Helmer, who's just scored a job as a bank manager in a small Norwegian town – yes, he’s a big deal. Big job, big wage. One of the themes we see right off the bat is that of money. In fact, it is a focus of this play. Helmer – believes his wife is a spendthrift. Oh, if he only knew.
But, let me tell you what annoyed me the most about MISTER Torvald Helmer. He continually used annoying pet names for his wife – such as “Squirrel” and “My little skylark”, constantly. It was a little bit patronising, to be sure. (But I love nicknames.....they're cool right?).
Who thinks he is ‘large and in charge' in this marriage?
Mrs Linde, an old schoolfriend of Nora, drops in – Mrs Linde’s life has fallen apart, and she is now alone and penniless, she needs help from Nora, maybe a job via her hubby? The relationship between Mrs Linde and Nora is fascinating. Intimate and distant.
Doctor Rank, a very close friend of Nora and Telmer, is omnipresent in the household – his desire for Nora was obvious. However, he’s terminally ill.
Here's another one, Nils Frogstad. He's an interesting bloke. He is one of Torvald’s employees, and he is privy to a secret that could be the undoing of Nora's marriage. He does not want to lose his job at the bank. This is possible, so he is pulling out means to avoid this. On the one hand, the reader (you or me) could dislike him about how he tries to achieve this, but times are tough, so he needs a job. Okay he’s horrible, but – WELL, one could understand his motives to describe his actions?? Couldn’t they?? Is it just me????
Oh, one other thing: Mrs Linde judged Nora for her ‘obvious’ innocence, her lack of ‘worldliness’. On the other hand – Nora seemed insensitive to Mrs Linde’s plight. During conversation, she quickly switched to how joyous her life is, just as Mrs Linde described a horrible situation she was dealing with. We’ve all seen that.
My favourite pic of Nora - "my little skylark"
Ahhhh, and another thing: I have read three plays by Ibsen and enjoyed them all. Nora in this play was as interesting as Hedda Gabler in the play of the same name. That is a discussion for another day. Maybe one day we can have a big group read on one or both of these plays – Hedda Gabler and A Doll’s House. Both, only around 100-150 pages, are easy to read, plenty to discuss? – I will bring or send the Wallaby Muffins and the Vegemite Ice Cream (NB: The latter doesn't travel well – but you’ll get the picture)
Oh, one more thing: As usual, Ibsen describes the stage beautifully. This could have been a tedious exercise – but I felt I was there. As a wee boy, in my best shiny shorts and sandals, red cheeks with chocolate smudged freckles. Excited.
The ending was brilliant. Just magic. I shouldn’t say anymore, but wow.
*Three little known newspapers I refer to are:
1. The Dickhead Weekly
2. New Age Idiot
3.Pratt
Enter one of my heroes Henrik Ibsen, one of his plays will sort me out, and sort me out he did, A Doll’s House did not disappoint.
This is all about Nora, sweet Nora. The wife of a man called Torvald Helmer, who's just scored a job as a bank manager in a small Norwegian town – yes, he’s a big deal. Big job, big wage. One of the themes we see right off the bat is that of money. In fact, it is a focus of this play. Helmer – believes his wife is a spendthrift. Oh, if he only knew.
But, let me tell you what annoyed me the most about MISTER Torvald Helmer. He continually used annoying pet names for his wife – such as “Squirrel” and “My little skylark”, constantly. It was a little bit patronising, to be sure. (But I love nicknames.....they're cool right?).
Who thinks he is ‘large and in charge' in this marriage?
Mrs Linde, an old schoolfriend of Nora, drops in – Mrs Linde’s life has fallen apart, and she is now alone and penniless, she needs help from Nora, maybe a job via her hubby? The relationship between Mrs Linde and Nora is fascinating. Intimate and distant.
Doctor Rank, a very close friend of Nora and Telmer, is omnipresent in the household – his desire for Nora was obvious. However, he’s terminally ill.
Here's another one, Nils Frogstad. He's an interesting bloke. He is one of Torvald’s employees, and he is privy to a secret that could be the undoing of Nora's marriage. He does not want to lose his job at the bank. This is possible, so he is pulling out means to avoid this. On the one hand, the reader (you or me) could dislike him about how he tries to achieve this, but times are tough, so he needs a job. Okay he’s horrible, but – WELL, one could understand his motives to describe his actions?? Couldn’t they?? Is it just me????
Oh, one other thing: Mrs Linde judged Nora for her ‘obvious’ innocence, her lack of ‘worldliness’. On the other hand – Nora seemed insensitive to Mrs Linde’s plight. During conversation, she quickly switched to how joyous her life is, just as Mrs Linde described a horrible situation she was dealing with. We’ve all seen that.
My favourite pic of Nora - "my little skylark"
Ahhhh, and another thing: I have read three plays by Ibsen and enjoyed them all. Nora in this play was as interesting as Hedda Gabler in the play of the same name. That is a discussion for another day. Maybe one day we can have a big group read on one or both of these plays – Hedda Gabler and A Doll’s House. Both, only around 100-150 pages, are easy to read, plenty to discuss? – I will bring or send the Wallaby Muffins and the Vegemite Ice Cream (NB: The latter doesn't travel well – but you’ll get the picture)
Oh, one more thing: As usual, Ibsen describes the stage beautifully. This could have been a tedious exercise – but I felt I was there. As a wee boy, in my best shiny shorts and sandals, red cheeks with chocolate smudged freckles. Excited.
The ending was brilliant. Just magic. I shouldn’t say anymore, but wow.
*Three little known newspapers I refer to are:
1. The Dickhead Weekly
2. New Age Idiot
3.Pratt
November 29, 2007
Mr. S, let me make myself very clear. I will never, never believe that Ibsen intended for Nora's grabbing of her husband's cloak as she ran out the door to indicate his guilt in her implied suicide. It was Christmas. In Norway. The woman was cold.
(This is why I didn't do so well in your class, isn't it, Mr. S?)
(This is why I didn't do so well in your class, isn't it, Mr. S?)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 24, 2021
Otra vez me toca ir a contracorriente, qué cruz, madre mía, qué cruz.
Soy de la opinión, aunque en esto no estoy del todo solo, de que la relevancia que esta obra ha tenido desde que se representó por primera vez allá por 1879 reside fundamentalmente en llevar a escena el primer personaje femenino que se despide de un portazo de casa, marido e hijos. Lo cual es bastante curioso pues, en mi opinión, el objetivo de Ibsen en su crítica de la sociedad es fundamentalmente su hipocresía y lo injusto de algunas leyes y no mostrar la inaceptable situación de la mujer, algo que el propio autor siempre remarcó.
Bien es cierto que algunas de estas leyes que se critican son las que subyugaban a las mujeres a ser muñequitas de sus padres hasta que pasan a serlo de sus maridos. Leyes e hipocresía social que no dejaron otro camino a Nora que el de cometer un delito o que empujaron a su amiga, la señora Linde, a contraer un penoso matrimonio de conveniencia, lo que, a su vez, estuvo en la raíz del hundimiento moral de Krogstad, su antiguo amante. Pero es sorprendente que la base fundamental de la crítica legal la sustente en algo que precisamente está, y debe estar, en los cimientos de todo sistema jurídico, esto es, que el fin no justifica los medios.
Sin embargo, Nora, pese a su fortaleza a la hora de proteger a los suyos, me parece un personaje que para ostentar el papel de heroína del feminismo que algunos le adjudican precisa de una interpretación actoral capaz de reflejar en los gestos, en las actitudes calladas que se van sucediendo a lo largo de la obra aspectos de su personalidad que sirvan de enlace con la Nora del acto final, una evolución que únicamente con los diálogos de que disponemos en la simple lectura del texto nos es del todo inverosímil o bien propio de una personalidad histérica que oscila sin transición entre una alegría desmesurada en la sumisión a su marido y una despiadada dureza en su decisión final. Unas actitudes que, además, no dejan de estar determinadas por el amor al esposo, cuando este existe y cuando al final desaparece.
Tampoco quiero quitarle todo el mérito al autor. La obra no aburre en ningún momento, consigue una gran intensidad dramática, y es de alabar su valentía para enfrentarse a una sociedad que se escandaliza ante la denuncia que el autor hace de sus injusticias, así como su habilidad para exponerlas que, como dice Cristina Gómez-Baggethun en el prólogo a la preciosa edición que la editorial nordicalibros ha hecho reuniendo ocho de las principales obras del autor y que ella misma ha traducido, ha permitido que Ibsen sea interpretado con éxito desde posiciones ideológicas muy dispares, lo que sin duda ha favorecido que sus obras se sigan representando por todo el mundo 140 años después de su publicación.
Soy de la opinión, aunque en esto no estoy del todo solo, de que la relevancia que esta obra ha tenido desde que se representó por primera vez allá por 1879 reside fundamentalmente en llevar a escena el primer personaje femenino que se despide de un portazo de casa, marido e hijos. Lo cual es bastante curioso pues, en mi opinión, el objetivo de Ibsen en su crítica de la sociedad es fundamentalmente su hipocresía y lo injusto de algunas leyes y no mostrar la inaceptable situación de la mujer, algo que el propio autor siempre remarcó.
Bien es cierto que algunas de estas leyes que se critican son las que subyugaban a las mujeres a ser muñequitas de sus padres hasta que pasan a serlo de sus maridos. Leyes e hipocresía social que no dejaron otro camino a Nora que el de cometer un delito o que empujaron a su amiga, la señora Linde, a contraer un penoso matrimonio de conveniencia, lo que, a su vez, estuvo en la raíz del hundimiento moral de Krogstad, su antiguo amante. Pero es sorprendente que la base fundamental de la crítica legal la sustente en algo que precisamente está, y debe estar, en los cimientos de todo sistema jurídico, esto es, que el fin no justifica los medios.
“KROGSTAD.-A las leyes no les importan los motivos.En cuanto al aspecto feminista creo que Ibsen estaba en lo cierto al rechazar los elogios en este sentido. De hecho, de tener que elegir a uno de los personajes femeninos me quedo sin duda con la señora Linde, la amiga de Nora, alguien que toma sus propias decisiones sin sustentarla en su relación con los hombres, que trabaja y quiere seguir trabajando sin tener que renunciar a la felicidad que le pueda proporcionar una familia, que no se deja llevar por sentimentalismos paralizantes, que persigue lo que quiere cuando cree que ha llegado el momento, una mujer inteligente que se vale por sí misma.
NORA.-Pues son unas leyes muy malas.”
Sin embargo, Nora, pese a su fortaleza a la hora de proteger a los suyos, me parece un personaje que para ostentar el papel de heroína del feminismo que algunos le adjudican precisa de una interpretación actoral capaz de reflejar en los gestos, en las actitudes calladas que se van sucediendo a lo largo de la obra aspectos de su personalidad que sirvan de enlace con la Nora del acto final, una evolución que únicamente con los diálogos de que disponemos en la simple lectura del texto nos es del todo inverosímil o bien propio de una personalidad histérica que oscila sin transición entre una alegría desmesurada en la sumisión a su marido y una despiadada dureza en su decisión final. Unas actitudes que, además, no dejan de estar determinadas por el amor al esposo, cuando este existe y cuando al final desaparece.
Tampoco quiero quitarle todo el mérito al autor. La obra no aburre en ningún momento, consigue una gran intensidad dramática, y es de alabar su valentía para enfrentarse a una sociedad que se escandaliza ante la denuncia que el autor hace de sus injusticias, así como su habilidad para exponerlas que, como dice Cristina Gómez-Baggethun en el prólogo a la preciosa edición que la editorial nordicalibros ha hecho reuniendo ocho de las principales obras del autor y que ella misma ha traducido, ha permitido que Ibsen sea interpretado con éxito desde posiciones ideológicas muy dispares, lo que sin duda ha favorecido que sus obras se sigan representando por todo el mundo 140 años después de su publicación.
