Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Publication
[Kbh.] Gyldendal, 1956 XXXVI + 96 s. 3. opl.
Description
Drama. Fiction. HTML: When A Doll's House was first published in 1879 it created a sensation. The play follows the ordinary life of a housewife. Gradually the tensions within her marriage become clear and build to a final, stunning action. The play is widely studied because of its sharp critique of 19th century marriage norms, and its feminist tendencies..
User reviews
LibraryThing member cmbohn
When I was a student at BYU in my last semester I took an American Lit class. Looking back, I should have taken almost any other class available. I was a newlywed when the semester started, and by the end I was expecting my first baby. So what did we study that would go along with my life's lessons
Kate Chopin's The Awakening. Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper. Edith Wharton. Sarah Orne Jewett. Just about any depressing story written by American women, we read it. That class was not a lot of laughs.
The play, A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, would have fit right in with those writers if only he had been American. It's got all the right elements. Restricted setting - check. Slice of middle class family life - check. Deceptively innocuous beginning - check. Desperate woman struggling with her own identity against a tightly ordered society and family life - double check.
The difference is that for me, 18 years after the first class, is that now instead of making me depressed, it made me angry to read this. Angry with Nora, and the way it took her so long to protest the way she was treated. Angry with Helmet, for treating his wife as an inferior creature he had to humor. Angry with Christine, for putting up with years of unhappiness just so she could devote her entire self to taking care of someone. And then going after what she really wanted only because she was helping her friend, and further, because she set up the expectation that she would again be 'taking care' of someone.
Most of all, angry with society, that this was accepted as normal. I read that when this play was first performed, the audience was shocked. But not because of any of the reasons I mentioned. No, because women were generally supposed to be perfectly content to be treated in such a way.
Looking back at that class, I am not a bit surprised that I found it so troubling. There I was, just barely started on this marriage thing and shortly about to take on motherhood. And what did I get to read about? Any healthy models of what family life could be like? No. Literally, everything we read that dealt with marriage or motherhood was telling me how restrictive it was, how demanding, how degrading to my personhood, how I would have to sacrifice my very self to be successful in my new roles. No wonder I had a hard time!
So a little perspective is valuable now that I read this play. I know from my own experience that marriage does not have to be like that, and that motherhood is a source of great joy and fulfillment, as well as a challenge. Yes, I know that society was different 100 years ago, but I have to believe that even then, not every marriage was one of dominant/submissive. There must, even then, have been relationships that were based on a more equal footing. There must have been women who ENJOYED being a wife and a mother, and didn't just do it because they needed security.
And maybe I'm just a little spoiled, because I am living in the 21st century, when women are busy in so many different things. Maybe. But to say that I can't judge people from that era means that I'm supposed to accept that they are not as capable as I am of fixing things that don't work, and that they are not as bright at seeing what makes them unhappy. I don't believe that. Yes, it must have been more difficult for women of that time to express their true selves, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't get angry when I read about a woman who is a doormat, and ask myself why she put up with that.
What did I think of this play? I can't say I loved it. But it sure brought out a strong reaction in me. On that basis alone, I have to give it 5 stars. I think that every couple ought to read this play, or even better, see it together. And so should every therapist or clergyman. Single people too should read this and learn from it to set up some solid boundaries before they form a partnership.
I think that so far this year, this is the book that got me the most emotionally involved with what I was reading. So I have to give it 5 stars. However, read or see this with the knowledge I didn't have as a newlywed. Not every relationship demands this self sacrifice from the woman. This is how it is NOT supposed to be. Once you know that, you can ask yourself if you need to adjust anything in your relationships so this doesn't happen.
Show More
I was learning at the time? Kate Chopin's The Awakening. Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper. Edith Wharton. Sarah Orne Jewett. Just about any depressing story written by American women, we read it. That class was not a lot of laughs.
The play, A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, would have fit right in with those writers if only he had been American. It's got all the right elements. Restricted setting - check. Slice of middle class family life - check. Deceptively innocuous beginning - check. Desperate woman struggling with her own identity against a tightly ordered society and family life - double check.
