Avsnitt
-
Shirley Jackson - The Lottery - Her Most Famous Short Story!
Hi, I’m Christy Shriver, and we’re here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.
And I’m Garry Shriver and this is the How to love Lit Podcast. Today we are finishing up our series on Shirley Jackson. Last week we concluded our discussion of her most famous book, the one that inspired the Netflix series by the same name The Haunting of Hill House. Today we are going to read the short story that made her a household name, “The Lottery.”
It has had its share of movie inspiration. Anyone who has seen the opening of The Hunger Games would not be shocked at the plot of “The Lottery.” It’s inspired a bunch of other stories and movies besides that one; I think you mentioned the Stephen King one last week. I’m sure there are way more than that if we sat here and thought about it.
True, and maybe I shouldn’t have been, but I was actually surprised as to how scandalous this story was when it was first published. If we’re talking solely about violence, by today’s standards, it’s mild. There is no blood or gore, it’s definitely no Squid Games.
I agree- and I believe that is why this story- so deceptively simple and relatively tame- is actually taught in the eight grade in many school systems. It’s disturbing for reasons beyond the fact that someone is killed at the end- kiiling a main character is just par for the course in a standard English curriculum- in fact, that’s the big joke among English teachers- we don’t teach a story if we don’t kill someone at the end. “The Lottery” reads and feels so simple. And it is…so why the sensation?
Let’s talk about the sensation, it’s definitely worth noticing how big a stir it actually created.
For starters, the story generated more negative letters and subscription cancellations than anything the New Yorker had ever published. Jackson herself received over 300 letters just the summer it was published. In her own words she said this, “I can count only 13 that spoke kindly to me.”
I want to point out that her mother, the ever-inspiring Geraldine could be counted on for a comment. She wrote her daughter with this to say, “Dad and I did not care at all for your story…it does seem, dear, that this gloomy kind of story is what all you young people think about these days. Why don’t you write something to cheer people up?”
Dear Ole’ Geraldine- at least she’s consistent. But Jackson refused to explain the meaning of the story. She did once tell a journalist, “I suppose I hoped, by setting a particularly brutal rite in the present and in my own village, to shock the readers with a graphic demonstration of the pointless violence and general inhumanity of their own lives, but I gather that in some cases the mind just rebels. The number of people who expected Mrs. Hutchinson to win a Bendix washer at the end would amaze you.”
Ha! Well, I don’t know how pointless violence and general inhumanity could have surprised anyone in 1948 when it was published. That was right after world war 2, especially the United States, had to stare the reality in the face that we had stood by and turned a blind eye for almost a decade to the atrocities committed by Hitler, and there was no one more cultured or sophisticated than the German people.
I guess that’s true, but of course…for Americans that was always…over there…we, self-righteously could always claim we were not capable of such things...
we after all were the victorious winners in that struggle between good and evil. And yet, Jackson’s simple story does seem to be pointing an accusing finger at someone.
Yes, I totally think it does, and I do want us to take a different direction than many people who read this story. At first pass, and this is how I’ve most often heard this story discussed, this is a story that rails against tradition, against not questioning authority, specifically religious authority, against patriarchy…all very easy things to attack and very common in the American canon.
Well, not just in the arena of literature either. We’ve been attacking cultural norms in one form or another since American invented baseball as its own American sports ritual over the sport of the British Empire- football or better known here as soccer.
HA! I guess that’s true. We also have a way higher tolerance for gore than this story evokes- I mean we were comfortable with the headless horseman and the tell-tale heart. There was something personal about the Lottery that went beyond attacking traditions or killing an innocent victim. I also don’t think many of us would cancel our subscription to our favorite media streaming service (which would be the modern day equivalent), or take the trouble to dig up someone’s personal address and write them a personal letter if we did not feel personally attacked. “The Lottery” got under people’s skins because it was personal. So, that’s the question I want to ask? If this story is about pointless violence and general inhumanity, and if I’m offended because I feel personally accused, how?
So, let’s start- Christy, we talked about if we should read the entire story and then discuss it or if we should stop and start. We’ve decided to stop and start, but hopefully we won’t stop and start too much to be confusing, but just enough to be helpful- a difficult balance to strike.
True- Garry- we may fail, but let’s give it a go. Let’s start with the first three paragraphs and then we’ll interrupt.
Paragraphs 1-3
What are your thoughts?
Well, the thing that strikes me here is tone. Look at the imagery and word choice- it’s summer, there is fresh warmth- there are flowers blooming- there’s not just grass there’s richly green grass- this is the language of birth and beauty. There is also a deliberate attempt to characterize these people as organized and civilized- the lottery is annual, it takes less than two hours, they eat a noon dinner- the children don’t gather, they assemble- assemble is a formal word. There is a reference to school. They are being instructed and civilized so to speak deliberately – the word “liberty” is thrown around here. And yet what are they doing, they are stuffing their pockets full of stones- even the very small children. They assemble as family units, the very bedrock of civilization across time and culture- they stand together- united- and for a purpose that is upsetting to no one.
Let’s read the next four paragraphs and learn about the culture and traditions of this place.
Next four paragraphs
One funny thing that Jackson does in this story is play around with names. The names are all carefully selected- look at who’s conducting all of this, a man by the name of Summers- such a happy name associated with youth, strength, growth, life, all of it. But look at the other guy- Mr. Graves- he also is responsible for making up the slips of paper and putting the names in this black box. It’s a pun- a grave is a place where we put a dead body. It also means serious- like if you are in grave danger. The black box one time spent a year in Mr. Graves barn, but that’s not the only place it lives. He is not solely responsible for this black box. It’s spent a year in the post office and also in a grocery store owned by Mr. Martin.
Another thing that people have pointed to is all the possible symbolism in this story. It does seem that this box is a symbol, the three-legged stool is a symbol, the black mark is a symbol, even the stones are symbols. But for what? We should always annotate and follow the symbols, but I usually withhold judgement on what they mean until I’ve had time to think about the story as a whole.
And we’ve got more names- a lot of names actually. One that showed up earlier, but we didn’t address is name Delacroix- we’re even told the correct pronunciation of this name-
Dela-Croix- as in French for of the Cross
Yep- except they mispronounce it- they don’t say Delacroix like you’re supposed to say it- they say delacroy- a corruption of the original. And that sets up for me another a pattern that I see as you read through all these traditions. Traditions are not fixed- like people think they are.
No, They evolve like everything else on planet earth. We keep what we want and discard what we don’t like. On my wall, I have a poster that says all behavior is goal- directed- and that goes for entire cultures as well. No matter what we say, our behaviors speak for us- and they are all goal-directed. This is true for traditions as well- be it religious, ethical, or civic.
Jackson is very ambiguous about her relationship with religion here. I want to point out that this is not a religious ceremony, and she could have very easily and understandably made it one. Mr. Summers could have been Pastor Summers or Father Summers or Rabbi Summers, but he’s not any of these, he’s a businessman. I want to suggest what I think here about-that three legged stool- I do think it represents what holds up society in general- three aspects of societal authority or control- religious, civic and commercial- these three legs hold up the black box. They are working together, but none is running the show exclusively.
Well, if we’re going to guess at symbolism, I want to make a suggestion of my own.
Oh-okay- what do you want to suggest?
That black box. It’s power, it’s control. It’s black because fear controls. It’s dynamic in that it moves. It evolves over time, as power does. It’s cloaked in secrecy, it hides behind tradition, but we see that that isn’t necessarily true- they went from chips to paper when they wanted to. What they wanted to uphold was the black box of power. I also want to point out that somehow Jackson subtly connects her ritual with this black box and three-legged stool to the harvest, which I found to be a particularly interesting connection. It’s a link to survival and it’s at the heart of human existence. The ancient Athenians, the Aztecs, the Incans on this side of the world just to name a few, but many cultures have connected human sacrifice to crop fertility. In fact, and this may be a point of irony, if you just look across human history from the Egyptians to the Chinese, what we see is human sacrifice correlates directly with a rise in a more sophisticated culture and social stratification than the other way around, contrary to what Old Man Warner suggests.
What do you mean by that?
I mean that we can see, historically, as societies got more sophisticated and organized, we saw more and more links to human sacrifice.
