How does Ibsen use to portray the three characters of Nora, Torvald and Kristine?

Nora

Nora in Act One is portrayed to be a stereotypical wife that obeys her husband completely. The obedience that is expected from the society is shown through how Torvald addresses Nora as “little pet”. The diction of “little” suggests that Torvald (men) views Nora (women) as his possession only which is similar to how people treat a “pet”. The diction of “pet” also brings down the human values of a woman. It supports the idea that woman is considered to be a childish creature within the society. Moreover, the whole Act One acts as dramatic irony as Nora is constantly lying to Torvald which creates a twist within stereotypical theatre of romanticism. This serves as a way to introduce realism- imperfect human figures which also shocks the audience.

Torvald

It is revealed through the conversation between Kristine and Nora that he used to be sick and with the help of Nora, he could get better and now can have a proper job in the bank. This suggests Ibsen’s intention of showing the usefulness of women within society. However, men are never aware and always underestimate women since Torvald never respects Nora but constantly calls her “little”. He has very strict rules for his wife so that she is kept in order and wisely such as how he does not allow Nora to eat macaroons since she will gain weight. However, this is also another dramatic irony as audience knows that Nora breaks the rule but in Torvald’s eyes, she is just as innocent. This foreshadows an ending full of dramatic tension when the secrets of Nora are revealed.

Kristine

During the conversation between Nora and herself, she speaks much less than Nora and serves as a mean of confrontation for Nora since both of them have their own miseries of women. This shows that Kristine is a preserved woman. The cause of this may be due to her husband’s death that she had now become a widow while women are expected to be only responsible for nurturing their children as a housewife. The suffering of her husband’s left without any children and the eyes of the publicity looking down at her, could have made her more introvert.

How does Ibsen present his characters and through what techniques? -Rosa

                Within the beginning of Act 1 of “A Doll’s House”, Ibsen presents three characters to the audience: Nora, Torvald Helmer, and Mrs. Kristine Linde. Nora is the main protagonist of the play, portrayed as a typical, frivolous housewife that prioritizes family above all else, in the first few pages. She is the wife of Torvald, the patriarchal figure of the Helmer family, who holds a stable job and income and emphasizes the importance of money. Kristine Linde is a recent widow and much older than Nora, of whom she is a long-time acquaintance of.

                Ibsen presents Nora as a stereotypical homemaker in the intro of the play as she stays in the household, “shuts the door…comes into the room…”. At this early part of the play, the scene seems like a perfectly normal situation with a generic woman figure doing her household duties (nothing is out of the norm). Nora “happily hum(s) to herself…laughs quietly” as if she has no significant problems to worry about. And this carefree attitude is supported by the frivolity that Ibsen portrays Nora as being, using stage directions and diction to present this characteristic. Nora’s stage directions are usually abrupt, as if the character did not think before “shrieking…putting her hand over (Torvald’s) mouth”. These frivolous actions suggest that Nora does not seem to control her mind and therefore, the audience may not take Nora seriously. Some of her direct responses (“Pooh!”) to Torvald’s refusals (“We can’t afford to be…”) are immature and without any intellectual depth, suggesting that Nora may not be able to consider more serious issues. However, this idea is challenged when, a few pages later, Nora shares her main priorities and the sacrifices she made to assure the safety of Torvald. Nora “couldn’t even go and look after (Torvald)” when he was seriously ill, claiming that the inability to visit her husband and the event of her father’s death was “the saddest thing that has ever happened to (her) in all (her) married life”, suggesting that Nora values family highly, categorizing family losses to be the “worst”. The fact that Ibsen directed Nora to tell this to Kristine Linde and not to her husband shows how considerate she is to save the embarrassment to her husband of making him look weak in front of her (him being sick), and also avoiding the shame of Torvald would experience of learning that Nora borrowed money to save his health, even though the act of borrowing finances was forbidden to Torvald’s rules. Therefore, while Nora’s speech seems transparent and superficial, her intentions are deeper.

                Torvald is portrayed by Ibsen as a dominant, patronizing male figure to Nora. Torvald constantly calls Nora his “little sky-lark…little squirrel…little singing bird…”, using diminutive phrases to treat Nora as though she were his child rather than his wife. That and the use of the word “little” shows Torvald’s desire for control over Nora, and to not allow her free-will to make her own choices. This is shown by Torvald’s constant pestering over Nora’s supposedly suspicious actions throughout the day, asking if she “forg(o)t herself in town today…(if) she didn’t just pop into the confectioner’s…didn’t try sampling the preserves…” and keeps going with the questions, to assure that Nora did not go against his wishes, because Nora looked “rather guilty today”. These exaggerated questions suggest that Torvald is very presumptuous and believes he is always correct. Torvald fails to understand his wife any deeper than the superficial amount, justifying her actions to be “just like a woman”, rather than making an effort to understand her intentions, because Torvald does not believe Nora is not able to possess more complex implications to her words. Simply, Torvald classifies Nora as a “pet”.

                Furthermore, Torvald emphasizes the importance of money as the main priority of his life, expressing joy in the “glorious feeling … knowing you’ve got a nice, safe job and a good fat income…” This contrasts with Nora’s main priority of family, and when comparing the two character’s priorities to their mental complexities, it is possible that perhaps Nora is the one that can consider more profound issues, than Torvald, who values a superficial lifestyle. 

                Finally, Mrs. Kristine Linde is portrayed by Ibsen to be a quiet, direct woman who differs greatly from Nora. The conversation structure by Ibsen, between the two characters can show the contrast between the two personalities. Kristine speaks in short, curt dialogue (“Yes, it’s me.” “That I can well imagine.” “No. What is it?”), while Nora’s dialogue is much longer. Therefore, Kristine may be seen as less frivolous than Nora, only speaking when necessary, and only to ask or answer a question, rather than adding onto a story. Perhaps this feature makes the character more serious to the audience, but less extravagant in personality (not memorable). The character, as a foil to Nora, can also be interpreted as wiser, as she may choose to say little as she is wise enough to know that, in the current Victorian society, it is not of custom to share the details of one’s personal life (“And much, much older, Nora…No. I want to hear more about you.”)

What techniques does Ibsen use to portray his characters in a certain light?

