The Collapse of a Doll’s House

Almost every culture has the rite of marriage, but the balance of relationship depends on the society in which the individuals live. In Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House; he examines the married relationship between the Helmers. While it was not uncommon during this time for the male in the relationship to have all the legal and societal power, the Helmers’ relationship is so imbalanced that neither one can fully understand the other nor can they truly understand themselves. Ibsen’s use of diction, macabre characters as foils, and irony illustrate the stark inequality of the Helmers’ marriage.

Diction, or an author’s choice of words, can say a great deal about how the characters feel about each other. For example, if the characters address each other with words that are degrading or minimizing, it is likely that the character may feel dominating over another character. In the play, Ibsen uses degrading diction to show his superiority and dominance over his wife. This is continued throughout the play with his pet names for his wife that includes words such as “little.”

Ibsen’s choice of diction in Torvalds’s words toward Nora show his feelings of superiority over her and that this egotism is detrimental to their ability to communicate as partners. The use of pet-names in the play, specifically Torvald’s use of names for Nora, “featherhead,” “spendthrift,” “sulky squirrel” (Ibsen), reflects Torvald’s low level of respect for his wife. Rommetveit also notes Mr. Helmer’s use of diction and his need to feel powerful over his wife. Rommetveit even notes Torvald’s “Overarching feelings of dominance and oppression” (200) toward his wife. Nora is a fully grown adult with her own mind and thoughts but he consistently calls her sickly sweet nicknames which encourage Nora to respond to his requests and comments as if she were still a child. Torvald has ensured that his wife will not feel equal in their marriage and, by doing this, has ensured that she will be easier to manipulate and control.

Torvald’s use of the word “little” also effectively minimizes his wife as a human being and continues the trend of negative diction toward Nora. When he addresses Nora it is mostly with the word “little” attached and he uses it repeatedly throughout the play. In the very first few pages of the play, he calls her “little squirrel,” “little featherhead,” “little spendthrift,” “little skylark,” “extravagant little person,” and, as the play continues, as “little songbird” and “little Nora” (Ibsen). While the pet-names may be an overly sweet but loving gesture there are also negative possibilities. In fact critics agree that his references to her as being “little” may be a sign of a “deeper and darker desire to force Nora into submissiveness” (Markova 18). By referring to his wife as “little” he seems to be suggesting a few things; first, that she is insignificant and undeveloped as an adult. Ibsen’s theme of inequality is clearly defined by the diction that is used to address Nora; she is crushed by her husband’s dominance and unable to reach self-actualization because of the unbalanced nature of their relationship.

Oftentimes major characters are compared, or foiled, with minor characters to showcase certain character traits that exist. For example, a hero appears more courageous when he has a cowardly companion or an intelligent character seems smarter when another character is dim-witted. In A Doll’s House here exists another relationship that shows the problems and issues of Nora and Torvald’s relationship by comparison and those characters are Kristine Linde and Nils Krogstad. Ibsen’s use of foils shows not only the state of the Helmer’s relationship but also acts as an example of what a married relationship can be under different circumstances and with different characters. Their relationship shows the inequality of the relationship and the individual shortcomings of Nora and Torvald.

Kristine and Krogstad, although half-formed and macabre characters themselves, actually have the potential to share their burdens and grow together and act as a foil relationship to Nora and Torvald. In the final act Mrs. Linde and Krogstad reach out for each other, “Krogstad: Two on the same piece of wreckage would stand a better chance than each on his own” (Ibsen). This shows that both are able and willing to commit themselves to helping one another in their relationship, even when things are difficult because they have the life experience needed to be whole people. Rommetveit reasons that they are both able to offer this of themselves is because “they have been allowed the chance to develop as whole individuals before joining in this relationship” (195). This is true since both have struggled in their lives before this point; lost spouses, jobs, hopes, and dreams, and it was this struggle that allowed them to become fully formed people. They are aware of the good they can do as well as the ability to do bad things, they are even aware of it in each other. This is an important relationship to the play because Krogstad and Kristine foil the Helmer’s marriage and show how unequal it is.