The difference is that for me, 18 years after the first class, is that now instead of making me depressed, it made me angry to read this. Angry with Nora, and the way it took her so long to protest the way she was treated. Angry with Helmet, for treating his wife as an inferior creature he had to humor. Angry with Christine, for putting up with years of unhappiness just so she could devote her entire self to taking care of someone. And then going after what she really wanted only because she was helping her friend, and further, because she set up the expectation that she would again be 'taking care' of someone.
Most of all, angry with society, that this was accepted as normal. I read that when this play was first performed, the audience was shocked. But not because of any of the reasons I mentioned. No, because women were generally supposed to be perfectly content to be treated in such a way.
Looking back at that class, I am not a bit surprised that I found it so troubling. There I was, just barely started on this marriage thing and shortly about to take on motherhood. And what did I get to read about? Any healthy models of what family life could be like? No. Literally, everything we read that dealt with marriage or motherhood was telling me how restrictive it was, how demanding, how degrading to my personhood, how I would have to sacrifice my very self to be successful in my new roles. No wonder I had a hard time!
So a little perspective is valuable now that I read this play. I know from my own experience that marriage does not have to be like that, and that motherhood is a source of great joy and fulfillment, as well as a challenge. Yes, I know that society was different 100 years ago, but I have to believe that even then, not every marriage was one of dominant/submissive. There must, even then, have been relationships that were based on a more equal footing. There must have been women who ENJOYED being a wife and a mother, and didn't just do it because they needed security.
And maybe I'm just a little spoiled, because I am living in the 21st century, when women are busy in so many different things. Maybe. But to say that I can't judge people from that era means that I'm supposed to accept that they are not as capable as I am of fixing things that don't work, and that they are not as bright at seeing what makes them unhappy. I don't believe that. Yes, it must have been more difficult for women of that time to express their true selves, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't get angry when I read about a woman who is a doormat, and ask myself why she put up with that.
What did I think of this play? I can't say I loved it. But it sure brought out a strong reaction in me. On that basis alone, I have to give it 5 stars. I think that every couple ought to read this play, or even better, see it together. And so should every therapist or clergyman. Single people too should read this and learn from it to set up some solid boundaries before they form a partnership.
I think that so far this year, this is the book that got me the most emotionally involved with what I was reading. So I have to give it 5 stars. However, read or see this with the knowledge I didn't have as a newlywed. Not every relationship demands this self sacrifice from the woman. This is how it is NOT supposed to be. Once you know that, you can ask yourself if you need to adjust anything in your relationships so this doesn't happen.
Show Less
LibraryThing member ctpress
A very subtle, complex play that begins with ordinary everyday events, but slowly secrets are revealed from the past that turns out to threaten the marriage between Thorvald and Nora Helmer.
This play have been endlessly analysed and discussed and one can understand why. It challenges the norms and
The main character Nora is “trapped” in a marriage with a husband who doesn’t love and support her the way he should. Yet, Nora herself is a problematic character - her secretive and thoughtless forgery of the signature - the way she pretends all the time - what should we say about her role as a mother? She doesn’t seem to be that connected to her children. How can she leave them - and yet, how can she stay? What will/should Nora do? And are Thorvald really beyond reach? Can we detect a change in him in the last part of the play?
This play have been endlessly analysed and discussed and one can understand why. It challenges the norms and
Show More
roles of marriage (at least in that day and age) - there are no easy “solutions” and no heroes or villains in this story. Who is right and who is wrong.The main character Nora is “trapped” in a marriage with a husband who doesn’t love and support her the way he should. Yet, Nora herself is a problematic character - her secretive and thoughtless forgery of the signature - the way she pretends all the time - what should we say about her role as a mother? She doesn’t seem to be that connected to her children. How can she leave them - and yet, how can she stay? What will/should Nora do? And are Thorvald really beyond reach? Can we detect a change in him in the last part of the play?
Show Less
LibraryThing member 391
I really, really enjoyed this play. Though it does border on the melodramatic at times (understandable, given that the world was just beginning to move out of the romantic period and realism still hadn't fully taken off), the heartbreaking realizations Nora makes and her ultimate decision regarding
Show More
her future mark a change in the Western canon from the generic 'wife/mother' archetype to living, breathing, viable characters. Her journey from inactive doll to a decisive thinker is just startling, even when read now without the proper repressive context. Show Less
LibraryThing member readingover50
Somehow, I never read this when I was in school. It seems the sort of book that teachers make you read.
