!Free Epub ♷ Et dukkehjem ☩ A Doll's House is a threeact play in prose by Henrik Ibsen It premiered at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark, onDecember , having been published earlier that month The play is significant for its critical attitude toward thcentury marriage norms It aroused great controversy at the time, as it concludes with the protagonist, Nora, leaving her husband and children because she wants to discover herself Ibsen was inspired by the belief that a woman cannot be herself in modern society, since it is an exclusively male society, with laws made by men and with prosecutors and judges who assess feminine conduct from a masculine standpoint Its ideas can also be seen as having a wider application: Michael Meyer argued that the play's theme is not women's rights, but rather the need of every individual to find out the kind of person he or she really is and to strive to become that person In a speech given to the Norwegian Association for Women's Rights in , Ibsen insisted that he must disclaim the honor of having consciously worked for the women's rights movement, since he wrote without any conscious thought of making propaganda, his task having been the description of humanity
This is the story of a marriage that superficially seems happy, but a critical turn of events reveals a sham relationship.Torvald and Nora Helmer, who've had some financial struggles, are delighted because Torvald has gotten major promotion at the bank where he works But Nora, behind her lightheartedness and childish behavior encouraged, always, by Torvald, who calls her diminutive, vaguely (or sometimes explicitly) insulting names names like my sweet tooth and little spendthrift is hiding a major secret She borrowed a substantial sum of money a few years ago to finance a trip to Italy to help Torvald recover from a major illness She told Torvald the money was left to her by her father, but it was actually loaned to her by one Nils Krogstad, and she has been slowly paying it back But now Nils is threatening to tell Nora's husband especially since he realized that Nora forged her father's signature as cosigner of the note.I first read this play many years ago as a college English major, and frankly it didn't leave much of an impression on me at the time But rereading this now, as a married woman with children, the utter wrongness and superficiality of Torvald's and Nora's relationship hits me hard Almost everything Torvald says to Nora diminishes her as a person:Now, now, the little lark's wings mustn't droop Come on, don't be a sulky squirrel Nora, in turn, treats her children especially her daughter with the same type of carelessness of their value as a person As the problem of the forged promissory looms closer to disclosure, Nora becomesfrantic But she still thinks that Torvald, who has shown nothing but disdain for her mind and financial ability, will stand by her and protect her if her misdeed (which was done because of her love and concern for her husband) becomes public.This is one of the earliest feminist works of literature, written in 1879 by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen It's hard to believe that this hardhitting play, about a woman who realizes she's been treated as a mindless doll all her life by her father and then her husband, and what she decides to do about it, was written over 130 years ago It raises some important questions of true communication and finding yourself, not just for women but for all people British actress Hattie Morahan, who played Nora, made some comments about it that really struck me: the things Ibsen writes mean it ceases to be about a particular milieu and becomes about marriage (or partnership) and money These are universal anxieties, and it seems from talking to people that it resonates in the most visceral way, especially if they are or have been in a difficult relationship Someone said to me the other night, 'That's the play that broke my parents' marriage up.' It shines a very harsh light on the messy heart of relationships, and how difficult it can be to be honest with another human being even if you love them.https://www.theguardian.com/stage/201 I'll admit that the ending leaves me unsettled, with its burning all bridges approach Although I have some sympathy with German actress Hedwig NiemannRaabe, who famously refused to perform the play unless Ibsen rewrote the ending, I don't think changing it was the right decision from a literary point of view As a literary work, the ending is tremendously powerful However, as a practical guide to life, I'm not convinced that what Nora does is right (view spoiler)[ She leaves her husband, which I can understand: he's tremendously selfish and has never treated her as