April 14, 2018
This is the story of a marriage that superficially seems happy, but a critical turn of events reveals a sham relationship.
Torvald and Nora Helmer, who've had some financial struggles, are delighted because Torvald has gotten major promotion at the bank where he works. But Nora, behind her lightheartedness and childish behavior - encouraged, always, by Torvald, who calls her diminutive, vaguely (or sometimes explicitly) insulting names names like "my sweet tooth" and "little spendthrift" - is hiding a major secret. She borrowed a substantial sum of money a few years ago to finance a trip to Italy to help Torvald recover from a major illness. She told Torvald the money was left to her by her father, but it was actually loaned to her by one Nils Krogstad, and she has been slowly paying it back. But now Nils is threatening to tell Nora's husband ... especially since he realized that Nora forged her father's signature as co-signer of the note.
I first read this play many years ago as a college English major, and frankly it didn't leave much of an impression on me at the time. But rereading this now, as a married woman with children, the utter wrongness and superficiality of Torvald's and Nora's relationship hits me hard. Almost everything Torvald says to Nora diminishes her as a person:
This is one of the earliest feminist works of literature, written in 1879 by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen. It's hard to believe that this hard-hitting play, about a woman who realizes she's been treated as a mindless doll all her life by her father and then her husband, and what she decides to do about it, was written over 130 years ago. It raises some important questions of true communication and finding yourself, not just for women but for all people. British actress Hattie Morahan, who played Nora, made some comments about it that really struck me:
I'll admit that the ending leaves me unsettled, with its burning all bridges approach. Although I have some sympathy with German actress Hedwig Niemann-Raabe, who famously refused to perform the play unless Ibsen rewrote the ending, I don't think changing it was the right decision from a literary point of view. As a literary work, the ending is tremendously powerful. However, as a practical guide to life, I'm not convinced that what Nora does is right. I guess the question for me is, should you hurt innocent people in your quest to go pursue self-fulfillment? Nora, at least, didn't feel like she had a choice, but I wasn't convinced.
In any case, this is a very thought-provoking play that's still relevant 137 years after it was written.
Torvald and Nora Helmer, who've had some financial struggles, are delighted because Torvald has gotten major promotion at the bank where he works. But Nora, behind her lightheartedness and childish behavior - encouraged, always, by Torvald, who calls her diminutive, vaguely (or sometimes explicitly) insulting names names like "my sweet tooth" and "little spendthrift" - is hiding a major secret. She borrowed a substantial sum of money a few years ago to finance a trip to Italy to help Torvald recover from a major illness. She told Torvald the money was left to her by her father, but it was actually loaned to her by one Nils Krogstad, and she has been slowly paying it back. But now Nils is threatening to tell Nora's husband ... especially since he realized that Nora forged her father's signature as co-signer of the note.
I first read this play many years ago as a college English major, and frankly it didn't leave much of an impression on me at the time. But rereading this now, as a married woman with children, the utter wrongness and superficiality of Torvald's and Nora's relationship hits me hard. Almost everything Torvald says to Nora diminishes her as a person:
"Now, now, the little lark's wings mustn't droop. Come on, don't be a sulky squirrel."Nora, in turn, treats her children - especially her daughter - with the same type of carelessness of their value as a person. As the problem of the forged promissory looms closer to disclosure, Nora becomes more frantic. But she still thinks that Torvald, who has shown nothing but disdain for her mind and financial ability, will stand by her and protect her if her misdeed (which was done because of her love and concern for her husband) becomes public.
This is one of the earliest feminist works of literature, written in 1879 by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen. It's hard to believe that this hard-hitting play, about a woman who realizes she's been treated as a mindless doll all her life by her father and then her husband, and what she decides to do about it, was written over 130 years ago. It raises some important questions of true communication and finding yourself, not just for women but for all people. British actress Hattie Morahan, who played Nora, made some comments about it that really struck me:
"... the things Ibsen writes mean it ceases to be about a particular milieu and becomes about marriage (or partnership) and money. These are universal anxieties, and it seems from talking to people that it resonates in the most visceral way, especially if they are or have been in a difficult relationship. Someone said to me the other night, 'That's the play that broke my parents' marriage up.' It shines a very harsh light on the messy heart of relationships, and how difficult it can be to be honest with another human being even if you love them."https://www.theguardian.com/stage/201....
I'll admit that the ending leaves me unsettled, with its burning all bridges approach. Although I have some sympathy with German actress Hedwig Niemann-Raabe, who famously refused to perform the play unless Ibsen rewrote the ending, I don't think changing it was the right decision from a literary point of view. As a literary work, the ending is tremendously powerful. However, as a practical guide to life, I'm not convinced that what Nora does is right. I guess the question for me is, should you hurt innocent people in your quest to go pursue self-fulfillment? Nora, at least, didn't feel like she had a choice, but I wasn't convinced.
In any case, this is a very thought-provoking play that's still relevant 137 years after it was written.
June 8, 2016
I read Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House back in high school as required reading but did not grasp the scope of his masterpiece then. Ibsen penned his classic play about the story of Nora and Thorvald Helmer at a time in his life when he was coping with his former love Laura being confined to an insane asylum. In 1872 Laura married a man other than Ibsen and he fell ill with a lethal disease. Their doctors prescribed a southern climate but Laura did not have funds to move her husband to such a climate, so she borrowed the money from a trusting friend. On her return she still did not have the money to cover the loan, so she forged a bank note, which subsequently lead to her entering the asylum.
Ibsen started work on A Doll's House shortly after this episode took place. Clearly it is an example of art imitating life as Nora is Laura, Thorvald her husband, et al. What I found the most interesting is Ibsen's view on the place of women in society. He believed that women were not objects who were chained to their husbands with no voice in society. On the contrary I feel he saw women as independent thinkers who were free to make their own decisions rather than the dolls stuck living their lives according to their husbands' wills. We see this with both the characters of Nora and Kristin Linde.
I read A Doll's House in less than an hour as the text is less than one hundred pages long. It is what is contained in these pages that packs a punch and why A Doll's House has become timeless. A classic, I recommend to all who haven't read it before.
Ibsen started work on A Doll's House shortly after this episode took place. Clearly it is an example of art imitating life as Nora is Laura, Thorvald her husband, et al. What I found the most interesting is Ibsen's view on the place of women in society. He believed that women were not objects who were chained to their husbands with no voice in society. On the contrary I feel he saw women as independent thinkers who were free to make their own decisions rather than the dolls stuck living their lives according to their husbands' wills. We see this with both the characters of Nora and Kristin Linde.
I read A Doll's House in less than an hour as the text is less than one hundred pages long. It is what is contained in these pages that packs a punch and why A Doll's House has become timeless. A classic, I recommend to all who haven't read it before.
May 12, 2017
Πεντάστερο. Επειδή κοντά διακόσια χρονια πριν ο Ίψεν μας φανερώνει με το γραπτό του την αυτογνωσία,την ελεύθερη βούληση, την ανεξαρτησία, την ανιδιοτέλεια και την αγάπη, όχι μόνο μέσα απο μια γυναίκα όμορφη και άβουλη σαν κούκλα,μα και μέσα απο την ίδια την ανθρώπινη ύπαρξη.
Η Νόρα είναι μια όμορφη νέα γυναίκα σύζυγος και μητέρα η οποία ζει και αγωνίζεται για την ευτυχία -πρωτίστως των άλλων- την οικογενειακή θαλπωρή, την απόλυτη φροντίδα και ικανοποίηση των παιδιών και του συζύγου της. Είναι υπάκουη,τρυφερή,υπομονετική και άβουλη σαν μικρό παιδί. Ετσι έμαθε να ζει. Πρώτα στα
χέρια του μπαμπά της σαν ένα λατρεμένο και ανώριμο πλασματάκι και μετά στα χέρια του συζύγου της σαν μια κούκλα μόνο για την βιτρίνα και για την προσωπική του ικανοποίηση.
Τη βαραίνει ένα μεγάλο μυστικό. Ένα ��έμμα που την κατατρέχει χρόνια ολόκληρα το οποίο αναγκάστηκε να πει για να σώσει ότι αγαπούσε.
Όταν αυτό αποκαλύπτεται και βλέπει με τρόμο και αηδία τις συνέπειες, ξυπνάει απο το λήθαργο της παραμυθένιας της ζωής και παραιτείται απο την υπόσταση του κουκλόσπιτου της.
Ενηλικιώνεται με σκληρό τρόπο και αποφασίζει πως μόνο μια είναι η λύση για να μπορέσει να ανακαλύψει τον εαυτό της και την πραγματική ζωή.
Καλή ανάγνωση!
Πολλούς ασπασμούς.
Η Νόρα είναι μια όμορφη νέα γυναίκα σύζυγος και μητέρα η οποία ζει και αγωνίζεται για την ευτυχία -πρωτίστως των άλλων- την οικογενειακή θαλπωρή, την απόλυτη φροντίδα και ικανοποίηση των παιδιών και του συζύγου της. Είναι υπάκουη,τρυφερή,υπομονετική και άβουλη σαν μικρό παιδί. Ετσι έμαθε να ζει. Πρώτα στα
χέρια του μπαμπά της σαν ένα λατρεμένο και ανώριμο πλασματάκι και μετά στα χέρια του συζύγου της σαν μια κούκλα μόνο για την βιτρίνα και για την προσωπική του ικανοποίηση.
Τη βαραίνει ένα μεγάλο μυστικό. Ένα ��έμμα που την κατατρέχει χρόνια ολόκληρα το οποίο αναγκάστηκε να πει για να σώσει ότι αγαπούσε.
Όταν αυτό αποκαλύπτεται και βλέπει με τρόμο και αηδία τις συνέπειες, ξυπνάει απο το λήθαργο της παραμυθένιας της ζωής και παραιτείται απο την υπόσταση του κουκλόσπιτου της.
Ενηλικιώνεται με σκληρό τρόπο και αποφασίζει πως μόνο μια είναι η λύση για να μπορέσει να ανακαλύψει τον εαυτό της και την πραγματική ζωή.
Καλή ανάγνωση!
Πολλούς ασπασμούς.
February 9, 2025
'A Doll's House' is, unfortunately, the first play by Ibsen I have read or seen. I am greatly impressed because I didn't realize that he was such a brave person and a radical feminist to make such a groundbreaking statement on behalf of all the women (all these 'skylarks', 'little squirrels' and 'dolls') in the 19th century. What makes the play even more empowering is the fact that it was inspired by a true story Ibsen was familiar with.
'A Doll's House' is still relevant today and will be relevant in the future bringing up the subjects like gender roles, self-liberation, seeking own identity and societal expectations. The constant relevance of the play makes it a timeless masterpiece.
'I must stand quite alone if I am to understand myself and everything about me.'
'A Doll's House' is still relevant today and will be relevant in the future bringing up the subjects like gender roles, self-liberation, seeking own identity and societal expectations. The constant relevance of the play makes it a timeless masterpiece.
'I must stand quite alone if I am to understand myself and everything about me.'
March 12, 2012
First things first. Nora, the protagonist of Ibsen's A Doll's House, is a twit. There's no getting around it. We may choose to assign blame for her twittishness to her husband, her milieu, or her era, but this will never adequately mitigate her essential twit nature to that reader or spectator of the play who must endure her self-identification as her husband's 'squirrel' or her childlike idiocy. I myself couldn't stop wondering if Nora is an actual twit (i.e., a twit absolutely, regardless of her context) or relative twit (i.e., a woman who seems a twit to us now as a result of the changes in custom, gender roles, and society itself). And I haven't of course ruled out a combination of the two.
