What do you think?
Rate this book
A Doll's House, Part 2
In the final scene of Ibsen's 1879 ground-breaking masterwork, Nora Helmer makes the shocking decision to leave her husband and children, and begin a life on her own. This climactic event — when Nora slams the door on everything in her life — instantly propelled world drama into the modern age. In A Doll’s House, Part 2, many years have passed since Nora’s exit. Now, there’s a knock on that same door. Nora has returned. Nora became a successful feminist novelist. The reason for her return is to finalize a divorce from Torvald; she needs him to sign the legal papers. Nora is questioned about what she has been doing — the family thought she might have been dead — and the family and the nursemaid express their recriminations of her
96 pages, Paperback
First published April 3, 2018
53 people are currently reading
635 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 135 reviews
August 14, 2024
نمیدونم چه حسی باید درموردش داشته باشم.
اول بذارید داستانِ خریدنشو بهتون بگم.
دو سه روز پیش غصه داشت منو میخورد برای همین پاشدم بلیط تئاتر خانه عروسک ایبسن رو گرفتم و راهی انقلاب شدم و چون روز خوبی نبود برام آخر نمایش یه اشک حسابی هم ریختم(بماند که وسط تئاتر فهمیدم نقشِ نورا یکی از دوستای دبیرستانمه و کلی خوشحالم کرد!)خلاصه دلم خواست از بوفهی کتابفروشیِ تئاتر، نمایشنامه رو بخرم چون پارسال کتاب صوتیشو گوش داده بودم و میخواستم تو کتابخونم داشته باشمش اما تمومش کرده بود و آقاعه بهم پیشنهاد داد این رو بجاش بگیرم که ادامهی همون عروسکخانهی ایبسنه و منم گفتم چه بهتر واقعا دلم میخواد برای تفریح هم که شده ببینم نویسندهش چه ادامه و آیندهای برای نورا نوشته.
ضد ازدواج بودنِ نویسنده خیلی تو ذوق میزد. نورا و توروالد آدم های عجیب و نامناسبی برای هم بودن و دلیل نمیشه چون این دوتا نتونستن از پسش بربیان پس یعنی کل دنیا نباید ازدواج کنه و کلا از ریشه چیز اشتباهیه. که البته برخلاف این هم چیزایی نوشته بود که خیلی هم خوب نوشته بود بنابراین بنظرم به تعادل رسونده بود نظریه هارو اما کتاب که تموم شد با خودم گفتم اصلا واجب بود همهی اینا؟ یجورایی فقط همون چیزای قدیمی رو زیر و رو کرد و هرکسی شعارهای خودش رو داد و رفت...اما اما، اگر نمایش این یکی رو بذارن با کله میرم و میبینم. در کل جذابه، فرض کردن ادامهش اما خیلی درست یا قشنگ نیست، چون اگر قرار بود ادامهای فرض بشه ایبسن خودش مینوشت و لزوما تو ذهن همه اینطوری پیش نمیره. به شخصه اگر قرار بود ادامهش رو جور دیگهای بنویسم و از نورا یه فمنیست عاقل و موفق بسازم، یه زن قوی تر و منطقی تر میساختم. خیلی حرفای دیگه هم دارم که برای اینکه اسپویل نشه نمینویسم ولی خلاصه بگم تو کتاب قبلی عاشق نورا شدم ولی این یکی منو از نورا متنفر کرد💔اما خب این سلیقه و قلم شخصی این آقا بود که ما انتخاب میکنیم بخونیم و بنظرم برای فان هم که شده بخونیدش تا ببینید نظرتون چیه، یا خوشتون میاد یا نه.
پینوشت: جنابِ نیماژ واقعا غیرقابل تحمله برای ۱۱۰ صفحه نمایشنامه که نصف صفحههاش خالیه و کلمات کوتاه و پشت سر هم نوشته شدن ۱۲۰ تومن قیمت بذارید! خیلی سعی کردم عذاب وجدان نگیرم از مصرف اون همه کاغذِ نصفه نیمه🚶🏻♀️
اول بذارید داستانِ خریدنشو بهتون بگم.
دو سه روز پیش غصه داشت منو میخورد برای همین پاشدم بلیط تئاتر خانه عروسک ایبسن رو گرفتم و راهی انقلاب شدم و چون روز خوبی نبود برام آخر نمایش یه اشک حسابی هم ریختم(بماند که وسط تئاتر فهمیدم نقشِ نورا یکی از دوستای دبیرستانمه و کلی خوشحالم کرد!)خلاصه دلم خواست از بوفهی کتابفروشیِ تئاتر، نمایشنامه رو بخرم چون پارسال کتاب صوتیشو گوش داده بودم و میخواستم تو کتابخونم داشته باشمش اما تمومش کرده بود و آقاعه بهم پیشنهاد داد این رو بجاش بگیرم که ادامهی همون عروسکخانهی ایبسنه و منم گفتم چه بهتر واقعا دلم میخواد برای تفریح هم که شده ببینم نویسندهش چه ادامه و آیندهای برای نورا نوشته.