All of the characters in the play are flawed. The way Helmer is so quick to condemn Nora, and then a few minutes later tells her he forgives her. Why would he think she would forgive him for
This was a quick read. I read it all in about one hour. I enjoyed reading it. The play gave me a lot to think about.
All of the characters in the play are flawed. The way Helmer is so quick to condemn Nora, and then a few minutes later tells her he forgives her. Why would he think she would forgive him for
Show More
saying so many horrible things? And for so much of the play, Nora seems to delight as being seen as a silly, flighty woman. This makes her speech at the end a little confusing. If she resents being treated that way, why act that way? This was a quick read. I read it all in about one hour. I enjoyed reading it. The play gave me a lot to think about.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jonfaith
Our home has been nothing but a playroom.
What a wonderful surprise! I didn't expect to be so moved. The honesty is scalding. My reading as of late has focused on language: an exploration of poetics and the resonance of such. Ibsen acted as a sort of antithesis to that approach and the experience
What a wonderful surprise! I didn't expect to be so moved. The honesty is scalding. My reading as of late has focused on language: an exploration of poetics and the resonance of such. Ibsen acted as a sort of antithesis to that approach and the experience
Show More
was all the more satisfying. Remarkably modern, We find Nora a wife and mother—who out of interest for her husband she has blurred the lines of propriety. This incident bobs to the surface the trials involved afford her an unexpected perspective. Show Less
LibraryThing member bookworm12
A woman, Nora, borrows money to save her husband's life without his knowledge. Later, the man she borrowed from blackmails her and she is terrified that her husband will discover what she's done.
Nora is a fascinating character. She is clever and resourceful and at the same time she seems desperate
Her husband, Helmer, is condescending and pious. He has fury inducing lines like,
"I should not be a man if this womanly helplessness did not just give you a double attractiveness in my eyes."
There marriage is more a playful charade than a partnership. When circumstances push her to step out of her comfort one she finds a strength she didn't realize she had.
Nora is a fascinating character. She is clever and resourceful and at the same time she seems desperate
Show More
to please her husband, no matter what it takes. She hides her unhappiness from everyone, even herself. She likes to encourage his believe that's she's a frivolous creature. Her husband, Helmer, is condescending and pious. He has fury inducing lines like,
"I should not be a man if this womanly helplessness did not just give you a double attractiveness in my eyes."
There marriage is more a playful charade than a partnership. When circumstances push her to step out of her comfort one she finds a strength she didn't realize she had.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Hantsuki
I could not believe two things after I read this play. I could not believe that a 19th century male playwright wrote this play with the kind of ending he did and that this play is actually based on a true story. This just confirms that nothing is original (and nothing really is original; when you
Ibsen wrote this play and various other plays to criticize the Norwegian middle class people who were hypocrites. He addressed social issues, such as women's role in society, as well as Darwin's theories about the passing of genetics from parents to children. This play covers those theories a lot, as you can see with Dr. Rank who genetically inherited a disease from his father because of his own sinful nature. That sub-plot emphasizes Nora's decision to leave her children for fear of them inheriting her bad nature, which is completely understandable.
One thing that needs to be understood here is Ibsen was not a feminist, but a realist. Just because he ended the play with Nora leaving her husband, her duty to her husband, and her duty to her children behind does not mean he thought every woman should behave as such if they do not get what they want. Ibsen was also observing social issues of men and women in general, which is why I like that guy. This play sparked so much controversy, and it remains one of his highly known plays, but I think more people should start analyzing other things besides the feminist issues that are obviously noted in this play.
Show More
pick a pen and start using language to communicate your thoughts, you're not being original because other people have used that word before, but I digress). That is not to say I did not enjoy this play. I actually enjoyed it during my second read during my sophomore year of college as opposed to my first year when I had nearly no background on analyzing literature because I can hardly give credit to my English teachers in high school for teaching me how to analyze literature. (Who actually learns anything in high school anyway? But I digress again.)Ibsen wrote this play and various other plays to criticize the Norwegian middle class people who were hypocrites. He addressed social issues, such as women's role in society, as well as Darwin's theories about the passing of genetics from parents to children. This play covers those theories a lot, as you can see with Dr. Rank who genetically inherited a disease from his father because of his own sinful nature. That sub-plot emphasizes Nora's decision to leave her children for fear of them inheriting her bad nature, which is completely understandable.
