Logically, a contradiction consists of opposition between two conflicting ideas. Therefore, human contradiction would be opposing oneself to another person by saying or doing the opposite of whatever he or she says. A person should not say one thing and then turn around do another. Actions should be external representations of a person’s internal motives and be non-contradictory. Henrik Ibsen’s characters Aslaksen, Billing, Hovstad, Mayor Peter Stockmann and Morten Kiil are wonderful examples of human contradictions because they undergo complete identity reversals from which they start with. These five characters are special representatives of the community that are supposed to have the good of the community at heart. In reality, they use scientific and factual truth for personal gain and biased motives instead of the good of the community.
There is a sense of diversity in the often contradictory motives that affect all human behavior. Ibsen came to change his technique of writing throughout his career from non-dramatic to dramatic. It would not be bad a contradiction, except for his reasoning behind it. He seems to change his writing with hope that a more dramatic technique might attract more people to his writings, enabling him to convey his thoughts and visions much more publically and in a more conventional manner. Unlike most authors that emphasized plot and intrigue at the time, Ibsen subtly inserted views contradictory to that of people at the time. He showed those contradictions of people in the ways in which they behaved and tried to think, especially in stressful situations like the ones that are created by Doctor Stockmann and other characters in Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People. The characters become inconsistent, m...
... middle of paper ...
... does not have the community’s best interest at heart like he should. He offers Doctor Stockmann social and financial security as well as a short term exile if only the Doctor leaves the subject alone and retracts everything that he has said thus far. He also offers in return to the Doctor the ability to be reinstated at a later time. So really he has no change in heart, nor in contradiction since he suffers no change.
In conclusion, each of these five characters that are somehow important to the community goes through a human contradiction or multiple ones. In comparison to Doctor Stockmann who remains steadfast in his ideals of ‘nothing but the truth is good enough,’ each of these characters has an ugly internal contradiction to what their external actions should be. Nothing is done for the good of the people, but what is good for each person’s individual gains.
Everything is criticized at every level in this story, the people by the main character, the main character by the author and even the story by the author as well. The cruel egoistic personality of Anders is definitely identifiable through these different levels of criticism. I will prove that the inner motivation of this behaviour derives from Anders' egoistic personality which sometimes makes him cruel against others, sometimes against himself. Furthermore, I will prove that whenever Anders criticizes somebody or something he actually tries to punish because of the imperfectness of the object. In order to make the referring to the different part of the story easier I divide it into three parts. The first part ends when the robbers appear at the door of the bank, the second ends when one of the robbers shoots at Anders and the left is the third part.
Firstly let us consider conflict. In each act of the play, we see the overpowering desire to belong leading to a climax of conflict amongst the characters, which has the consequence of exclusion. Conflict is a successful literary technique, as it engages the audience and focuses our attention on the issue of conflict and exclusion, brought about by the characters’ desires to be accepted by their community.
In the play Doubt, by John Patrick Shanly, Sister Aloysius is treating Father Flynn unfairly. Sister Aloysius is the principal of St. Nichols School, who is suspicious and always doubt everyone, especially Father Flynn. She thinks that Father Flynn is guilty, but has no proof. Sister Aloysius doesn’t like Father Flynn in the school and his ideas. She treats him unfairly. Sister Aloysius treats Father Flynn unfairly when she still accuses Father Flynn of giving the altar wine to Donald Muller after Father Flynn tells her the truth. She treats him unfairly by forcing him to request the transfer without proving if Father Flynn is guilty or not and also makes him resign by lying about his past.
These characters, however different they lie on the morality scale, all share the sinful trait of greed. They all ask, and take too much, ruining what the good that they had in their lives. Understanding their mistakes offers its useful readers a lesson, not to demand too much of the things we are offered. The characters struggle with their desires, each of them succombing to their passions.
“An Enemy of the People”, a play written by Henrik Ibsen, is about a small town on the southern coast of Norway and how it perceives and accepts truth. The town is governed by Peter Stockmann and doctored by his younger brother, Thomas. The main conflict flares up between these two siblings and then spreads throughout the town as they both try to do best by the “community.”