Nora Helmer

Nora is a self-contradictory character, both in the roles she adopts and in the attitudes she holds. At the same time she is a patronized, doted on, subservient “doll” wife she is also a recalcitrant who breaks the rules Torvald sets behind his back. One facet of her countenance that is always present is her disposition to drawing attention to herself. This is evident in her ability to draw Torvald to her and in many aspects to manipulate him, we sense Nora trying hard allow Mrs. Linde to contribute equally to the conversation and her disappointment at Dr. Rank’s confession as she is upset by the change of roles, she is always dominant in the flow of their conversation and has no interest in changing the rules of the game. This is supported by her apathy towards other people “Who cares about them! They are only strangers!” It can be interpreted as the importance she holds for her family but also her selfishness and ignorance to the moral code of society. Ibsen allows for the final scene to be debated. Many think it was courageous and wise of Nora to leave her family, others regarded her bravery but saw her exit as a result of her emotional sense rather than intelligent interpretation of what was right and wrong. This is indicated through the irony of the final scene. She wishes to talk to Torvald as adults yet refuses to listen to him and seek balance in the resolution of their problems. She hasn’t truly matured because the ironic, self contradiction Nora shows in the final scene shows how she hasn’t really changed but is only transferring to play a different role. Torvald is not fully unjustified, he breaks through his priggish shell and again declares his love for Nora that although is not based on ideas we necessarily support can be regarded as genuine love. Nora coldly rejects his offers and makes excuses that may seem justified yet hold no real commitment. She has no life direction and suggests that her motives are not wholly unselfish. She rejects seeing her children, perhaps not only because she believes herself a source of corruption but because they were no more than dolls to her, born from the doll master she no longer feels affectionate towards. She almost cries thinking he has bore Torvald 3 children, without regarding the fact that they are her children too. This suggests that she regards her child bearing as another form of "play" in Nora and Helmer's perverse relationship rather than a maternal wish and a maternal duty. Anne Marie was compelled to leave her children, Nora is not. She hasn’t achieved wisdom like Creon in Antigone because she doesn’t learn what is truly right and wrong, she does not realize her actions will lead to further destruction of herself and those around her, she is not well equipped for a life of her own and her actions are driven more by her emotional sense rather than intelligent appreciation of other people or operations of society, like Sophocles, Ibsen implies the need for balance. We may applaud Nora's determination to find out who's right, her or society yet she does not take into account responsibility she takes in her part of the marriage and the family, In essence, instead of saving herself she is a force of destruction for others and seeks to escape her flawed marriage. She doesn't talk to Torvald because she won't listen to him; again she demands attention and thinks very little of the largest stakeholders in their separation, the children who also hold relatively little significance to Nora.

Ibsen stresses that he is not a feminist but an advocate of human rights, through this he asks audiences not to over simplify the complex character, Nora Helmer. One should not conclude that her leaving was an act of self preservation and feminist determination as they were influenced greatly by a personality attribute. She may be seen as a doll wife secretly operating a financial deal but in the end she never truly “reveals” herself as a matured woman, only a grown one. Illogically she claims she has never been truly happy when past scenes would have suggested otherwise. She does not realize that her interpretation of happiness and freedom has changed, rather than that such feelings never existed. She seeks rightful changes in her life yet fails to realize this is in fact a destructive force for the lives of others. Ibsen in the end presents a challenging character that has provoked international sensationalism- the debate over her actions may be a debate people face in everyday life, when there fails to be a definite right or wrong, making her enigmatic character the pinnacle of realism as an established genre.

Torvald Helmer

Torvald is often a despised character, representative of the egotistical, flawed system of Victorian patriarchy. His ways are priggish and patronizing, his actions are determined by society’s expectations yet perversely he only values others by how much they benefit him and the elevation of his status in society. Like Nora, audiences must be careful not to interpret Torvald one dimensionally as he is far from such. The previous conceptions of Torvald are all sufficiently supported in Ibsen’s text however he is just as much a doll himself as he makes Nora one. Society’s laws and expectations are the rules he dogmatically lives, works and thinks with, any deference, regardless of circumstance and intention are strictly deplorable. He is also emotionally immature, ironically as he stands as a role model (a paragon of virtue) to all other citizens. He is more of a doll than Nora because he fails to wake from the illusion of his marriage, he dogmatically follows the lead of others whilst demanding obedience from his wife and subordinates. Doll’s mainly represent females and are played with by young children. Perhaps this comparison signifies the ignorance and stubbornness in society, a criticism to conservative audiences who opposed and rejected the ideas proposed in A Doll’s house, therefore it can be said that Torvald’s character is a satirical representation of society- dogmatic, obstinate and victims of an oppressive society but blind to their self victimization. During the cultural shift at the time, Torvald could also be seen as the maintenance man of the vicious cycle of intellectual poverty. It is suggested that ironically, it is people like Torvald instead of Nora or Krogstad who is the moral malaise, the force of corruption.

Torvald is representative of the cycle of repression and not the perpetrator of it, this is proven as Torvald is not the doll master and Nora the doll, they seem to adopt roles on which their married lives are founded on, He does not force it on to Nora, she accepts it happily and encourages that he use her to entertain him. Therefore it is somewhat unfair of Nora to place the blame entirely on her father and on Torvald. They wrongfully encouraged that a young woman act and behave like a doll but she was free to oppose it. We could say that no single person was at fault but the ill-functioning of society. Torvald blames people’s crimes on the perpetrators mother’s but evidently this is a sweeping generalization and signifies a need for change in the way people were made to think.

Dr. Rank

It would occur to many audiences that Dr. Rank was immoral and almost perverse in trying to claim Nora’s love, after all she is a married woman, a mother of three and he is not only a family friend but a man rotting of a sexual disease. However I emphasize this character the most, Nora initiates the subtle sexual innuendo with the mention of her silk stockings and therefore provokes Dr. Rank’s confession of love. Therefore it is unfair to criminalize Dr. Rank for it; rather it is a morally deplorable act Nora causes. With this aside, Dr. Rank is the embodiment of the counter-argument to Torvald’s theory of intergenerational corruption. He states that Krogstad’s children are infected by their father’s “evil” doings. Firstly Krogstad was forced by circumstance, secondly, is acts don’t proliferate like a virus does. Dr. Rank opposes his father’s philandering ways and as a doctor he foils his father’s actions yet suffers from its consequences. Krogstad’s children shall also suffer from his fouled reputation yet this is brought on not by scientific inevitability but society’s stubbornness. Ibsen parallels the two to prove the illogic of Torvald’s insinuations and to undermine societies urban legends, even those held by respectable people of high status.

Mrs. Linde

Mrs. Linde is one of the most respectable characters in the play, she is a self sufficient woman, wizened by her hardships yet drained of the enjoyment of life seen in Nora because of her sacrifices. She demonstrates a model woman, one who does not neglect her duty to her parents (although as the cost of a loved one) and one who truthfully wishes to satisfy her maternal/ sexual wishes by being with Krogstad and adopting his children. Like all other characters however there aspects both admirable and those less, her practicality contrasts her with Nora’s animated behavior but the audience may feel that it was cruel to make the Helmer’s confront one another. This is seen again through her abandonment of love. However it is undisputable that both were practical and very necessary, perhaps this mirrors the genre of realism, an un-romanticized and perhaps tragic representation of reality.