One thing that needs to be understood here is Ibsen was not a feminist, but a realist. Just because he ended the play with Nora leaving her husband, her duty to her husband, and her duty to her children behind does not mean he thought every woman should behave as such if they do not get what they want. Ibsen was also observing social issues of men and women in general, which is why I like that guy. This play sparked so much controversy, and it remains one of his highly known plays, but I think more people should start analyzing other things besides the feminist issues that are obviously noted in this play.
Show Less
LibraryThing member leslie.98
Maybe 3½... I found the second act dragged a bit, but the third and final act was amazing. Nora's revolt was tremendously satisfying to me, in particular after Torvald goes into his self-righteous rant.
LibraryThing member t1bnotown
We read this sophomore year of high school, and I very much enjoyed it. We had a debate over whether Nora was good or bad in my class- all the girls sided with her, and all the boys but one against. I'm with her! I felt like she wasn't really a person while she was with her husband and she had to
Show More
leave to become one. Never stay with a man who won't let you eat cookies! Show Less
LibraryThing member heidilove
one of the first plays that ever really spoke to me as a modern person. a master work.
LibraryThing member writestuff
A Doll’s House is a play written by Henrik Ibsen and published in 1879. The play is written in three acts, and takes place in the home of Torvald and Nora Helmer. It is Christmastime and the household is getting ready for the holiday. In Act I, the reader learns that Nora has committed a crime: a
I found this to be an interesting book. It is very short (less than 100 pages) and certainly reflects the writing style and sensibilities of the times. Torvald is quite demeaning and paternalistic towards Nora, calling her cutesy names such as “sweet little skylark” and insults her ability to handle money by referring to her as “featherhead.” He is controlling – dictating what she can and cannot eat, and what she should wear to a party. Initially, Nora plays along with all of this. She appears to be a bit of an airhead and does not seem to have an ounce of sense about her. But, gradually her character is revealed to be someone who is much stronger willed and intelligent than she first appears.
A Doll’s House is considered to be classic feminist literature. Written at a time when women were still considered to be the property of their husbands, having no money of their own and prohibited from dealing in business without the consent of their husbands – the play takes a liberal stance on the role of women in society. Specifically, it looks at the emancipation of women from the control of men.
Money is one means by which power is obtained – and in Ibsen’s play, that idea becomes central. Nora appears to be completely under the control of her husband who stands to become very wealthy when he is promoted to a top position in a bank. Ibsen allows Nora to regain some of her autonomy through her ruse to obtain a loan – and then further empowers her by giving her the means to pay back the money. By putting money into Nora’s hands, Ibsen turns the table on tradition and allows a woman character to enjoy her own independence. In 1879, this would be a revolutionary idea.
Henrik Ibsen was a Norwegian poet, playwright, and theater director. His plays were controversial, often placing women characters in a position to question Victorian society’s moral dictates. Many critics have considered Ibsen the greatest playwright since Shakespeare.
I read this play for A Year of Feminist Classics project which is discussing the play this month. To join in the discussion or learn more about Ibsen and A Doll’s House, visit the dedicated blog for the project.
Readers who are interested in feminist literature will want to add this classic to their reading list.
Show More
year before, with Torvald ill and needing a trip to Southern Italy to heal, Nora procured a loan without her husband’s knowledge and by forging her father’s signature. She has been faithfully paying off the loan, even working a bit in order to raise the funds to do so. Now, it appears that she will be out from under this financial burden and no one will be the wiser. But, as the play continues, there is a turn of events. A loan officer threatens to reveal Nora’s crime to her husband, perhaps even to seek legal action against her. Nora seeks assistance from her friend, Christine, and the two attempt to use their womanly wiles to get out of the difficult situation. The end of the play proves to be scandalous for the times -and I won’t reveal it here. Suffice it to say, that Ibsen’s play caused an uproar in Victorian society and many performances of it were changed to reveal a more conservative ending.I found this to be an interesting book. It is very short (less than 100 pages) and certainly reflects the writing style and sensibilities of the times. Torvald is quite demeaning and paternalistic towards Nora, calling her cutesy names such as “sweet little skylark” and insults her ability to handle money by referring to her as “featherhead.” He is controlling – dictating what she can and cannot eat, and what she should wear to a party. Initially, Nora plays along with all of this. She appears to be a bit of an airhead and does not seem to have an ounce of sense about her. But, gradually her character is revealed to be someone who is much stronger willed and intelligent than she first appears.