ضد ازدواج بودنِ نویسنده خیلی تو ذوق میزد. نورا و توروالد آدم های عجیب و نامناسبی برای هم بودن و دلیل نمیشه چون این دوتا نتونستن از پسش بربیان پس یعنی کل دنیا نباید ازدواج کنه و کلا از ریشه چیز اشتباهیه. که البته برخلاف این هم چیزایی نوشته بود که خیلی هم خوب نوشته بود بنابراین بنظرم به تعادل رسونده بود نظریه هارو اما کتاب که تموم شد با خودم گفتم اصلا واجب بود همهی اینا؟ یجورایی فقط همون چیزای قدیمی رو زیر و رو کرد و هرکسی شعارهای خودش رو داد و رفت...اما اما، اگر نمایش این یکی رو بذارن با کله میرم و میبینم. در کل جذابه، فرض کردن ادامهش اما خیلی درست یا قشنگ نیست، چون اگر قرار بود ادامهای فرض بشه ایبسن خودش مینوشت و لزوما تو ذهن همه اینطوری پیش نمیره. به شخصه اگر قرار بود ادامهش رو جور دیگهای بنویسم و از نورا یه فمنیست عاقل و موفق بسازم، یه زن قوی تر و منطقی تر میساختم. خیلی حرفای دیگه هم دارم که برای اینکه اسپویل نشه نمینویسم ولی خلاصه بگم تو کتاب قبلی عاشق نورا شدم ولی این یکی منو از نورا متنفر کرد💔اما خب این سلیقه و قلم شخصی این آقا بود که ما انتخاب میکنیم بخونیم و بنظرم برای فان هم که شده بخونیدش تا ببینید نظرتون چیه، یا خوشتون میاد یا نه.
پینوشت: جنابِ نیماژ واقعا غیرقابل تحمله برای ۱۱۰ صفحه نمایشنامه که نصف صفحههاش خالیه و کلمات کوتاه و پشت سر هم نوشته شدن ۱۲۰ تومن قیمت بذارید! خیلی سعی کردم عذاب وجدان نگیرم از مصرف اون همه کاغذِ نصفه نیمه🚶🏻♀️
April 7, 2019
I don't get it. This is a pseudo-academic debate about the play A Doll's House without any sense of history and without a modern feminist perspective. It's a talky piece that gives us nothing more interesting than an intelligent conversation about A Doll's House in a college classroom. This is purely an intellectual exercise. I didn't find it interesting at all. Its popularity with regional theatres in the 2018-2019 season seems to me chiefly related to the title (which is quite recognizable), its unit set, and its small cast.
March 4, 2021
Good heavens, good heavens...when are contemporary authors going to get out of the habit of writing terrible sequels to great works of literature. Ibsen never wrote a part 2 to A Doll's House so why should someone named Lucas Hnath? This rides on the back of a worthy play like a tick on a dog and adds absolutely nothing to the narrative. If this play hadn't been suggested as something I was obliged to read as part of the slate of books for my book club, I never would have picked it up in the first place. Complete waste of time.
June 7, 2024
2019 Reading
Before writing this, I did something I don't characteristically do: I sifted through Goodreads reviews to learn what people think about Lucas Hnath's A Doll's House Part 2. I have no problem with someone disliking the play, but the justifications range from the grossly oversimplified to the comedically absurd.
One user, for example, claims that Hnath's play lacks a modern feminist message. While Hnath may not produce an entirely new iteration of feminism (something of a big ask, right?), he deftly dramatizes the evolution of feminism from the second to the third wave. Nora aggressively opposes marriage. Early in the play, she suggests that marriage fails because:
We ache for more,
because this ache is in the core of who we are--
but we stomp it out,
and we beat ourselves up
for failing to be something we never were to begin with. (24)
By contrast, Nora's estranged daughter Emmy adopts a less-absolutist position about marriage. She claims:
I want to be held.
I want to be possessed.
I want to be somebody's something--
I can see you cringe when I say what I'm saying.
But that's about you, and it's not about me,
and I'm telling you what I want,
and you may want something different for yourself,
but don't make my wants about your wants (96)
Differing perspectives on marriage fails to encapsulate the breadth and scope of feminism's rich intellectual history, and in that respect, Hnath's depiction is narrow. However, this perspective shift (from mother as a second-wave feminist to daughter as a third-wave feminist) dramatizes the swift and sudden changes that occur in any theoretical system. Plus, Emmy's desire to challenge her mother by celebrating an institution as powerful as marriage, dramatizes Hnath's relationship to a textual institution of sorts, Ibsen's original play.
Part of the joy of A Doll's House Part 2 is Hnath's willingness to play with (i.e., disrupt) Ibsen's original text. Ibsen might express disbelief at the thought of Nora returning to Torvald's home in need of assistance, but this decision shows Hnath commitment to repetition as a guiding aesthetic principle. Strictly speaking, A Doll's House Part 2 is not an adaptation; it's a sequel. And like any successful sequel, A Doll's House Part 2 moves forward by moving backward, in effect, circling and recapitulating many of the themes from Ibsen's play. Therefore, instead of detracting from Nora's triumphant moment at the end of Ibsen's play, Hnath's choice to return Nora not only to Torvald's home but to significant plot points from Ibsen's original, suggests the psychological importance of repetition.
In addition to these repetitive moments (which I content is a feature and not a bug), Hnath addresses one notable contemporary talking point: the waning centrality of white patriarchal figures. Since leaving Torvald, Nora has emerged as a successful writer and feminist. Her most successful work is a narrative retelling of Ibsen's play, a book Torvald read. Torvald discloses this to Nora by saying, "It was hard for me to read," and in response, she says, "it was hard for me to live it" (110; 111). Nora's compelling tale of strength and liberation losses its power because as Torvald sees it, it serves to dramatizes the follies of a misguided man and nothing else. This is not the only moment when Torvald demonstrates his ineptitude, but in contrast to Nora's intellectual and emotional growth, Torvald has remained stagnant. As a way of crystallizing this idea, Hnath ends the play with Nora declaring:
The world didn't change as much as I thought it would,
but I know that some day everything will be different,
and everyone will be free—freer than they are now. (128)
In response, Torvald says, "I can't imagine that" (129). Perhaps there is more to Torvald's final line and perhaps in the hands of a capable actor, an audience might see those subtleties. But like Ibsen's original, A Doll's House Part 2 is about what Nora knows and does not know; what Nora has learned and must continue to learn. Torvald, much to his chagrin I'm sure, simply does not matter.