In comparison to the Helmers’ marriage, Krogstad and Kristine’s relationship is considerably healthier because they are able to be honest with each other. Honesty is an important part of any relationship and a successful marriage is absolutely necessary. When Krogstad is honest with Kristine and tells her, “I am a shipwrecked man clinging to a bit of wreckage” (Ibsen) she is able to accept this of him and still wants to continue to be with him. The communication between these two is something that the Helmers do not have, the ability to discuss a difficult subject “with the boundaries and openness that only a healthy relationship can supply” (Pittman 145). The evidence is when Kristine asks him to take back the letter to Torvald and drop the blackmail he, at first, rejects this, but listens to her reasoning and changes his mind. It is at this point that the reader can really appreciate how different the relationship between these two character foils is when reflecting on the Helmers’ marriage. Even though they live in a time period where men and women did not have equal rights, Krogstad and Linde are still able to communicate as equals. This means that even though Torvald and Nora could communicate as equals, they are choosing not to, and prefer to perpetuate their unequal statuses.

Without the foils of Krogstad and Ms. Linde, the shortcomings of the Helmers are not as apparent. The reader notices the lack of experience has actually hobbled Nora as a person; she does not know what it is to struggle. She also communicated this to Torvald as she is about to leave with Nora saying, “I must stand quite alone, if I am to understand myself and everything about me” (Ibsen). She understands that she needs to struggle to realize herself as a whole woman and she also understands that she cannot do this if she remains with her husband. Their relationship is “too far gone, regardless of their marital status” (Rommetveit 195). Even though Torvald offers to teach her about the world, he is maintaining her subordinate relationship- she will be the student and he will be the teacher and nothing would truly change. On the other hand, Kristine is independent; traveling on her own, working to care for her family and responsible for herself. When she arrived at Nora’s as a fully formed person who is aware of her authentic self, she is also able to enter a relationship with Krogstad and also maintain herself. This foil ensures that the reader understands exactly what Ibsen believes Nora’s and Torvald’s deficiencies are as people. This shows that it is possible for women in their society are fully capable of being authentic people who are able to maintain balanced relationships. However, this also shows that the Helmers choose to keep their unequal relationship and that it is the weaknesses of the characters that continue the disturbing and oppressive trend; one that Nora is both victim and party to.

Irony is also a component of the play that reinforces the theme of the play on many fronts and from different characters. The general expectation is that the main characters would be the most positive; that Nora and Torvald will have the best relationship and be the best characters because they are the central focus of the play. Irony is used to change this expectation and there are several key ways that irony changes the way the audience perceives the characters. There is irony in that Krogstad is the antagonist and is portrayed as the villain in most of the play but that he is more authentic and honest than the Helmers. When his relationship with Kristine is examined there also irony in that a minor character and the antagonist are actually more of a model of the relationship than the main characters. The dissolution of the marriage is also caused by a character that is treated and portrayed as a flighty and silly woman who is not often given responsibilities. It is ironic that it is she who ends up being her own antagonist and leads to the destruction of her marriage.

While Krogstad is the antagonist, he is also ironically part of the model of what a relationship can be. He is honest with Kristine “I am a shipwrecked man clinging to a bit of wreckage” (Ibsen) and she is able to accept this of him and still wants to continue to be with him. Considering the negativity that his character portrays, it is ironic that he is one of the characters that takes part in a positive relationship. The communication between “Krogstad and Linde is a trait that the Helmers lack” (Pittman 145), which is the ability to treat each other as equals when they are having a discussion. For example, when Ms. Linde asks Krogstad to take back the letter to Torvald and drop the blackmail he, at first, rejects this, but listens to her reasoning and changes his mind. Even though Krogstad considers himself shipwrecked he is one of the few characters who has a moral anchor in how he treats Kristine. The expectation of the reader was that the main characters would be involved in a healthy relationship but instead there is a sense of irony because Ibsen breaks away from what is expected. The fact that it is Krogstad who is decent and fair to a woman seems almost oxymoronic. The result of the scenes with Krogstad and Linde interacting as equals shows a model of what the Helmers’ marriage is lacking, and this reveals more about their unequal relationship.