Then my mind became even more scrupulous. Was my judgment that Nora is a twit itself a condition of my entitled position in a (still) phallocentric society? I'm not kidding. I actually thought this. This is what a culture of loudly warring intellectual discourses does to a man. Am I guilty because I think Nora is twit?
Well, I abandoned that idea. Now I am convinced that she really is a twit, but now I ascribe some of her twittishness to the artificiality of drama itself, especially at the end of the nineteenth century. I think I've temporarily settled on this opinion. But ask me tomorrow, and who knows?
Since I've spent so much time convicting Nora of being a twit, it might seem surprising that I've given this play four stars. But really—there are plenty of fine stories to be told about twits and their ostensible transformations into non-twits. We shouldn't discriminate against twits. Don't they have hopes, dreams, sorrows, disappointments like the rest of us?
A Doll's House is the story of a silly, naive Norwegian wife named Nora who is being blackmailed by an unsavory bank clerk; apparently, she forged a document some time before, but the backstory is too contorted and contrived to bother with here. (I'm more than a little annoyed that Ibsen couldn't come up with a more elegant MacGuffin—one that's not entirely reliant upon Nora's [guileless or stupid, as you see it] admission of wrongdoing to her blackmailer.) Nora works overtime to keep her husband Torvald from finding out about her transgression. (Here, a cultural difference comes into play: given the circumstances, it's difficult for a modern audience to imagine that Torvald would be outraged at her confession.) Eventually, he does find out though and rips Nora a proverbial new one. This leads up to a famous and infamous confrontation between husband and wife punctuated by Nora's door slam heard 'round the world.
It's a fascinating and prescient play, no doubt, but it's also more than a little creaky—at least in translation. The conclusion, I think, retains much of its provocation today, well over a hundred years later. It is very difficult to watch or read the play and not react to Nora. She will always be subject to moral condemnation, but she's intriguing—even in her twittishness—because she isn't entirely right or wrong... She's just human. In an often infuriating way.
Then my mind became even more scrupulous. Was my judgment that Nora is a twit itself a condition of my entitled position in a (still) phallocentric society? I'm not kidding. I actually thought this. This is what a culture of loudly warring intellectual discourses does to a man. Am I guilty because I think Nora is twit?
Well, I abandoned that idea. Now I am convinced that she really is a twit, but now I ascribe some of her twittishness to the artificiality of drama itself, especially at the end of the nineteenth century. I think I've temporarily settled on this opinion. But ask me tomorrow, and who knows?
Since I've spent so much time convicting Nora of being a twit, it might seem surprising that I've given this play four stars. But really—there are plenty of fine stories to be told about twits and their ostensible transformations into non-twits. We shouldn't discriminate against twits. Don't they have hopes, dreams, sorrows, disappointments like the rest of us?
A Doll's House is the story of a silly, naive Norwegian wife named Nora who is being blackmailed by an unsavory bank clerk; apparently, she forged a document some time before, but the backstory is too contorted and contrived to bother with here. (I'm more than a little annoyed that Ibsen couldn't come up with a more elegant MacGuffin—one that's not entirely reliant upon Nora's [guileless or stupid, as you see it] admission of wrongdoing to her blackmailer.) Nora works overtime to keep her husband Torvald from finding out about her transgression. (Here, a cultural difference comes into play: given the circumstances, it's difficult for a modern audience to imagine that Torvald would be outraged at her confession.) Eventually, he does find out though and rips Nora a proverbial new one. This leads up to a famous and infamous confrontation between husband and wife punctuated by Nora's door slam heard 'round the world.
It's a fascinating and prescient play, no doubt, but it's also more than a little creaky—at least in translation. The conclusion, I think, retains much of its provocation today, well over a hundred years later. It is very difficult to watch or read the play and not react to Nora. She will always be subject to moral condemnation, but she's intriguing—even in her twittishness—because she isn't entirely right or wrong... She's just human. In an often infuriating way.
February 1, 2025
This is a brilliant play by Henrik Ibsen which is also my first introduction to the author. The play mainly revolves around the theme of women's place in society as opposed to women's right to independence and individuality.
Nora Helmer, the main protagonist, has a secret to conceal from her conservative husband. This secret is a cause of action that has been taken by her which, although partly a crime, has been done in good faith to protect her family at a difficult time. However, when the secret comes out in the open, the consequences that follow question women's identity and demonstrate their vulnerability and men's perception of women in the patriarchal society.
The play to me is Ibsen's voice to say that it is time that women are to be looked at as individuals, as humans with feelings, and as an important part of society, especially in a family; it is time that they should be respected as equals; and they should not be viewed as mere possessions to keep and treat as men fancy. Such a perception of women coming from a man of his era is praiseworthy. Ibsen was a thinker ahead of his time.
The play was viewed as scandalous. It was to be expected given the conservative nature of the European society at his time. It is said that German theatre houses refused to stage the play and called for an alternate ending which Ibsen was compelled to write. That demonstrates how strongly the society was affected by the play. Cudos to Ibsen for bringing out the suppressed and subdued voices of women through this beautiful play.
More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/
Nora Helmer, the main protagonist, has a secret to conceal from her conservative husband. This secret is a cause of action that has been taken by her which, although partly a crime, has been done in good faith to protect her family at a difficult time. However, when the secret comes out in the open, the consequences that follow question women's identity and demonstrate their vulnerability and men's perception of women in the patriarchal society.
The play to me is Ibsen's voice to say that it is time that women are to be looked at as individuals, as humans with feelings, and as an important part of society, especially in a family; it is time that they should be respected as equals; and they should not be viewed as mere possessions to keep and treat as men fancy. Such a perception of women coming from a man of his era is praiseworthy. Ibsen was a thinker ahead of his time.
The play was viewed as scandalous. It was to be expected given the conservative nature of the European society at his time. It is said that German theatre houses refused to stage the play and called for an alternate ending which Ibsen was compelled to write. That demonstrates how strongly the society was affected by the play. Cudos to Ibsen for bringing out the suppressed and subdued voices of women through this beautiful play.
More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/
March 27, 2021
هناك نوعان من الاختيار .. اختيار تجبرك الظروف عليه، فتثور عليه من داخلك دون وعي حتى لو تبين لك لاحقا أنه الاختيار الصحيح .. واختيار تتخذه بمحض ارادتك دون أي ضغوط فتشعر بالراحة معه مهما كانت النتائج .. في المسرحية الحالية نرى امرأة اجبرتها الظروف على الاقتران بطبيب أرمل له ابنتان، فتعيش طوال عمرها كالدمية تشعر أن الآخرين يحركونها دون ارادة منها، فهي لم تختر تلك الحياة بملء ارادتها لذا تترك سفينتها توجهها أهواء الآخرين .. لكنها تثور عندما يعود شبح من الماضي يذكرها بالحرية المفقودة، الحرية الكاملة التي تفتن بها لكنها ترهبها وتخشاها في نفس الوقت .. فقط عندما تصبح حرة من أي ضغوط أو قيود تستعيد عقلها وتركن إلى الاختيار الصحيح
المسرحية جيدة بوجه عام، تسلسل الأحداث بطئ بعض الشئ في الفصول الأولى وهناك تطويل لا مبرر له في بعض المواضع لكنك لا تشعر بالملل معها .. ومن أجل تقييم أفضل يجب أن نضع المسرحية في اطارها الزمني حيث كانت بمثابة نقطة تحول في تاريخ المسرح وقتها ودفعت الكثير من الكتاب للتركيز على مشاكل اجتماعية وواقعية بدلا من الانفصال عن المجتمع
المسرحية جيدة بوجه عام، تسلسل الأحداث بطئ بعض الشئ في الفصول الأولى وهناك تطويل لا مبرر له في بعض المواضع لكنك لا تشعر بالملل معها .. ومن أجل تقييم أفضل يجب أن نضع المسرحية في اطارها الزمني حيث كانت بمثابة نقطة تحول في تاريخ المسرح وقتها ودفعت الكثير من الكتاب للتركيز على مشاكل اجتماعية وواقعية بدلا من الانفصال عن المجتمع
October 28, 2023
Good theatre.
Wonderful surprise turn at the end.
Both her decision and her reasons.
Modern. Dramatic. Convincing. Good read.
Wonderful surprise turn at the end.
Both her decision and her reasons.
Modern. Dramatic. Convincing. Good read.
September 23, 2020
Let's leave Nora for a second and talk about the tragic figure of Torvald Helmer.
It struck me today while rereading The Doll's House that I had completely missed the important statement Ibsen makes on men in patriarchy, blinded as I was by my furious cheering for Nora's emancipation.
While following her path to shed the idiocy of her existence as a little pretty plaything, I missed the sad storyline of the little boy who broke his toy because he simply was too ignorant and spoiled to understand how to handle it.
Torvald is such a pathetic character, and the saddest part is that he, despite his legal and financial power and freedom, is as much a victim of the patriarchal structure as Nora is, if not even more so...
... because the moment Nora awakened from her society-induced play-acting, she realised what a pitiful little baby Torvald was doomed to stay - a person so unlovable and uninteresting as a partner that the only thing a grownup woman could do when she left was close the door loudly enough for his delusion to break...
How is it even possible to love a person who can't see humanity and individuality in his partner? The patriarch is doomed to be unloved and disconnected from his family simply because he is too naive to see what surrounds him and too fragile to accept the realities of life such as they are - unfiltered. He becomes a powerful Family Machine that requires specific handling but remains indifferent and outside human communication and feeling.
Once that becomes evident, it sounds more and more bizarre to listen to Torvald's consistent huffing and puffing about Nora's ignorance and helplessness. He's projecting his own immaturity onto her, and when the magic is broken by his inability to cope with life, he blames her for not keeping the delusion intact.
Torvald is worse off than Nora. At least she has a life. He only has a few soap bubbles.
It struck me today while rereading The Doll's House that I had completely missed the important statement Ibsen makes on men in patriarchy, blinded as I was by my furious cheering for Nora's emancipation.
While following her path to shed the idiocy of her existence as a little pretty plaything, I missed the sad storyline of the little boy who broke his toy because he simply was too ignorant and spoiled to understand how to handle it.
Torvald is such a pathetic character, and the saddest part is that he, despite his legal and financial power and freedom, is as much a victim of the patriarchal structure as Nora is, if not even more so...
... because the moment Nora awakened from her society-induced play-acting, she realised what a pitiful little baby Torvald was doomed to stay - a person so unlovable and uninteresting as a partner that the only thing a grownup woman could do when she left was close the door loudly enough for his delusion to break...
How is it even possible to love a person who can't see humanity and individuality in his partner? The patriarch is doomed to be unloved and disconnected from his family simply because he is too naive to see what surrounds him and too fragile to accept the realities of life such as they are - unfiltered. He becomes a powerful Family Machine that requires specific handling but remains indifferent and outside human communication and feeling.
Once that becomes evident, it sounds more and more bizarre to listen to Torvald's consistent huffing and puffing about Nora's ignorance and helplessness. He's projecting his own immaturity onto her, and when the magic is broken by his inability to cope with life, he blames her for not keeping the delusion intact.
Torvald is worse off than Nora. At least she has a life. He only has a few soap bubbles.