Well You’re right That is counter-intuitive- you would think it would be just the opposite. Of course, closer to home, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which is what Jackson was most familiar with and what is reflected most obviously in her story, there is a very deep tradition of sacrifice but not human. This story is not a direct attack on Christianity by the way, but there is a lot of Christian imagery here- not just with the name Delacroix or delacroy. There is also the connection with publicly sanctioned and even religiously sanctioned public stonings. This is a ritual we see in the Old Testaman of the Bible, and one we see Jesus referencing directly in the New Testament in the Bible. There is a particular story, one of the more famous stories in the New Testament from the 8th chapter of Saint John where a group of men want to stone a woman because they caught her in the act of adultery. They take her outside; they all gather stones and are ready to murder her when Jesus intervenes. He takes a stick and starts writing something in the sand which we are never told what they are, but he famously says, “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” The men slowly but surely as they read whatever he was writing, dropped their stones and went home. Of course, we don’t know what he wrote, I like to think it was the names of their paramours, but that’s just me enjoying the irony. The story ends with Jesus looking at the woman and asking where her accusers had gone because by that point there were none left.
So, you see that story connecting here-
Yep- I do. There are more Christian references too- Mrs. Adams, that’s the name of the first man. There is an Eva- and then Old man Warner- his name isn’t Biblical but there’s a biblical connection. Again, back to Jesus in the New Testament. These Biblical references, btw, are not obscure- these are super-famous passages that every red-blooded American in 1950 would know. In the New Testament there’s another story where a follower of Jesus asks Jesus how many times a person was responsible for forgiving another person- the follower offered a suggestion- he said, should we forgive a person seven times- something he finds to be generous- to which Jesus responded- you should forgive a person 70 times 7 – I think what is important about Old Man Warner is not his name but his age- and the link to this archetypal number.
What’s the connection- I don’t think this story is talking about adultery or forgiveness, is it?
Not directly, it’s talking about values and core values and hypocrisy for sure- and we’ll flesh it out when we get to the end, but what I want to point out- is that people have somehow found their value in surviving this tradition. Mr. Warner brags that he’s survived 77 of these without getting picked- his importance comes from this. Warner also makes a claim that is literally a great example of a post hoc fallacy- an error in logic which you believe that just because something comes before something it means that thing necessarily causes it- he is literally saying that the harvest comes as a direct result of the lottery. He doesn’t invoke any diety for believing this- he just throws it out there. He’s resistant to change because he’s validated by this social order.
Well, I can see why lot’s people think this story is about accepting things just because they have always been done. Warner clearly makes that argument.
Of course, that’s obvious and there- it’s just not the heart of the story. I want to bring up one more name before we finish and get to the punch line. The name Tessie Hutchinson- if we look to history there is one Hutchinson woman who stands out- Anne Hutchinson- she showed up in chapter 1 of the Scarlet Letter too- btw- which has a connected theme to this story-
but anyway- tell us who this person is- for those less familiar with early American history.
Anne Hutchinson- we’re going way back now- she was born in 1591- she was banished to the colony of Rhode Island after being excommunicated from Massachusetts bay colony for teaching among other things that women should read and be in leadership but mostly her teachings about the Bible were considered heretical. She ended up being murdered by Indians in 1643. It’s a sad ending. She was definitely cast out of the group.
So, let’s finish reading the story, and see where we land with all these ideas swirling around in our heads.
Finish the story
Well, Mrs. Hutchinson doesn’t win a Bendix washer. You know the psychologist Carl Jung, as you know I like his work, stated that even more or less civilized people remain inwardly primitive. We don’t like thinking this, so we can justify with this “mass psyche”. The group becomes the hypnotic focus of fascination and we can allow ourselves to fall into some sort of spell.- that’s the word he used. The group experience lowers the level of consciousness like the psyche of an animal so we don’t have to take responsibility for our actions on an individual level. It’s not a murder if it’s a ritual. How could it be? It’s sanctioned by the group.
And yet, it is murder, isn’t. And where I see all of Jackson’s ambiguities emerge. Her story can be interpreted so many different ways. For one thing, no one sees any moral conflict. Any psychological explanation for that. I mean they do this every year.
Talk aboou the Milgram experiment
It’s a nameless village, full of tradition, likely corruption, so civilized, so warm, the people were so nice to each other…all the way until Mrs. Delacroix picks up the largest stone she could find with which to pelt her good friend Mrs. Hutchinson.
Jackson downplayed her story. In an essay she wrote about it she had this to say, “I had written the story three weeks before being published. The idea had come to me while I was pushing my daughter up the hill in her stroller- it was as I say, a warm morning, and the hill was steep, and beside my daughter, the stroller held the day’s groceries- and perhaps the effort of that last fifty yards up the hill put an edge to the story, at any rate, I had the idea fairly clearly in my mind when I put my daughter in her playpen and the frozen vegetables in the refrigerator, and writing the story I foud that it went quicly and easily, moving from beginning to end without pause, I’ll skip a little to we get to this line….it was just a story I wrote.”
Except it wasn’t. It was her lived experience in Bennington. Everyone was so nice to each other; centered on civic contribution, religion, family structure- and yet ready to pelt each other with the largest stone they could find, given the psychological pass to do so with impunity.
And that’s what made people angry. We are nice people, but we’re not kind people. We are civilized, but we are not forgiving. We are religious but our religion has been molded not out of the old sacred texts, but out of the box of power that sits on that three legged stool of our conveniently created social structures remolded over the years as it goes from house to house. We are not good, we are what we always have been- ready not just to hurl that first stone, but ready to bring out children along, get them to fill up their pockets with stones, all on a beautiful summer day.
Wow! That hurts. Well, we hope you enjoyed our discussion of one of America’s most famous short stories. Next week, we will find the anecdote to such raw exposure to humanity through the writings of another American native son- Walt Whitman and selections from his wonderful masterpiece- Leaves of Grass. We hope you stick around to see what that great American has to say. As always, please support us by pushing us out on your social media- facebook, instsagram, twitter, tiktok and/or linked in. Text an episode to a friend. If you are a teacher, visit our website www.howtolovelitpodcast.com to find listening guides to all of our episodes.
Peace out
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Taylor Swift || Commencement Address At NYU
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
Flannery O'connor || A Good Man Is Hard To Find || Part 2
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Flannery O'connor || A Good Man Is Hard To Find || Part 1
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Beowulf - Episode 3 - The Final Battle - The Final Word!
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Beowulf - Episode 2 - "Wyrd"-ness, Revenge and Female Aggression!
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
The Poetry of Christina Rossetti || Part 2
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
The Poetry of Christina Rossetti || Part 1
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Jurassic Park || Michael Crichton || Episode 3 || Natures Ultimate Power!
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
A Dolls House - Henrik Ibsen - Episode 2 - Is It Or Is It Not A Feminist Play?
Hi, I’m Christy Shriver and we’re here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.
I’m Garry Shriver and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast. This is episode two in our three part series over Ibsen’s explosive play A Doll’s House. Last week, we looked briefly at the life of Ibsen, his early origins in Norway, the beginning of his career all the way to this play- the one that launched him into stratosphere of Theater greats- It still amazes me that his plays are only outperformed by those of William Shakespeare. Crazy!!! We also looked at the very very beginning of this play- we entered the doll house by meeting Nora as she came back from a shopping trip. We talked about her unique role in this play- she is the entire focus of the play- Nora IS the doll- but we also began to expand the metaphor a little bit because we are also introducing the idea that Nora is not the only person playing a part- maybe she isn’t the only doll in the house.
No, I don’t think she is- although she’s the most interesting and the focus, no doubt. This play is fascinating because there are so many subtle details that leave subtext about so many psychological and sociological ideas- this is, to a greater or lesser degree- a play about someone we all know- if not about ourselves. To what degree do we all play parts and to what degree do we want to? Do we use people? Are we used being? Are we in a relationship where both parties are using each other? What are the moral implications of this? Does an arrangement like this bring happiness? What are the inevitable consequences- and are these consequences different for men and women because of the different roles we absolutely can’t escape either sociologically or biologically on planet earth? And it is that last question that we will start discussing today. Because, if you google this play at all, the unanswered question that has plagued this play- to the chagrin of Ibsen himself for over 100 years is this- IS or is this NOT a feminist play? Is Ibsen advocating for women’s rights?