Ibsen’s characterisation of Nora Helmer, Torvald Helmer and Mrs Linde in the opening of Act One

Ibsen portrays Nora as a joyful, fun-loving woman who sounds childish for her age, through her “laughing quietly and happily to herself” and by acting obediently towards her husband, Torvald, saying “Yes” when he calls her his “little skylark”. The diction “little” reinforces the audience’s view of Nora’s seemingly childish character. By treating Nora as a child and calling her pet names, Torvald only views Nora as someone who can entertain him by decorating the house and pleases him. Torvald is portrayed as a male moral figure who expects Nora to obey him, suggests their relationship is similar to a “father to daughter” relationship, by calling Nora names, shows that he does not regard his wife as an equal. Thus, Ibsen characterise the Helmers this way to highlight the indoctrination of a patriarchal Victorian society, who views women as inferior to men. Torvald expects his wife to obey him, in a way to display her respect for him shows the importance of his image, his reputation in the face of society. He calls Nora’s ideas of spending money as “frivolous”, because he is raised to believe that a woman of a weaker sex always needs guidance and protection from her husband, hence always try to correct her “frivolous ideas”. Ibsen’s juxtapose their contrasting beliefs, in which Torvald is concerned with making payments to others and Nora’s disconcern for payments make enhance the audience’s view of Nora being frivolous, however, this is an irony that suggests Nora considers using the money to care for her family’s well-being as a priority above making payments. Torvald’s concern with making payments highlights the importance of his image for him, which in a way suggests his selfishness and pride. This emphasises the unreability of appearances in the play, as the male protagonist whom the audience expects to be a virteous model figure turns out to be a self-centered antagonist, and a seemingly weaker woman whom the audience expects to depend on her husband actually has more independent and altruistic thoughts than her counterpart. Nora’s emphasis on receiving more money from Torvald foreshadows that she uses his money to pay back the family’s debts, especially the loan from Krogstad, which is used to take care of Torvald when he was ill.

Ibsen juxtaposes the two women friends in the following scene where Nora encounters with her childhood friend, Mrs Linde through their dialogue, where Nora is enthusiastic to see her old friend, whereas Mrs Linde acts with uncertainty makes the audience consider their life situations, as one cannot appear to be happy if their lives are unhappy. Nora leads a highly privileged lives, with a husband to fend her financial needs and a mother of three children, in stark contrast with Mrs Linde, whose unhappy marriage with Krogstad led her to poverty, forcing to work for herself and is childless. At first, the audience feels sympathy for Mrs Linde’s situation but as we know more about her, she accuses Nora for not knowing hard work, especially when she takes in interest when Torvald becomes a bank manager (who can help her financially) and tells her secret to Torvald. At first sight, Mrs Linde is poised to be Nora’s moral teacher, but the desire to fulfill her personal interests balances Nora’s. This reinforces the idea of unreliable appearances in the play, where characters are more complex and not just one-dimensional.

In what ways might A Doll's House created a sensation in the world of theatre when it was first performed?

I believe that A Doll’s House created a sensation in the world of theatre when it was first performed as it challenges the societal norms of the Victorian era it was written in, the ingrained orthodox that women are expected to fulfill their marriage and motherhood as a sacred, first and foremost duty.

The play does this by presenting a realist perspective of the 19^th century Norway’s household, in a small setting where the plot would be much more focused (audience can easily see the characters’ personality, their attitudes/behaviours) and allows the complications between the characters to occur, leading to the revelation where the audience can see the connection between the play and the problems with Victorian societal norms.

These problems are addressed by the difficulties that Nora, the female protagonist, encounters when struggling to find her independence from her husband. It criticizes how the woman lacks independence, who, if allowed a chance to work to fend for themselves, can actually help the husband to fend for the family. She lacks the finance to buy Christmas presents for her children, or to pay for a trip to Italy when Torvald is ill (his illness can only be cured by travelling South, where the weather is warmer). Hence, one can argue that Nora certainly cares for her husband and their children, however, another can argue that Nora is selfish, hypocritical and more concerned with public reputation than with actual morality by caring for her family through seemingly “deceitful” ways, such as perhaps, “overspending” her husband’s money and most significantly, take a loan her husband’s employee’s (Krogstad) and forges a bond using her father’s signature. It can be seen that Nora, representing the average woman, yearns for Freedom, which can be considered a theme in the play, who wants to gain freedom, financially, liberated from debt and be able to spend plies and piles of money to achieve material wealth. However, she has never achieved this due to the oppression of her father and her husband over her, men’s narrow perspective of a woman has been passed down from generations to generations; being called a “little…(sky lark, squirrel)” shows she’s being viewed by her husband merely as a pet that needs its owner and never of equal rank, as a woman that can be “toyed” with by a man reflects the disparaging reality in Victorian society.

Moreover, the audience at the time can be shocked by the scandalous portrayal of Dr Rank, who at first sight, seems to be a “patron”, or model male figure, suggested by his name and title, and his strict and austere appearance. But behind his façade, is a lascivious nature when he openly covets Nora and made a shocking revelation of his disease, a “tuberculosis of the spine”, a euphemism for syphilis, inherited from his father’s previous sexual exploits. By explicitly revealing such a disturbing truth is morally distasteful to the audience, however it reflects the situation of society, as Ibsen highlights the flaws of a seemingly “well-mannered” Victorian society, which actually has deteriorating moral values that demands greater gender equality between male and female.

A Doll’s House also creates a sensation by the style of realism that Ibsen chooses to adopt and hence, popularise, which again, challenges the conventions of playwright in the Victorian era of romanticism. The play is most interesting where it shows the constant changing of internal conflicts in each character (their Ups and Downs), Torvald, supposedly the figure of moral authority shows himself to be cowardly and selfish, Krogstad whom appears to be the antagonist becomes sympathized with and understood whilst Ms. Linde, thought to be kindly and in need reveals herself to be independent, self sufficient however also harsh to her friend Nora. Nora, interestingly is portrayed as a frivolous, spendthrift woman who runs away with her husband money, as Torvald and the audience sees it, is actually covering the truth behind her frivolity, who’s working hard behind the Christmas decorations and embroidery to earn money to pay back her loan from Krogstad. Through the portrayal of the characters’ ups and downs in A Doll’s House in contrast with conventional drama where the audience expects the characters to be so predictable, Ibsen defies and crosses cultural norms in real life and fiction.

The ending although is scandalous and shocking to the audience, however, is highly questionable in Nora’s seeking of her own independence and freedom. When she refuses to see her children for the last time, the audience may view this as her denial of her motherhood responsibility, however, through an in-depth understanding of her as a parent who values teaching good morals to her children, she is actually concerned that she may hand down to her children her immorality. The ending reinforces Ibsen’s argument that he is not a feminist but rather advocates human rights and gender equality. Ibsen’s upholding modern perspective about society ideas in a highly conservative, traditional era is what makes the modern audience reveres him, regarding him as “one of the world’s greatest dramatist”, or “the father of modern prose drama”.

How Ibsen presents the 3 characters of Nora, Torvald and Kristine?

In the opening of the play, A Doll’s House, the first character that was introduced was Nora, the frivolous wife of lawyer, Torvald Helmer. When Nora gave the porter a crown and told him to “keep the change”, it suggests that she is a woman who is wise with her money as she tips the porter who is obviously from a lower class than her. Though when she is talking to her husband, Ibsen reveals her childish side when she says “…we can afford to be…extravagant now…Just a teeny-weeny bit.” This implies that she likes to show that she has money even if the family’s financial situation is rigid and as for the “teeny-weeny” part, it just adds to how she is manipulative and uses her childish side/cuteness to talk her husband into giving her more money. If that’s not bad enough, a bit into the play, Nora is seen lying to her husband even about the littlest thing like, eating a macaroon and for the audience in those days, they would’ve thought “If she lies about just eating a macaroon, she will surely lie about even bigger things”. Ibsen presents Nora to be a typical housewife with a side of courage as she is not afraid to lie to her husband which foreshadows what happens in the play later on and how she uses her courage to doing what she thinks is right for herself.