anything but a mindless doll Still, giving him at least a chance to change, once she realizes that they both need that change, would seem like the right thing to do in real life What bothers meis Nora also leaving her children and cutting off all communication with them as well, at least until she finds herself as a person (hide spoiler)] Dukkehjem = A Doll House = A doll's House, Henrik IbsenA Doll's House, is a threeact play written by Henrik Ibsen It premiered at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 21 December 1879, having been published earlier that month The play is set in a Norwegian town circa 1879 Act One: The play opens at Christmas time as Nora Helmer enters her home carrying many packages Nora's husband Torvald is working in his study when she arrives He playfully rebukes her for spending so much money on Christmas gifts, calling her his little squirrel He teases her about how the previous year she had spent weeks making gifts and ornaments by hand because money was scarce This year Torvald is due a promotion at the bank where he works, so Nora feels that they can let themselves go a little The maid announces two visitors: Mrs Kristine Linde, an old friend of Nora's, who has come seeking employment; and Dr Rank, a close friend of the family, who is let into the study Kristine has had a difficult few years, ever since her husband died leaving her with no money or children Nora says that things have not been easy for them either: Torvald became sick, and they had to travel to Italy so he could recover Kristine explains that when her mother was ill she had to take care of her brothers, but now that they are grown she feels her life is unspeakably empty Nora promises to talk to Torvald about finding her a job Kristine gently tells Nora that she is like a child Nora is offended, so she teases the idea that she got money from some admirer, so they could travel to Italy to improve Torvald's health She told Torvald that her father gave her the money, but in fact she managed to illegally borrow it without his knowledge because women couldn't do anything economical like signing checks without their husband Over the years, she has been secretly working and saving up to pay it off Act Two: Christine arrives to help Nora repair a dress for a costume function that she and Torvald plan to attend the next day Torvald returns from the bank, and Nora pleads with him to reinstate Krogstad, claiming she is worried Krogstad will publish libelous articles about Torvald and ruin his career Torvald dismisses her fears and explains that, although Krogstad is a good worker and seems to have turned his life around, he must be fired because he is too familial around Torvald in front of other bank personnel Torvald then retires to his study to work Dr Rank, the family friend, arrives Nora asks him for a favor, but Rank responds by revealing that he has entered the terminal stage of tuberculosis of the spine and that he has always been secretly in love with her Nora tries to deny the first revelation and make light of it but isdisturbed by his declaration of love She then clumsily attempts to tell him that she is not in love with him, but that she loves him dearly as a friend Act Three: Kristine tells Krogstad that she only married her husband because she had no other means to support her sick mother and young siblings and that she has returned to offer him her love again She believes that he would not have stooped to unethical behavior if he had not been devastated by her abandonment and been in dire financial straits Krogstad changes his mind and offers to take back his letter from Torvald However, Kristine decides that Torvald should know the truth for the sake of his and Nora's marriage After literally dragging Nora home from the party, Torvald goes to check his mail but is interrupted by Dr Rank, who has followed them Dr Rank chats for a while, conveying obliquely to Nora that this is a final goodbye, as he has determined that his death is near Dr Rank leaves, and Torvald retrieves his letters As he reads them, Nora steels herself to take her life Torvald confronts her with Krogstad's letter Enraged, he declares that he is now completely in Krogstad's power; he must yield to Krogstad's demands and keep quiet about the whole affair He berates Nora, calling her a dishonest and immoral woman and telling her that she is unfit to raise their children He says that from now on their marriage will be only a matter of appearances عنوانها: «خانه عروسک و اشباح»؛ «عروسکخانه»؛ نویسنده: هنریک ایبسن؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: ماه آگوست سال 1976میلادیعنوان: خانه عروسک و اشباح؛ نویسنده: هنریک ایبسن؛ مترجم: مهدی فروغ؛ تهران، بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب، 