One of the most important assumptions of this play is that morally reprehensible actions stay with a person, leaving a permanent mark on their characters, and sometimes even affecting the people around them (such as how Rank’s father’s misspent youth is responsible for his own illness). Do you agree with this assumption? Do you think that it’s an assumption that Ibsen personally holds, or merely one that his characters do? If one doesn’t hold this assumption, do Nora’s concerns about herself or Helmer’s concerns about Krogstad still make sense, or are they just reprehensible for not moving on from the past and letting bygones be bygones?
By the end of the play, our ideas about nearly all of the characters have been upended: Nora at first seems silly and shallow, yet she recognizes and addresses her own immaturity at the end; Torvald seems to have everything under control, but his life falls apart at the end of the play; Krogstad seems like a standard villain, but he returns Nora’s contract merely out of kindness and/or regret; Mrs. Linde seems like a faithful friend, but she essentially sells out Nora in the end. Is the fact that our impression changes as readers due to growth these characters experience over the course of the play, or due to our initial impressions being mistaken? Examine each case individually, and find evidence from the text to support your answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment