Tora: an emblem of New Woman

Ibsen was a powerful Norwegian playwright who left no rock-and-roll unturned to explore all the critical problems of the society right from his Pillars of the Society ,Ghosts to The Enemy of People. Ibsen was really disturbed to find that women were being turned into mere gewgaws of the category ,to decorate the house, to nod at every odd proposal put forth by her husband, i.e, the master of the household, to dance to his tune all the time to withstand the peace and harmony of home intact. He was such aggrieved to observe this unhealthy balance ,that he composed the brilliant play A hisss House, considered to be one of the best plays that marks a new epoch in the history of womens emancipation.Ibsen himself wrote The married woman in the play ends by having no idea of what is right or wrong natural feeling on the hand and belief in authority on the other have all in all bewildered her.A woman cannot be herself in the society of the present day ,which is an exclusively masculine so ciety ,with laws framed by men and with a judicial system that judges feminine conduct from a masculine point of view.Cf. Ibsen, HenrikNotes for the Modern Tragedy Hence, Ibsen was very much aware of the fact that the hold woman-cum-wife was invariably looked down upon by the male chauvinistic husband. Why not look at Nora Helmer and her position in the household from close quarters?In the very first act , when she enters with a load of parcels in her hand and interacts with her husband Torvald , she is addressed at least more than once as featherbrain, forgetful person so forth. It may be so taken for granted that Torvald driven by the unalloyed passion of love for her wife addresses her in like terms. So far as songbird , doll-wife go that may have some significance. But, when Torvald unhesitatingly utters, You wouldnt believehow much it costs a man when hes got a little songbird like you, his dormant chauvinism suddenly pops up to the open. Does he not mean to belittle the labo r his wife is incessantly putting in to run the household smoothly , that too, not in expectation of any material gain for herself in turn? Yes, he does, whether he intends to mean so or not.In Act One itself, it becomes crystal clear to us that Nora loved her husband so deeply that she never hesitated to forge a document when it came to the decision of saving her husbands life. She even confessed of working as a copywriter for sometime working late into the dark burning her midnight oil and energy.Why? TO SAVE HER HUSBANDS PRECIOUS LIFEAnd what did she get in turn?Noras interaction with Mr. Krogstad too was not break of the necessities of profession. The letter that he left shoving her to the brink of destruction was rectified later on by another letter of contrition. But , the matters had tuned worse by then. Our interview to the playwright is ,if Nora got the taste ofearning like a man by copywriting wherefore did she not continue with it and accrue some sort of self-complace ncy by visual perception herself dependent? Perhaps, the subjugation of women in that era for which Mary Wollstonecraft and others of that period fought was stifling her to death from within Knowingly, unknowingly, or whateverMr. Krogstad at one point started fractious Nora to influence her husband for retaining him as his subordinate in the bank. T presentafter, this sneaking man went to such a daring extent that Nora could not disown him, knowing all-embracing well that this man was more venomous than a viper. Mr. Krogstad started blackmailing Nora with such incriminating statements like,Your father died on the twenty-ninth of September. But look at this your father has date his signature the second of October. Isnt that a curious thing, Mrs. Helmer?Nora is silentCan you explain it?A Dolls House,Act OneNora was caught into the snare and lastly when the act of unintentional forgery stood clear to Torvald in Act Three and he hit the roof ,accusing his doll-wife with harsh words , Nora had every reason to give vent to her pent-up hurt feelings. She tangle humiliated when Torvald pointed rude and naked finger to her dead fathers moral failings and detested her for inheriting so. Was it not the most heinous form of heraldic bearing? Torvald could demean her , could call her names even, but was it really ethical of him as a son-in-law to bring down the house at the expense of his dead father-in-laws moral turpitude? That might be utterly baseless evenEven after such humiliation Nora could utter , Ive loved you more than anything in the world. Torvald cast aspersions on her by calling her liar, hypocrite