Torvald's Controversy

Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House contained controversy and scrutiny since its first performance in 1879 as audience’s perspectives and cultural views became challenged when Ibsen criticized their relationships and societal standings. Ibsen constructs the plot and characters of his play as a method to voice his opinions toward his audience. In effect, he employs the stock character of Torvald to fall align with societal values and culture and in effect represent his audience. Furthermore, this thus leads Ibsen to grant Torvald his two major characteristics: his obsession of beauty and appearances as he attempts to mainly critique that. Ibsen then constructs his criticisms of Torvald and consequently society through the interactions between Torvald

The first major characteristic of society and Torvald that he attempts to castigate consist of the continuous preoccupation with beauty. For example, in act 3’s scene after the Tarantella dance, Ibsen questions “Why shouldn’t I look at my dearest treasure? —at all the beauty that is mine, all my very own?” (Ibsen 55). In this metaphor, Ibsen directly compares Torvald’s marriage with Nora to Torvald possessing some sort of wonderous treasure. This reveals to readers that in the eyes of Torvald he only sees Nora as some inanimate object with major importance on its beauty whereas, the character of Nora contains more traits and aspects passed her elegance. The audience can connect with this characteristic of Torvald as he conforms to the general cultural values of the time that women in marriage persisted as just “trophies” with most importance given to their physical appearance. Consequently, there persisted no pure relationship among a husband and wife. This leads to Ibsen expressing his opinion about this characteristic of society when he states, “This is what our marriage has been, Torvald.” (Ibsen 63). as he uses the character of Nora’s departure to expose Torvald for merely playing with her as if she was a “doll” and not containing a true relationship with her thus highlighting to readers relationships are

Clearly, Ibsen criticizes this in the act 2’s scene in which Nora attempts persuade Torvald to forgive the infamous Krogstad for the peace of the family when he states, “Isn’t it an insult to think that I should be afraid of a starving quill-driver’s vengeance?” (Ibsen 35). This metonymy associates “a starving quill-driver” to Krogstad as it reveals Torvald’s opinion toward Krogstad as just a poor writer. His emphasis on view of Krogstad in a negative light causes him to overlook the potential damage to his family socially and financially that he encompasses. Furthermore, this device allows the audience to connect with Torvald as both don’t look past the societal appearances of others. However, Ibsen uses the power Krogstad possesses over Torvald to elucidate his opinion that merely following societal images of individuals serves as an ineffective way of truly understanding someone. Torvald’s obsession of societal appearances again becomes criticized in the act 3’s scene in which Nora separates from Torvald when Ibsen states “An abyss has opened between us—There is no denying it. But, Nora, would it not be possible to fill it up?” (Ibsen 66). In this metaphor Ibsen compares the deteriorative and terrible condition of Torvald and Nora’s relationship to an abyss to bring an effect that the relationship became very dark with no