October 30, 2023
در صحنهی اول و نگاه اول همه چیز به طرز تهوعآوری خوبه. زن زیبایی با خرید کریسمس وارد خونهی مرتبش میشه. آتش در شومینه روشنه. مرد عاشقانه زن رو صدا میکنه. به زودی میفهمیم که مرد ارتقاء شغلی گرفته و قراره مدیر بانک بشه. دیگه حتی در آینده مجبور نیستند نگران پول باشند. بچههای قد و نیم قدشون با پرستار از راه میرسند و زن ذوق دیدنشون رو داره
اما تمام مدت چیزی داره اذیتت میکنه. انگار همهچیز اونجور که باید خوب نیست. لحن مرد تحقیرآمیزه و کلمات عاشقانه نمیتونه پنهانش کنه. تمام جملههاش با نگاه بالا به پایینه. زن مخفیکاری میکنه و شیرینی رو در جیبش قایم میکنه. مرد کنترل میکنه و خوردن شیرینی رو ممنوع کرده
ایبسن در عروسکخانه نمایش رو در این خونه به زیبایی شروع و تمام میکنه. اما بهتر از ظرافتهای پردهی اول، طوفان پردهی آخره. مخصوصاً وقتی به این فکر کنی که این نمایشنامه در سال ۱۸۷۰ نوشته شده، متوجه میشی که چرا آثار این نویسنده بیش از یک قرن بعد داره خونده میشه. مسئلهی هویت مسقل زن از مادر و همسر بودن هنوز در قرن ۲۱ هم مورد بحثه
آدیبل این نمایشنامه رو با چندین بازیگر صدا اجرا و ضبط کرده. به اینجور کتاب صوتیها
Dramatized
میگن که درست مثل شنیدن یک نمایش بدون دیدنشه. درسته که توضیحات صحنه رو اینجوری نمیتونی بشنوی، ولی انگار داری نمایش واقعی رو تجربه میکنی. من البته همزمان خوندم و گوش کردم که هیچ کدوم رو از دست ندم. برنامهم اینه که آثار اصلی ایبسن رو به ترتیب بخونم و جلو برم
۱۴۰۲/۸/۸
کانال تلگرام ریویوها و دانلود کتابها و صوتیشون
Maede's Books
اما تمام مدت چیزی داره اذیتت میکنه. انگار همهچیز اونجور که باید خوب نیست. لحن مرد تحقیرآمیزه و کلمات عاشقانه نمیتونه پنهانش کنه. تمام جملههاش با نگاه بالا به پایینه. زن مخفیکاری میکنه و شیرینی رو در جیبش قایم میکنه. مرد کنترل میکنه و خوردن شیرینی رو ممنوع کرده
ایبسن در عروسکخانه نمایش رو در این خونه به زیبایی شروع و تمام میکنه. اما بهتر از ظرافتهای پردهی اول، طوفان پردهی آخره. مخصوصاً وقتی به این فکر کنی که این نمایشنامه در سال ۱۸۷۰ نوشته شده، متوجه میشی که چرا آثار این نویسنده بیش از یک قرن بعد داره خونده میشه. مسئلهی هویت مسقل زن از مادر و همسر بودن هنوز در قرن ۲۱ هم مورد بحثه
آدیبل این نمایشنامه رو با چندین بازیگر صدا اجرا و ضبط کرده. به اینجور کتاب صوتیها
Dramatized
میگن که درست مثل شنیدن یک نمایش بدون دیدنشه. درسته که توضیحات صحنه رو اینجوری نمیتونی بشنوی، ولی انگار داری نمایش واقعی رو تجربه میکنی. من البته همزمان خوندم و گوش کردم که هیچ کدوم رو از دست ندم. برنامهم اینه که آثار اصلی ایبسن رو به ترتیب بخونم و جلو برم
۱۴۰۲/۸/۸
کانال تلگرام ریویوها و دانلود کتابها و صوتیشون
Maede's Books
December 31, 2024
The “doll’s house” in which a middle-class Norwegian wife lives a prosperous middle-class life – the life that all women of her time and station are supposed to want, aspire toward, and be content with – is broken up and torn down in Norwegian dramatist Henrik Ibsen’s 1879 play Et dukkehjem (A Doll’s House). This play – one of the most widely performed plays ever written – occasioned great controversy from the time of its first performance in Copenhagen; and while Ibsen claimed that he had no intention of writing a feminist play, its meditations on female empowerment and women’s self-actualization are just as relevant in the #MeToo era as they were in a time when women in Norway could not even vote (women’s right to vote was not recognized in Norway until 1913).
Ibsen, born in the Telemark region of Norway in 1828, underwent many times of change on his way to being the second-most performed playwright in the world after Shakespeare. While some of his earlier plays, like The Vikings at Helgoland (1858) or Peer Gynt (1867), engaged themes of classical Scandinavian history or incorporated fantastic elements, he gained his greatest fame by writing uncompromisingly realistic plays set in the middle-class, “respectable” Norway of his own time. Fearlessly, Ibsen took on subject matter that a lot of “respectable” people did not want to hear about. And perhaps part of why A Doll’s House caused such controversy, and struck such a chord, was that it expressed difficult truths about the times in which it was written.
It is Christmastime in an unnamed Norwegian town, and on the surface all is calm, all is bright, in the Helmer household. Torvald Helmer, a bank manager, is receiving a raise, and Nora exults at knowing of the good money that Helmer will be making; but Helmer pours cold water on Nora’s jubilation by reminding her that his new salary will begin “after the New Year”, and adds that “it will be a whole quarter before the salary is due.” For good measure, and to emphasize Nora’s dependence on him, Helmer further says that “Suppose, now, that I borrowed fifty pounds today, and you spent it all in the Christmas week, and then on New Year’s Eve a slate fell on my head and killed me…” Here, as throughout the play, New Year’s Eve represents the possibility, and the menace, of one’s life moving from one state to another.
Helmer is in the habit of delivering sententious little lectures to Nora, as when he tells her about his principles of “No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt.” He adds, seeing Nora’s response to his declaration of principles, that “my little skylark must not droop her wings. What is this! Is my little squirrel out of temper?” Helmer treats Nora like a child, and speaks to her as if she were a child, before giving her money – an act that reminds Nora, and the reader, of Nora’s dependence on Helmer. And then there’s the way he regularly gets after Nora about whether she has “indulged” in sweets. Is he worried about prospective dental bills? Or does he fear that Nora might put on weight and become less sexually attractive to him? Either way, his behaviour toward her is appalling.
Nora is visited by her widowed friend, Mrs. Christine Linde. As Mrs. Linde expresses her sense that Nora has been sheltered from the sort of serious life realities that Mrs. Linde has had to face, Nora expresses a degree of resentment: “You are just like all the others. They all think that I am incapable of anything really serious”.
Nora reveals to Mrs. Linde that, when she and Helmer made a trip to Italy for the recovery of Helmer’s health, Nora did not – as Mrs. Linde and others had thought – get the money from her father. Nora tells Mrs. Linde, rather, that she had suggested that Helmer take out a loan to finance the trip; in response, as Nora reports, Helmer “said I was thoughtless, and that it was his duty as my husband not to indulge me in my whims and caprices – as I believe he called them.” Therefore, Nora arranged for a loan for the trip on her own – and has never told Helmer about it. She rationalizes that it was right for her to do so, because of “how painful and humiliating it would be for Helmer, with his manly independence, to know that he owed me anything! It would upset our mutual relations altogether; our beautiful happy home would no longer be what it is now.” Nora has been repaying the loan by taking little bits and pieces out of the allowance that Helmer gives her.
Mrs. Linde, it turns out, has come to the city because her late husband left her nothing; she hopes to secure a position at Helmer’s bank. Nora engages to help Mrs. Linde with this endeavour. But it turns out that Mrs. Linde’s gaining of the position will cause a bank employee, Krogstad, to lose his position – and Krogstad knows of the ethical shortcuts that Nora took in order to secure the funds needed for the trip from Norway to Italy. Krogstad, who was guilty of his own ethical shortcomings in the past, and sees that he may lose his position at the bank so that Mrs. Linde can gain one, tells Nora that “You will be so kind as to see that I am allowed to keep my subordinate position in the Bank”, and adds that “it is Christmas Eve. It will depend on yourself what sort of a Christmas you will spend.” Krogstad threatens to reveal to Helmer the secret of how Nora obtained the funds for the Helmers’ trip to Italy.
Krogstad is, for me, one of the most interesting characters in A Doll’s House. He is an antagonist, but one whose motivations are believable. Because of an indiscretion from his past, his options have always been limited; and he is a father, with sons who are coming into manhood, and he is determined to provide for them. Ibsen’s realist ethic, in which all characters have both virtues and flaws, along with understandable motivations, is very much on display here.
Nora’s fear of exposure by Krogstad casts a shadow over the Christmastime celebrations that are central to the play. Her attempts to persuade Helmer not to dismiss Krogstad only provoke him to make the dismissal official and immediate. The theme of the past having a corrosive influence on the present is reinforced through the character of Doctor Rank, a man who suffers (it is strongly implied) from a congenital case of venereal disease, passed on to him at his birth by his philandering father.
Doctor Rank tells Nora that “I am the most wretched of my patients, Mrs. Helmer. Lately I have been taking stock of my internal economy. Bankrupt! Probably within a month I shall lie rotting in the church-yard” (p. 108). He adds that “Helmer’s refined nature gives him an unconquerable disgust of everything that is ugly; I won’t have him in my sick-room” (p. 108). Here, as elsewhere, Ibsen scatters clues that alpha-male Helmer is not nearly so strong as he might want all the people around him – and particularly Nora – to think.
For a time, it seems that Nora may ask Doctor Rank for the money to pay off Krogstad, as demonstrated in an oddly flirtatious little conversation that the two. But the conversation takes an unproductive turn, and the reader or playgoer sees what Nora has come to understand: that she cannot look to a man, any man, to extricate her from her dilemma. She is going to have to solve this problem on her own.
The final scenes of A Doll’s House reveals a number of surprises. It turns out that Nils Krogstad and Christine Linde have a history together; Krogstad states bitterly that Christine broke off their prior romantic relationship as an example of how “a heartless woman jilts a man when a more lucrative chance comes up”, but Christine asks Krogstad to understand that “I had a helpless mother and two little brothers. We couldn’t wait for you, Nils; your prospects seemed hopeless then” (pp. 151-52). In the world of this play, a woman has little social capital aside from the ability to offer herself in marriage to a financially stable man.
Krogstad has already written a letter telling Helmer how Nora got the money for the trip by unethical and even illegal means, and has placed it in the Helmer family mailbox (to which only Helmer has the key). Much suspense and situational irony are generated by Nora’s increasingly frantic efforts to delay Helmer’s opening of the mailbox and reading of Krogstad’s letter.
Inevitably, of course, Helmer does open the mailbox and read Krogstad's letter; and when he does so, his denunciation of Nora is bitter and personal. He laments that “I must sink to such miserable depths because of a thoughtless woman!” (p. 185), and makes clear that he intends to reduce Nora to a state of virtual house arrest:
"And as for you and me, it must appear as if everything between us were as before – but naturally only in the eyes of the world. You will still remain in my house; that is a matter of course. But I shall not allow you to bring up the children; I dare not trust them to you. To think that I should be obliged to say so to one whom I have loved so dearly, and whom I still – No, that is all over. From this moment, happiness is not the question; all that concerns us is to save the remains, the fragments, the appearance…" (p. 187)
A reprieve of the ruin that Helmer saw before him causes him to call out, “Nora, I am saved!” – not we, but I. But then we see a new Nora, speaking to her husband in new tones of seriousness and saying, “We have been married now eight years. Does it not occur to you that this is the first time we two, you and I, husband and wife, have had a serious conversation?” (p. 193)
It is a powerful moment, an emotional and relational settling of accounts. When Helmer protests that he loves Nora, she replies that “You have never loved me. You have only thought it pleasant to be in love with me” (p. 195). She looks back at her upbringing, at her father who “called me his doll-child, and he played with me just as I used to play with my dolls”, and suggests that Helmer, too, has regarded and treated her as an object, a plaything, not a person:
"I mean that I was simply transferred from papa’s hands into yours. You arranged everything according to your own taste, and so I got the same tastes as you – or else I pretended to, I am really not quite sure which – I think sometimes the one and sometimes the other. When I look back on it, it seems to me as if I had been living here like a poor woman – just from hand to mouth. I have existed merely to perform tricks for you, Torvald. But you would have it so. You and papa have committed a great sin against me. It is your fault that I have made nothing of my life." (p. 196)
Here, Ibsen brings up a possibility that scandalized many theatregoers of conservative, proper 19th-century Norway – that Nora may leave Helmer and her children. “For a woman to leave her children?” one can hear some oh-so-offended citizens of Oslo saying. “It simply isn’t done!” But Ibsen was dedicated to his realist aesthetic – to using the medium of drama to show how, in real life, the things that “simply aren’t done!” in fact are done, all the time.