1339، در 289ص، موضوع دو نمایشنامه از نویسندگان نروژی سده 19معنوان: عروسکخانه؛ نویسنده: هنریک ایبسن؛ مترجم: منوچهر انور؛ تهران، کارنامه، 1385، در 310ص، نمایشنامه نروژی در سه پرده به همراه ایبسن شاعر، و چند اشاره به چالش ترجمه؛ پیشتر از اینها این نمایشنامه با عنوان «خانه عرسک» به همراه نمایشنامه ی «اشباح» ایبسن، دو نمایشنامه در یک جلد، منتشر شده است؛ خانه عروسک یا «عروسکخانه» داستان بیرون آمدن از توهم، و طغیان زنی به نام «نورا» را شرح میدهد؛ داستان در مدت سه روز از ایام هفته میلاد مسیح، رخ میدهد؛ «توروالد هلمر» که حقوقدانی خودبین، ولی با وجدان است، به تازگی در بانک، ترفیع رتبه پیدا کرده، و همسرش «نورا» که زنی زیبا، مو بور، و ظاهراً نادان و بوالهوس است، احساس میکند، که آنها میتوانند در جشن «کریسمس» قدری ولخرجی کنند، «هلمر» که با «نورا» همچون بچه ای رفتار میکند، و او را «جوجه کاکلی» مینامد، وی را آگاه میسازد، که بیشتر مواظب باشد، چون همیشه پول در پنجه های او سهواً خرج میشود، ولی «نورا» مدام پول بیشتری میخواهدهشدار: اگر رمان را نخوانده اید و میخواهدی بخوانید از خوانش ادامه ی ریویو خوددداری فرماییدخانم «لیندن»، یکی از دوستان بیوه، و پیر «نورا» به او میگوید، که خبر ترفیع شوهرش را شنیده، و از «نورا» میخواهد، که کاری در بانک شوهرش، برای وی پیدا کند؛ «نورا» با غرور به دوستش میگوید، که او هم پول زیادی به دست آورده است «هلمر» در نخستین سال ازدواجش، بسیار مریض و علیل بود، و برای نجات زندگیش، باید مسافرتی به «ایتالیا» میکرد «نورا» پول لازم را قرض کرد، ولی به «هلمر» گفت، که پول کمی از پدرش به ارث برده است؛ او ترتیبی داده تا نزول پول را از بابت کرایه لباسهایش، و گاهی با یافتن کارهای پنهانی از شوهرش، بپردازد؛ ولی حالا قرض تقریباً ادا شده است؛ «هلمر» موافقت میکند، که کار شخصی به نام «نیلز کروگستاد» را، که حقوقدان مرموزی است، و محکوم به جعل اسناد شده، به خانم «لیندن» دوست «نورا» تفویض نمایدولی «کروگستاد» همان مردی است، که «نورا» از او پول قرض کرده بود، و او «نورا» را تهدید میکند، که اگر کارش را از دست بدهد، موضوع قرض را برای شوهرش فاش خواهد نمود؛ او همچنین متوجه میشود پدر «نورا» که قرار بود پای سند قرض را امضاء کند، در آن زمان مرده بوده؛ «نورا» سرانجام تصدیق میکند، که امضای پدرش را جعل کرده، و سعی مینماید شوهرش را متقاعد نماید، که «کروگستاد» را که سعی میکند اعتبار خود را در اجتماع به دست آورد، در شغل خود نگه دارد؛ ولی «هلمر» میگوید که «کروگستاد» یک کلاش جاعل است و در تعویض او اصرار میورزد؛ خانم «لیندن» که از دوستان قدیمی «کروگستاد» محسوب میشود، قول میدهد که از طرف «نورا» از او خواهش و تمنا کند، ولی ناگهان درمییابد که او از شهر بیرون رفته است؛ در همین ضمن «کروگستاد»، نامه ای به هلمر نوشته، و تمام جریان را تعریف میکند، و به این ترتیب «نورا» کاملاً مأیوس میشود؛او نامه را در جعبه نامه ها مییابد، اما نمیتواند به نحوی آن را از بین ببرد، چون کلید جعبه پیش شوهر است؛ او هر کاری که ممکن است میکند تا مانع از خواندن آن نامه توسط شوهرش شود؛ آنها به یک مجلس بالماسکه در آپارتمان بالایی میروند؛ در این جشن یکی از دوستانشان، دکتر «رانک» نیز با آنهاست؛ دکتر میداند که در حال مرگ است، و لذا نومیدانه سودای عشق «نورا» را در سر میپروراند؛ «نورا» لباسی ایتالیایی میپوشد و «تارانتلا» میرقصد، و سعی دارد صورت ظاهر را حفظ کند و حتی المقدور ناراحتیاش هویدا نگرددنورا در حالتی از یأس و نومیدی تصمیم میگیرد، که اگر شوهرش نامه را بیابد، خودکشی کند؛ وقتی «هلمر» نامه را میخواند؛ او را به جرمی بزرگ متهم میکند، جرمی که هلمر را از میان خواهد برد؛ هلمر به نورا میگوید که لایق معاشرت فرزندانشان نیست؛ درستکاری هلمر خیلی بیش از انتظار و پیشبینی نورا است؛ کروگستاد سند وعده دار را پس میفرستد، و هلمر با خوشحالی فریاد میزند، که نجات یافته است؛ ولی ضربه عمیقی بر روح نورا وارد شده است و در حقیقت بیش از آن نمیتواند، در خانه شوهرش بماند و سرانجام در یک صحنه دراماتیک هلمر را ترک میکند، تا خودش به تنهایی زندگی جدیدی را آغاز کند و بیش از آنکه متلون مزاج باشد به مسائل زندگی بیندیشد؛ او امید کوچکی به هلمر میدهد که اگر معجزه ای رخ دهد، شاید آنان دوباره زندگی را با هم از نو آغاز کنندتاریخ بهنگام رسانی 05/08/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ ا شربیانی Imagine what it would be like to live in a doll’s house: it's a house in which you are controlled and have no power to make any strong decisions; it's a house in which you are a play thing for someone else’s entertainment This sounds a lot like a bad marriage, so it's a house in which your husband holds the purse strings, so to speak, and leaves you with no control over your family’s finances Indeed, your husband keeps you on a very tight leash Such is the perceived life of Nora Helma Yet, this work is in favour of womenNote the word perceived for that is the appearance Nora gives to the outer world Indeed, the doll’s house is a metaphor for Nora’s life in which she takes on the role of a doll Her husband is now in charge and before then her farther She has no idea who, or what, she is because she has been conditioned by society to behave in the manner of an acceptable wife, which is one that obeys her husband’s wishes The result is a woman who appears week and controllable, but she has kept