***
2024 Reading
Rereading this play was so much fun. Thematically speaking, Hnath, like Ibsen before him, emphasizes entanglements (relational, familial, and legal) and relationship entanglements have to our futures. For example, Nora’s adult daughter Emmy recognizes the significance of Nora’s choices to her life despite their 15-year estrangement. She says, “And if you cause a scandal he [Jorgen] won’t be able to marry me. / And there goes my future. / Gone” (94). Hanth understands the relationship futures have to the past. In a sense, moving forward requires looking back. To that end, Hnath explores the potential impossibility of clean breaks. To suggest that one moves forward indicates an acknowledgment of the past; in that sense, futures are always contingent on the pasts they reject. Hnath renders this idea with striking symbolic clarity at the end of the play. Like in Ibsen’s original, Nora “walks out the door,” suggesting the omnipresence of doors (i.e., potential futures linked to the past) and the necessity of traversing them. The repetition, in short, is the point.
Before writing this, I did something I don't characteristically do: I sifted through Goodreads reviews to learn what people think about Lucas Hnath's A Doll's House Part 2. I have no problem with someone disliking the play, but the justifications range from the grossly oversimplified to the comedically absurd.
One user, for example, claims that Hnath's play lacks a modern feminist message. While Hnath may not produce an entirely new iteration of feminism (something of a big ask, right?), he deftly dramatizes the evolution of feminism from the second to the third wave. Nora aggressively opposes marriage. Early in the play, she suggests that marriage fails because:
We ache for more,
because this ache is in the core of who we are--
but we stomp it out,
and we beat ourselves up
for failing to be something we never were to begin with. (24)
By contrast, Nora's estranged daughter Emmy adopts a less-absolutist position about marriage. She claims:
I want to be held.
I want to be possessed.
I want to be somebody's something--
I can see you cringe when I say what I'm saying.
But that's about you, and it's not about me,
and I'm telling you what I want,
and you may want something different for yourself,
but don't make my wants about your wants (96)
Differing perspectives on marriage fails to encapsulate the breadth and scope of feminism's rich intellectual history, and in that respect, Hnath's depiction is narrow. However, this perspective shift (from mother as a second-wave feminist to daughter as a third-wave feminist) dramatizes the swift and sudden changes that occur in any theoretical system. Plus, Emmy's desire to challenge her mother by celebrating an institution as powerful as marriage, dramatizes Hnath's relationship to a textual institution of sorts, Ibsen's original play.
Part of the joy of A Doll's House Part 2 is Hnath's willingness to play with (i.e., disrupt) Ibsen's original text. Ibsen might express disbelief at the thought of Nora returning to Torvald's home in need of assistance, but this decision shows Hnath commitment to repetition as a guiding aesthetic principle. Strictly speaking, A Doll's House Part 2 is not an adaptation; it's a sequel. And like any successful sequel, A Doll's House Part 2 moves forward by moving backward, in effect, circling and recapitulating many of the themes from Ibsen's play. Therefore, instead of detracting from Nora's triumphant moment at the end of Ibsen's play, Hnath's choice to return Nora not only to Torvald's home but to significant plot points from Ibsen's original, suggests the psychological importance of repetition.
In addition to these repetitive moments (which I content is a feature and not a bug), Hnath addresses one notable contemporary talking point: the waning centrality of white patriarchal figures. Since leaving Torvald, Nora has emerged as a successful writer and feminist. Her most successful work is a narrative retelling of Ibsen's play, a book Torvald read. Torvald discloses this to Nora by saying, "It was hard for me to read," and in response, she says, "it was hard for me to live it" (110; 111). Nora's compelling tale of strength and liberation losses its power because as Torvald sees it, it serves to dramatizes the follies of a misguided man and nothing else. This is not the only moment when Torvald demonstrates his ineptitude, but in contrast to Nora's intellectual and emotional growth, Torvald has remained stagnant. As a way of crystallizing this idea, Hnath ends the play with Nora declaring:
The world didn't change as much as I thought it would,
but I know that some day everything will be different,
and everyone will be free—freer than they are now. (128)
In response, Torvald says, "I can't imagine that" (129). Perhaps there is more to Torvald's final line and perhaps in the hands of a capable actor, an audience might see those subtleties. But like Ibsen's original, A Doll's House Part 2 is about what Nora knows and does not know; what Nora has learned and must continue to learn. Torvald, much to his chagrin I'm sure, simply does not matter.
***
2024 Reading
Rereading this play was so much fun. Thematically speaking, Hnath, like Ibsen before him, emphasizes entanglements (relational, familial, and legal) and relationship entanglements have to our futures. For example, Nora’s adult daughter Emmy recognizes the significance of Nora’s choices to her life despite their 15-year estrangement. She says, “And if you cause a scandal he [Jorgen] won’t be able to marry me. / And there goes my future. / Gone” (94). Hanth understands the relationship futures have to the past. In a sense, moving forward requires looking back. To that end, Hnath explores the potential impossibility of clean breaks. To suggest that one moves forward indicates an acknowledgment of the past; in that sense, futures are always contingent on the pasts they reject. Hnath renders this idea with striking symbolic clarity at the end of the play. Like in Ibsen’s original, Nora “walks out the door,” suggesting the omnipresence of doors (i.e., potential futures linked to the past) and the necessity of traversing them. The repetition, in short, is the point.
January 25, 2021
There is no need for this play, but if it’s going to be done it should be done well. This was not. It is insulting to the original work and completely steamrolls the feminist narrative. I do feel that if it were not an addition to A Doll’s House it would be an okay play, but that is really the only positive thing I have to say about it.
February 21, 2022
Lucas Hnath should be ashamed of himself. He's made Nora Helmer,
one of the most iconic characters in stage history, look utterly ludicrous. Also, the use of anachronistic language, mostly in the form of curse words, are asinine attempts for cheap chuckles which I find insulting to whatever intelligence I may have.