HA!! It’s really amazing that so many books that have staying power over the centuries end up landing on gender politics? From Antigone to Wuthering Heights to The Scarlet Letter and the Great Gatsby- gender politics is absolutely inescapable at one level or another.
Well, it absolutely IS- and speaking of gender politics in the 20s, Hermann Weigand a notable literary critic of that time period once said about having watched the doll’s house that “he was, like all men, momentarily shaken by the play. He said this, “Having had the misfortune to be born of the male sex, we slink away in shame, vowing to mend our ways.”
Ha! That’s funny. I get the feeling since I’ve also had that very same misfortune that I’m supposed to feel that way after watching a lot of things.
Indeed, and, that of course IS the goal of most things women write (I’m kidding- I’m not trying to insult anybody, just having a bit of fun), but having said that, Henrik Ibsen absolutely ran from this “feminist” label. So much so that in May 1898, he gave a speech at a banquet held in his honour by the Norwegian Women’s rights league and this is what he said at the speech.
“I am not a member of the Women’s Rights League. Whatever I have written has been without any conscious thought of making propaganda. I have been more the poet and less the social philosopher than people generally seem included to believe. I thank you for the toast, but must disclaim the honor of having consciously worked for the Women’s Right’s Movement. I am not even quite clear as to just what this Women’s Rights Movement really is. To me, it has seemed a problem of mankind in general. And if you read my books carefully you will understand this. True enough, it is desirable to solve the woman problem, along with all the others; but that has not been the world purpose. My task has been the description of humanity. To be sure, whenever such a description is felt to be reasonably true, the reader will read his own feelings and sentiments into the work of the poet. These are then attributed to the poet; but incorrectly so. Every reader remolds the work beautifully and neatly, each according to his own personality. Not only those who write but also those who read are poets. They are collaborators. They are often more poetical than the poet himself. With these reservations, let me thank you for the toast you have given me. I do indeed recognize that women have an important task to perform in the particular directions; this club is working along. I will express my thanks by proposing a toast to the League for Women’s Rights, wishing it progress and success. The task always before my mind has been to advance our country and to give our people a higher standard. To achieve this, two factors are important. It is for the mothers, by strenuous and sustained labor, to awaken a conscious feeling of culture and discipline. This feeling must be awakened before it will be possible to lift the people to a higher plane. It is the women who shall solve the human problem. As mothers, they shall solve it. And, only is that capacity can they solve it? Here lies a great task for women. My thanks! And, success to the League for Women’s Rights [6].
Well, Christy, what should we say about that. That seems pretty clear. He is obviously distancing himself from Women’s Rights- are we not to take him at his word?
I know, and it seems a bit ironic coming from me because I am always insisting that we take people at their word- but in this case, I’m sorry- I have to say- bull malarky- Henrik Ibsen- you are full of it- like it or not- you, darling are a feminist- I don’t care what you say!!! This man was absolutely a feminist- and why would you even accept an honor from a women’s rights organization if you weren’t? What a crazy thing to say while accepting an award- now having said that- I do take him at his word- in the literally since. Meaning if you listen to his words and what they actually mean, what he says here is actually literally true. I do think he doesn’t want to be writing propaganda for the women’s rights movement. Propaganda in and of itself is the opposite of art. It’s not even honest, by most definitions. Ibsen wasn’t trying to do that. Also, there is no doubt that he is interested in humanity. But none of those things are mutually exclusive. He’s also interested in how sexual politics defines our humanity.
Well, as I said before- nothing is more interesting on planet earth than humans and there is no doubt how men and women relate is a “problem” to use his language that we cant really solve..
Well, there’s no doubt. But Ibsen because of his interesting friend group in the theater, had a different perspective on gender politics than most men living traditional Scandanavian lives at the turn of the century. The women in Ibsen’s world were extremely strong women. They were building careers in the theater; involved in creative endeavors, highly educated. We know this from reading his biography, but we also know that by reading his work. Ibsen creates stories where the women outshine their male counterparts over and over and over again. He was almost drawn to stories where women were grappling with patriarchial societies and the imbalances of power within them.
The women who filled Ibsen’s world really are a fascinating subgroup.
Well, that’s a whole tangent, and don’t think I’m not tempted to go down it, not all of those stories, though, reflect super-well on Ibsen. As far as his relationship with his wife, Suzanna goes, their son weighed in on that relationship later on his life and basically credited his mother for Ibsen’s entire career. Apparently there were many times when he wanted to give up- he didn’t have the stamina for it in the early days- and it seems to me that even his personality was much weaker than hers. Sigurd said this, “The world can thank my mother that it has one bad painter the fewer and got a great writer instead.”
Suzannah was for sure a strong influence obviously, but beyond his wife, Aasta Hansteen, was a very famous and outspoken advocate for women’s rights in Norway at that time, and I know she was a good friend of Ibsen. I may want to circle back to some of the history of women’s rights next week after we get to the conclusion of the play because it is certainly something to think about in the context of the play’s ending. But there is no downplaying the realities that being a single or divorced woman in Scandanavia or really anywhere in the Western World was not the easiest path to take in life at that time.
No doubt, And I think how this affected women’s psychology really fascinated Ibsen on an personal level as well as a professional level. On a different occasion when talking about laws, Ibsen can be quoted as saying this, A woman cannot be herself in contemporary society; it is an exclusively male society with laws drafted by men, and with counsels and judges who judge feminine conduct from the male point of view” , and then my favorite Ibsen political quote was when they asked him about property rights for married women. He said that men should not even be consulted in drafting this law because and I quote, “to consult men in such a matter is like asking wolves if they desire better protection of the sheep” [7].
Okay, so back to the question of whether ibsen was a feminist, I think there is enough indicting evidence to suggest that Ibsen was involved at least in sympathy with the imbalance of power in a patriarchial society. However, I would like to point out that women are not without power in every generation.
And I think that’s a very nice way to say that, he did see the disadvantages of a society where distribution of power was so unevenly distributed between the sexes, but having said that, I think Ibsen , at least in this plays, does not see women as necessarily powerless even in this unequal society- and it is this dynamic that he highlights. I’m not even sure, Ibsen would suggest that if society was unequally balanced and the balance of power favored women, women would be less tyrrancial then men- but that’s a different question altogether- a play yet to be written, I think.
Where I want us to land, as we open our discussion of the play today, is to take a position on this issue before we even read the play. I want to come down on the side that sees this play as a feminist play.
I agree. I absolutely don’t think we can escape that.
Having said that, writing a play where the theme is men are bad is not interesting. It’s been done over and over and over again. In fact, I’ve ready high school creative magazines filled with poems that pound that theme to death. No play will stick around in popularity for over 100 years if that’s all it has. There has to be more.
This play is focusing on women-but in particular- one woman- and it’s looking at several things as we look at this one women- one of them is how this imbalance of power between sexes affects a marriage and a homelife in general. But there are other things as well.
A Doll’s House is a such a personal play in some sense. As Thorton Wilder tells us in Our Town, most people choose to go through life with another person. So, this is about how some people live that life- a way that’s slightly cynical maybe. This play pulls back the curtain on this couple and their love affair. Two people who think they are in love. But we are left to question this reality- what is the basis of this love? What is the basis of this marriage? Their lives are great. They have had lots of fun. They’ve traveled. They have children. He has a good job. She spends her days shopping. But Ibsen is asking- okay- so now- what is the basis of the relationship between these two people- what is it really? Could it be something besides a devoted commitment to walk through life together? Could it be something like societal expectations, competitive relationships with people outside the home, personal narcissism or simply the objectification of another person?
Ibsen exposes a marital reality that way too many people see in their own lives and relationships and wish they didn’t. He asks questions that many people ask years into a marriage after they’ve tried one way of living and are now questioning the wisdom of those choices?
So, Christy, are we ready to open up this text and walk through the rest of Act 1-2?
I think so, last week, we read a little bit of this dialogue between Torvald and Nora. It’s so awful. He’s so condescending. He calls her by animal names and not even cool animal names like Flying Phoenix or Cunning Fox- he goes with little squirrel.