One line I think might stand out in particular, for many women viewers or readers of the play, comes when Helmer, trying to rescue the tatters of his marriage, protests that he would bear sorrow or want for Nora, and then adds, “But no man would sacrifice his honour for the one he loves.” Nora’s simple, eloquent reply cannot be contradicted or gainsaid: “It is a thing hundreds of thousands of women have done” (p. 207).
I re-read A Doll’s House on a visit to Oslo. I saw the statue of Ibsen outside the city’s National Theatre where many of his plays had their premiere. By happy coincidence, one of the Norwegian television networks happened to be showing the 1973 film version with Jane Fonda as Nora, David Warner as Helmer, Trevor Howard as Dr. Rank, and Edward Fox as Krogstad. To read and see A Doll’s House while sojourning in Ibsen’s cold northern homeland was a great experience. This is truly one of the most important plays ever written.
Ibsen, born in the Telemark region of Norway in 1828, underwent many times of change on his way to being the second-most performed playwright in the world after Shakespeare. While some of his earlier plays, like The Vikings at Helgoland (1858) or Peer Gynt (1867), engaged themes of classical Scandinavian history or incorporated fantastic elements, he gained his greatest fame by writing uncompromisingly realistic plays set in the middle-class, “respectable” Norway of his own time. Fearlessly, Ibsen took on subject matter that a lot of “respectable” people did not want to hear about. And perhaps part of why A Doll’s House caused such controversy, and struck such a chord, was that it expressed difficult truths about the times in which it was written.
It is Christmastime in an unnamed Norwegian town, and on the surface all is calm, all is bright, in the Helmer household. Torvald Helmer, a bank manager, is receiving a raise, and Nora exults at knowing of the good money that Helmer will be making; but Helmer pours cold water on Nora’s jubilation by reminding her that his new salary will begin “after the New Year”, and adds that “it will be a whole quarter before the salary is due.” For good measure, and to emphasize Nora’s dependence on him, Helmer further says that “Suppose, now, that I borrowed fifty pounds today, and you spent it all in the Christmas week, and then on New Year’s Eve a slate fell on my head and killed me…” Here, as throughout the play, New Year’s Eve represents the possibility, and the menace, of one’s life moving from one state to another.
Helmer is in the habit of delivering sententious little lectures to Nora, as when he tells her about his principles of “No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt.” He adds, seeing Nora’s response to his declaration of principles, that “my little skylark must not droop her wings. What is this! Is my little squirrel out of temper?” Helmer treats Nora like a child, and speaks to her as if she were a child, before giving her money – an act that reminds Nora, and the reader, of Nora’s dependence on Helmer. And then there’s the way he regularly gets after Nora about whether she has “indulged” in sweets. Is he worried about prospective dental bills? Or does he fear that Nora might put on weight and become less sexually attractive to him? Either way, his behaviour toward her is appalling.
Nora is visited by her widowed friend, Mrs. Christine Linde. As Mrs. Linde expresses her sense that Nora has been sheltered from the sort of serious life realities that Mrs. Linde has had to face, Nora expresses a degree of resentment: “You are just like all the others. They all think that I am incapable of anything really serious”.
Nora reveals to Mrs. Linde that, when she and Helmer made a trip to Italy for the recovery of Helmer’s health, Nora did not – as Mrs. Linde and others had thought – get the money from her father. Nora tells Mrs. Linde, rather, that she had suggested that Helmer take out a loan to finance the trip; in response, as Nora reports, Helmer “said I was thoughtless, and that it was his duty as my husband not to indulge me in my whims and caprices – as I believe he called them.” Therefore, Nora arranged for a loan for the trip on her own – and has never told Helmer about it. She rationalizes that it was right for her to do so, because of “how painful and humiliating it would be for Helmer, with his manly independence, to know that he owed me anything! It would upset our mutual relations altogether; our beautiful happy home would no longer be what it is now.” Nora has been repaying the loan by taking little bits and pieces out of the allowance that Helmer gives her.
Mrs. Linde, it turns out, has come to the city because her late husband left her nothing; she hopes to secure a position at Helmer’s bank. Nora engages to help Mrs. Linde with this endeavour. But it turns out that Mrs. Linde’s gaining of the position will cause a bank employee, Krogstad, to lose his position – and Krogstad knows of the ethical shortcuts that Nora took in order to secure the funds needed for the trip from Norway to Italy. Krogstad, who was guilty of his own ethical shortcomings in the past, and sees that he may lose his position at the bank so that Mrs. Linde can gain one, tells Nora that “You will be so kind as to see that I am allowed to keep my subordinate position in the Bank”, and adds that “it is Christmas Eve. It will depend on yourself what sort of a Christmas you will spend.” Krogstad threatens to reveal to Helmer the secret of how Nora obtained the funds for the Helmers’ trip to Italy.
Krogstad is, for me, one of the most interesting characters in A Doll’s House. He is an antagonist, but one whose motivations are believable. Because of an indiscretion from his past, his options have always been limited; and he is a father, with sons who are coming into manhood, and he is determined to provide for them. Ibsen’s realist ethic, in which all characters have both virtues and flaws, along with understandable motivations, is very much on display here.
Nora’s fear of exposure by Krogstad casts a shadow over the Christmastime celebrations that are central to the play. Her attempts to persuade Helmer not to dismiss Krogstad only provoke him to make the dismissal official and immediate. The theme of the past having a corrosive influence on the present is reinforced through the character of Doctor Rank, a man who suffers (it is strongly implied) from a congenital case of venereal disease, passed on to him at his birth by his philandering father.
Doctor Rank tells Nora that “I am the most wretched of my patients, Mrs. Helmer. Lately I have been taking stock of my internal economy. Bankrupt! Probably within a month I shall lie rotting in the church-yard” (p. 108). He adds that “Helmer’s refined nature gives him an unconquerable disgust of everything that is ugly; I won’t have him in my sick-room” (p. 108). Here, as elsewhere, Ibsen scatters clues that alpha-male Helmer is not nearly so strong as he might want all the people around him – and particularly Nora – to think.
For a time, it seems that Nora may ask Doctor Rank for the money to pay off Krogstad, as demonstrated in an oddly flirtatious little conversation that the two. But the conversation takes an unproductive turn, and the reader or playgoer sees what Nora has come to understand: that she cannot look to a man, any man, to extricate her from her dilemma. She is going to have to solve this problem on her own.
The final scenes of A Doll’s House reveals a number of surprises. It turns out that Nils Krogstad and Christine Linde have a history together; Krogstad states bitterly that Christine broke off their prior romantic relationship as an example of how “a heartless woman jilts a man when a more lucrative chance comes up”, but Christine asks Krogstad to understand that “I had a helpless mother and two little brothers. We couldn’t wait for you, Nils; your prospects seemed hopeless then” (pp. 151-52). In the world of this play, a woman has little social capital aside from the ability to offer herself in marriage to a financially stable man.
Krogstad has already written a letter telling Helmer how Nora got the money for the trip by unethical and even illegal means, and has placed it in the Helmer family mailbox (to which only Helmer has the key). Much suspense and situational irony are generated by Nora’s increasingly frantic efforts to delay Helmer’s opening of the mailbox and reading of Krogstad’s letter.
Inevitably, of course, Helmer does open the mailbox and read Krogstad's letter; and when he does so, his denunciation of Nora is bitter and personal. He laments that “I must sink to such miserable depths because of a thoughtless woman!” (p. 185), and makes clear that he intends to reduce Nora to a state of virtual house arrest:
"And as for you and me, it must appear as if everything between us were as before – but naturally only in the eyes of the world. You will still remain in my house; that is a matter of course. But I shall not allow you to bring up the children; I dare not trust them to you. To think that I should be obliged to say so to one whom I have loved so dearly, and whom I still – No, that is all over. From this moment, happiness is not the question; all that concerns us is to save the remains, the fragments, the appearance…" (p. 187)
A reprieve of the ruin that Helmer saw before him causes him to call out, “Nora, I am saved!” – not we, but I. But then we see a new Nora, speaking to her husband in new tones of seriousness and saying, “We have been married now eight years. Does it not occur to you that this is the first time we two, you and I, husband and wife, have had a serious conversation?” (p. 193)
It is a powerful moment, an emotional and relational settling of accounts. When Helmer protests that he loves Nora, she replies that “You have never loved me. You have only thought it pleasant to be in love with me” (p. 195). She looks back at her upbringing, at her father who “called me his doll-child, and he played with me just as I used to play with my dolls”, and suggests that Helmer, too, has regarded and treated her as an object, a plaything, not a person:
"I mean that I was simply transferred from papa’s hands into yours. You arranged everything according to your own taste, and so I got the same tastes as you – or else I pretended to, I am really not quite sure which – I think sometimes the one and sometimes the other. When I look back on it, it seems to me as if I had been living here like a poor woman – just from hand to mouth. I have existed merely to perform tricks for you, Torvald. But you would have it so. You and papa have committed a great sin against me. It is your fault that I have made nothing of my life." (p. 196)
Here, Ibsen brings up a possibility that scandalized many theatregoers of conservative, proper 19th-century Norway – that Nora may leave Helmer and her children. “For a woman to leave her children?” one can hear some oh-so-offended citizens of Oslo saying. “It simply isn’t done!” But Ibsen was dedicated to his realist aesthetic – to using the medium of drama to show how, in real life, the things that “simply aren’t done!” in fact are done, all the time.
One line I think might stand out in particular, for many women viewers or readers of the play, comes when Helmer, trying to rescue the tatters of his marriage, protests that he would bear sorrow or want for Nora, and then adds, “But no man would sacrifice his honour for the one he loves.” Nora’s simple, eloquent reply cannot be contradicted or gainsaid: “It is a thing hundreds of thousands of women have done” (p. 207).
I re-read A Doll’s House on a visit to Oslo. I saw the statue of Ibsen outside the city’s National Theatre where many of his plays had their premiere. By happy coincidence, one of the Norwegian television networks happened to be showing the 1973 film version with Jane Fonda as Nora, David Warner as Helmer, Trevor Howard as Dr. Rank, and Edward Fox as Krogstad. To read and see A Doll’s House while sojourning in Ibsen’s cold northern homeland was a great experience. This is truly one of the most important plays ever written.
April 13, 2023
Grandiosa obra de teatro que sin duda representó mucha polémica con su final.
No sabría explicarlo, pero desde que empiezas a leer se siente cierto tono plastificado, falso y demasiado actuado en el comportamiento y palabras del personaje de Nora. Pero mientras más lees descubres el porqué de esa acentuada superficialidad, sumisión y alta complacencia por parte de ella hacia las expectativas de su marido.
