What's in a Name?

Question #2: At what moment in the play do you understand why it is called A Doll’s House?

(Keep in mind I had not read Act III when I wrote this)

When a doll house comes to mind, I think of a perfect house, with perfect Barbie-and-Ken-like inhabitants completely in love, and the perfect life to accompany both the people and the house itself. With the title “A Doll’s House”, Ibsen seeks to provide the perfect frame to outline material existence that is the Nora’s day-to-day life by focusing on her childish appearance while also glimpsing into inner imperfection of the Helmer’s relationship.

To unknowing bystanders, the life of the Helmer’s would seem almost-overly perfect, a doll’s life. The relationship of Nora and Torvald appears filled with cute pet names such as “my little squirrel” and Nora’s constant praise of the unbreakable love that exists in their relationship with Mrs. Linde. Nora acts as the perfect adoring mother, playing with her children who can’t seem to get enough her loving attention, and the faultless friend, always willing to lend a hand. Just as in a doll’s life, her primary concern regards her clothing and dancing skills. In this way Ibsen sets Nora up as a doll, living in a doll’s house. Though she tries to prove her meaning and hardship of her life to Mrs. Linde through her behind-the-scenes dealings, Nora’s daily life may not be one of true love but in every sense it is material, like a doll’s life. Her life is consumed by Torvald “watching her dance, or get[ting] dressed up, or recit[ing].” Mrs. Linde and Rank help unravel the true nature of the Helmer’s built-up existence and lead us partially out of the doll house to make the members of the Helmer family more human.

Behind the great life of wealth and happiness, lies the Nora the doll, but in another sense; Nora is a doll, a puppet to be exact, in the hands of her husband. She acts only as the perfect child because she knows this role pleases her husband. When exposed to the serious side of her personality in their conversation regarding Krogstad’s job in Act II, Helmer attempts to revert to back to Nora’s childish status by disregarding the serious nature of her inquiries and calling her “my little frightened dove” then immediately leaving her behind in the room to further ignore her distress. Their marriage bases itself more upon necessity than love; they provide an air of comport and duty, but neither serves as a confident or best friend for their spouse. He controls the relationship and never allows it to go beyond his position as the authority figure.

Either way you look at it, Nora is the doll, in the hands of her husband or simply stuck in a material existence. As the truth of her forgery surrounds her life, her perfect doll-esque world slowly crumbles around her as she realizes the faults of her marriage and the life her husband and she have created. (470)

The Ghost: Good vs. Evil

Last Friday, I went to see my friend play the role of Afi (Ofelia) in Revenge of a King, the hip-hop rendition of Hamlet. Though few similarities exist between Shakespeare’s version and this new-age adaptation other than a somewhat comparable plot, one resounding likeness was the existence of the ghost of Hamlet’s father. Its presence in both versions forced me to begin to question the true significance and purpose of the ghost in Hamlet’s mental decay. After much thought, I reasoned the apparition, only audible to Hamlet himself, exemplifies the inner struggle of good versus evil, his own personal angel and devil on his shoulders, within Hamlet’s mind that leads to his fall into madness.

The d(evil): Throughout the first two acts of Hamlet, the ghost catalyzes the beginning of Hamlet’s descent into madness. By filling Hamlet’s head and heart with thoughts of anger and hatred, mostly directed towards his treacherous uncle Claudius, the ghost sets Hamlet on a one way path of revenge. The ghost of Hamlet’s father guilt trips Hamlet, however unnecessary to fulfill his ultimate goal, in order to further his person ambition of avenging his murder. “If thou dist ever thy dear father love --/Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.” Not only does the meaning of ghost’s words compromise Hamlet, but the ghost’s diction (unnatural, foul, incestuous, etc.) also worsens the turmoil within Hamlet by playing on already his weak emotions. Though it is a common trend throughout history for a son to carry out his father’s “unfinished business,” in this particular case, it seems as though the ghost plays upon Hamlet’s weak state to fulfill his own goals, without care to how detrimental it may be to Hamlet. In the end, the vengeful instructions of the ghost allow evil to overthrow the once-innate goodness of his mind and permit madness to overcome, as he nears his last breath.

The angel (good): Though the ghost’s inherent evil is easier to argue, the apparition of the dead Hamlet’s soul also serves as a representation of truth and a figure to ease Hamlet’s loneliness in the first two acts of Shakespeare’s famous work. By uncovering the truth of the ex-king’s murder, the ghost provides Hamlet with an explanation to his ever-increasing speculations regarding the rotten state of Denmark. The truth also gives Hamlet a purpose, thus providing him a motive to continue his life on earth. This increased connection with his lost father provides him with not only purpose but also a mental connection, someone to at least partially understand his inner suffering. Though the ghost’s intentions are dishonorable, his presence at least provides Hamlet with a “human” connection, someone who he can reach out to in his time of need. The truth and sense of purpose afforded Hamlet by the ghost save Hamlet, at least for a short period of time, from falling into complete madness.

By Act III, it seems the evil of the devil occupying Hamlet’s mind has defeated the once-inherent good of the noble prince. The ghost’s true purpose is still undecided, however; only time and the rest of the Shakespeare’s play will uncover the truth of the ghost. (528)