For the record, Christy hates Torvald’s names, if you can’t tell. And just so you know, I have not been able to resist the temptation to call Christy my little skylark and my little squirrel for the last two days- and every time I do it, if I’m within strking distance I pat her on the top of her head. I may as well tell you, I’ve been enjoying it, but I’m not sure that she appreciates it in the spirit that is intended.
The pat on the head is particularly awful. It highlights my height impairment. Since this is a podcast, you don’t know this about me, but I’m a full 11 inches shorter than Garry- so patting me on the head is particularly awful.
It’s awesome. And it’s not just the animal terms- although I find those hilarious. Using the dimunuitive by adding the word “little” all the time and then the possessive adjective “my” multiples the level of condescension. I can feel it as I say it and as I pat you on the head, my little squirrel.
Good Lord.
Ibsen leaves absolutely zero room for doubt that Torvald views Nora as his possession- his prized and most expensive possession, and even one that he loves dearly- but clearly a possession. That is premise number one in Ibsen’s argument.
Having set that up, though, he switches gears and immediately proceeds to paint Nora very unglamorously. She condescends to Mrs. Linde almost as much as Torvald does to her, albeit it’s way more passive aggressive. Some people really think Mrs. Linde is supposed to represent some sort of a feminine ideal, but I don’t know about that. In fact, I know I don’t think she is. She is most certainly at this point in her life an independent working woman. She is more authentic and self-aware than Nora. She’s been exposed to life and has not had the insulation money buys. She’s suffered and had to figure things out for herself. She wasn’t raised with money and as a woman in a patriarchal society, has incredible challenges in getting some. When she arrives to talk to Nora we find out these two haven’t seen each other for years. Nora has made good because she landed a good. Husband. Kristine married well too, but her sugar daddy died and left her broke. Nora knows this about Kristine, so she does what so many girls do when confronted with an old girlfriend who’s fallen on bad times- she hijacks the conversation and brags on herself- making sure in the most sympathetic of ways, that the other person knows, she’s done quite well for herself.
Oh my, girls would never do that to each other.
Ha! And I can hear the irony in your voice as you say that. Garry, btw, has worked in a girls school for the last five years, so he’s seen this play out more than once. That’s the entire game we play.
I’m a smart enough man not to comment here, but let’s read the passage.
Read page 1814
I know a man who’s wife did something similar to what Nora is doing here, and let me say, this woman at the time was in her 50s. She had invited a friend to stay with her because her friend’s husband had left her and she was entitled to no alimony. The woman had no real career but had lived a pretty nice lifestyle now she had nothing- and was falling from a comfortable life to a dubious one. Well, the woman I know invited her to stay in Memphis in order to “console” her, but two days before she came, she bought all new outfits complete with brand new jewelry- for each day of her friend’s visit. She also bought fancy food they usually didn’t eat and prepared elegant desserts. She pulled out fancy china and for the duration of the visit used them pretending that was the normal course of daily life. I remember the event because it seemed particularly cruel to subtextually brag on how great your life was in comparison- but it was done so nicely.
Oh yes, female aggression can be so subtle- and we all feel it even if it’s nice- we just know we’re uncomfortable. It’s very different than how men treat each other or even treat women. And I guess that’s what we see here because Kristine fights back- also subtextually, of course, She mocks Nora for being so naïve and having lived a sheltered life. She turns all that bragging about being pampered, and changes it to an accusation of being sheltered and basically stupid. And so, not to be out done and to prove to Kristine that she’s as sophisticated as Kristine, Nora brags about her little financial tryst and we learn about this debt she has incurrred- and it’s a big debt- Nora has recklessly taken enormous debt to fund an entire trip to Italy for a solid year and she did this with absolutely NO ability or plan as to how she would ever repay it. In some ways it seems it didn’t even occur to her at the time she did it, that that was a thing that would eventually have to be done. That’s the side of Nora that is unattractive and makes me not feel bad for her being called a little squirrel.
Well, that’s true, but in another very real way, you have to feel a little sympathy for Nora. The text never questions her motives. She did it for love. She did it to save her husband, and although nobody knows about it, she has pride for having saved her husband’s life. He is her provider and the provider of her children, and he was unable to provide, so she managed it- and she did it all without wounding his pride- something she KNEW would kill him. There is nobility in that. She’s been carrying around a huge secret burden for a decade- working secretly and all of this knowing it was the only way at her disposal to save her husband’s life. Ten years is a long time, and if you take her at her word which we have to do- and compare her to Kristine- she has something to be proud of, she saved Torvald’s life. She did what she had to do to keep from becoming Kristine- or even worse because she has three children to provide for. Kristine does not.
Of course, I can concede that. You know, I was going to mention, Ibsen got the plot for this story from a real person. Ibsen had a protégé by the name of Laura Petersen Kieler. She was a Norwegian journalist and he was extremely fond of her.
Another one of his strong female friends?
Exactly, anyway, she was married to a man who was extremely paranoid about debt. Laura, as his wife, did what Nora did, and secretly borrowed money to finance an Italian vacation for him to recover from tuberculosis. She worked frantically to repay the loan, exhausted herself, turned in hackwork, but still couldn’t pay back the debt so she forged a check. Her husband found out, used her crime as grounds to divorce her, claimed she was a unfit mother and had her committed to an insane asylum.
That’s terrible.
Well, it is and it really upset Ibsen. He told Suzannah about it as well as several friends. One friend wrote him back and said this about the entire thing, “She has committed a forgery, and is proud of it; for she has done it out of love for her husband, to save his life. But this husband of hers takes his standpoint, conventionally honorable, on the side of the law, and sees the situation with male eyes.”
And so we see the inspiration for this play- the legal part anyway. Torvald is not like that guy in the sense that that particular man in real life was obviously mean. I don’t see meanness in Torvald, but Ibsen is making a much larger point that would have been lost had Torvald been obviously cruel and abusive. This play is not about cruelties and abuses. It’s about using people, even if it appears to be consensual. It’s about the lack of intellectual and emotional intimacy in a marriage.
And that brings me back to Nora because, she IS the deal And although the bigger point of this play is the marital relationship- as a way of understanding this complex thing which is the marital relationship between a man and a woman from the vantage point of a woman, Ibsen surrounds Nora with other relationships. The Nora of Act 1 projects perfection. She has a wonderful husband who adores her, three beautiful children and a nanny to take care of them. The only thing that is keeping her from total perfection is money- enter Dr. Rank.
Oh yes, the rich old man dying of congenital syphilis without any dependents who comes over every day, oh and by the way- who is in love with Nora.
Nora’s relationship with Dr. Rank is another one of those things that we’ve all seen play out in real life and makes us uncomfortable. Here it doesn’t make Nora look very good either. Nora is keenly aware that her physical appearance is sexually alluring to Dr. Rank. They have never acknowledged this with words, but the sexually charged subtext of their relationship allows her to be seductive and he to be seduced without anything physical ever really happening. It’s an obvious and open game. In Act 2, she hits him lightly over the ear with her stocking that she’s been dangling before him with the pretext of displaying part of the costume she will wear at the dance.
It is an open game so much so that Mrs. Linde, when she finds out about Nora’s debt, erroneously assumes that Dr. Rank was Nora’s lender. It’s the obvious assumption. And all that playful secret keeping between Nora and Dr. Rank in front of Mrs. Linde just enhances this idea of fake intimacy between the two, she even cusses in front of Dr. Rank- something she doesn’t haven’t permission to do with her husband. Dr. Rank encourages her to say the D word just as she’s hiding more macaroons from Torvald. Torvald prohibits cussing and macaroons in his little skylark.
Ugh- There is so much awful there. Ibsen cleverly imbeds the idea that there is a possibility Rank will leave his fortune to Nora. I know we’re jumping ahead but in Act 2 when they chat in the darkening living room, and she reveals her flesh-colored stockings, Dr. Rank expresses a desire to leave for Nora, to use his words, “some poor show of gratitude” as a guarantee he will be remembered fondly…
Yes, and since were jumping to Act 2 and that discussion between Nora and Dr. Rank, Nora demonstrates nobility when she shuts down the game between them. She let the opportunity slip by to get the money from Dr. Rank- although I do think she considers it. In fact, she considers it all the way until he says out loud what they both had known to be true about his feelings for her. He would have given her whatever she wanted for just a little sexual cajolery. Nora rejects him and tells the maid to turn up the light. She is not going to add what would feel like prostitution to her list of indiscretions. In other words, she’s creating her own sense of moral boundaries and rejects the easy way out.
