A Doll’s House, by Henrik Ibsen, is predictable. The reader will dislike Nora’s feeble obsession with money and possessions. However, this reaction is suddenly reversed, as Nora, freed from her marionette, takes action to assert the potential she was denied and wasted by men in her life. The reader will applaud Nora’s speech, which is so powerful and epic that it will make him feel ashamed of Torvald Helmer and his gendered oppression. When Nora finally ends their marriage, the reader should applaud in their head. In contrast, the audience’s collective reaction to Nora and her shallow, simple actions in the first act was a collective sigh. The transition between act two and three can be jarring. After the final speech, readers are left with questions about the change. Nora is very different from the Nora that pleads with her husband to “You Know I Could Never Act Against Your Wishes” (31) to the Nora that announces “I Believe that I Am First and Foremost a Human Being” (58), where she is renouncing the status of his doll. Helmer has a more ambiguous role, even though Nora is frequently criticized for her sudden change. A reader might assume that Helmer did not force Nora to play the role of a puppet. Was he able to inspire passions in Nora for anything other than macaroons? At least, the play does not reveal this. Helmer’s shame is justified in this case. Helmer may not have been as domineering, or as patronizing, as Nora thought – if not by his nature.
He could have been merely adapting his role to fit her actions. After all, he didn’t shape Nora into this persona. Nora was content to continue her development in the direction of her father. The play does not make it easy to understand her father’s influence because his only appearance is through Nora. If her father really had the impact she claims, it’s likely that Nora was playing doll when Helmer first met her. She showed no sign of having higher ambitions in life. Helmer may have shaped Nora to fit his opinions and fancies, but it is possible that Helmer did the opposite, adapting himself to her doll-like mentality. Helmer, who was known to be a supporter of those with an intellectual bent, had no clue about Nora’s mind. Nora may not have shown any signs that her intellect could go beyond stealing macaroons. Doris Lessing asserts in The Golden Notebook all people identify themselves via others.
Torvald’s defense hinges on Nora herself. Her evolution is a key factor, but it has more to do with her mid-life crisis, or a biological event, than with a true revolution in thought. Nora is a materialist, and given her passion to change, it’s not hard to imagine her in a sport car (with the exception of obvious anachronisms). In reality, a sudden, radical, unprecedented change in a person’s character is often attributed either to severe depression or insanity. The sudden changes in character are often without warning. A man who was a devoted father for his entire life can suddenly become a slobbering mess. This is because, unlike the dramatic play that relies on the sudden and explosive revolution of the past centuries in which women were oppressed, these situations do not require precedents to be plausible. Nora might have been a little shattered by the experience (which is true), but the confident and proud note in her tone would be easily explained. However, if the reader is asked to believe a woman that once was called “squanderbird”, or “squirrel”, had such an acute intelligence, as she would later demonstrate, there are too many unanswered questions. If we assume, for now, that Nora was indeed a psychotic mess over the Krogstad scandal, explaining her disconnection in personality, what can be said about Helmer? What could her husband possibly have done to help her? Ibsen’s play is not without its defense. It was written in 1879 at a time when the medical field wasn’t as well explored.
Helmer has to be blamed for not appreciating Nora. Helmer also failed to do the “miracles” that would have earned his place next Nora. The failure to perform the “miracle of miracles” (59) could at least be partly attributed to the chaos frenzy caused by paranoia. fear, broken trust, or disillusionment. Nora might hope that Helmer could free himself from his role as puppet master, which he adopted to please Nora. She hopes that the two of them can stand together, in equality and without falsehoods. If they share responsibility for the situation, neither will be held responsible. This is in keeping with Ibsen’s comment when told his work would make a strong argument for women’s rights. It has always been about human rights to me” (28). If Helmer, Nora and the rest of the team can take responsibility for their actions, while being true to each other and not just following the rules, the gender question will be resolved.