El título de la obra está muy bien implementado y la figura de Nora como emblema de libertad, revolución y búsqueda de identidad propia es lo que más me ha gustado. El final se siente tan satisfactorio por dos cosas: la primera porque vio la luz en el siglo XIX, años en los que obviamente fue un escándalo de todo tipo y segundo, porque fue escrito por un hombre, lo cual me parece un caso anómalo.
Eso sí, la manera en que la escena final muestra todo el castigo y los señalamientos de la sociedad, el machismo, la idealización de la mujer y su misma opresión incluso en su hogar está muy bien encaminada y expuesta. Me parece magistral darle ese giro y hacer algo atípico dentro de su tiempo. Sientes la tristeza, la decepción y la renuencia del personaje femenino a aceptar esa realidad y a buscar por sus propios medios (y no el que le han dado hombres como su padre y esposo) la respuesta a su identidad, a su sentir y a sus acciones que han sido mal vistas y juzgadas por la sociedad.
Me ha encantado. Sencillamente el valor que tiene es incalculable y valioso para la época en que se escribió y para los que lo seguirán leyendo todavía en el presente y futuro resultará en una conclusión satisfactoria.
No sabría explicarlo, pero desde que empiezas a leer se siente cierto tono plastificado, falso y demasiado actuado en el comportamiento y palabras del personaje de Nora. Pero mientras más lees descubres el porqué de esa acentuada superficialidad, sumisión y alta complacencia por parte de ella hacia las expectativas de su marido.
El título de la obra está muy bien implementado y la figura de Nora como emblema de libertad, revolución y búsqueda de identidad propia es lo que más me ha gustado. El final se siente tan satisfactorio por dos cosas: la primera porque vio la luz en el siglo XIX, años en los que obviamente fue un escándalo de todo tipo y segundo, porque fue escrito por un hombre, lo cual me parece un caso anómalo.
Eso sí, la manera en que la escena final muestra todo el castigo y los señalamientos de la sociedad, el machismo, la idealización de la mujer y su misma opresión incluso en su hogar está muy bien encaminada y expuesta. Me parece magistral darle ese giro y hacer algo atípico dentro de su tiempo. Sientes la tristeza, la decepción y la renuencia del personaje femenino a aceptar esa realidad y a buscar por sus propios medios (y no el que le han dado hombres como su padre y esposo) la respuesta a su identidad, a su sentir y a sus acciones que han sido mal vistas y juzgadas por la sociedad.
Me ha encantado. Sencillamente el valor que tiene es incalculable y valioso para la época en que se escribió y para los que lo seguirán leyendo todavía en el presente y futuro resultará en una conclusión satisfactoria.
April 5, 2025
HELMER: But this is disgraceful. Is this the way you neglect your most sacred duties?
NORA: What do you consider is my most sacred duty?
HELMER: Do I have to tell you that? Isn't it your duty to your husband and children?
NORA: I have another duty, just as sacred.
HELMER: You can't have. What duty do you mean?
NORA: My duty to myself.
The Doll’s House is an 1879 masterpiece play about Nora Helmer, married to Torvald; Nora is treated, as she herself observes, as her husband’s little pampered doll, infantilized in a way that is painful to observe. He’s “nice” to her, and she likes the positive attention and gifts lavished on her. She participates in her own subjugation in exchange for wealth and ease for eight years, but she comes to see through a crisis that she has no real power in society, and has had no real relationship to him. She is a doll for him as she was a doll for her father, and she is dollifying her children, too, with her husband’s help.
The conclusion, when it was first produced, caused both outrage and cheering, divided largely according to gender, though when you realize that this is 1879, it is amazing. Of course there are many strong women characters in Victorian literature, and there are other key texts in conversation with this play such as “The Awakening” by Kate Chopin, or Ibsen’s own Hedda Gabler, and of course there are many others, but this was a great and controversial moment in world drama. I heard an LA Theater works production and liked hearing (especially) that finish.
A Playmobil “summary” enactment of the play in 9 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztTHN...
NORA: What do you consider is my most sacred duty?
HELMER: Do I have to tell you that? Isn't it your duty to your husband and children?
NORA: I have another duty, just as sacred.
HELMER: You can't have. What duty do you mean?
NORA: My duty to myself.
The Doll’s House is an 1879 masterpiece play about Nora Helmer, married to Torvald; Nora is treated, as she herself observes, as her husband’s little pampered doll, infantilized in a way that is painful to observe. He’s “nice” to her, and she likes the positive attention and gifts lavished on her. She participates in her own subjugation in exchange for wealth and ease for eight years, but she comes to see through a crisis that she has no real power in society, and has had no real relationship to him. She is a doll for him as she was a doll for her father, and she is dollifying her children, too, with her husband’s help.
The conclusion, when it was first produced, caused both outrage and cheering, divided largely according to gender, though when you realize that this is 1879, it is amazing. Of course there are many strong women characters in Victorian literature, and there are other key texts in conversation with this play such as “The Awakening” by Kate Chopin, or Ibsen’s own Hedda Gabler, and of course there are many others, but this was a great and controversial moment in world drama. I heard an LA Theater works production and liked hearing (especially) that finish.
A Playmobil “summary” enactment of the play in 9 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztTHN...
March 14, 2016
The first play I read by Ibsen. I found it quite interesting.
April 2, 2024
[5.0⭐] 𝘾𝙖𝙨𝙖 𝙙𝙚 𝙢𝙪𝙣̃𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙨 es una obra de teatro escrita por Henrik Ibsen en el año 1879. Actualmente, es su obra más famosa y es lectura obligatoria en varios establecimientos educacionales. Cuando esta obra se publicó, llegó a generar mucha controversia ya que hace una fuerte crítica a las normales maritales del siglo XIX. Además, es considerada como la primera obra teatral feminista. Esta pieza teatral revolucionaria es considerada una de las obras más influyentes del teatro moderno debido a su exploración de temas sociales y de género que continúan siendo relevantes en la actualidad.
La historia se centra en Nora Helmer, una joven esposa y madre que aparentemente lleva una vida ideal en la sociedad de la época. Sin embargo, a medida que la historia avanza, se revela que Nora ha estado ocultando un secreto que amenaza con destruir su mundo perfecto y su matrimonio. Nora ha incurrido en una deuda financiera para salvar la vida de su esposo, Torvald, sin que él lo sepa y, cabe destacar, que para aquellos años este hecho era muy controversial ya que las mujeres no tenían poder financiero y no podían tomar decisiones económicas en la familia (mucho menos pedir un préstamo). La llegada de un antiguo conocido, el banquero Nils Krogstad, desencadena una serie de eventos que ponen al descubierto la verdadera naturaleza de la relación de Nora con su esposo, así como la falta de autonomía y libertad que ella experimenta en su matrimonio y en la sociedad en general que hacen ver su insatisfacción y descontento con su marido.
Uno de los aspectos más destacados de esta obra es su profunda exploración de la condición femenina en el siglo XIX y la lucha por la autonomía personal. Nora se enfrenta a las expectativas sociales de su papel como esposa y madre, así como a las limitaciones impuestas por las normas de género de la época. Su personaje, desde la sumisión inicial hasta la toma de conciencia y la búsqueda de independencia, la convierten en un personaje emblemático del feminismo en la literatura. A lo largo de la historia, este personaje irá luchando por su libertad e irá tomando conciencia de su realidad. Es uno de los personajes en el mundo literario que tiene el mayor crecimiento personal.
Además de su relevancia en términos de género, la pieza teatral también explora temas como la moralidad, el matrimonio, el poder y la autoafirmación. La obra desafía las convenciones sociales y cuestiona lo que significa ser una esposa, una madre y una mujer en la sociedad patriarcal de la época. Deja en evidencia que la mujer es solamente un objeto el cual el hombre posee y hace lo que quiere con ella.
La estructura de la obra, así como el simbolismo de la casa de muñecas del título, añaden profundidad a la exploración de estos temas. La casa de muñecas, que representa el hogar aparentemente perfecto de Nora y Torvald, se convierte en un símbolo de la falsedad y la opresión que caracterizan su matrimonio y su vida en sociedad. En sí, el título es una metáfora que representa la casa donde se desarrolla la mayor parte de la acción. En la superficie, la casa parece ser un hogar perfecto y feliz, como una casa de muñecas en la que todo está en su lugar y parece ideal. Por desgracia, a medida que avanza la trama, se revela que esta apariencia de perfección es solo una fachada. Al igual que una casa de muñecas, donde cada habitación y cada pieza de mobiliario están dispuestas según un diseño preestablecido, la vida de los personajes principales, Nora y Torvald, está estructurada por las expectativas sociales y las normas de género de la época. Además, la metáfora de la casa de muñecas sugiere una falta de autenticidad y de libertad. Las muñecas en una casa de muñecas están destinadas a seguir un guión predefinido, sin capacidad para tomar decisiones por sí mismas. De manera similar, los personajes principales de la obra, especialmente Nora, se encuentran atrapados en roles y expectativas sociales que limitan su libertad y autodeterminación. Así, el título engloba tanto la apariencia engañosa de la perfección como la falta de libertad y autonomía que caracteriza la vida de los personajes principales.
Finalmente, puedo decir que 𝘾𝙖𝙨𝙖 𝙙𝙚 𝙢𝙪𝙣̃𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙨 es una obra que trasciende en las generaciones y que sigue resonando en el público contemporáneo debido a su acertada crítica social, su exploración de temas universales y la complejidad de sus personajes. Ibsen logra crear una obra maestra magistral que sigue siendo relevante y poderosa por más que ya tenga un siglo desde su creación.
La historia se centra en Nora Helmer, una joven esposa y madre que aparentemente lleva una vida ideal en la sociedad de la época. Sin embargo, a medida que la historia avanza, se revela que Nora ha estado ocultando un secreto que amenaza con destruir su mundo perfecto y su matrimonio. Nora ha incurrido en una deuda financiera para salvar la vida de su esposo, Torvald, sin que él lo sepa y, cabe destacar, que para aquellos años este hecho era muy controversial ya que las mujeres no tenían poder financiero y no podían tomar decisiones económicas en la familia (mucho menos pedir un préstamo). La llegada de un antiguo conocido, el banquero Nils Krogstad, desencadena una serie de eventos que ponen al descubierto la verdadera naturaleza de la relación de Nora con su esposo, así como la falta de autonomía y libertad que ella experimenta en su matrimonio y en la sociedad en general que hacen ver su insatisfacción y descontento con su marido.
Uno de los aspectos más destacados de esta obra es su profunda exploración de la condición femenina en el siglo XIX y la lucha por la autonomía personal. Nora se enfrenta a las expectativas sociales de su papel como esposa y madre, así como a las limitaciones impuestas por las normas de género de la época. Su personaje, desde la sumisión inicial hasta la toma de conciencia y la búsqueda de independencia, la convierten en un personaje emblemático del feminismo en la literatura. A lo largo de la historia, este personaje irá luchando por su libertad e irá tomando conciencia de su realidad. Es uno de los personajes en el mundo literario que tiene el mayor crecimiento personal.
Además de su relevancia en términos de género, la pieza teatral también explora temas como la moralidad, el matrimonio, el poder y la autoafirmación. La obra desafía las convenciones sociales y cuestiona lo que significa ser una esposa, una madre y una mujer en la sociedad patriarcal de la época. Deja en evidencia que la mujer es solamente un objeto el cual el hombre posee y hace lo que quiere con ella.