Ibsen's A Doll's House is a masterpiece. The play was amazingly ahead of its time. Its perfect ending is profound still today and was absolutely shocking when the play was first published. Part 2 is a paint by numbers sequel to a literary Mona Lisa. Mr. Hnath should try to paint his own masterpiece instead of messing with the great works of others.
one of the most iconic characters in stage history, look utterly ludicrous. Also, the use of anachronistic language, mostly in the form of curse words, are asinine attempts for cheap chuckles which I find insulting to whatever intelligence I may have.
Ibsen's A Doll's House is a masterpiece. The play was amazingly ahead of its time. Its perfect ending is profound still today and was absolutely shocking when the play was first published. Part 2 is a paint by numbers sequel to a literary Mona Lisa. Mr. Hnath should try to paint his own masterpiece instead of messing with the great works of others.
October 2, 2020
"عشق با ازدواج فرق داره. ازدواج یه قرارداد الزام آوره. و عشق... عشق متضاد قرارداده. عشق باید آزاد باشه و آزاد هم هست تا لحظه ای که ازدواج کنی."
نمایشنامه عروسک خانه هنریک ایبسن رو نخوندم اما داستان این نمایشنامه (خانه عروسک قسمت ۲) با گذشت ۱۵ سال از کوبیده شدن در بعد از ترک نورا تو متن اصلی شروع می شه. نورا از همون در دوباره وارد خونه می شه تا راجع به دغدغه و مشکلات جدیدش با همسر سابقش، توروالد صحبت کنه.
ترجمه حمیده رستمی ساده و روون بود. فکر می کنم با خوندن نمایشنامه ایبسن بشه مفصل تر نظر داد اما در همین حد، صحبت های این نمایشنامه که تقریبا ۱۵۰ سال بعد از متن اولیه نوشته شده پیرامون جنسیت، نقش ها و انتظاراتی که جامعه از افراد داره و طبیعتا استقلال زنان هست.
خوندنش لذت بخش بود و دوست دارم بعدا اثر ایبسن رو هم بخونم.
"- مردها خانواده هاشون رو ترک می کنن... همیشه اینجوریه... مادر می مونه ولی پدر نه. حالا، اگه یه زن... این کار رو بکنه... یه هیولاست و بچه ها خراب می شن...
- تا جایی که می دونم هر دو تاش بده"
نمایشنامه عروسک خانه هنریک ایبسن رو نخوندم اما داستان این نمایشنامه (خانه عروسک قسمت ۲) با گذشت ۱۵ سال از کوبیده شدن در بعد از ترک نورا تو متن اصلی شروع می شه. نورا از همون در دوباره وارد خونه می شه تا راجع به دغدغه و مشکلات جدیدش با همسر سابقش، توروالد صحبت کنه.
ترجمه حمیده رستمی ساده و روون بود. فکر می کنم با خوندن نمایشنامه ایبسن بشه مفصل تر نظر داد اما در همین حد، صحبت های این نمایشنامه که تقریبا ۱۵۰ سال بعد از متن اولیه نوشته شده پیرامون جنسیت، نقش ها و انتظاراتی که جامعه از افراد داره و طبیعتا استقلال زنان هست.
خوندنش لذت بخش بود و دوست دارم بعدا اثر ایبسن رو هم بخونم.
"- مردها خانواده هاشون رو ترک می کنن... همیشه اینجوریه... مادر می مونه ولی پدر نه. حالا، اگه یه زن... این کار رو بکنه... یه هیولاست و بچه ها خراب می شن...
- تا جایی که می دونم هر دو تاش بده"
December 3, 2024
Honestly, I'm unsure how to feel; the second volume of "A Doll's House," titled "Nora's Return," was published 150 years after the first volume, while in the story itself, 15 years have passed. It intrigued me enough to read to the end, yet I was left with a sense of emptiness, wondering what this play truly offered. What message was it trying to convey to the audience? The characters showed no significant change or development.
I found the words of Emmy, the young daughter of the family, interesting when she referred to Nora: "You encourage women to leave their marriages and save themselves. It's like telling passengers on a sinking ship to abandon it as soon as possible, but offering no guidance on how to reach the shore." Nora's character in the second play disappointed me. Pursuing independence and personal growth is one thing, but thinking everyone owes you and adopting selfishness is quite another.
Parents who always portray marriage as entirely good and pure, forcing their children into it, and individuals like Nora, who as a parent vehemently oppose marriage and see it as a complete disaster for every woman, seem equally ignorant and disheartening to me.
ترجمهی حمیدهرستمیبالان از انتشارات شبخیز رو خوندم که خیلی روان و جذاب بود و راحت باهاش صحنه نمایش رو میتونی تصور کنی
I found the words of Emmy, the young daughter of the family, interesting when she referred to Nora: "You encourage women to leave their marriages and save themselves. It's like telling passengers on a sinking ship to abandon it as soon as possible, but offering no guidance on how to reach the shore." Nora's character in the second play disappointed me. Pursuing independence and personal growth is one thing, but thinking everyone owes you and adopting selfishness is quite another.
Parents who always portray marriage as entirely good and pure, forcing their children into it, and individuals like Nora, who as a parent vehemently oppose marriage and see it as a complete disaster for every woman, seem equally ignorant and disheartening to me.
ترجمهی حمیدهرستمیبالان از انتشارات شبخیز رو خوندم که خیلی روان و جذاب بود و راحت باهاش صحنه نمایش رو میتونی تصور کنی
June 26, 2024
Happy Birthday, to me! Reading A Doll's House, Part 2 was a great gift to myself. Lucas Hnath's take on Nora's stories 15 years after Ibsen's A Doll's House, is insightful, heartfelt and funny. It is a great read!