However, slowly, we see that Nora is not just a typical housewife, she is more than that through the phrase “Who cares about them! They are only strangers!” in response to her husband when they were talking about paying off debts. Her reaction shows that her family is her most important priority and if her husband was to die, she isn’t going to worry about paying off strangers’ debts and it also shows a fearless side to hear, how she is not afraid to face them by herself. Moreover, she did not even go see her father on his death bed as she had “poor Torvald, gravely ill” on her hands – this shows that she’s a woman who had suffered a ‘double-tragedy’ where she had to sacrifice not seeing the man who gave her her existence, to take care of her husband (who actually only sees her as a trophy wife to make him look good infront of his friends). Because of this, it makes her frivolous personality just a façade as she suffered more than people think.

Ibsen builds the character of Nora to be a frivolous typical trophy housewife before he strips that façade away and reveals the heroine that she is.

As for the presentation of Torvald, the first distinctive attribute that we see in him is how he uses diminutive names to call Nora such as “little sky-lark”, “little squirrel”, “little spendthrift” and “pretty little pet”. At first, it may seem adorable how a husband could still be sweet to his wife though afterwards, it gets repetitive and offensive since for every name, there is the word “little” and it suggests that Torvald sees Nora as a person with, undoubtedly, less authority than him and “little” combined with the objects it goes with, creates a childish and silly tone to it as though Torvald was talking to his daughter which go to shows how he does not take her serious at all. Within the diminutive names he calls her, there’s a sense of how Torvald only sees Nora as his trophy wife, a statue that makes him look superior to his fellow mates, and for example, ‘sky-lark’ is a small bird that could sing and hum beautiful rhythms for one’s enjoyment and interestingly, a collective noun for sky-lark is exaltation. What’s more is that Helmer repetitively mentions how ‘bored’ he gets when she’s not there with him. Whenever he’s without her, he is “bored to tears” or during Christmas last year, he “never felt so bored in all my life” and this illustrates how Nora is just a form of entertainment to him that keeps him occupied and content.

Ibsen portrays Torvald as a dominant husband who uses Nora as his entertainment getaway while forcing her to follow his many rules including, forbidding Nora to eat a macaroon because he doesn’t want his trophy wife to gain weight and lose her appealing appearance.

Lastly, Nora is visited by a friend of her named Kristine who is modest in her speech and a good listener as the reader’s first impression. Compared to Nora’s paragraphs of speech, Kristine only says a few sentences or so in reply. Kristine comes off as a realistic person as she accepts reality for example; she knows that she is “much, much older” and that she is a widow with no children. The audience might’ve felt sorry for Kristine to sit through Nora’s stories after stories about how splendid her life is considering Kristine’s background.

Not a lot has been revealed about Kristine but so far, we see that Kristine is modest and grounded which is a contrast to Nora.

Torvald, Nora and Mrs. Linde in the first ten pages of A Doll's House

How soes Ibsen portray the three characters Torvald, Nora and Mrs. Linde thus far in the play? (initial 10 pages)

Consider: characterization, Torvald's 'righteous' nature when he was a lawyer...

---

Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House introduces three key characters in the space of 10 pages into the play, protagonists Torvald Helmer, his wife Nora and her friend Mrs. Linde (who is somewhat more of a supporting persona). Torvald is characterized as the typical patriarch of the house, however a shade too much so; instead of treasuring and treating his wife as an equal to him, he more often than not cossets Nora and almost considers her his plaything - someone to cater to his needs 'It's incredible how expensive it is for a man to keep such a pet' (4). To the modern audience, Torvald's remarks could pass as degrading and belittling towards women. however the audience of the same era may have felt that such nuances were perfectly normal. Torvald is also seen very attached to monetary matters almost to the point of considering the value of money higher than that of his wife's (not directly mentioned in the play, but definitely implied) - it comes as no surprise to the audience that he has recently switched jobs from being a barrister to a bank manager, where he can be at the company of his much loved money all day. People who 'waste money' like Nora are 'spendthrifts' to Torvald; saving up to invest in necessary goods 'spending recklessly'. From such quotes, it may not be wholly wrong to assume that Torvald's life evolves around such money matters.

Torvald treats his wife Nora as a physically fully grown version of his children. Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the play who Torvald treats his children, the audience can assume he treats his them in roughly the same manner as he does his wife. To Torvald, Nora is his 'little skylark' (1) and his 'little squirrel' (2). While his pet names of his wife may seem endearing outwardly, they are, to some extent, directly belittling; such animals are pleasing to the eyes, but their doings' hardly contribute to their surrounding environment.

Nora Helmer, on the other hand, is a character with many of her traits paralleling that of Torvald's. Superficially, she seemsfrivolous and whimsical 'But Torvald, surely this year we can spread ourselves just a little? This is the first Christmas we haven't had to go carefully' (2); such characteristics can easily beestablished just from Nora and Torvald's dialogue. Nora also seems the typical Victorian housewife, one who puts her husband's happiness firstly. Nora is faithful to Torbald, whether willingly or forcibly 'Very well, just as you say, Torvald' (3). Despite this, Nora very outwardly lies when Torvald suspects her of giving in to her one vice-'macaroons' (1). The audience actually sees Nora eating macaroons on stage, but when faced with telling the truth, Nora vehemently denies that she has done. From this action, the audience realize later on in the play that Nora Helmer is capable of lying. This may prove to be a catalyst later on in the play regarding her debt to Nils Krogstad; Nora's lies become grander in scale (although it is debatable whether or not she lies for the better).

Nora is seen every part the sweet, dedicated mother and wife. She buys Christmas presents for everyone but her in the family; she has also had to work when the family was short on money alongside her husband 'We've both had to work' (9). When her old school friend Mrs. Linde pays her a visit, Nora pities her for her lack of children and love from her husband 'So utterly alone...I have three lovely children' (8), perhaps highlighting her dedication to the household. From her remarks, Nora's more serious and mature side is hinted, possibly foreshadowing how she chooses to pursue that particular side of her as the play proceeds.

Mrs. Kristine Linde is somewhat of a supporting character throughout A Doll's House. Mrs. Linde again is a character who happens to serve as a foil to that of Nora's character - older than her years, weathered both superficially and mentally. The audience discover that she was an old schoolmate of Nora's and now a young widow 'without any baggage' as the modern saying goes, not even children or financial support from her late husband as a consolation. Despite the hardships she had to go through from her early life, she takes pride in how she has come to address such obstacles in life 'But it's true what you say: I am both proud and happy when I think of how I was able to make Mother's life a little easier towards the end' (13). When Nora reveals (falsely so) that she had to borrow her dying father's money to contribute towards the traveling funds to save Torvald's life, Mrs. Linde states frankly 'One has nobody to work for, yet one has to be on the look-out all the time. Life has to go on, and one starts thinking only of oneself.' (11) This is not something the audience would expect to hear from Nora (perhaps later on in the play, however certainly not thus far in); here, we begin to see that Mrs. Linde seems a lot more psychologically aged and mature in comparison to Nora's psyche as we know it. At this point, it may be fair to say that Mrs. Linde has emerged through her life's challenges a wiser woman. Although she seems confident and independent in her position, she does implicitly rely on Nora's help on finding a new job; she has traveled all the way to Nora's house possibly already knowing that Torvald was to be promoted, so that she can (in some ways) obtain a quasi-permanent job under Torvald's wing. This may heighten the Victorian notion that no matter how successful a woman is, she has to in one way or another be subordinate to a male, that a woman can never completely be independent.