a big, big, secret from her husband that challenges everything he thinks her to be She, this simple minded doll, has managed to borrow money (something unheard of for a women of this time) to keep her family afloat whilst her husband was too ill to work So yeah, this play is very feminist Ibsen has used Nora’s situation to comment on the ridiculous nature of marriage in the nineteenth century The play is rooted in the then rising field of naturalism, which endeavoured to portray life accurately with no idealisations; thus, Nora’s marriage can be seen as an accurate portrayal of what most women had to put up with in their marriages Ibsen shocked his audineceMoreover, this means that the play was an absolute shocker to the Victorian audience This is not because of Nora’s disobedience, but the way her marriage has been used as a disguise to hide her freedom Despite being in a controlling marriage she had managed to be able to borrow money off her own accord, by herself This indicates that Nora’s role as a housewife was nothingthan a charade because she did, in fact, have some freedom to make her own choices such as the life changing one she makes at the end of the play Thus, the play was a milestone for questioning the traditional view of marriage; it suggested that marriage was overbearing and controlling, but if one was careful they could gain some freedom from their bigoted spouse; it suggested that marriage appeared like a doll’s house in which the doll was destined to be free. I read Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House back in high school as required reading but did not grasp the scope of his masterpiece then Ibsen penned his classic play about the story of Nora and Thorvald Helmer at a time in his life when he was coping with his former love Laura being confined to an insane asylum In 1872 Laura married a man other than Ibsen and he fell ill with a lethal disease Their doctors prescribed a southern climate but Laura did not have funds to move her husband to such a climate, so she borrowed the money from a trusting friend On her return she still did not have the money to cover the loan, so she forged a bank note, which subsequently lead to her entering the asylum Ibsen started work on A Doll's House shortly after this episode took place Clearly it is an example of art imitating life as Nora is Laura, Thorvald her husband, et al What I found the most interesting is Ibsen's view on the place of women in society He believed that women were not objects who were chained to their husbands with no voice in society On the contrary I feel he saw women as independent thinkers who were free to make their own decisions rather than the dolls stuck living their lives according to their husbands' wills We see this with both the characters of Nora and Kristin Linde I read A Doll's House in less than an hour as the text is less than one hundred pages long It is what is contained in these pages that packs a punch and why A Doll's House has become timeless A classic, I recommend to all who haven't read it before. Mr S, let me make myself very clear I will never, never believe that Ibsen intended for Nora's grabbing of her husband's cloak as she ran out the door to indicate his guilt in her implied suicide It was Christmas In Norway The woman was cold.(This is why I didn't do so well in your class, isn't it, Mr S?) First things first Nora, the protagonist of Ibsen's A Doll's House, is a twit There's no getting around it We may choose to assign blame for her twittishness to her husband, her milieu, or her era, but this will never adequately mitigate her essential twit nature to that reader or spectator of the play who must endure her selfidentification as her husband's 'squirrel' or her childlike idiocy I myself couldn't stop wondering if Nora is an actual twit (i.e., a twit absolutely, regardless of her context) or relative twit (i.e., a woman who seems a twit to us now as a result of the changes in custom, gender roles, and society itself) And I haven't of course ruled out a combination of the two.Then my mind became evenscrupulous Was my judgment that Nora is a twit itself a condition of my entitled position in a (still) phallocentric society? I'm not kidding I actually thought this This is what a culture of loudly warring intellectual discourses does to a man Am I guilty because I think Nora is twit?Well, I abandoned that idea Now I am convinced that she really is a twit, but now I ascribe some of her twittishness to the artificiality of drama itself, especially at the end of the nineteenth century I think I've temporarily settled on this opinion But ask me tomorrow, and who knows?Since I've spent so much time convicting Nora of being a twit, it might seem surprising that I've