La estructura de la obra, así como el simbolismo de la casa de muñecas del título, añaden profundidad a la exploración de estos temas. La casa de muñecas, que representa el hogar aparentemente perfecto de Nora y Torvald, se convierte en un símbolo de la falsedad y la opresión que caracterizan su matrimonio y su vida en sociedad. En sí, el título es una metáfora que representa la casa donde se desarrolla la mayor parte de la acción. En la superficie, la casa parece ser un hogar perfecto y feliz, como una casa de muñecas en la que todo está en su lugar y parece ideal. Por desgracia, a medida que avanza la trama, se revela que esta apariencia de perfección es solo una fachada. Al igual que una casa de muñecas, donde cada habitación y cada pieza de mobiliario están dispuestas según un diseño preestablecido, la vida de los personajes principales, Nora y Torvald, está estructurada por las expectativas sociales y las normas de género de la época. Además, la metáfora de la casa de muñecas sugiere una falta de autenticidad y de libertad. Las muñecas en una casa de muñecas están destinadas a seguir un guión predefinido, sin capacidad para tomar decisiones por sí mismas. De manera similar, los personajes principales de la obra, especialmente Nora, se encuentran atrapados en roles y expectativas sociales que limitan su libertad y autodeterminación. Así, el título engloba tanto la apariencia engañosa de la perfección como la falta de libertad y autonomía que caracteriza la vida de los personajes principales.
Finalmente, puedo decir que 𝘾𝙖𝙨𝙖 𝙙𝙚 𝙢𝙪𝙣̃𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙨 es una obra que trasciende en las generaciones y que sigue resonando en el público contemporáneo debido a su acertada crítica social, su exploración de temas universales y la complejidad de sus personajes. Ibsen logra crear una obra maestra magistral que sigue siendo relevante y poderosa por más que ya tenga un siglo desde su creación.
December 6, 2015
از بهترین هایی بود که خوندم..داستان پرکشش با شخصیت های کار شده و دوست داشتنی و پیام های پنهان و سوالاتی که مکررا در ذهن ایجاد می کرد و امان از پرده سوم ماجرا
نمایشنامه خانه عروسک از زمان انتشارش، انتقادات زیادی رو برای خودش به ارمغان آورد. ایبسن با این نمایشنامه پیام هایی رو به خواننده منتقل می کنه که تاب آوردنش برای سال 1879 قابل تصور نیست. نورا و هلمر با دو بچه زندگی عاشقانه ای رو می گذرونند. هلمر ظاهرا عاشق نوراست ولی نه ما و نه حتی خود نورا نمی دونیم واکنش مرد داستان بعد از برملا شدن راز نورا چه خواهد بود؟ این راز کار فداکارانه ولی غیرقانونیه که نورا به خاطر حفظ زندگی و سلامتی همسرش انجام داده که در درون بهش مفتخره حتی اگر جامعه این کار رو نادرست بدونه
ایبسن با نقد نقش زن و شوهری در یک زندگی زناشویی اروپایی قرن نوزدهمی، آگاهی ای رو به مردم انتقال داد که تا قبل اون کمتر کسی جرات بیانش رو پیدا کرده بود. ایبسن معتقد بود " یک زن در دنیای مدرن امروزی نمی تونه خودش باشه چرا که دنیای امروز رو مردان هدایت و قضاوت می کنند و بر پایه قوانینی سراسر مردانه بنا شده، قوانینی که کمترین سنخیتی با درون زنان ندارند"
گاهی فکر می کردم میشه داستان رو از حالت فمینیستی خارج کرد و بهش دیدگاهی "انسانی" داد...تصمیم درست چیه؟ تصمیمی مطابق قانون یا تصمیمی برخاسته از دل براساس بشردوستی و انسان دوستی درون؟
چون گاها طی خوندن این نماشنامه به یاد سوالاتی می افتادم که با خوندن "جنایت و مکافات" داستایوسکی در ذهنم ایجاد میشد به راحتی می تونستم به جای این که نورا رو در قالب یک "زن" ببینم اون رو در نقش یک "انسان" ببینم و به این بحث های فمینیستی خاتمه بدم
خانه عروسک نامیست که نورا انتخاب کرده . به عقیده نورا هم پدر، قبل از ازدواج و هم شوهر، بعد از ازدواج اون رو عاشقانه دوست داشتند ولی این عشق تا زمانی تضمینی بود که نورا هم مثل عروسکی گوش به فرمان خواسته ها و انتظارات این دو مرد مهم زندگیش باشه
بد نیست بدونیم که ایده اولیه نمایشنامه از زندگی "لورا کیلر" یکی از دوستان صمیمی هنریک ایبسن گرفته شده....زنی که در عالم واقعیت رازی داشت که بهش مفتخر بود ولی نه جامعه و نه خانواده ش تاییدش نکردند حتی اگر برای حفظ سلامتی همسرش دست به انجامش زده باشه
نمایشنامه خانه عروسک از زمان انتشارش، انتقادات زیادی رو برای خودش به ارمغان آورد. ایبسن با این نمایشنامه پیام هایی رو به خواننده منتقل می کنه که تاب آوردنش برای سال 1879 قابل تصور نیست. نورا و هلمر با دو بچه زندگی عاشقانه ای رو می گذرونند. هلمر ظاهرا عاشق نوراست ولی نه ما و نه حتی خود نورا نمی دونیم واکنش مرد داستان بعد از برملا شدن راز نورا چه خواهد بود؟ این راز کار فداکارانه ولی غیرقانونیه که نورا به خاطر حفظ زندگی و سلامتی همسرش انجام داده که در درون بهش مفتخره حتی اگر جامعه این کار رو نادرست بدونه
ایبسن با نقد نقش زن و شوهری در یک زندگی زناشویی اروپایی قرن نوزدهمی، آگاهی ای رو به مردم انتقال داد که تا قبل اون کمتر کسی جرات بیانش رو پیدا کرده بود. ایبسن معتقد بود " یک زن در دنیای مدرن امروزی نمی تونه خودش باشه چرا که دنیای امروز رو مردان هدایت و قضاوت می کنند و بر پایه قوانینی سراسر مردانه بنا شده، قوانینی که کمترین سنخیتی با درون زنان ندارند"
گاهی فکر می کردم میشه داستان رو از حالت فمینیستی خارج کرد و بهش دیدگاهی "انسانی" داد...تصمیم درست چیه؟ تصمیمی مطابق قانون یا تصمیمی برخاسته از دل براساس بشردوستی و انسان دوستی درون؟
چون گاها طی خوندن این نماشنامه به یاد سوالاتی می افتادم که با خوندن "جنایت و مکافات" داستایوسکی در ذهنم ایجاد میشد به راحتی می تونستم به جای این که نورا رو در قالب یک "زن" ببینم اون رو در نقش یک "انسان" ببینم و به این بحث های فمینیستی خاتمه بدم
خانه عروسک نامیست که نورا انتخاب کرده . به عقیده نورا هم پدر، قبل از ازدواج و هم شوهر، بعد از ازدواج اون رو عاشقانه دوست داشتند ولی این عشق تا زمانی تضمینی بود که نورا هم مثل عروسکی گوش به فرمان خواسته ها و انتظارات این دو مرد مهم زندگیش باشه
بد نیست بدونیم که ایده اولیه نمایشنامه از زندگی "لورا کیلر" یکی از دوستان صمیمی هنریک ایبسن گرفته شده....زنی که در عالم واقعیت رازی داشت که بهش مفتخر بود ولی نه جامعه و نه خانواده ش تاییدش نکردند حتی اگر برای حفظ سلامتی همسرش دست به انجامش زده باشه
April 9, 2024
¡Ese final! Un poderoso mensaje femenino en una época en la que no era nada común.
February 27, 2009
oh, nora. you are much maligned, and yet. i wonder why people find you so much more annoying than emma bovary, etc.
i think there's so much about this play as a historical document that i appreciate and enjoy and love that sometimes i forget it's supposed to be a PLAY.
that said, i don't think nora was *supposed* to be entirely sympathetic. i think her annoying behaviors are supposed to get on your nerves - but somewhere, i think, Ibsen hoped that you would see the way she acts is not simply who she is, but because of how she is brought up, the situation she is in, the situation women are in, the realities of life for a woman in that time.
fascinating, in general, and a true testament to Ibsen that this is even being discussed today.
i kind of adore this play, and not because i am a "feminist".
i think there's so much about this play as a historical document that i appreciate and enjoy and love that sometimes i forget it's supposed to be a PLAY.
that said, i don't think nora was *supposed* to be entirely sympathetic. i think her annoying behaviors are supposed to get on your nerves - but somewhere, i think, Ibsen hoped that you would see the way she acts is not simply who she is, but because of how she is brought up, the situation she is in, the situation women are in, the realities of life for a woman in that time.
fascinating, in general, and a true testament to Ibsen that this is even being discussed today.
i kind of adore this play, and not because i am a "feminist".
October 12, 2023
دلم میسوزه.
برای خیلی از مادرهامون که کل زندگیشونو عروسکِ خانهی پدر و شوهر بودهاند و هیچوقت نخواهند فهمید که چه تواناییهایی داشتن و چه کسی میتوانستند باشند اگر از اوایل دههی ۲۰ سالگیشون به کارِ خانه و بچهداری قفل زده نمیشدند.
دلم بدتر مبسوزه برای کسانی که آگاهانه عروسکِ خانه هستند و راضی و قانع هستند و دنیایی بزرگتر از دستوراتِ شوهر ندارند.
طبق گفتهی استادم این تقریبا اولین نمایشنامهی فمنیستی تاریخه.و با توجه به زمان خودش خیلی هم نوع واضح و سنگینی ازش هم هست.
چی بگم.
اگر تمام زن و مردهای کشورمون این کتاب رو خونده بودن الان رو مریخ بودیم.
کتاب صوتیش فقط ۲ ساعته.حتما وقت بذارید براش🧡
برای خیلی از مادرهامون که کل زندگیشونو عروسکِ خانهی پدر و شوهر بودهاند و هیچوقت نخواهند فهمید که چه تواناییهایی داشتن و چه کسی میتوانستند باشند اگر از اوایل دههی ۲۰ سالگیشون به کارِ خانه و بچهداری قفل زده نمیشدند.
دلم بدتر مبسوزه برای کسانی که آگاهانه عروسکِ خانه هستند و راضی و قانع هستند و دنیایی بزرگتر از دستوراتِ شوهر ندارند.
طبق گفتهی استادم این تقریبا اولین نمایشنامهی فمنیستی تاریخه.و با توجه به زمان خودش خیلی هم نوع واضح و سنگینی ازش هم هست.
چی بگم.
اگر تمام زن و مردهای کشورمون این کتاب رو خونده بودن الان رو مریخ بودیم.
کتاب صوتیش فقط ۲ ساعته.حتما وقت بذارید براش🧡
May 22, 2008
I did not like this book because the main character got on my last nerves. A supposedly intelligent woman pretending to be an idiot to fit her husband's idea of what women are like? And in the end abandons her family. I have no sympathy for characters who punish the innocent children of their idiotic patnerships in order to "find themselves". Then again, I read this in high school so perhaps if I reread it I'll see what all the hoopla surrounding it is about.
No wonder people hate feminists! If this is what passes for feminist fare, then I don't want to be one anymore. Women don't have to abandon their children to free themselves from this patriarchal society. It only makes you look like a bad selfish mother. A real feminist would not marry an idiot for money not love and produce offspring with him only to scar them for life later by abandoning them.
No wonder people hate feminists! If this is what passes for feminist fare, then I don't want to be one anymore. Women don't have to abandon their children to free themselves from this patriarchal society. It only makes you look like a bad selfish mother. A real feminist would not marry an idiot for money not love and produce offspring with him only to scar them for life later by abandoning them.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
January 25, 2023I can’t imagine what it would’ve felt like reading this as a woman in 1879. Must have been so liberating.