Annette's response: How "A doll's house" created sensation in the world of theatre

In what ways might A Doll's House created a sensation in the world of theatre when it was first performed?
Ibsen’s work would have been deemed both scandalous and sensational at the time because of his exploitation of the Victorian era ideal woman and coveted family values.

To a traditional audience, to portray sexually afflicted illnesses so explicitly would have been morally distasteful however much truth it reflected in reality. The public ire or intrigue this inspires shines light on the deterioration of Victorian values for greater equality among the sexes or as Ibsen would have put it, among human beings.

Dr. Rank’s fatal illness can be seen as a symbol for moral corruption and its generational contagion in society. Because of his father’s philandering ways, Rank contracts the hereditary disease tuberculosis in the spine, which is often seen to be a side effect of syphilis, an STD. In the same way Rank inherits this disease as a consequence of his father, the authority’s mistakes, society suffers from the “diseased backbone” of its Victorian values, where the very foundations of societal norms set for women are erroneous and corrupt. Dr. Rank is paralleled by Nora’s relationship with her father, which later determines much of her married life with Torvald. “If I thought differently, I kept quiet about it because he wouldn’t have liked it... he played with me as I used to play with my dolls… I passed out of Daddy’s hands into yours.” A conservative audience may view Nora as the malaise to society- the selfish and immoral wife, mother and woman however Ibsen would have suggested otherwise. A patriarchal society’s indoctrination of female inferiority, female roles in society and accepted behavior repress woman and serve as a malaise the whole of society is inflicted with. Ingrained Victorian values were to blame for Nora’s motherless children.

None of the characters are one dimensional, nor do they maintain the same mindset throughout the play, Torvald, supposedly the figure of moral authority shows himself to be cowardly and selfish, Krogstad whom appears to be the antagonist becomes sympathized with and understood whilst Ms. Linde, thought to be kindly and in need reveals herself to be independent, self sufficient however also harsh to her friend Nora. And of course there is Nora herself who has sparked much debate. Once compliant and dutiful to her father and her husband’s wishes, has she deviated further into immorality or is she to be commended for realizing her captivity in the household and determination to find freedom? By radically juxtaposing the audience’s expectations of predictable characters commonly featured in drama, his formulation of characters in “A doll’s house” Ibsen defies and crosses cultural norms in real life and in fiction. Thus, instead of delivering a comfortable moral through simple characters in a hackneyed predicament Ibsen emulates the sometimes ugly, counter-idealistic nature of actuality. Perhaps Ibsen incorporates the element of identity confusion to further reflect reality in his plays. The use of realism was so important, not because it was a form of theatre gaining popularity but because regardless of whether the play disgusted or inspired its audience, the reality it mirrored engaged them and prompted a reaction, it expedited a change of thought in the cultural turmoil of the day.

Ibsen’s portrayal of Nora as the protagonist-victim and Torvald as the antagonist instead of a figure of moral authority shocked and repulsed many viewers. The scandalous ending was deemed “morally corrupt” and was even rejected by theatres in Germany who requested a more proper “moral” ending in which Nora collapses when she sees her children and decides to stay- an ending that Ibsen himself detested. Ibsen had often claimed he wasn’t a feminist; instead he was an advocate for human rights and equality for human beings. He openly proclaimed his scorn for women who accepted and embraced the bounds society had trapped them in, instead of searching for true freedom. Freedom is a motif throughout “A doll’s house” Nora equates freedom to financial freedom- liberty from debt and the ability to spend “piles and piles of money” to gain material wealth. In the end however, she realizes she has never tasted freedom under the suppression of her father and her husband “I was passed out of Daddy’s hands into yours.” Unlike a human being who has chosen her path in life, she is passed along like a doll switching owners. This is why Ibsen’s original ending is so crucial to communicating the ideals of the play; the loud slam of the door that reverberates through her abandoned home is a bold statement of Nora’s new found resolve and independence. The alternative ending surrenders Nora’s resolve to find freedom and to become self-sufficient, and forces her to give in to the confines society set her. Many may think that it is selfish and deplorable to abandon her children and her duty to them; others like Ibsen will view Nora’s actions as courageous act of bravery to shield her children from society’s corrupted ideals. Perversely, she can only shield them if she sacrifices her role as a mother- if she remains, she will become a walking manifestation of the Victorian ideals of women.

“A doll’s house” became an international sensation because its controversial themes and messages delivered a realist plot and complex characters that evokes shock, ire and vicarious agreement from the audience. Whether this reaction was positive or otherwise, Ibsen’s work provoked debate during the great cultural shift and perhaps opened the minds and inspired many who would lead the world to greater equality.

Veronica's A Doll's House Intro Prompt Answer

In what ways would Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House have created a sensation in the world of theater when it was first performed?

*NB: I thought this topic would potentially be interesting to pursue for an IO at the end of the play so I did my personal research on this...*

Perhaps the greatest impact was due to the fact that the play was written and produced at a time of cultural constructivity in Europe, especially in Scandinavian countries. It it not because of the playwright himself that the play received so much attention: no production of Ibsen's had been so widely challenged as A Doll's House had been. Europe at the time collectively harbored borderline archetypal vies on women in general; many hubands forbade their wives from going to see the play explicitly so the women 'wouldn't get any ideas', while also implicity because they were truly scared of the impact A Doll's House would have had on their marriages and ultimately their family lives. Here, it is also important to consider the playwright. Henrik Ibsen was what most Europeans considered progressive: he had up-to-date opinions on the role of women in and outside of the household and he was also well traveled and well read. The publication of A Doll's House also marked the beginning of a new era of realist plays. Ibsen used a method of playwriting where the internal motivations of the personalities in the play were explored within a specific social context--therefore sparkling contemporary realism in many European playwrights to come. Ibsen also pioneered the juxtaposition of expressing personal sentiments in not-so-personal settings, which was considered mildly heretical in the field of literature at the time.

The play, when first published, was and came across as direct criticism of present day social standings and establishments in Europe. The published book was a huge success with the first editions selling out in less than a month. The play subsequently came under scrutiny of the public (and private) eye, and was Ibsen's first internationally acknowledged success. For most people, the ending of the play (where Nora leaves the house) was considered the most upsetting and heretical of all, with much traditionalists saying that 'Ibsen is immoral' (many Europeans considered the ending 'scnadalous and inconceivable'. The audience saw Nora as a self-centric monster who put her own desires above those of her husband's and children's, and her actions as downright unnatural. Critics also, much like the husbands, thought that such behavior 'set a dangerous example for women' at the time. Interesting aside: even the Earl of Jersey, Governor of Australia and his wife refused to see A Doll's House. Despite this, 'the play was staged at all the main theaters in the Scandinavian countries within the first two months of its publication'. Because of the widespread criticism especially in Germany, Ibsen was forced to amend the ending of the play into something more 'acceptable' for the public's eye. In Ibsen's word the altered ending was 'a barbaric act of violence towards the play'. Commoners must have thought likewise, as productions of the play with the new ending was not well received throughout Germany; some even began rioting to have the actors stick to the actual adaptation.