even worse, a criminal. She had inherited her fathers ambitionless denotation by proving herself irreligious, immoral, irresponsible Nora went on listening all the odorous, obnoxious accusations maintaining her cool. And , even when Torvald thundered, And Im brought so pitifully low all because of a shiftless woman she remained surprisingly calm rejoining ha rdly, Once Im step to the fore of the way, youll be free.Torvald went a step further and snowballed his unguarded comment, You will remain here in my house that goes without sayingbut I shall not allow you to bring up my children.I shouldnt dare trust you with them, then could any maternal sentiment remain untouched ? Noras heart too bled profusely at such ruthless utterance. That was why, it took hardly a few seconds for her to decide to crack the door on her husbands face at lastWhen the letter of repentance or redress reached Torvald, he in the same exacting tone spoke out, Nora, Im saved.Nora in a passive tone inquired of her position, And I? With intense passion,Torvald said, You too of course. After such mindless , slothful humiliation , how could Torvald be so inane to belt out the words, Ive forgiven you..?We are surprised to see Nora turning back to look stern at him , thus intimidating him. Nora pulled up all her courage to blurt out on his face, Youve never loved me, youve only found it pleasant to be in love with me.Therafter , Nora went on expatiating her restrained attitude in some(prenominal) her fathers house and later at her husbands . She admitted of dancing to both her fathers and husbands tunes , as the cases might have been. Later on with much conviction the revelation dawned upon her, You and Papa have affiliated a grievous sin against me its your fault that Ive made nothing of my life.She never had the courage to express her own opinion. Now she mustered her guts to handle out and think independently with her own grey cells Now she was not hesitant to say that she was never happy at Torvalds , but only gay. Nora felt the need of educating herself, she was keen on standing on her own feet ,if she was to know herself and the world outside. Her tongue did not falter to utter, Thats why I cant stay here with you any longer.This daring statement could only suffice to bring a New Woman out of conventional Nora ,a doll-wife ,in the era when voicing a protest against a husband was simply next to impossible Nora lastly hit the bulls plaza by saying that life could hardly be a real marriage for a couple who pretended all he time to be HAPPYIt was the greatest miracle of all when Nora left the house slamming the door behind. The house appeared EMPTY to Torvald.We were being prepared throughout the play for this final action from Nora. Her unrequited love for her husband , for her family shoved her to the edge of utter denial . The children for whom she spent her last farthing to buy the costliest Christmas gift , too, could not be trusted with her Such utterance group her desperate, insane and her decision seemed appropriate.However inane it might appear at the outset, it brought to the fore a revolutionary and protesting self of a woman who hated demeaning her womanhood.As economic freedom happened to be a significant criterion of a free woman , will it be very wrong to say that Nora of Ibsen foreshadowed Lily Bris coe of Virginia Woolf or her thought of an earning woman as a New Woman as appeared in her A Room of ones Own?As in later days we find Michele Foucault arguing about self-refusal rather than self-discovery,by which he meant to say that to become what she was not at the beginning.Thus, the concept of New Woman which was winning shape with Mother Courage of Brecht or Wife of Bath of Chaucer even much earlier found a veritable shape in Nora Helmer. Nora was genuinely justified to rise up in arms against the abominable subjugation inflicted on her and Ibsen was assiduously preparing the audience right from Act One for such a finale.Of course, Nora had every right to chime in with a contemporary woman-poet, Anna Laetitia Barbauld,Yes,injured Womanrise, assert thy rightWomantoo long degraded , scorned, oppressedO born to rule in partial Laws despite,Resume thy native empire oer the breast.The Rights of WomanWorks Cited1.Ibsen , HenrikTr. Peter WattsA Dolls House and Other Plays, Penguin , England, 1965.2.Cole, Toby ed Playwrights on Playwriting,Colonial Press, USA, 1960.3.Pritchard, R.E.edPoetry by English Women ,Elizabethan to Victorian, Continuum, New York, 1990.4.Meyer, MichaelIbsen, Penguin, England, 1967.5, Gatting, Gary edThe Cambridge Comapanion to Foucault, CUP, New York, 1994.