So, let’s drop back a little back to Act 1 and introduce the man who is bringing all these ambiguous moral choices to the surface- Krogstad. This is the man who has been fired by Torvald, who has lent Nora money, who has blackmailed Nora to convince her husband to give him his job and AND who, as we have found out, was the man in love with Kristine back in the day and who she dumped for the rich guy who she married and who is now dead.
Krogstad, according to Dr. Rank is “rotten to the core”, and Rank doesn’t even know about his blackmailing of Nora or any of that other stuff. The general understanding of Krogstad is that he is a man with criminal record for having committed forgery. Torvald wants him gone from the bank because he doesn’t feel Krogstad has publically paid for his indiscretion PLUS and this is the worst part as far as Torvald is concerned- Krogstad was a childhood friend and this association is embarrassing.
Let’s read the part where Torvald tells Nora about his feelings towards Krogstad.
Read 1831-1832
Torvald’s speech is remarkably strongly worded and unwavering. It’s not even the way he usually talks to Nora. None of the playful childlike condescension. She’s always known that if her husband found out what she’s done, the relationship would be problematic at least at first, but this speech seems particularly stern. She even voiced a hope that maybe one day when it’s all over and she’s old and unattractive, knowing the story might be something he could appreciate after the fact.
Yeah- that dream is dead. I also think it’s terrible that he makes this connection to historical “sin”- as if this is something that is passed down through families. I’m really unsure what to make of it, but Ibsen imbeds the generational thing one way or another into every character in the story. Nora’s dad apparently was a negligent father. Dr. Rank’s father left his the gift of syphilis, Kristine’s father was such a negligent father that she married a man she didn’t love FOR money forsaking one she did and who loved her back. And here, Krogstad is accused of being an unfit parent although we find out over the course of the play that the reason he wants to regain his respectability is so that he redeem himself as an honorable man for his sons- to become a good father. It certainly adds a little of a spiritual dimension into a play that is set at one of Christianity’s two holy days or high holidays – This play actually demonstrates two views Christmas, if you want to take it even further. Christmas has a secular dimension in every household. That’s why many people celebrate Christmas who are not Christians. It’s an end of the year celebration- parties, gifts, and it is in this sense that the tree is at the center of the Helmer house- but that is not the redemptive story of Christmas that we will see play out later in Kristine (another word which has its origins in Christ and Krogstad). Torvald and even Rank’s worldview leave no room for Christmas redemption, as Rank reminds us that nothing is ever free and Torvald reminds us that our personal flaws are things that we can pass down generationally to our children- our mistakes can ever be reclaimed- generational curses.
Nora’s comments at the end of this Christmas sermon show us that she’s conflicted, maybe for the first time in her life, in accepting Torvald’s worldview at face value. She doesn’t feel like a mother corrupting her children, but maybe she is- maybe she is toxic like the man he’s described. Maybe her “sin” can ever be redeemed, no matter how many years she sits of doing copying work and paying back her debt. She’s not sure about that, but she is sure that Torvald must NEVER know the truth about her because HE believes it is. Another very interesting thing that happens, and we see this in people who are in relationships with people who live in relationships that are unequal- - Nora, seemingly for the first time in her life, questions whether the man she has always seen as infallible, may not have truth. She is emerging from a fog, if you want to understand it like that. When we have unequal relationships like this, be it for any reason, when one party begins to question this inequality, things often burn to the ground.
And there is no doubt Nora is questioning the status quo, the game she has played, even enjoyed. There is a lot of hide and seek in this game and in this play. The children are physically playing hide and seek, but they are supposed to be playing they’re children- it’s a childish thing to do. But it’s not a fun game as an adult. Nora and Torvald play hide and seek. Even Kristine has to hide in the room away from Torvald. Nora is questioning the game. The first Act of this play is about society. The Helmers project domestic happiness to everyone they know. The central metaphor is the Christmas tree. It’s decorated with innocent material secrets, wrapped gifts. Nora wants to wrap money on it. It is the expression of the good life: the good job, the good house, the good children, the beautiful wife- everything Torvald wants to project to the world. Krogstad threatens all of this, and in Act 2 we see this shift. Notice that the Christmas tree in Act 2 is stripped, bedraggled and with its candles burnt out. The values of Act 2 shift from material, physical and social to invisible and psychological ones. Nora confides in Christine the nature of her relationship with Rank and the strange fantasies that go with that- that game is exposed. The dialogue between Nora and Krogstad in Act 2 shifts to a discussion from the social nature of Nora’s crime to a much darker one- the psychological ones. Krogstad leaves a letter in Torvald’s box. That secret will be exposed too. Nora and Krogstad talk about her consideration of suicide as a way out. Krogstad is the one person in the world, ironically that understands her. The major metaphor for the scene also shifts. In Act 2, we are no longer going to talk about Christmas trees, we are moving to the tarantela- the dance of the spider. And learning about the tarantela is where I thought we would end today with Act 2, but time has got the better of us, so let’s pick up with the tarantela next episode. Next episode we will start with the end of Act 2 and talk about what’s so interesting about the tarantela, which by the way is the music from the intake and outtake in case you wanted to know what it sounds like and haven’t actually seen a performance eof the play. After that we’ll follow through to the end of the play and its famous ending. If you haven’t read this play in a while, read it, watch it, or listen to a version on an audio version. It never gets old.
There’s a lot to look forward to. I hope you’ll pick back up next episode. Thanks for listening and as always we invite you to connect with us any way you like: Instagram, facebook, linked in, twitter, our website howtolovelitpodcast.com. Also, and most importantly, please help us grow by talking about us and texting an episode to a friend.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
A Doll's House - Henrik Ibsen - Episode 1 - Norway At It's Literary Best!
Hi, I’m Christy Shriver and we’re here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.
I’m Garry Shriver and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast. Today we begin our series on Henrik Ibsen and his great play- A Doll’s House. Ibsen was born in Norway, a country that shines a bright light on our view of the world more than most of us realize because it’s such a small place geographically.
.
Haha- shines a light- is that a pun- Norway is, after all, the land of the midnight sun! Where in the summer, the sun literally shines at midnight.
Well, there is that, but I was actually thinking about the tremendous influence of the Nobel committee and the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize the famous committee that grants every year since 1901 on December 10th, from Oslo City Hall. There they announce which human, in their estimation, on planet earth has conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. What an amazing designation.
Oh, that’s pretty important too. I know this is a tangent, but why IS the Nobel Peace Prize selected by and given out by Norwegians instead of the Swedish people, since Alfred Nobel was Swedish and not Norwegian.
That’s a really good question, and I’m not sure anyone knows- but it was definitely stipulated by Alfred Nobel at his death that although the other awards would be awarded in Stockholm, the Peace Prize would be awarded in Oslo, Norway and it has been ever since.
Norway is a country that has established itself for many years at the top of the lists of “best places to live on planet earth”- a designation it won again in 2020. It has the highest life expectancy in the world, (82.4 average) in case you’re wondering, second place went to Ireland, btw. It’s population on average is one of best educated in the world, and the gross national income is ranked third behind Switzerland and again Ireland.
Wow, and yet Christy, I wonder if you would like living there- let me remind you that the average temperature in the summer is 65 degrees Fahrenheit or 18 degrees Celsius.
I know, growing up in tropical climates where the average summer temperature is in the 90s or high 30s Celsius, I would definitely have to buy a new wardrobe, but that’s not always a negative.
Ha! No, I guess that’s true. Norway is also a land we generally think of for its striking outdoor beauty characterized by those magnificient fjords.
Fjord is one of the few Norwegian words that almost everyone knows. It literally means where one fares through- and if you see pictures of them, that makes sense why. They are fairy-tale like, truly and can be hundreds of miles long. Of course, Norway isn’t the only place where they exist, but they have over 1700 of them and two are featured on UNESCO’s world heritage list. Garry, describe what a fjord is for those of us, which includes me, who have never seen them.