A Doll's House - Rosa's Response

In what ways might A Doll's House created a sensation in the world of theatre when it was first performed? 
Consider the various ways from a theatrical viewpoint (the development of realism), the subject matter, the structure and ending of the play.

A Doll’s House premiered in 1879 in Copenhagen, Denmark, around the era when revolution was affecting Europe in 1848, when a new modern perspective was emerging in the literary and dramatic world. Ibsen aimed to popularize this new perspective through realist drama, challenging social norms of the current age: its supposed customs and its realities.

The structure of the “well made play” was used by Ibsen, but from a serious perspective rather than the comedies that this genre was used for. In this way, Ibsen caught the attention of the current audience by deviating from the norm. Instead of writing in an end discussion to summarize the morals of the play, Ibsen substituted a plausible dénouement that left the play’s conclusion open-ended, instigating life beyond the play. A Doll's House was thought to be just another modern drama detailing the common moral lessons of society, but when Nora tells Torvald that they must sit down and "discuss all this that has been happening between us", the play diverges from the traditional format. In this way, audience members questioned the play’s intentions and “A Doll’s House” became a widely discussed topic.

There was also an absence of certain traditional themes and characters, such as an adult male figure usually symbolizing morality. In fact, this supposed figure in Ibsen’s A Doll’s House is a sickly doctor, suffering from a disease given to him by his father’s sexual endeavors, that explicitly expresses his fondness of Nora. This representation, along with the strong female characters (Nora’s rejection of marriage and motherhood) provided a stark contrast to current gender stereotypes. Audience members may have not understood how to deal with these controversial characters, and what they truly symbolized (critics argued that the play strongly suggested the support of feminism, but Ibsen stated that he was not a feminist and instead clarified that these characters symbolized the importance of self-liberation). Therefore, the multiple interpretations and the struggle to truly understand Ibsen’s intentions suggest that the play created controversy among the audience of that era.

Although Ibsen included hints of the perception of females during the play’s era, the fact that he intended a common housewife to represent the protagonist attacked most middle-class household values. Ibsen acknowledged the inadequacy of women to men, as shown through Torvald’s treatment of Nora, calling her many nicknames preceded by “little” and “my”, highlighting the inferiority of which he sees women, and the possessiveness of how he feels about Nora (as if she is an object owned by him, rather than a person). Torvald is also made to think that a woman’s sacred duty is to be a good mother and wife- nothing more. This ideal was very much like the status of women through a Victorian perspective, in which cultivated homemaker ideals were strongly encouraged in women and girls- to make sure these ideals were the ones to live by for life. Therefore, by going against these ideals through his characters’ actions, Ibsen suggested the realities of a Victorian society: highlighting the limitations of women and their struggle to fight their stereotypes. Perhaps this reflected the true mind of a woman of the era, and this idea might have negatively affected the audience, in which their current ideals did not seem good enough to live by, and this challenge created controversy- through the structure, character representations, and the various interpretations of the play. 

The consequences of hubris no.2

How Sophocles reveals the consequences of hubris:

Ancient Greek tragedies were used to worship the gods and humble the people during festivals such as the Great Dionysus. Throughout “Antigone” Sophocles portrays a damning indictment of the flaw hubris- a term invented by the Greek meaning excessive pride and self-confidence. Sophocles induces this “fatal flaw” in his main antagonist, Creon, (who because of his hubris inevitably leads himself to his own demise) as prolepsis to a tragic ending, creating a play where the audience is constantly alert for disaster and returns from the play vicariously humbled by the calamity that befalls Thebes due to the arrogance of one mere mortal.

Hubris is used by Sophocles simultaneously to cloud Creon’s proper judgment and make clear to the audience the antagonists true super objective. When Creon first comes to power he announces his edict with a speech about the need for great leaders to exhibit their worth and extols the “unshakable loyalty” of his subjects yet suspects them of taking bribes; “money has ruined many men.” Although his initial paranoia reflects his insecurity as a newly risen leader it is not until the play nears its climax, during Creon’s confrontation with Haemon that Sophocles reveals Creon’s super objective.

“But the man the city places in authority his orders must be obeyed, large and small, right and wrong.” This quotation reveals the hidden fissures in Creon’s patriotic façade. Contrary to what was previously suggested, Creon expects respect and utmost obedience, rather than earning it he believes these to be the prerequisites of power. The quotation;

“Better to fall from power, if fall we must, at the hands of a man- never be rated inferior to a woman, never” emphasizes how self-motivated and ego-driven Creon’s objectives are. His plight to disgrace Polyneices corpse- angering the gods and triggering a plague in Thebes is no longer to keep “The ship of state” safe but to prevent Creon’s pride from being lain “bare to the blows of ruin”.

There is much evidence to suggest that Creon is wary that he is acting selfishly and is putting his own interests before those of the people of Thebes’, “Am I to rule this land for others- or for myself?” when previously, “…who menaces our country…our country is our safety.” Instead of carefully planned speech that encompasses plural pronouns such as “our” that suggests the great country is shared by its inhabitants. Yet in a fit of anger, Creon ironically shows his “colours” and his speech is laden with personal pronouns such as “I” and “myself” whilst the “our” has disintegrated and split a body of people into “others” and “myself”. Perhaps these slips in speech are induced by Sophocles to shed light on the self contradiction people show when they act on ego yet know deep down that they are wrong. Greek philosophers also created the concept of logic, Haemon also suggests that “only the gods endow a man with reason, the finest of all their gifts, a treasure.” Even the leader of the chorus encourages Creon to give Harmon’s advice some thought yet Creon stubbornly replies “What? The city is the king’s-that’s the law!” To the audience it must have been frustrating to see a character so rigid and dogged in his own ideals, a man armored by pride. However the use of question marks may serve to suggest Creon’s self doubt as well as provocation to Haemon, “What?” and “Oh?...and is Thebes about to tell me how to rule?...-or myself?” Haemon accuses Creon of “talking like a child” This reminds us of how young children react when their arguments are failing yet are too proud to confess their mistakes. Speech often becomes laden with question marks intended to taunt, provoke and reinforce their arguments, adding exclamation marks “that’s the law!” to represent volume and dominance. They also make poorly backed references to authority (the law) when they lack reason and knowledge, and therefore have little else to justify their points.