A Doll’s House is considered to be classic feminist literature. Written at a time when women were still considered to be the property of their husbands, having no money of their own and prohibited from dealing in business without the consent of their husbands – the play takes a liberal stance on the role of women in society. Specifically, it looks at the emancipation of women from the control of men.
Money is one means by which power is obtained – and in Ibsen’s play, that idea becomes central. Nora appears to be completely under the control of her husband who stands to become very wealthy when he is promoted to a top position in a bank. Ibsen allows Nora to regain some of her autonomy through her ruse to obtain a loan – and then further empowers her by giving her the means to pay back the money. By putting money into Nora’s hands, Ibsen turns the table on tradition and allows a woman character to enjoy her own independence. In 1879, this would be a revolutionary idea.
Henrik Ibsen was a Norwegian poet, playwright, and theater director. His plays were controversial, often placing women characters in a position to question Victorian society’s moral dictates. Many critics have considered Ibsen the greatest playwright since Shakespeare.
I read this play for A Year of Feminist Classics project which is discussing the play this month. To join in the discussion or learn more about Ibsen and A Doll’s House, visit the dedicated blog for the project.
Readers who are interested in feminist literature will want to add this classic to their reading list.
Show Less
LibraryThing member sgemmell
Ibsen's novel is a critique of the 19th century marriage norms. Nora lives to serve her husband, Helmer, however, she resorts to deceit in order to help him and then lives in fear of Torvald's negative judgment of her actions. Torvald controls every aspect of Nora's life; what she eats, what she
Show More
buys, how she raises the children, what she thinks, and what she does. Nora dutifully complies and denies her own desires. Torvald uses demeaning nicknames for his wife, and treats her as if she were a child. Nora seems disinterested in her children who are cared for by a nanny. Through the characterization and dramatic action, Ibsen creates a picture of the Helmer household as one of dolls in a doll's house. Torvald views his wife and children as possessions that serve to elevate his ego and reputation. Christine serves as a foil for Nora and Christine becomes Nora's model modern woman. Throughout the drama, Nora is blackmailed by Krogstad so that she will convince Torvald to keep Krogstad employed at the bank. When Krogstad is fired, he reveals that he will send Torvald a letter that explains the loan that Nora took out in order to pay for a trip to Italy. Eventually, Torvald reads the letter and harshly admonishes Nora. Nora prepares to leave the house and Torvald immediately forgives her and explains that a man forgives when he truly loves a woman. Nora maintains her resolve to leave and find out her own identity. Torvald and some readers cannot fathom why Nora would not take her children along with her. This resolution makes the drama controversial in Ibsen's day and still in modern society. Nora can be compared and contrasted to Chopin's characters Mrs. Summers in "A Pair of Silk Stockings" and Mrs. Mallard in "The Story of an Hour." I also like to discuss how a marital relationship can confining for men. Both Rip Van Winkle and Walter Mitty are husbands who have much in common with Nora Helmer. Show Less
LibraryThing member ThatsFresh
short, deals with inner questioning vs. outward conformity. understandable how hugely controversial this was when it was released. still enjoyable today.
LibraryThing member pocketmermaid
Read for school in my World Lit class. But I remember loving it from my high school drama class. I loved Ibsen even then. Coming back to to this play years later was wonderful, because I got to examine it from an adult perspective. I will always defend Nora and her decision. She is a victim of her
Show More
time period, yet she is not to be pitied. Show Less
LibraryThing member HadriantheBlind
A good play, fun to imagine as a play instead of how I usually handle books.
LibraryThing member ariesblue
Nora a woman who comes to understand that her marriage wasnt as she supposed it to be , an illusion, and that her husband is a very different person from she once believed him to be..when he cant undergo one of the hardships in their life for her sake ....