A man, intoxicated and impoverished, lay on the dirty streets of patriarchal Norway, and as the jeering citizens sauntered by, they could have never guessed that this man, Henrik Ibsen, would be the Prometheus of women’s rights and the creator of the modern play. Having been born in 1828, Ibsen lived through various examples of the subjection of women within the law, such as Great Britain allowing men to lock up and beat their wives “in moderation” (Bray 33). Therefore, Ibsen was known for his realistic style of writing within both poetry and plays, which usually dealt with everyday situations and people (31). Focusing on the rights of women, Ibsen’s trademark was “...looking at these problems without the distortions of romanticism” and often receiving harsh criticism for doing so (31). In an attempt to support his family, Ibsen became a pharmaceutical apprentice, but after three years he abandoned this profession and began writing poetry. After an apprenticeship in the theater, he began writing his own plays, including a drama in verse, Peer Gynt (31). While working and writing in Norway, Ibsen and several social critics observed “...the penalty society pays when only half of its members participate fully as citizens”, deciding to flee Norway in hopes of finding a more accepting social environment (33). Ibsen wrote A Doll’s House, his most famous work about women suffering through the oppressive patriarchal society, while living primarily in Germany and Italy where he “...was exposed to these social norms and tensions to a much greater extent than he would have been had he remained solely in Norway” (32). While Sweden, Norway, and Denmark began to grant legal majority to women, Ibsen understood the legal improvements f...
... Johnston, Brian. Text and Supertext in Ibsen's Drama. Pennsylvania : The Pennsylvania State University , 1932.
They are the demonstration of power at home. the power and control of society over the actions of Ibsen’s. characters and finally the causes and effects of the shift of power to Nora. From very early on in the text, in fact from Helmer’s first line, we. are introduced to an obvious imbalance of power present in the domestic setting. “Is that my little songbird piping away out there?”
Katherine, Mrs. Stockmann, is a mother and a wife who’s portrayed as a loving and loyal housewife. At the beginning of the play she was against the idea of Dr. Stockmann who wanted to write an article criticizing the Baths, “Ah, yes, right, right! But what good is the right, if you don’t have the might?” (96). However, when everyone began siding against Dr. Stockmann, Katherine decides to remain loyal to her husband and support his ideas. The reason she supports him is because she’s loyal and she wants to protect her family.
In this passage, Ibsen illustrates Hedda’s transformation from an apparently dominant character to a vulnerable character bound by societal conventions. Hedda highly values individual freedom, yet Ibsen reinforces in this passage that she is ultimately controlled by her role as a wife in her marriage and her role as a woman in her relationship with Judge Brack. Ibsen’s portrayal of the desperation of Hedda’s situation foreshadows her suicide, an action that is forced upon her yet paradoxically is her only means of freedom from a repressive society.
...ther sins and results that happened after that would never have occurred. In short, do not let your pride blind you to the knowledge of those who are wiser than you. In Ghosts, Ibsen's message is that the Norwegian society was hypocritical and unmoral. This is shown through Oswald's suffering because he is simply a victim who is paying for what a hypocritical society permits - men's immorality. The overall idea behind this play is that hypocrites should not criticize others; as Manders criticizes Oswald the companions that he chose during his stay in Paris. However, they are both combined by the intricate link of sin and its effects on the whole.
To sum up, Dr. Stockmann, is not an ordinary man, because unlike many people, he fights for what he believes is right, even though this might lead to his destruction. Still, he has the characteristics a normal person has, both good and bad. He is naïve because he doesn’t think of the consequences of his discovery for him, his family and his town. Moreover, he is selfish for putting himself before his family, and moral, for standing up for the well-being of the people. Finally, one must remember Dr. Stockmann, as the man who is ‘committed to humanity, as a man who loves his fellow men’ (Roshwald 233), and as a man that nowadays societies need.
(pg. 27. According to Poetics. Ibsen attempts to create a good character in Mrs. Alving. Although she makes many mistakes and her judgments lead to the ultimate tragedy, her intentions are good.
Throughout William Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, Hamlet’s behavior and actions cause readers to question his sanity. Hamlet’s character can be interpreted in many different ways. It could be said that he is indeed insane, or it can be disputed that he, as he made known, is simply putting on a good act. The complexity of knowing Hamlet’s true character derives from the fact that we, as readers, are unable to read Shakespeare’s or Hamlet’s minds. Therefore, judgments could be made solely by reading and interpreting his behavior and coming up with a satisfactory conclusion. Taking into consideration incidents such as Polonius’ murder and Hamlet’s contemplating suicide, it is natural for individuals who perform such acts to be categorized as crazy. Ignoring Hamlet’s actual actions, and paying keen attention to what altered his character, one can debate that Hamlet is not at all insane. It is important to consider the situations which triggered Hamlet’s different actions. By giving discreet thought to Hamlet’s position and what he endures, one will realize that he is not demented, but he is actually an angry, betrayed and emotionally devastated fatherless son.
At the end, the fact that a middle-class family is portrayed makes the entire series of events relatable to a modern audience and is effective in evoking a reaction and truly portrays the genre. The symbolism used shows the fatal flaw of the tragic heroine, the issues in society Ibsen wanted to be tackled and the death of an individual as well as the death of a family, therefore, conveying the key components of a modern domestic tragedy.