Creon’s ignorance as a result of his overarching hubris will definitely generate much ire with ancient Greek audiences. Sophocles uses irony when characterizing Creon to emphasize his consuming pride and foreshadow the catastrophic denouement. From the beginning of the play Creon expresses much contempt for money “you squandered your life for silver!” characterizing money as a disastrous force that can corrupt even the noblest of men. “Money- you demolish cities…you train and twist good minds and set them on the most atrocious schemes.” The pathetic fallacy attributes much power to the inanimate object and makes money sound like the makings of evil, as if money were a monster, running rampant in Thebes. Creon’s paranoia to money is ironic as Sophocles leads the audience to think- isn’t hubris just as much a monster as money? Feeding on the ego of mere mortals, It has the capability to restrain judgment, and as seen at the end of the play, to bring endemics to cities and cause death and destruction. Ironically, even though Creon thinks Thebes effectively belongs to him the King, the future of Thebes is dependent on Hubris. Furthermore, Creon displays a great deal more fear of money and recalcitrance than to the wrath of the omnipotent gods. Creon’s lack of fear (led by his hubris) and mockery of Antigone’s reverence towards Zeus whilst her future lies in Creon’s palms brand him for sacrilege. Comments made by Creon such as “a twisted mind is the worst affliction known” to Tiresias are both shockingly disrespectful and awfully ironic, again heightening climax and implying a dramatic downfall from power later on in the play. “Never...all my family clustered at my altar worshipping Guardian Zeus-she’ll never escape” Creon is so bold and so brash that he does not consider the stance of the gods whatsoever when determining another beings life and death, especially to immure a reverent, righteous, and dutiful daughter, denying her a quicker death, where all have equal rights. His torture of a girl trapped between life and death will no doubt assure his own punishment.

Sophocles emphasizes on the expected duties and characteristics of the ideal son, who according to Creon should; love unconditionally, “subordinate to your father’s will in every way” and must fulfill the duties, paying the “enemy back with interest” so in effect upholding his father’s reputation. These must have been widely held and conformed beliefs in ancient Greece, as blood ties link family for eternity “Zeus who defends all bonds of kindred blood” and therefore children inherit congenital duties upon birth. This makes Creon’s punishment of Antigone all the more unjust and blatantly portrays Creon’s sensitive ego. Antigone places her familial duties first and sacrifices her duties and privileges of being a woman and a bride respectively. It is therefore harder for the audience to accept Creon’s punishment and increases the emotional climax. Also, his actions against a member of his own family will predictably result in more death within his immediate family.

When the sentry, a soldier of low status and therefore expected to exhibit less wisdom than those in high authority expresses; “Oh it’s terrible when the one who does the judging judges things all wrong.” Sophocles again uses irony to show how Creon’s self-conceitedness clouds his ability to judge and think logically whilst the sentry, albeit of low status remains humble and meek especially to the Gods and is thus the one to see clearly.

Sophocles also emphasizes how the men with the most pride are easily the most sensitive. With Creon’s confrontation with Haemon, Sophocles emphasizes the fragility of the situation as well as the volatility of Creon’s temperament by structuring Haemon’s confrontation in a circumlocuted fashion. At first Haemon appears to praise his father, “only the gods endow a man with reason, the finest of all gifts…I rejoice in your success…nothing more precious…Now don’t please, be quite so single minded, self-involved, or assume the world is wrong and you are right.” Sophocles then allows climax to build as Haemon becomes increasingly frustrated with his father’s obstinate views and finally comes to a climax as Haemon storms off “And you will never see me, never set eyes on my face again.” This final warning where climax reaches its peak acts doubly as a warning to Creon, to foreshadow Haemon’s suicide in the final act of the play.

Sophocles generates an intense build up of dramatic climax in “Antigone” featuring powerful literary devices such as irony to accentuate Creon’s dogged ideology and eminent hubris. This heightening of climax signals a drastic tragedy where wisdom is learnt to late and all is too late for hope. Ending with a choral verse on the joy of wisdom or the wisdom in joy, Sophocles delivers a moralistic play in which all can sympathize the death of the righteous and understand the consequences of hubris.

Downfall of Creon

Antigone by Sophocles consists of many literary devices used to foreshadow future events in the play. I am going to focus on how these devices were used by Sophocles to foreshadow the fall of Creon.

Creon was characterized as a very ignorant king as he always believes that he is right and no one dares to go against this. However, Haemon tries to convince his father into changing his perspective “You’ve seen trees by a raging winter torrent, how many sway with the flood and salvage every twig, but not the stubborn- they’re ripped out, roots and all.” (796) The imagery of trees symbolizes a family as a whole and in this case, the royal family. The use of “raging winter torrent” somehow works like a list of three of negative, violent images to emphasize on how harsh life is. Also, Haemon refer to Creon as “the stubborn” and states that “they’re ripped out, roots and all.” This is when the foreshadowing technique comes in as later on in the play, the only “root” of Creon, Haemon ends up stabbing himself to death.

After that, Haemon continues on by giving another example, in other words, another warning to Creon “Bend or break. The same when a man is sailing: haul your sheets too taut, never give an inch, you’ll capsize, and go the rest of the voyage keel up and the rowing-benches under.” Haemon compares Creon’s unchangeable ego to a sailing man holding the sheets too tightly which is very effective in conveying the character of Creon because if we really think about it, holding the sheets of a boat in the middle of the windy weather is already very hard while Creon “never give an inch”. This shows that Creon is a very ignorant character. The future of Creon was predicted clearly in “you’ll capsize and go the rest of the voyage keel up and the rowing-benches under”. This quote is saying that if Creon holds on too tightly to his ego and never listens to anyone’s advice, he will have to face his downfall.

Sophocles’ use of literary devices to foreshadow the fall of King Creon was very symbolic and effective in bringing the message across to the audience. This is “dramatic irony” because it is all so clear to the audience that the downfall of Creon was already predicted throughout the scene while none of the characters in the play knows it.

The consequences of hubris (by Annette Wu)

The consequences of hubris:

How does Sophocles reveal Creon’s overarching hubris?

Hubris: exaggerated pride of self- confidence (Merriam Webster)

Hubris is a force that clouds Creon’s vision but also reveals his true super objective. Lines 731- 760 demonstrate this, “Better to fall from power, if fall we must, at the hands of a man- never be rated inferior to a woman, never.” Reveals Creon’s misogyny yet paired with; “But the man the city places in authority his orders must be obeyed, large and small, right and wrong.” Reveals the deep fissures in Creon’s patriotic façade and the hubris that motivates his actions, overtaking logical judgment as the play progresses.