Well, I’ve never seen them in person either..yet…but I will. They are long narrow inlets of water with steep cliffs on both sides that were created by glaciers thousands of years ago. They are astonishingly deep, often thousands of feet or meters deep. They say one of the best ways to seem them is on a cruise ship, so that’s my plan.
Ha!! Sounds like a great plan. Of course, right after Fjords and the Nobel Prize, the next thing that comes to mind when we think of Norway is still not Ibsen but- Vikings.
Oh Vikings for sure have put their mark on northern Europe, and many of us have a very specific image in our minds of raiding warriors arriving in those amazing ships that could move around 15-17 knots. And although, the Vikings are mostly known for colonizing and conquering, which could be viewed negatively, you would be happy to know that women’s rights date back to before the 1100s among vikings. Women had the right to divorce, own property and were protected by law from sexual harassment.
Well, there you go, and I guess that’s a good Segway to the reason for our interest today in Norway- because after those things- when we get to famous Norwegians, it’s hard to find one more well known then their native son, Henrik Ibsen, who was also quite the feminist- although as we will talk about next episode- he fought that label as he fought all labels.
Yes- I guess he did. But let’s jump back just a little before we talk about Ibsen specifically, to talk a little more bit about Norway, because this little country has made such an important impact on the world but it isn’t a country that necessarily and deliberately draws a lot of attention to itself.
I guess that’s true. Are you talking about Lasse Matberg- the real live version of Thor- Instagram and basically the internet has gone nuts over.
Okay- Christy- no drooling. I was thinking King Harald the fifth.
Most of us don’t even realize it is a constitutional monarchy with a very active monarch, Harald V who is 84 years old is known as a symbol of consolation and support; he and his beautiful queen Sonja- enjoy an 80% approval rating. Which is incredible!
Well, it IS incredible- I’m not sure even Disney World enjoys an 80% approval rating.
Anyway, the modern, the highly educated and urbanized nation of Norway is not the Norway Henrik Ibsen grew up in- at least according to Ibsen. His world was much more rural -and to hear him describe it, backwards- although, that’s probably how people describe Memphis if they compare us to other more glamorous parts of the world.
True, he was born in is the city of Skien in the Telemark region of southern Norway. It’s a port city. Today the municipality boasts a healthy 54 plus thousand residents and is famous for being the birth place of Henrik Ibsen. During Ibsen’s day it was one of the largest and oldest cities in Norway The Ibsen family was a solidly middle-class family apparently well respected and prosperous. Both sides of his family tree were well established, they had worked and made their money in the trade and shipping industry.
Which was all well and good until something happened in his father’s business and the family lost everything. Apparently it was pretty bad and when Henrik was 15 he dropped out of school, moved out of the home and over 100 miles away to work as a pharmacist assistant for basically just his room and board. By age 18 he had fathered a child out of wedlock, which would ultimately be raised by his mother’s family, and although he supported the child financially until the child was 15, I’m not sure they ever even met.
Well, so far, there’s nothing in the story you’re telling that would indicate to me that this is the man that is going to revolutionize theater as we know it and become the second most produced playwright in the world after William Shakespeare.
Exactly, he did not have a charmed childhood, but I will say, even as a child he dreamed of greatness. His sister Hedvig told a story after he became famous about a conversation she remembered they had one day as they walked walked up Bratsberg hill in Telemark. He told his sister that what he wanted to do in his life was "to achieve 'the greatest and most perfect of all possible forms of greatness and perfection'."
HA!! Well, I would laugh at that, but there’s a real sense that he came close to doing something akin to that with the theater.
And so it goes to show you that should never count yourself out- even if you feel like you have no privilege in this life or have screwed everything up with what you do have. You’re never done til you’re dead! It’s a nice thought. But back to ibsen, it’s looking rough for little Henrik-at age 18- he’s got no education, a child to support and a couple of plays that he wrote in his spare time stashed away. So he decides to do what a lot of us do- he left the little town of Grimstad where he was the pharmacy assistant and moved to the big city- Oslo, although at the time the name of Oslo was Christiania. He’d been in the health care business so it’s not shocking he’d decided to go to university and get a degree in medicine. Unfortunately for him at the time, although maybe not for the world, he failed his college entrance exams. And even though you’d think that would be a low point, I’m not sure it really was because it was around this time he cut a break in a field that he enjoyed far more. So, I mentioned he had a couple of plays that he’d written in his spare time in Grimstad, well one of them got staged! So after all the missteps up to that point, by age 23 he’d had his first play performed- pretty incredible. After this a few more doors opened, and now instead of being an assistant to a pharmacist- he became – basically with zero experience, the assistant director to Bergen’s main theater.
This, of course, is the moment his life changed forever because he clearly found his calling. He no longer wanted to be a doctor- he would become a playwright. But what is even more interesting is that he found himself at a particular historical junction for the history of Norway – as far as theater goes is not radically different than what we saw with William Butler Yeats. Norway, like Ireland had an interest in creating its own unique theater tradition. While Ireland had been colonized by the British; Norway had been ruled by Denmark for over 400 years. But now there is this movement to start a true Norwegian theater company that will produce Norwegian plays- that would help shape a unique Norwegian identity.
Many of us don’t really understand that Norway had even been a part of Denmark for 400 years, which, of course, is quite a long time. And we certainly don’t understand how that affected culture, but of course it would. Denmark had asserted a lot of cultural and language influence. But at this point in the story, there was a real interest in establishing a Norwegian identity eparate from the Danish one, and so the interest in establishing an original Norwegian theater came along at this time fortunately for Ibsen.
True, and although The Theater in Cristiania had finanicial problems and Ibsen wasn’t particularly super-successful at making a go of it- now that we know his style- he would never have been a good fit for creating patriotic pieces, but nevertheless, because He was involved in writing, directing, staging and producing over 145 plays- he learned a craft- and that is the legacy that created the opportunity for his art to take off on its own.
He also met and married Suzannah Thoreesen in 1858 and shortly after, they had their only child, Sigurd, who btw- grew up to become the prime minister of Norway in Stockholm- another story but worth googling. Christy, I know you’ll probably point this out later but Suzannah was quite an independent and intelligent woman, and many credit her for Ibsen’s ultimate success.
I know!! And I think we should talk about her, but I’ll table it, at least for the moment. The theater in Crisitiania went bankrupt; Ibsen was sued for incredible amounts of debt and he almost got himself thrown into debtors prison literally escaping the country. He swung a government writing grant and moved his family to Italy. Although he never stayed in one town very long, he would stay away from Norway and in this sort of self-imposed exile for 27 years. When he finally returned to Norway,-he would go back as a hero- a celebrity- albeit a controversial one.
It’s amazing to me that although, his body was physically out of Norway, it seems Ibsen’s mind never left the place- even if he did insult it from time to time. His plays, including A Doll’s House, are set in Norway and what is even wilder, they are written in Dano-Norwegian- the common written language of Denmark and Norway. And they were published by a Danish publisher, Gyldendal. In fact, they were performed first in Sweden- not Italy or Germany where he was residing.
True, it’s kind of a roundabout way to success and really an unlikely success it seems. Most People watching his performances were watched translated pieces- usually that doesn’t work well. But in his case, the emotion, the appeal translated cross-culturally- and really still does. Also, Ibsen was a far cry for a self-promoting influencer like we think of today. He was kind of Ibsen a shy and antisocial dude. He had no privileged family from a famous place to create buzz. He was from this relatively small and undistinguished town, writing in a relatively obscure language-but all of a sudden he emerged and became an icon. Like you said, today, his plays are the second most performed plays in the world- only behind William Shakespeare’s- as you mentioned- incredible. They are translated today in 78 different languages and performed all over the world. Nevermind the fact that he literally changed the way theater would be done from that point onward, and in fact is still done to this day.
Okay, I’ve heard people say that before, but I’m not sure I understand what you mean. And even after reading A Doll’s House, I don’t understand how it’s revolutionary besides the content being obviously controversial for the period. In many ways, the plot and the characters seem so ordinary.