December 21, 2018
دوستانِ گرانقدر، نمایشنامهٔ "عروسکخانه" یا "خانهٔ عروسک" به باورِ خیلی از صاحب نظران و منتقدان، به نوعی پرچمدارِ مبارزاتِ فمینیستی و انسان گرایانه بوده است و به راستی تبدیل به پایه هایِ فمینیسم در اورپا شده بود. چراکه شخصیتِ اصلیِ این داستان، زنی شجاع و باهوش است که تابوهایِ اجتماعی و خانوادگی را درهم میشکند و نظامِ بورژوازی با اندیشهٔ بیخردانهٔ مردسالاری را زیرِ پاهایش لگدمال میکند..... این اثر، یکی از غوغا برانگیزترین داستانها و نمایشنامه ها بود که مردم در هر جایی که جمع میشدند، در موردِ آن با یکدیگر گفتگو و حتی بحث و دعوا میکردند.. تا جایی که بر رویِ برخی از کارتهایِ دعوت به میهمانی، نوشته شده بود: لطفاً از صحبت کردن در موردِ "خانهٔ عروسک" خودداری کنید
داستان در موردِ زنی به نامِ <نورا> میباشد که میتوان وی را جوش و خروش و به پاخواستنِ زنی دانست که در اوجِ دلدادگی و شورِ زندگی، به تنهایی و پوچی میرسد.. زنی که برایِ نجاتِ جانِ همسرش که <توروالد هلمر> نام دارد، مجبور میشود تا جعلِ امضا و سند کرده و وامِ بانکی بگیرد و به صورتِ پنهانی قسط هایِ وام را پرداخت کند، به این امید که اگر شوهرش پی به حقیقت ببرد، از این کارِ نورا ستایش کرده و او را قهرمانِ زندگی به شمار آورد... ولی هلمر، نه تنها از نورا سپاسگزاری نمیکند، بلکه او را دروغگو و کلاهبردار خطاب کرده و به او میتازد و به زن بودن و انسانیتِ وی، توهین میکند
دوستانی که مشتاق هستند تا بیشتر در موردِ این داستان بدانند، در زیر چکیده ای از آن را برایشان مینویسم
-----------------------------------------------
نورا و هلمر، در کنارِ هم خوش هستند و سه فرزند به نامهایِ <باب> ، <ایمی> و <ایوار> دارند.. هشت سال از زندگیِ مشترکِ آنها سپری شده است.. هلمر، کارمندی خودخواه و وظیفه شناس است و نورا، زنی زیبا و مادر و همسری مهربان میباشد.. البته این را بگویم که از دیدگاهِ هلمر، همسرش نورا، پرنده ��ی زیبا و آوازخوان است که هوس بازی و خنگی را نیز در وجودش یکجا جمع نموده و درکل عروسکی است که هلمر میتواند با او بازی کند و به این دلیل که او از جنسِ زن است، هلمر هیچگاه او را جدی نگرفته و با او همچون کودکان رفتار میکند... همه چیز عادی میباشد، تا آنکه نزدیک به کریسمس، باخبر میشوند که هلمر به زودی به سِمَتِ ریاستِ بانک، انتخاب خواهد شد... در این اوضاع و احوال، دوستِ قدیمیِ نورا که <کریستین لینده> نام دارد، پس از مرگِ شوهرش و مادرش، کارش را از دست داده و به خانهٔ نورا می آید، تا بلکه هلمر، بتواند کاری برایِ او دست و پا کند.... موضوعِ اصلی داستان که رازِ سر به مهرِ نورا میباشد، از زمانی آغاز میشود که نورا این راز را با کریستین در میان میگذارد
اوضاع از این قرار است که، در همان سالِ نخستِ ازدواجِ هلمر و نورا، هلمر بیمار میشود و پزشکان سفارش میکنند که برایِ درمان، بهتر است به مدتِ یک سال به ایتالیا سفر کنند... هلمر تصور میکند که هزینه هایِ سنگینِ این سفر را پدرِ نورا به عنوانِ ارث، به او داده است، در صورتیکه نورا این هزینه ها را از وامِ بانکی تأمین نموده است.. نورا از وکیلِ بانک به نامِ <کروگستاد> وام گرفته و امضایِ پدرش را به عنوانِ ضامن، جعل کرده و با این سندِ تقلبی، وام گرفته و جانِ هلمر را نجات داده است و ماه به ماه اقساطِ آن را در تمامِ این سالها پرداخت کرده است.. تا آنکه کارهایِ کروگستاد لو میرود و در بانک همه میفهمند که اسناد جعلی بوده است.. رئیسِ بانک هلمر میباشد و به کروگستاد خبر میرسد که او با این رسوایی از کار اخراج میشود... از این رو، کروگستاد نامه ای به هلمر نوشته و در مورد جعلِ امضا کردن و تقلبِ نورا، همه چیز را فاش میکند
خلاصه عزیزانم، کلی ماجراها پیش می آید و سرانجام با تمامِ تلاشی که نورا و دیگران انجام میدهند تا هلمر از حقیقت آگاه نشود، ولی هلمر متوجه میشود که نورا در تمامِ این سالها به او دروغ گفته و آبرویِ کاریِ او در خطر است.. پس بدونِ اندکی وجدان و انسانیت، نورا را که به خاطرِ او دست به اینکار زده است را موردِ سرزنش و نکوهش قرار داده و نمیگذارد نورا بر مسائلِ اخلاقی و آدابِ زندگیِ فرزندانش نظارت داشته باشد و نورا را تبدیل به موجودی نامرئی در خانه میکند.. تا آنکه یکروز ......................................... عزیزانم، بهتر است خودتان این نمایشنامه را خوانده و از سرانجامِ آن آگاه شوید
---------------------------------------------
نورا: مقدس ترین وظیفهٔ من به نظرِ تو چیست؟؟
هلمر: وظیفه ای که در قبالِ شوهر و بچه هایت داری... من که نباید این را به تو بگویم
نورا: من وظیفهٔ دیگری هم دارم که به همین اندازه مقدس است
هلمر: چرند میگویی! کدام وظیفه؟
نورا: وظیفه ای که در قبالِ خود دارم
هلمر: یادت باشد.. تو قبل از هرچیز، یک زن هستی و یک مادر
نورا: من دیگر به این حرف اعتقاد ندارم... من بر این باورم که پیش از هرچیز، من یک انسانم... درست مثلِ تو
---------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ آشنایی با این کتاب، مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
داستان در موردِ زنی به نامِ <نورا> میباشد که میتوان وی را جوش و خروش و به پاخواستنِ زنی دانست که در اوجِ دلدادگی و شورِ زندگی، به تنهایی و پوچی میرسد.. زنی که برایِ نجاتِ جانِ همسرش که <توروالد هلمر> نام دارد، مجبور میشود تا جعلِ امضا و سند کرده و وامِ بانکی بگیرد و به صورتِ پنهانی قسط هایِ وام را پرداخت کند، به این امید که اگر شوهرش پی به حقیقت ببرد، از این کارِ نورا ستایش کرده و او را قهرمانِ زندگی به شمار آورد... ولی هلمر، نه تنها از نورا سپاسگزاری نمیکند، بلکه او را دروغگو و کلاهبردار خطاب کرده و به او میتازد و به زن بودن و انسانیتِ وی، توهین میکند
دوستانی که مشتاق هستند تا بیشتر در موردِ این داستان بدانند، در زیر چکیده ای از آن را برایشان مینویسم
-----------------------------------------------
نورا و هلمر، در کنارِ هم خوش هستند و سه فرزند به نامهایِ <باب> ، <ایمی> و <ایوار> دارند.. هشت سال از زندگیِ مشترکِ آنها سپری شده است.. هلمر، کارمندی خودخواه و وظیفه شناس است و نورا، زنی زیبا و مادر و همسری مهربان میباشد.. البته این را بگویم که از دیدگاهِ هلمر، همسرش نورا، پرنده ��ی زیبا و آوازخوان است که هوس بازی و خنگی را نیز در وجودش یکجا جمع نموده و درکل عروسکی است که هلمر میتواند با او بازی کند و به این دلیل که او از جنسِ زن است، هلمر هیچگاه او را جدی نگرفته و با او همچون کودکان رفتار میکند... همه چیز عادی میباشد، تا آنکه نزدیک به کریسمس، باخبر میشوند که هلمر به زودی به سِمَتِ ریاستِ بانک، انتخاب خواهد شد... در این اوضاع و احوال، دوستِ قدیمیِ نورا که <کریستین لینده> نام دارد، پس از مرگِ شوهرش و مادرش، کارش را از دست داده و به خانهٔ نورا می آید، تا بلکه هلمر، بتواند کاری برایِ او دست و پا کند.... موضوعِ اصلی داستان که رازِ سر به مهرِ نورا میباشد، از زمانی آغاز میشود که نورا این راز را با کریستین در میان میگذارد
اوضاع از این قرار است که، در همان سالِ نخستِ ازدواجِ هلمر و نورا، هلمر بیمار میشود و پزشکان سفارش میکنند که برایِ درمان، بهتر است به مدتِ یک سال به ایتالیا سفر کنند... هلمر تصور میکند که هزینه هایِ سنگینِ این سفر را پدرِ نورا به عنوانِ ارث، به او داده است، در صورتیکه نورا این هزینه ها را از وامِ بانکی تأمین نموده است.. نورا از وکیلِ بانک به نامِ <کروگستاد> وام گرفته و امضایِ پدرش را به عنوانِ ضامن، جعل کرده و با این سندِ تقلبی، وام گرفته و جانِ هلمر را نجات داده است و ماه به ماه اقساطِ آن را در تمامِ این سالها پرداخت کرده است.. تا آنکه کارهایِ کروگستاد لو میرود و در بانک همه میفهمند که اسناد جعلی بوده است.. رئیسِ بانک هلمر میباشد و به کروگستاد خبر میرسد که او با این رسوایی از کار اخراج میشود... از این رو، کروگستاد نامه ای به هلمر نوشته و در مورد جعلِ امضا کردن و تقلبِ نورا، همه چیز را فاش میکند
خلاصه عزیزانم، کلی ماجراها پیش می آید و سرانجام با تمامِ تلاشی که نورا و دیگران انجام میدهند تا هلمر از حقیقت آگاه نشود، ولی هلمر متوجه میشود که نورا در تمامِ این سالها به او دروغ گفته و آبرویِ کاریِ او در خطر است.. پس بدونِ اندکی وجدان و انسانیت، نورا را که به خاطرِ او دست به اینکار زده است را موردِ سرزنش و نکوهش قرار داده و نمیگذارد نورا بر مسائلِ اخلاقی و آدابِ زندگیِ فرزندانش نظارت داشته باشد و نورا را تبدیل به موجودی نامرئی در خانه میکند.. تا آنکه یکروز ......................................... عزیزانم، بهتر است خودتان این نمایشنامه را خوانده و از سرانجامِ آن آگاه شوید
---------------------------------------------
نورا: مقدس ترین وظیفهٔ من به نظرِ تو چیست؟؟
هلمر: وظیفه ای که در قبالِ شوهر و بچه هایت داری... من که نباید این را به تو بگویم
نورا: من وظیفهٔ دیگری هم دارم که به همین اندازه مقدس است
هلمر: چرند میگویی! کدام وظیفه؟
نورا: وظیفه ای که در قبالِ خود دارم
هلمر: یادت باشد.. تو قبل از هرچیز، یک زن هستی و یک مادر
نورا: من دیگر به این حرف اعتقاد ندارم... من بر این باورم که پیش از هرچیز، من یک انسانم... درست مثلِ تو
---------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ آشنایی با این کتاب، مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
Displaying 1 - 30 of 8,573 reviews