June 2024: Re-read this immediately after re-reading Ibsen's A Doll's House. Reading these plays back to back, really highlights Hnath's brilliance in capturing the characters that Ibsen so beautifully created. Part 2 takes place 15 years after the end of Ibsen's original; the language is updated, but unfortunately, the circumstances that caused Nora to leave haven't. Hnath's look at marriage, misogyny and societal "norms" is as biting as Ibsen's and as insightful as it it heartbreaking. And to top it all off, he manages to find humor in the situation. A brilliant read on it's own a stunning piece when read in conjunction with Ibsen's original.
June 2024: Re-read this immediately after re-reading Ibsen's A Doll's House. Reading these plays back to back, really highlights Hnath's brilliance in capturing the characters that Ibsen so beautifully created. Part 2 takes place 15 years after the end of Ibsen's original; the language is updated, but unfortunately, the circumstances that caused Nora to leave haven't. Hnath's look at marriage, misogyny and societal "norms" is as biting as Ibsen's and as insightful as it it heartbreaking. And to top it all off, he manages to find humor in the situation. A brilliant read on it's own a stunning piece when read in conjunction with Ibsen's original.
February 18, 2020
What an awful mess. It was about as deep and stirring as a thimble of water, and so not true to the characters at all. Anna Marie siding with Torvald and swearing like a sailor? All the swearing, in fact--this was still the early to mid-1900s! Nora is awful, Torvald is pathetic, and Emmy is just not necessary. If I were Ibsen, I would be (in the words of Torvald in this travesty) "pissed." There was no new insights, and it read like it was written by an angst-ridden teen. Just awful
November 23, 2025
Quite an interesting idea, though not sure if that was really necessary in the first place.
July 3, 2020
"It's just so hard ... all of this. Being with people."
What an absolutely audacious thing to do, creating a sequel to a classic of world literature nearly 150 years later. One of the more memorable anecdotes related by Dr. Rose, the dearly departed teacher from whom I took AP English, involved a game she played with a dying colleague in which they took turns generating comical final lines to famous literary works. "I want my mommy," cries Oedipus as the curtain falls, for example. Dr. Rose's contribution for a new ending to "A Doll's House" gave Nora this choice bit: "I'm leaving you, and I'm sending you my sister Laura!" In August Strindberg's "The Father," Laura is a mother at war with husband over conflicting visions for their daughter's future, and she employs all manner of manipulation and gaslighting to win. She's as notorious in the annals of 19th century Scandinavian drama for her tactics in waging war against inequities in the institution of marriage as Nora is for simply walking out the door. These two characters are the inspiration for sisters Nora and Laura in my screenplay "Nowhere to Stand" FYI - it's unproduced, so if you encounter anything with that title on IMDB, in the words of k.d. lang (whose song of the same name was another inspiration for that screenplay) "it ain't me."
Anyway, this play doesn't end up fulfilling the promise of crossing the beams of Scandinavian fictional universes from Dr. Rose's parlor game. Instead, it picks up 15 years after the door slam heard round the world, with Nora returning to the Helmer household on a mission. It is a new problem play, further exploring patriarchal inequities in marriage law and featuring debates that wouldn't be out of place in an AP English classroom over why Nora did what she did in Ibsen's original play. I liked it, and would like to see both plays performed back-to-back with the same cast someday. The quote above, spoken by Torvald, pulls on a theme quite close to Sartre's "hell is other people" classic "No Exit," and deftly encapsulates the central failure at the heart of Torvald and Nora's (and lots of couples') marriage: the inability and/or unwillingness to grant one's partner all the depth of perspective one accords oneself, to attempt to reach intersubjectivity. It's not that other people are essentially unknowable; it just takes a hell of a lot of work for puny humans to engage in.
What an absolutely audacious thing to do, creating a sequel to a classic of world literature nearly 150 years later. One of the more memorable anecdotes related by Dr. Rose, the dearly departed teacher from whom I took AP English, involved a game she played with a dying colleague in which they took turns generating comical final lines to famous literary works. "I want my mommy," cries Oedipus as the curtain falls, for example. Dr. Rose's contribution for a new ending to "A Doll's House" gave Nora this choice bit: "I'm leaving you, and I'm sending you my sister Laura!" In August Strindberg's "The Father," Laura is a mother at war with husband over conflicting visions for their daughter's future, and she employs all manner of manipulation and gaslighting to win. She's as notorious in the annals of 19th century Scandinavian drama for her tactics in waging war against inequities in the institution of marriage as Nora is for simply walking out the door. These two characters are the inspiration for sisters Nora and Laura in my screenplay "Nowhere to Stand" FYI - it's unproduced, so if you encounter anything with that title on IMDB, in the words of k.d. lang (whose song of the same name was another inspiration for that screenplay) "it ain't me."
Anyway, this play doesn't end up fulfilling the promise of crossing the beams of Scandinavian fictional universes from Dr. Rose's parlor game. Instead, it picks up 15 years after the door slam heard round the world, with Nora returning to the Helmer household on a mission. It is a new problem play, further exploring patriarchal inequities in marriage law and featuring debates that wouldn't be out of place in an AP English classroom over why Nora did what she did in Ibsen's original play. I liked it, and would like to see both plays performed back-to-back with the same cast someday. The quote above, spoken by Torvald, pulls on a theme quite close to Sartre's "hell is other people" classic "No Exit," and deftly encapsulates the central failure at the heart of Torvald and Nora's (and lots of couples') marriage: the inability and/or unwillingness to grant one's partner all the depth of perspective one accords oneself, to attempt to reach intersubjectivity. It's not that other people are essentially unknowable; it just takes a hell of a lot of work for puny humans to engage in.