And that, darling, is exactly the genius of it. Here’s what was going on. And think about Shakespeare for a moment. UP to that point, the theater had been a place where people went to get away from the world- and maybe it still is to some degree. The plays produced were otherworldly. They were about fairies and monsters; they were about kings- all the things Shakespeare writes about- perhaps the things Marvel studios gets excited about- obviously there is nothing wrong escapism- that’s a big part of performing arts. And In fact, that’s where Ibsen started, he wrote about Vikings , monsters and all those things we enjoy in commercially successful movies today. Except he chose not to stay in that vein. He studied his craft; he began to pay attention to some key changes in what they were doing in theater in Moscow, Germany and other parts of Europe. And those things appealed to him. So, he made a shift- instead of writing stories that took us out of the world- he would write stories that reflect the world. He would write the story of our lives. He began writing plays that were realistic. And when I use that word, I mean the theater movement called realism. The plays he’s most famous for start with the twelve he wrote between 1877-1899. Some people call them his sociological plays; other people just call them the Ibsen cycle. Either way, Ibsen began writing about middle class people- not kings, queens or fairies. He wrote about problems- real life and difficult problems, and he wrote in prose. He didn’t use iambic pentameter or verse of any kind. He wasn’t going to have his characters give long soliloquies or speak with all these cheesy asides. They weren’t going to expound on philosophy in obvious ways- although these plays are extremely psychological. The would be filled of short exchanges between characters. They would say the sort of things we say and do the sort of things we tend to do- whether we admit it or not. Now to us that seems normal or maybe even obvious because that’s how most of our television and movie experience is- but we got that idea from this movement.
And what’s more, the staging was going to be different. And again this may seem fairly obvious to us, but it was new when it happened- with realism the stage is going to have a box set- that means there are three walls and the pretend fourth wall which faces the audience. The audience, or us watching, would pretend we are looking into someone’s lives. The drama would appear ordinary, maybe even bland, but the idea would be that the play would be psychologically driven- the plot would not be
the thing- the interior lives of the people involved would be the thing. The protagonist would rise up not against dragons but against something much more complicated, more internal- the sort of things we rise up against- things like syphyllis- the disease Dr. Rank inherited from his father.
Oh my, so what about A Doll’s House-
Exactly, what exactly IS a Doll’s house about. BTW- even that title is controversial- in Norwegian it’s really a Doll House- which isn’t quite the same as a Doll’s House- anyway- When it came out- it absolutely rocked the world- almost as much if not more than syphyllis.
It premiered in Copenhagen in December of 1879 to a packed house. The applause was incredible and every one left the theater scandalized. When it played in Germany, the lead actress, a famous actress, refused to perform the ending as written and forced Ibsen to rewrite the ending to her liking. She was a storng enough voice that she threatened she’d get someone else to rewrite the ending for him if he didn’t change it- and since there were no copyright laws back then, she got her wish.
In Victorian England, the play was censored and forbidden to be performed, and America didn’t perform it until 1889- a full ten years later.
The Americans are always slow.
I know- aren’t we?
So, are we going to just talk about what other people thought about it, or is it time to find out what the scandal is all about?
Let’s do it. The setting is very simple. It’s set in an unnamed fairly average Norwegian town in an upper middle class home. The whole thing from start to finish only occupies three days of Christmas. It opens with apparent harmony and confidence- a happy feeling and we soon understand that this family is a lot like a lot of middle class families- the family is comfortable but not not conflict free- and conflicts revolve around money-
Oh my- it doesn’t get more real than that
One thing we have to bring up when we talk about live theater is that we have to remember that when it comes to plays- the creative experience involves more than the writer. A drama is more than a written text- much more. That’s the beauty of live performances. In fact every single performance of every single play by definition cannot help but be unique- even audiences affect how a performance goes. No actor will ever perform exactly the same two nights in a row. But beyond that, every actor who plays a role will interpret each character in his or her own way. For example, Kristine could actually be a good character or a bad character depending on how the actress understands her and portrays her. Every character will always be like that- bur especially in an Ibsen play. Even the details of the set will never be the standardized. Ibsen in his stage directions for A Doll’s House, says and I read that the set is, “a comfortable, tastefully but not expensively furnished room.” What does that look like? Every set will be different. Every director will choose different things to enhance- from the set to the costuming to the lighting. All of these collaborative choices affect how we understand and interpret what is going on.
True- but isn’t there something of the intent of the creator and should that be respected- and make each performance mostly the same?
It’s not that simple. Let me give you an example, in 2007, in Edinbough, the director cast Torvald the husband as a four foot tall man- on purpose for a thematic reason.
In China, once the play was staged with a Western woman marrying into a Chinese family. All of this is allowed in the theater.
So, this play centers around Nora. The character of Nora is widely considered one of the most challenging roles in the Western Canon and Deciding what to do with Nora is not a simple thing. Who is this woman? This will be a huge discussion between any director in charge and the actress charged with performing the role.
Why is that? Again, she seems ordinary.
And in a sense, that’s it exactly. She is ordinary. Her life could be my life. Her home could be my home. It is the fact that she seems ordinary that makes her so tremendously complicated. Because no human is ordinary, not really. No life, no matter how pampered, is care-free. Sooner or later we all innately understand this, but then we don’t know what to do with this understanding. Well, Ibsen isn’t going to answer that question for us. In fact, that’s exactly what is wants to NOT do. Ibsen famously said, that a dramatist should never answer questions- only ask them. And so, what we are left with is questions- and this play for the last 100 years has created nothing but arguments and questions as to who is this woman?
So, let’s ask the most basic of all questions about Nora- What is so enamoring or interesting about an ordinary, upper middle class Norwegian woman named Nora?
For one thing, if you’re an actress given this role, you may immediately notice that Nora never leaves the stage. The stage is the doll house and Nora is the Doll. Nora is always on display- she is always in view- she has no privacy- she has no breaks- and neither does the actress. Everyone comes and goes- but Nora never has the freedom to breath- and this is the point of it- there is total claustrophobia in this performance-based life of a doll- there is no privacy in this life- this actress, as Nora, will experience the thrill and exhaustion from start to finish of the life of a doll in a doll house.
And how is a theater-viewer supposed to know to notice that?
Well, you likely won’t- it’s one of those things you intuitively feel even if you don’t consciously think about it. To get back to your question though? For me, the first question I ask myself when I watch this play and honestly, I’m not sure I ever answer it- Do I like this woman? Then I find myself asking a series of rambling questions: Is Nora a good person? Is she a victim? Is it right to like a doll in a doll house, and if a person likes that life, who am I to judge or dislike her for it? Is it her exposure and lack of privacy that makes her unlikeable (because honestly, I usually land on the idea that I don’t like her really- but I know some people do- in fact Ibsen himself adored her)
Oh my your mind runs wild! Why would living like this in your mind make someone unlikeable?
Well, you tell me, do humans need privacy? Psychologically, that is. Does a lack of privacy not to mention autonomy- but let’s just stick with privacy- does that change a person in a negative way.
Well, you know I feel about this topic. When it comes to development of children, it is Absolutely fundamental. Children need to have secrets. It gives them autonomy and where they find their humanity. Parents, the cliché is mothers but dads can be bad about this too, who read their kids cellphone, track their kids ever move, determine their children’s friend groups, and basically do their best to control their children’s every decision- even if their intentions were pure, almost always raise children who are dysfunctional. These are often the kids who have secret facebook pages, secret phones, secret boyfriends across the ocean years older, maybe even entirely secret lives. It is just absolutely critical.
And so we meet Nora- and Ibsen does go a little into her personal history- maybe she’s emotionally stunted in her development for being so patronized and controlled, maybe she’s just deceptive and manulative by nature- maybe she’s both- I guess I see what you mean- Ibsen asking questions but not giving answers.
Let’s read the first line of the play,
“Hide the tree carefully, Helene. The children mustn’t catch a glimpse of it until this evening.”
And there you have it- Nora’s entire world in the first word- there is something hide.