She leaves her husband and her children
her husband accused her of being a "child-wife"she feels that he was right, that she is a child who knows nothing of the world. Since she knows so little about herself or society, she feels that she is an inadequate mother and wife.....
her last words was that they could become a man and wife once again, but only if a miracle occurred.......
i liked the last scene....
She leaves her husband and her children
Show More
because she feels it is for their benefit..her husband accused her of being a "child-wife"she feels that he was right, that she is a child who knows nothing of the world. Since she knows so little about herself or society, she feels that she is an inadequate mother and wife.....
her last words was that they could become a man and wife once again, but only if a miracle occurred.......
i liked the last scene....
Show Less
LibraryThing member SweetbriarPoet
Well-written dialogue, and a speedy read. I find it cliche because I have been usurped by classic literature with the same theme (or even more modern literature such as [Revolutionary Road].) But, I am sure it was great for its era. I find the main characters a bit dull- though something really
Show More
intrigues me about the Doctor. A classic for everyone to read. Show Less
LibraryThing member cinesnail88
I'm currently working my way through a good deal of the theatrical canon and this play was up next. An intriguing study, still at times rooted in the melodramatic. I wasn't too impressed with the character of Nora, even after extensive discussion. She confused and baffled me the majority of the
Show More
time, and not in a particularly good way. Show Less
LibraryThing member crazyjster
The good thing was...it was VERY quick to read, other than that...who cares about the story. It was lame. I can't believe people paid money to sit through that on Broadway. There was no excitement what so ever. It was like watching what goes on in many households on stage. Evidently the big deal
Show More
was that it happened in an earlier time period when it was less socially exceptable...big deal. Show Less
LibraryThing member markbstephenson
I read this with interest as a bachelor. After 22 years of marriage rereading it convinces me that it is an inspired masterpiece. I hope my children will read it at some point- preferably before they marry!
LibraryThing member truncoxx
I really did not enjoy this book. Most probably because I am not a fan of reading plays or easily predictable stories/plots. I thought the story was very simple, easy to predict and a little boring. However, it is a good classic to read and especially if you enjoy plays. I would not recommend it to
Show More
those who are not very dedicated readers. Show Less
LibraryThing member mblaze
Nora, a stereotypical housewife, is faced with her past secrets being exposed. This forces her to choose between living her same sheltered life, or growing up and becoming strong and independent. Henrik Ibsen's play is full of metaphors that describe Nora's marriage. He uses a variety of characters
Show More
to contrast the relationship between Nora and her husband. He also does an excellent job of raising moral questions for the reader to contemplate. This book would be well used in a high school English class, because it is simple to read and understand, but it raises a very important debate on gender roles and marriage. Show Less
LibraryThing member LTW
One of the best-known, most frequently performed of modern plays, displaying Ibsen’s genius for realistic prose drama. A classic expression of women’s rights, the play builds to a climax in which the central character, Nora, rejects a smothering marriage and life in "a doll’s house."
LibraryThing member sealford
This is, in my opinion, one of the most important women's rights books ever written. I am by no means a modern feminist, but I really did enjoy this book back when I read it in high school. I liked the ending climax, though it was quite a bit bittersweet.
LibraryThing member ashdwyer
The only redeeming quality about this book is that it is short. I really didnt enjoy the writing style, the characters, or the plot. It was one of those books that you are forced to read, and simply suffer through it while never feeling like you could connect with it. I cant stand it when people
Show More
assume that just because something is popular or old, it has to be good. This book just wasnt good. Show Less
Awards
Language
Original language
Danish
Original publication date
1879
Physical description
96 p.; 21 cm
Local notes
Omslag: Ikke angivet
Omslaget viser titel og forfatternavn på en neutral lys baggrund
Indskannet omslag - N650U - 150 dpi
Gutenberg, bind 2452
Det er i Vildanden, der står "Tager De livsløgnen fra et gennemsnitsmenneske, tager De også lykken fra det". Men den har jeg vist ikke stående.
Omslaget viser titel og forfatternavn på en neutral lys baggrund
Indskannet omslag - N650U - 150 dpi
Gutenberg, bind 2452
Det er i Vildanden, der står "Tager De livsløgnen fra et gennemsnitsmenneske, tager De også lykken fra det". Men den har jeg vist ikke stående.
Similar in this library
Pages
96
DDC/MDS
| 839.8226 |