October 24, 2019
Not all plays are meant to be enjoyed, and sometimes it's the discomfort that makes great works so powerful. However, Lucas Hnath's play is both unenjoyable and devoid of greater meaning. The dialogue is flat and peppered with profanities and modern vernacular. It doesn't work in a play that is set in roughly 1895 in a middle-class Norwegian home. The timeline makes no sense (If it's 15 years after Nora left, her kids should be 17ish-early 20s, not fully-grown to middle age. Nora herself shouldn't be more than about age 45). Getting the details wrong feels sloppy.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the play is how Hnath writes Nora. In the groundbreaking original, Nora begins as a scared, flitting, follow-the rules housewife into someone who faces an uncomfortable truth, and breaks convention to stand up for herself.
Hnath's Nora is back to superficial and uncertain, forced to listen as the other characters take turns telling her how awful her choices and ideas are. Despite his gender, Ibsen wrote a female character for the ages. Hnath's play, purporting to have a discussion about the hard work of marriage vs. the need for self-actualization, instead comes across as a lecture in favor "sticking it out" in a bad marriage. I don't think he understands who Nora is or what truly motivated her to leave. He paints Nora's actions as solely selfish and makes Torvald the innocent, wronged victim. Minus the modern language, this could have been written as a critical response in the 1880s, not today. Unneccesary.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the play is how Hnath writes Nora. In the groundbreaking original, Nora begins as a scared, flitting, follow-the rules housewife into someone who faces an uncomfortable truth, and breaks convention to stand up for herself.
Hnath's Nora is back to superficial and uncertain, forced to listen as the other characters take turns telling her how awful her choices and ideas are. Despite his gender, Ibsen wrote a female character for the ages. Hnath's play, purporting to have a discussion about the hard work of marriage vs. the need for self-actualization, instead comes across as a lecture in favor "sticking it out" in a bad marriage. I don't think he understands who Nora is or what truly motivated her to leave. He paints Nora's actions as solely selfish and makes Torvald the innocent, wronged victim. Minus the modern language, this could have been written as a critical response in the 1880s, not today. Unneccesary.
April 24, 2021
Does this book make sense? No.
Does this book mimic the original doll's house style? No. Did it have to? No- but it attempted to, poorly.
Does this books' main plot point make sense? Nope!
Does this book fit the context of the time period? No
Do the character traits assigned to the maid, Torvald, and Nora carry over into this book? You guessed it - nope. This book might as well have been about three entirely different people.
Does this book continue the symbolism of the act of forgery in a meaningful way? No! And it even had the perfect opportunity to make a commentary on unknowing and knowing disingenuity but chose not to.
My apologies to anyone who thought this would be a good continuation of ADH. There were so many opportunities to go right with this book and somehow Hnath missed every potential mark. Really could use a zero star option.
Does this book mimic the original doll's house style? No. Did it have to? No- but it attempted to, poorly.
Does this books' main plot point make sense? Nope!
Does this book fit the context of the time period? No
Do the character traits assigned to the maid, Torvald, and Nora carry over into this book? You guessed it - nope. This book might as well have been about three entirely different people.
Does this book continue the symbolism of the act of forgery in a meaningful way? No! And it even had the perfect opportunity to make a commentary on unknowing and knowing disingenuity but chose not to.
My apologies to anyone who thought this would be a good continuation of ADH. There were so many opportunities to go right with this book and somehow Hnath missed every potential mark. Really could use a zero star option.
August 2, 2017
It's a clever update of Ibsen's "A Doll's House." It's a bit expository, and it's a pity no one steered the playwright away from his (deliberate) anachronisms. These are largely composed of common expletives ("shit," "fuck" - words of today's vernacular), though the play takes place, ostensibly, only 15 years after Nora left her husband and children. If the original play takes place in, approximately 1879, that means this sequel should reflect the language of about 1904. Middle class folks simply didn't erupt in this kind of language then. If, however, the playwright wanted TODAY's audiences to resonate with his story, then he probably succeeded. After all, the play is enjoying a long run. It continues to draw crowds.
December 8, 2021
I did not feel that the execution of this play exceeded the cleverness of the concept. Fifteen years after Nora leaves Torvald, she returns. Great idea! However, after the first 30 or so pages, and the novelty of the idea wears off once everyone has expressed their surprise and hostility, the play treads water until the end. It was actually surprising to me how redundant the exchanges became, with Nora, ad nauseum, having to rationalize her departure in response to the other characters' resentment of her abandoning them. What would have at least enlivened some of this is dialogue that had some distinction - but Hnath settles for a flat naturalism that not only aids in dragging the story but is also surprisingly bereft of humor.
June 9, 2024
Lucas Hnath writes a powerful sequel, challenging the original play and people's concepts of marriage. Hnath also demonstrates there are several sides to every story.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 19, 2023
There's a couple of major things I find interesting with this play. It's a follow up to Ibsen's famous social problem play A Doll's House, and Nora has returned fifteen years after leaving at the end of Ibsen's play. Much of Hnath's play is devoted to debating marriage, relationships, and what it means to be a person with other people. So that's one interesting aspect, because Hnath picks up from the ideas Ibsen introduces, but Hnath has the advantage of writing from a time after feminism has done much to level the playing field in terms of no-fault divorce, etc. Nora reflects one position in terms of the rejection of marriage in favor of a kind of open system where human beings aren't legally tied to one another, but are free to love for as long as they do and then leave--though she acknowledges that these relationships are often unsatisfying, and this is a system that works for her personally because she is better on her own. Torvald and Ann Marie to a certain extent reflect the other position, but it is really Emma (the now adult daughter of Nora and Torvald) who gives the most articulate defense of marriage and wanting to be bound to another person in the hopes that being so bound will create mutual support, rather than atomized individuals unable or unwilling to support one another. In true Ibsenian style, Hnath doesn't resolve these debates, but instead allows everyone to defend their position and highlight the flaws in the other perspective.