It appears in the beginning of the play that Creon’s objective was to show his citizens the consequences of treason. Posing as serving ruler and a friend to his “loyal” people Creon, perversely parades the ideology that any man can be corrupted if money is at stake; “Money- you demolish cities…you train and twist good minds and set them on the most atrocious schemes.” Creon’s personification of money by addressing it with the personal pronoun “you” is representative of his stubbornness. The pathetic fallacy is perhaps used by Sophocles to demonstrate how Creon believes money to be a negative force that no ordinary citizen is immune to and therefore is prone to. This is controversial as Creon personifies “evil” whilst he understates the omnipotence of the mighty gods- Zeus and Justice. This irreverence displays his misplaced paranoia, instead of fearing the almighty gods he fears any threats to his visage as a respected, feared and successful ruler. This type of thinking shines light on Creon’s shrouded logic. Although every human being is endowed with the ability to reason through fact, instinct and experience, Creon uses his pride rule the country. Creon self consciously notes that “the man society places in authority” can be “right and wrong” must be obeyed either way. This power and respect is worthy for the gods and therefore any mortal assuming such a position has matched and belittled the might of the gods. The root of his misogyny is not explained however, “I am not about to prove myself a liar…never let some woman triumph” exposes Creon’s profound self-pride therefore Sophocles was using misogyny to complement the element of hubris rather than setting it as a theme. Creon’s paranoia also leaks through from his expectations of the ideal son. “Or do you love me no matter what I do…that’s how you ought to feel within your heart.” Creon expects respect from his subordinates rather than earns it. He also expects Haemon’s unconditional love and complete obedience “subordinate to your father’s will in every way.” The juxtaposition between the two demonstrates how Creon wishes to achieve love, respect and veneration through the installation of fear and believes that people are given congenital duties, for example Haemon, born to Creon naturally inherits his father’s enemies and must spend his life upholding his father’s reputation. This concept is paralleled by Antigone’s super objective of fulfilling her duties as a daughter, to grant her family peace in the underworld. This emphasizes on the irony of Creon’s actions, and the lack of logic in his thinking- he expects his son’s unconditional love and obedience yet deplores Antigone for wanting to accomplish her role as a daughter. In this, Sophocles reprimands those who act before they think (thus lacking proper judgment) and thus those with an excess of ego.

When the sentry, a soldier of low status and therefore expected to exhibit less wisdom than those in high authority expresses; Oh it’s terrible when the one who does the judging judges things all wrong.” Sophocles uses irony to show how Creon’s self-conceitedness again clouds his ability to judge and think logically whilst the sentry, albeit of low status remains humble and meek especially to the Gods is the one who is able to see clearly.

Sophocles also emphasizes how the men with the most pride are easily the most sensitive. With Creon’s confrontation with Haemon, Sophocles emphasizes the fragility of the situation as well as the volatility of Creon’s temperament by structuring Haemon’s confrontation in a circumlocuted fashion. At first Haemon appears to praise his father, “only the gods endow a man with reason, the finest of all gifts…I rejoice in your success…nothing more precious…Now don’t please, be quite so single minded, self-involved, or assume the world is wrong and you are right.” Yet allows climax to build as Haemon becomes increasingly frustrated with his father’s obstinate views and finally comes to a climax as Haemon storms off “And you will never see me, never set eyes on my face again.” This final warning where climax reaches its peak acts doubly as a warning to Creon, to foreshadow Haemon’s suicide in the final act of the play.

Through character interaction, prolepsis, and structure Sophocles shows the audience the consequences of hubris- allowing pride to act instead of responsible, proper judgment will no doubt result in tragedy.

Thuy Anh's essay

To what extent has Creon been insulted by his own son? How did Haemon provoke Creon?

The pages 93 to 99 of Antigone, a play written by Sophocles, carry varying techniques in which they build up tension between the relationship of Creon and Haemon. Specifically is the use of language and diction being the major emphasis in provoking Creon’s ego that perhaps leads him to a peak of anger. His “I” is too big that it blinds him from justice, drives him to decide to punish his own son to save his image of being a King.

As under Greek era, a child’s social expectations regarding behaviour, thoughts, tone in talking,… must be followed by rules that show extreme respect towards parents. However, Haemon, the king’s son, is the one who has negative attitudes aiming at his father. This truth represents a significant breakout in which a character such as Haemon, who is apart of the royal family therefore must be highly aware of his action, decides to be rebellious, standing against his father. Sophocles explores the use of informal language to support this idea, in which Haemon pronounces, in front of Creon and The Chorus, that there is no one in Thebes who would ever say anything displeasing to Creon’s face. The sense of “in the face” sounds like a scold that Haemon strikes down on Creon, spoken by a person who is in a higher position than the other, telling Creon what he does is wrong, in which at this point, Haemon looks down at Creon and that he hints that his respect for Creon is no longer available. Furthermore, the use of direct language also works as a factor that provokes Creon’s ego, especially Haemon’s insulting words: “self-minded”, “self-involved”, “empty” and “insane”. The pair of adjectives “self-minded” and “self-involved” clearly construct who Creon really is, always puts himself first upon everything, always does things that benefit himself only. Also, the word “empty” is very significant as a king is expected to have qualities regarding being wise, considerable whereas Creon is completely contrasting. “Empty” suggests shallowness and perhaps immaturity that Creon holds. Significantly is the word “insane”, insane is usually referred to people who suffer from mental illness or people who are not able to control their behaviour, which causes madness. Haemon directly says this to Creon, seemingly reveals a discourteous attitude towards Creon, insulting him deeply. Haemon’s choice of words as well as his tone while speaking is very significant towards the idea of going against the laws, showing no manor towards Creon, making him lose face in front of The Chorus. As a result, Creon, being offended, decides to punish his own son for being disrespectful and also for being on the “wrong” side. “you, you will pay, taunting and insulting me.” Rather than punishing Haemon for following the “injustice” (according to Creon), Creon bases Haemon’s crime entirely on his contemptuous attitude towards Creon, especially based on the fact that Haemon dares to insult Creon in public. This is referred back to how Creon sets his pride and reputation as a priority, no matter what, he has to withhold his image. Also, Creon has a high demand and require of respect from others towards him, in this way he can gain power in controlling Thebes and its people.

Not only Sophocles has used language and diction to abuse Creon, but also by pinpointing his weakensses, Sophocles has created a climax in Haemon’s insult towards Creon, further reflecting on family tension within the play. It is clear and certain that Creon pays specific care for his power and his reputation, Haemon directly makes him seem powerless and unworthy to be respected. He also pronounces “the whole Thebes denies it, to a man.” This phrase implies two different ideas in which “the whole Thebes denies it” significantly lowers his power down, to an extent that his own city is raising against him and that he is not able to control. The second part that also hits his “I” is “to a man”. Here, Haemon devalues Creon by comparing him with a man, seemingly suggest that Creon is no king, but rather an ordinary man who has no authority whatsoever. Creon definitely finds Haemon’s impertinent words extremely insulting that his pride is wounded. Further more, Haemon keeps striking down on Creon by continuing touching on his weakensses. Creon has always been suspecting a ‘dark side’ where people talk about him behind his back. Haemon directly proves his suspicion right by saying:” the rumours spread in secret, darkly”. Once again, Creon’s pride is hurt when he now knows his people are not loyal to him, making him seem weak and debilitating.

It is extremely forceful that Sophocles has chosen Haemon to be the only man in the whole of Thebes to stand up against Creon. It is also very significant due to the fact that what Haemon does is completely contrasting towards the intense children idealistic of being obedient and respectful towards parents under the Greek era. However, Haemon’s bravery is similar to nowadays’ society where the rules are not as strict and that children perhaps have a say within the family, but it would also be daring to say such insulting words towards parents.

Sophocles has set up an argument between Haemon and Creon to reflect Creon’s corruption as well as the extreme social expectations at that period of time. By successfully using language and diction to create dramatic irony and family tension, therefore build up a surprise towards the audience.