Although it is easy to place the blame on Torvald for his treatment of his wife, the fault also falls, ironically, on the doll of the play, Nora. She has contributed to the treatment because she not only accepts his parent-child relationship with her but because she also plays a role in the inequality. Nora’s unfairness toward her husband and relationship is that she is not honest with him about getting a loan and, ironically, further perpetuates the inequality of their marriage. Nora’s hope for a miracle is also ironic because, if her husband had taken the blame, their relationship would have likely been more oppressive to Nora and exacerbate the problem.

Nora’s decision to take out a loan without the knowledge of her husband shows her fault in continuing the unequal relationship. Instead of taking a stand in their relationship, she plays the game of manipulation and secrets. When Ms. Linde suggests that Nora just reveal the truth Nora responds, that the revelation would injure Torvald’s “manly independence” (Ibsen) and that their “beautiful happy home would not longer be what it is now” (Ibsen). It is extremely ironic that Nora mentions that confiding in Torvald would result in the dissolution of their home since it is exactly what causes their marriage to fall apart, although not in the way that she would imagine. In fact, she seems to try and protect her husband in the same way he protects her, by hiding the secret and “without thought that her deception would be better received from his wife” (Oguer). This shows that she is also involved in ensuring that the relationship is unequal. It seems that, in a way, Nora is actually oppressing herself; she has the choice to tell her husband but does not want to lose the façade that she has been living under. While she is the one who tires of the unequal relationship and decides to leave, she doesn’t ever seem to accept the fact that she was a player in the game and not just a victim. It seems ironic that she is a part of the problem, the reader would generally expect a main character as a heroine who is unfairly oppressed. Perhaps the relationship is one that she is used to; being a doll in a man’s house, but, when it comes down to it, she is just as guilty in the unequal marriage as her husband is.

Nora’s desire for a miracle also strikes the reader as being ironic; she is unhappy in the marriage, she wants to be independent, yet she wants her husband to take the blame for her crime. When Nora admits to Torvald that she wanted him to, “take everything upon yourself, and say: I am the guilty one” she is also expressing her desire that she would be further in debt to her husband. It makes little sense for Nora to want to be more indebted to her husband and this makes Nora seem like she wants to be subordinate in her marriage. When examining Nora’s character change through the play, the article “The Doll House Backlash: Criticism, Feminism, and Ibsen” suggests that Nora is simply a “Self-serving egoist whose unbridled thirst for power destroys her marriage” (Templeton). Ibsen may be using irony to show the struggle that Nora is facing; she wants to be free but wants to be saved, so much so that when her husband doesn’t rush to be her savior, she decides she can’t be with him any longer. However, Templeton has a point, Nora’s insistence that her husband should have saved her makes her seem like an egoist; she does expect Torvald to take responsibility for her actions. Whether she is motivated by a need for love or by her ego, the hope for a miracle shows that Nora expects their relationship to remain unequal.

In the end, the doll’s house collapses and the relationship is left in ruins. Nora leaves with finality and is finally beginning the journey to understand her authentic self. To ensure that the audience understood the negativity that existed in her saccharine sweet marriage, Henrik Ibsen uses diction in A Doll’s House to show the language that Torvald uses to express his domination over his wife. To help the reader understand that the Helmer’s marriage was not the norm for the time, he provided character foils as well as a relationship that acted as a foil in the re-ignition of Kristine Linde and Nils Krogstad’s relationship. Throughout the play, irony exists in almost every avenue but expresses Ibsen’s point- the Helmer’s marriage is not a relationship to model since it requires at least one partner to act as a doll and be manipulated by the other.

Works Cited

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Trans. Rolf Fjelde. Gutenberg Press, 2009. Online book.

Marková, Ivana, and Klaus Foppa. Asymmetries in Dialogue. Barnes & Noble Imports, 1991.

Oguer, Fabienne. "Ibsen's A Doll's House As A Psychological Trust Game With Guilt And Reciprocity." Review Of European Studies2.1 (2010): 84-90. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.

Pittman, Frank S., and Kalman Flomenhaft. "Treating The Doll's House Marriage." Family Process 9.2 (1970): 143-155. Print.

Rommetveit, Ragnar. "Dominance and asymmetries in A Doll’s House." Asymmetries in Dialogue (1991): 195-220.

Templeton, Joan. "The Doll House Backlash: Criticism, Feminism, and Ibsen." PMLA 104.1 (1989): 28-40. JSTOR. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.