The other thing I find really interesting in this play is the replication of the original legal crisis, and its link to the personal crisis, from Ibsen's play. In Ibsen, Nora has basically (somewhat unwittingly) committed fraud in a way that could destroy her and Torvald's social standing (though once she learns that she's committed fraud, she does try to hide it and retroactively erase the problem). In Part 2, Nora is once again in legal jeopardy because she has been acting as an unmarried woman, thinking that Torvald had given her the divorce that he was supposed to. However, he didn't so now she's being threatened by a judge that he will expose her for having illegally entered contracts without her husband's permission and as a hypocrite for presenting herself as an unmarried woman. Nora tries to get Torvald to give her the divorce now, in the hope that this will head the judge off--and in the hope that she won't have to slander Torvald to get a divorce herself in a system without no-fault divorce. Torvald, by contrast, allowed people to think that Nora had died, and he ended up collecting/accepting death benefits for her, so if it's now revealed that he accepted that government money when she wasn't dead, he could go to jail for fraud. So Emmy proposes an alternative plan, in which she gets her friend to file a fake death certificate for Nora, essentially faking her death to get everyone out of legal jeopardy--except that Emmy would then be committing fraud, which would re-open the whole problem. What I find so interesting about this is that Hnath actually does a good job replicating the original crisis. I've read some "part 2" type plays that try to do this and it just feels clunky, but Hnath actually makes this feel effective and relatively natural.
https://youtu.be/KL3g4L3zbRs
The other thing I find really interesting in this play is the replication of the original legal crisis, and its link to the personal crisis, from Ibsen's play. In Ibsen, Nora has basically (somewhat unwittingly) committed fraud in a way that could destroy her and Torvald's social standing (though once she learns that she's committed fraud, she does try to hide it and retroactively erase the problem). In Part 2, Nora is once again in legal jeopardy because she has been acting as an unmarried woman, thinking that Torvald had given her the divorce that he was supposed to. However, he didn't so now she's being threatened by a judge that he will expose her for having illegally entered contracts without her husband's permission and as a hypocrite for presenting herself as an unmarried woman. Nora tries to get Torvald to give her the divorce now, in the hope that this will head the judge off--and in the hope that she won't have to slander Torvald to get a divorce herself in a system without no-fault divorce. Torvald, by contrast, allowed people to think that Nora had died, and he ended up collecting/accepting death benefits for her, so if it's now revealed that he accepted that government money when she wasn't dead, he could go to jail for fraud. So Emmy proposes an alternative plan, in which she gets her friend to file a fake death certificate for Nora, essentially faking her death to get everyone out of legal jeopardy--except that Emmy would then be committing fraud, which would re-open the whole problem. What I find so interesting about this is that Hnath actually does a good job replicating the original crisis. I've read some "part 2" type plays that try to do this and it just feels clunky, but Hnath actually makes this feel effective and relatively natural.
https://youtu.be/KL3g4L3zbRs
October 8, 2020
نمایشنامه خانه عروسک به ی��ی از قابل توجه ترین مشکلات انسان ها در این روزها پرداخته. ازدواج و طلاقِ ناشی از ازدواج. " ما خیلی کارها میکنیم که برامون خوب نیست، ما این کارو میکنیم چون والدینمون میگن. از همون ابتدای کودکی- والدینمون، کلیساهامون، رهبرانمون، همه... بهمون میگن باید این کارو بکنی و ما باور میکنیم و اون ایده تو ذهن ما حک میشه. ازدواج. " نورا که پس از سال ها زندگی مشترک تصمیم به ترک همسر و فرزندانش میگیرد بنا به دلایلی مجبور به بازگشت به زندگی گذشته اش میشود و در رویارویی با همسر و فرزندانش مسائلی از گذشته باز میشود. در داستان به هیچ وجه شخصیت سازی سیاه و سفید وجود ندارد و فقط انسان هایی وجود دارد که در دو دنیای متفاوت زندگی میکنند و به عنوان شریک در یک زندگی نمیدانند که در دنیای دیگری ساعت چند است.
"وقتی آدم ها ازدواج میکنن، میگن : تو رو برای همیشه انتخاب کردم، ولی این تو که اونا انتخاب کردن کیه؟ چون آدما در طول زمان عوض میشن. آدم دیگه ای میشن. پس چطور میشه گفت دلم میخواد با آدمی باشم که بعد از ۳ یا ۵ یا ۱۰ سال دیگه عوض میشه و دیگه اون آدمی که میشناختی نیست و تو تا آخر عمرت متعهد شدی که کنارش بمونی؟ "
در قسمت هایی از داستان به مشکلات قانونی موجود در جامعه اشاره شده و این معظل که قانون در بیشتر مواقع حقوق بیشتری برای آقایون در نظر میگیره کاملا مشهوده.
" راه هایی تو قانون هست که یه مرد بدون هیچ دلیلی و به راحتی همسرش رو طلاق میده، ولی یه زن برای طلاق گرفتن باید ثابت کنه یه خطر جدی مثل زونا یا سفلیس زندگیش رو تهدید میکنه"
در آخر این نمایشنامه توانسته بود به خوبی و بدون پیچیدگی زیاد درباره ی بخشی از مشکلات ازدواج و دلایل عدم ازدواج صحبت کند.
"وقتی آدم ها ازدواج میکنن، میگن : تو رو برای همیشه انتخاب کردم، ولی این تو که اونا انتخاب کردن کیه؟ چون آدما در طول زمان عوض میشن. آدم دیگه ای میشن. پس چطور میشه گفت دلم میخواد با آدمی باشم که بعد از ۳ یا ۵ یا ۱۰ سال دیگه عوض میشه و دیگه اون آدمی که میشناختی نیست و تو تا آخر عمرت متعهد شدی که کنارش بمونی؟ "
در قسمت هایی از داستان به مشکلات قانونی موجود در جامعه اشاره شده و این معظل که قانون در بیشتر مواقع حقوق بیشتری برای آقایون در نظر میگیره کاملا مشهوده.