given this play four stars But really—there are plenty of fine stories to be told about twits and their ostensible transformations into nontwits We shouldn't discriminate against twits Don't they have hopes, dreams, sorrows, disappointments like the rest of us? A Doll's House is the story of a silly, naive Norwegian wife named Nora who is being blackmailed by an unsavory bank clerk; apparently, she forged a document some time before, but the backstory is too contorted and contrived to bother with here (I'mthan a little annoyed that Ibsen couldn't come up with aelegant MacGuffin—one that's not entirely reliant upon Nora's [guileless or stupid, as you see it] admission of wrongdoing to her blackmailer.) Nora works overtime to keep her husband Torvald from finding out about her transgression (Here, a cultural difference comes into play: given the circumstances, it's difficult for a modern audience to imagine that Torvald would be outraged at her confession.) Eventually, he does find out though and rips Nora a proverbial new one This leads up to a famous and infamous confrontation between husband and wife punctuated by Nora's door slam heard 'round the world.It's a fascinating and prescient play, no doubt, but it's alsothan a little creaky—at least in translation The conclusion, I think, retains much of its provocation today, well over a hundred years later It is very difficult to watch or read the play and not react to Nora She will always be subject to moral condemnation, but she's intriguing—even in her twittishness—because she isn't entirely right or wrong She's just human In an often infuriating way. oh, nora you are much maligned, and yet i wonder why people find you so muchannoying than emma bovary, etc i think there's so much about this play as a historical document that i appreciate and enjoy and love that sometimes i forget it's supposed to be a PLAY that said, i don't think nora was *supposed* to be entirely sympathetic i think her annoying behaviors are supposed to get on your nerves but somewhere, i think, Ibsen hoped that you would see the way she acts is not simply who she is, but because of how she is brought up, the situation she is in, the situation women are in, the realities of life for a woman in that time fascinating, in general, and a true testament to Ibsen that this is even being discussed today i kind of adore this play, and not because i am a feminist. Ibsen’s famous A Doll’s House is a landmark in the development of truly independent female heroines, rejecting the patriarchy they were socialised to accept unconditionally Nora, the main character, fails to make her husband understand that their perception of reality is incompatible as he keeps seeing her as a doll, acting out a pretty life for his pleasure and reputation In the original version, Nora shows the path to independence by opting for the uncertain future of a life lived alone and independently, but Ibsen was confronted with dominant misogyny and power play when German theatres in 1880 asked for “an alternative ending” (yes!), one in which Nora is emotionally blackmailed into staying with her family for the sake of the children Curtain falls on that “barbaric act of violence”, as Ibsen himself put it when commenting on the politically correct alternative (), a rewriting of literature to suit a misogynistic society protective of all documentation of the role of women.Well, unfortunately we are watching an all too real alternative ending to a century of increasing women’s rights at the moment as well Across the world, alternatives to freedom of speech, movement, and choice are implemented in “socalled democratic processes”, hijacked by the resurrected mindsets of 19th century white, male, heterosexual, pseudoChristian figures Domestic violence, rape culture, lawmaking against family planning and abortion, the alternatives to women’s rights are scarily real Nora, keep walking! I did not like this book because the main character got on my last nerves A supposedly intelligent woman pretending to be an idiot to fit her husband's idea of what women are like? And in the end abandons her family I have no sympathy for characters who punish the innocent children of their idiotic patnerships in order to find themselves Then again, I read this in high school so perhaps if I reread it I'll see what all the hoopla surrounding it is about.No wonder people hate feminists! If this is what passes for feminist fare, then I don't want to be one any Women don't have to abandon their children to free themselves from this patriarchal society It only makes you look like a bad selfish mother A real feminist would not marry an idiot for money not love and produce offspring with him only to scar them for life later by abandoning them.