Words: 728
In Act I we first see a playful conversation that shows a discrepancy between the two main characters Nora and Heeler, these two main characters are husband and wife. The discrepancy is about spending money, where Nora is careless and just spends and spends all of the couple’s money, and Heeler does not like all of her spending but gives in to his wives wants. We can see from the start that this marriage is not based on love but with financial stability. In this play we see this financial stability with many of the characters.
It’s ironic that in Act I Heeler says to Nora ‘ ‘you know, we can ;t spend money recklessly”‘, although near the end of their conversation Heeler says “Nora, what do you think I have got here? ‘. Her reply is “Money” and then gives her the money he had in his wallet. This shows a lot of irony because someone like Heeler who complains about too much spending would expect to hold their tight budget but can be seen as a hypocrite by handing Nora more money. This also makes my argument of manipulation valid, by having Heeler give in to his fife when she starts to look a little sad.
T hats why Heeler gives her more money. When Ibsen wrote A Doll’s House, the institution of marriage was sacrosanct; women did not leave their husbands, and marital roles were sharply defined. This play questions these traditional attitudes. The character of Nora Heeler has a role of strength and complexity. She is the one who gains the audiences empathy. We can see Nora as a prime example of the new woman, who is seeking independence and self-definition, and the play is passionate on behalf of advocating women’s rights. To understand this concept we must look at Ibsen at this time.
Brian Johnston states that “Ibsen had strong opinions on the subject of women’s rights. In February 1879, when his proposal to the Scandinavian Club in Rome that its female members be granted equal voting rights was defeated, he made a blistering attack on the male majority, daring them to assert that women were in any way inferior to men in culture, intelligence and artistic talent. ” (475) I argue that this has a strong connection with the theme Of irony in the play, because throughout he play Nora is going through all this trouble to keep Sarasota from telling her husband about a forged letter to borrow money.
Throughout the play she is being manipulated and blackmailed by Sarasota. Then once Heeler finds out towards the end of the play, Nora does not like that way her husband reacted and says near the end of Act Ill “The way I am now, I’m no wife for you”. (Danni,1 152) The ending conversation of the play turns everything around to give Nora empowerment over her husband. By saying she is leaving Heeler that validates my argument to show the irony of a wife who goes all these things like try and convince her husband to not fire Sarasota just to hide a letter from her husband.
Then Nora ends up leaving him for not reacting the right way towards the situation. This play is concerned with the social dynamics in human significance, “Ibsen moved beyond isolated abuses to an anatomy of complex character relationships surrounded by acute social Thus A Doll’s House can be viewed thematically not only as ironic but also as depiction of an innocent nineteenth century woman struggling to achieve self-definition. It also shows a routine marriage teens two ordinary people who lack awareness of themselves and who have differing views of right and wrong.
Heeler unquestioningly accepts society role of the husband as the main source of income and moral authority, but Norm’s attempt to conform as the submissive wife forces her into lies and deception. Both care about what people think; neither knowingly considers opposing society’s values. Nora was seen as an object through her husband’s eyes, which at this time women were made to look inferior. Then Nora has an epiphany of self-actualization when she says “l have been your OLL-wife, just as at home I was papa’s doll-child; and here the children have been my dolls.