As we look at Nora we see that she, like many of us, achieve privacy through deception. But what we don’t know and what the actress has to decide how to communicate to us is WHY is she doing this and what is she trying to achieve by all this? Is Nora role-playing on purpose in order to get the life she wants? Is Nora aware that she is a plaything for Torvald- his squirrel, his skylark? Is this pretending instinctual? When her deceptions become rather serious, does she even realize this? Is she aware of the difference between secretly eating macaroons and forgery- I’m really not sure.
But even before we get there, the first scene for me really highlights a high level of deceit and inauthenticity. The first action on stage is Nora paying a porter twice the cost of the service which wouldn’t have stood out really except it’s not long after that we begin to understand that one of the themes of the play is the real cost of fiscal irresponsibility, what does it mean by this little detain in the opening act?
I don’t know what it means, except to help us understand that Nora lives in an imaginary world. She pretends and overpaying is just a way to set all of this in motion. The second action of this play is this business with the macaroons. Let’s read this part of the text? For me it’s hard to read. It’s SO patronizing.
HELMER. That is like a woman! But seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt. We two have kept bravely on the straight road so far, and we will go on the same way for the short time longer that there need be any struggle.
NORA. [moving towards the stove]. As you please, Torvald.
HELMER. [following her]. Come, come, my little skylark must not droop her wings. What is this! Is my little squirrel out of temper? [Taking out his purse.] Nora, what do you think I have got here?
NORA. [turning round quickly]. Money!
HELMER. There you are. [Gives her some money.] Do you think I don’t know what a lot is wanted for housekeeping at Christmas-time?
NORA. [counting]. Ten shillings—a pound—two pounds! Thank you, thank you, Torvald; that will keep me going for a long time.
HELMER. Indeed it must.
NORA. Yes, yes, it will. But come here and let me show you what I have bought. And all so cheap! Look, here is a new suit for Ivar, and a sword; and a horse and a trumpet for Bob; and a doll and dolly’s bedstead for Emmy,—they are very plain, but anyway she will soon break them in pieces. And here are dress-lengths and handkerchiefs for the maids; old Anne ought really to have something better.
HELMER. And what is in this parcel?
NORA. [crying out]. No, no! you mustn’t see that until this evening.
HELMER. Very well. But now tell me, you extravagant little person, what would you like for yourself?
NORA. For myself? Oh, I am sure I don’t want anything.
HELMER. Yes, but you must. Tell me something reasonable that you would particularly like to have.
NORA. No, I really can’t think of anything—unless, Torvald—
HELMER. Well?
NORA. [playing with his coat buttons, and without raising her eyes to his]. If you really want to give me something, you might—you might—
HELMER. Well, out with it!
NORA. [speaking quickly]. You might give me money, Torvald. Only just as much as you can afford; and then one of these days I will buy something with it.
HELMER. But, Nora—
NORA. Oh, do! dear Torvald; please, please do! Then I will wrap it up in beautiful gilt paper and hang it on the Christmas Tree. Wouldn’t that be fun?
HELMER. What are little people called that are always wasting money?
NORA. Spendthrifts—I know. Let us do as you suggest, Torvald, and then I shall have time to think what I am most in want of. That is a very sensible plan, isn’t it?
HELMER. [smiling]. Indeed it is—that is to say, if you were really to save out of the money I give you, and then really buy something for yourself. But if you spend it all on the housekeeping and any number of unnecessary things, then I merely have to pay up again.
NORA. Oh but, Torvald—
HELMER. You can’t deny it, my dear little Nora. [Puts his arm round her waist.] It’s a sweet little spendthrift, but she uses up a deal of money. One would hardly believe how expensive such little persons are!
NORA. It’s a shame to say that. I do really save all I can.
HELMER. [laughing]. That’s very true,—all you can. But you can’t save anything!
NORA. [smiling quietly and happily]. You haven’t any idea how many expenses we skylarks and squirrels have, Torvald.
HELMER. You are an odd little soul. Very like your father. You always find some new way of wheedling money out of me, and, as soon as you have got it, it seems to melt in your hands. You never know where it has gone. Still, one must take you as you are. It is in the blood; for indeed it is true that you can inherit these things, Nora.
NORA. Ah, I wish I had inherited many of papa’s qualities.
HELMER. And I would not wish you to be anything but just what you are, my sweet little skylark. But, do you know, it strikes me that you are looking rather—what shall I say—rather uneasy today?
NORA. Do I?
HELMER. You do, really. Look straight at me.
NORA. [looks at him]. Well?
HELMER. [wagging his finger at her]. Hasn’t Miss Sweet Tooth been breaking rules in town today?
NORA. No; what makes you think that?
HELMER. Hasn’t she paid a visit to the confectioner’s?
NORA. No, I assure you, Torvald—
HELMER. Not been nibbling sweets?
NORA. No, certainly not.
HELMER. Not even taken a bite at a macaroon or two?
NORA. No, Torvald, I assure you really—
HELMER. There, there, of course I was only joking.
NORA. [going to the table on the right]. I should not think of going against your wishes.
HELMER. No, I am sure of that; besides, you gave me your word— [Going up to her.] Keep your little Christmas secrets to yourself, my darling. They will all be revealed tonight when the Christmas Tree is lit, no doubt.
NORA. Did you remember to invite Doctor Rank?
Read this part.
Nora hides macaroons from her husband. He wants to control her to every level, but she does seem to like the pay off of being taken care of. We also see that he moralizes. We see that his pet grievance is debt. He is going out of his way to condemn it and she goes out of her way to supplant him.
It’s a complicated co-existence. Who are we to judge here- Nora for being a liar? At this point, I feel sympathy for her. I would even say the way this reads to me is that this man, Torvald doesn’t want to control Nora, he believes he OWNS her. She is his property. His pet. He loves her, but as a pet- an expensive hobby- I’d say, Christy, don’t take offense to this, but he loves Nora in the way a guitarist might love his favorite Stratocaster.
Oh dear- that’s getting close to home.
But, they have worked out a deal. Do we let either party off the hook? She lies and deceives, but she has no concerns in the world but to be a doll. She loves stuff- she loves buying- she loves money- they have made a deal- she is a play thing- but she is also an expensive past time.
And- again- we are smacked with life- these kinds of deals are made all the time. One of the more famous philosophical statements on that topic springs of course from the mouth of Marilyn Monroe when she sings, “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend.” I’m really not sure Ibsen wants us to pass judgement on her- but he does seem to be questioning the deal they’ve made. Is this the deal we should be making? It seems obvious that Torvald and Nora do not have any real communication or human relationship with each other- they manipulate each other, play with each other, even enjoy each other, but they are not connecting on any real and human level. Is this comfortable life coming at the cost of their humanity? What is that cost?
And to think that all that has happened is that she’s bought macaroons.
I know- it’s in the subtext of those macaroons!!! BTW- when I hear someone talk about macaroons I think of this cooking show the girls and I used to watch when they were living called “Sweet Genius”. It was the first baking show I’d ever watched, and they were always making macaroons. We don’t have those really in Memphis, so when went to Paris and saw all those macaroons, we did exactly what Nora did and stuffed our mouth with them.
Hahahaha! I can see you three, staking out the macaroon counters on the Champs Elysee-
That’s exactly what we did!!!! They’re truly amazing and not easy to bake. I tried and failed.
Well, I don’t think Nora bakes. And we see that Helmer disapproves of macaroons. But more than that- They don’t share a life like we would understand healthy couples to do.
Yes- there is so much that is being introduced right here at the beginning- we meet the children and see that they are dolls too. There is nothing in this text to suggest Nora is a nurturing mother. We don’t see her building with them anything different than what she has built with Torvald- they have fun- but it’s all very distant. We also have a hint that this style of relationship is established by her father, perpetuated by Torvald but also extended to the next generation. The nurse seems to take care of the children. Nora plays with them when she wants to, but it’s established early on, and then it will be explicitedly stated in Act 3, that as Nora is to Torvald so the children are to Nora.
Everyone plays a role it seems? And I’m not sure Ibsen is endorsing this way of life.
Like I said, the man likes to ask questions and to not answer them.
And so I guess we will for the next two episodes. Next time we will finish discussing Act 1 and move through Act 2. The final week, we will look at the concluding scene that has scandalized the world for 100 years.
And yet, it is all so ordinary!!!
And yet not- thanks for listening!.....
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
- Visa fler