" راه هایی تو قانون هست که یه مرد بدون هیچ دلیلی و به راحتی همسرش رو طلاق میده، ولی یه زن برای طلاق گرفتن باید ثابت کنه یه خطر جدی مثل زونا یا سفلیس زندگیش رو تهدید میکنه"
در آخر این نمایشنامه توانسته بود به خوبی و بدون پیچیدگی زیاد درباره ی بخشی از مشکلات ازدواج و دلایل عدم ازدواج صحبت کند.
November 16, 2024
Miski kogu selle loo juures on end kuhugi sügavale mu sisse peitnud. Torvald ja Nora on nii inimlikult ja äärmuslikult kujutatud, et suudan neis leida nii iseend kui ka teisi inimesi. Selles osas kirjutatu põhjal ei suuda ma võtta ühte poolt, üht arvamust, üht tegelast, keda kahtluse kübemeta toetada. See pani mõistma kõiki tegelasi, kõiki inimesi.
(lowk spoiler:)
Ma ei saa märkimata jätta, et Torvald tegi lõpuks seda, mida Nora esimeses osas armastuselt ootas - ta riskis end kellegi teise nimel. Ning kuidas Nora sellele vastas, vat see tuli mulle miskipärast üllatusena. Ma mõtlesin, et ta tunneks selle ise ära, aga tegelikult järele mõeldes ei ole selles midagi imelikku, et ta sellesse süüdistavalt suhtus - see tuli teda kujutatud isiksuses hästi välja.
Aga siiski olen rahul, mis elu autor Norale on välja mõelnud, oleksin võinud isegi vast selle peale tulla ;).
(lowk spoiler:)
Ma ei saa märkimata jätta, et Torvald tegi lõpuks seda, mida Nora esimeses osas armastuselt ootas - ta riskis end kellegi teise nimel. Ning kuidas Nora sellele vastas, vat see tuli mulle miskipärast üllatusena. Ma mõtlesin, et ta tunneks selle ise ära, aga tegelikult järele mõeldes ei ole selles midagi imelikku, et ta sellesse süüdistavalt suhtus - see tuli teda kujutatud isiksuses hästi välja.
Aga siiski olen rahul, mis elu autor Norale on välja mõelnud, oleksin võinud isegi vast selle peale tulla ;).
November 5, 2022
A brilliant piece of writing and a true piece of theatre.
The set, save for the door, is almost irrelevant. It is the dialogue that constructs the experience.
I saw this play on Broadway in 2017. It’s one of those nights in a Broadway theater that sticks in your body because it’s emotional resonance is so stark in the audience’s experience.
Laurie Metcalf as Nora, Chris Cooper as Torvald, Jane Houdyshell as Anne Marie, and Condola Rashad as Emmy.
All of the questions raised and points of view explored leap off the page. There isn’t a single moment that isn’t dynamic in some way as written, and it all reads and feels true to the characters, their perspectives, and emotional experience.
The set, save for the door, is almost irrelevant. It is the dialogue that constructs the experience.
I saw this play on Broadway in 2017. It’s one of those nights in a Broadway theater that sticks in your body because it’s emotional resonance is so stark in the audience’s experience.
Laurie Metcalf as Nora, Chris Cooper as Torvald, Jane Houdyshell as Anne Marie, and Condola Rashad as Emmy.
All of the questions raised and points of view explored leap off the page. There isn’t a single moment that isn’t dynamic in some way as written, and it all reads and feels true to the characters, their perspectives, and emotional experience.
December 26, 2024
Hnath should be completely ashamed of himself.
Ibsen didn’t make a sequel for a reason. The play is nothing more than an intelligent discussion of whether Nora was right or wrong to leave. Ibsen’s play was great because it was ahead of its time, and Hnath tries to mimic that style but fails miserably.
It’s missing the essential modern feminist voice for the story. It being written by a man makes it worse.
Ibsen didn’t make a sequel for a reason. The play is nothing more than an intelligent discussion of whether Nora was right or wrong to leave. Ibsen’s play was great because it was ahead of its time, and Hnath tries to mimic that style but fails miserably.
It’s missing the essential modern feminist voice for the story. It being written by a man makes it worse.
January 23, 2019
I read this play in preparation to see the the play at Melbourne Theatre Company as part of my Theatre Studies curriculum. I hadn’t read The Doll’s House before reading this add on, but I could still follow along with everything. It was very heart felt and powerful, and the themes presented were well done. A very well done and well thought out addition to the original.
July 12, 2018
It's a clever idea, and it's a wonder no one thought to do it before now. However, it kind of goes exactly where you think it will, so there really isn't much to it. Apparently the original Broadway cast really brought the play to life, but on the page it is kind of ... meh.
May 22, 2023
it is rare that a contemporary writer can take on the task of writing a continuation of a cannon work and add something or rather build another beautiful thing. but lucas hnath did. i want to give him a big kiss on the cheek.
it is impressive that a man wrote this but i an also curious what it would have been of a female identifying playwright took a go at it.
it is impressive that a man wrote this but i an also curious what it would have been of a female identifying playwright took a go at it.
November 18, 2024
“minu meelest opetab miski meie ajas ja kohas ja kultuuris meid eeldama ja isegi tahtma, et naised, kes oma pere maha jätavad, saaksid karistatud.”
mitte nii hea kui esimene osa aga ikkagi väga huvitav
mitte nii hea kui esimene osa aga ikkagi väga huvitav
March 30, 2021
Captivating, but wholly unnecessary.
January 31, 2023
um i hated nora in this and honestly i just prefer the first one
Read
February 15, 2023An exciting read! Hnath had a cool interpretation of Nora and her family’s life 15 years down the line. Also loved his unique writing style with the varying indentations and ellipses pause lines.
February 17, 2023
Loved this followup to Ibsen’s classic. It was great to read them back-to-back.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 135 reviews