VCE Stuff > VCE Literature
Literature Close Analysis Essay Submission Feedback Thread.
Charlie Locke:
Hi :) This is a response to the VCAA 2014 passage on A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
Helmer's dehumanising attitudes and tones subjugate Nora and are reflective of the way both he and Nora are metaphoric products on their contemporary Bourgeoisie society. Nora is labelled as 'a sweet little bird' and 'little song bird' by Helmer as this is his attempt to maintain the 'mere facade' that the two characters live behind. Both Nora and Helmer exist in their own superficial realm that is constructed for them by the relentless Bourgeoisie system in which they reside. Helmer cannot tolerate the thought of being 'petty' or holding a lower social position to Nora as this compromises his superior role both in his home and in society. In order to conform to his role, Helmer metaphorically possesses Nora, although he does so and subjects Nora to commodification, Nora similarly depends on Helmer as they exist symbiotically, co-dependent on each other. Henrik Ibsen reflects upon the commodification of both Nora and Helmer and challenges the stereotypical social mores that underpin the marriage of Helmer and Nora.
The superficiality of Helmer and Nora's marriage is reflective of the 'sweet' exterior of the macaroon that Nora both indulges in and conceals from Helmer. The physical anatomy and construction of the macaroon is symbolic of Nora and Helmer's relationship as it is sweet and attractive from an external view but once 'nibbled' or damaged, has the capability to reveal the 'ugliness' of its real nature. The macaroon is ascetically pleasing, however, once indulged in, can cause decay and unhealthiness. Nora's 'sweet-tooth' and obsession with confectionary reflects her need to conform and continue her façade in her marriage. Helmer and Nora are metaphorically plagued with deceit and superficiality as they conform to the Bourgeoisie ideals, just as the macaroon can cause decay when consumed, the nature of Nora and Helmer's marriage is truly revealed when Nora suggests that Helmer's 'motives are petty'. Ibsen's introduction and use of 'sweet' delicacies are reflective of the aesthetics the marriage and further depicts the deconstruction of character that can occur.
As Nora suggests that Helmer's reasons are 'petty' she unintentionally challenges the role of both her and her husband in their co-dependent marriage. Helmer's masculinity and paternal dominance over Nora is compromised as she degrades him and suggests that his '[morals]' are unreasonable. In order for Helmer to atone for his degradation and humiliation by Nora, he 'searches among his papers'. This act reflects Helmer's attempt to return to the security of his domestic and gendered sphere where he can once again become dominant and superior within his marriage. Helmer reverts to Nora as 'little Miss Stubborn', this metaphorically detaches him from Nora again so that he can regain the power over her. Ibsen's explicit use of Helmer's 'papers' as a symbol of patriarchal dominance in a marriage signifies his exploration into the role of a man and woman within a marriage and endorses the notion that both man and woman can become social products of the societal realm in which they reside.
The 'terrible awakening' of both Helmer and Nora symbolises their epiphanic 'realisation' that neither of them will become what each other desire. As the 'letter' is revealed, Nora stands still, 'wild-eyed', 'looking fixedly' as her 'expression hardens'. As the truth of Nora's crime is revealed Helmer 'seizes' her in a dominant and aggressive manner. This is metaphoric of Helmer's attempt to prevent Nora from exiting her social sphere and challenging the ideals that their marriage is built on, Helmer continues to 'hold her back' whilst Nora '[struggles] to free herself'. The physical possession of Nora reflects her one last attempt to escape the constraints of her marriage and to finally become a 'woman'. Helmer remains perplexed at Nora's effort the 'get some experience', as alluded to in Act Three, because he himself has become accustomed to his habitual and impenetrable role that he been forced to appease. Helmer exclaims that for the 'last eight years' Nora has been '[his] joy and pride' and this justifies his commodification of Nora, which makes her decision to leave both her husband and children and to abandon her moral duties as a wife and mother all the more profound. As Helmer remains perplexed at the situation that he is confronted with, he reverts to the traditional, rigid values which underpin his character, proposing that Nora's pursuit for individualism is due to her 'father's shiftless character' as Helmer claims 'these things are hereditary'. The co-dependency on each other is accentuated by Helmer's bold declarations like 'you've completely wrecked my happiness'. This embodies the way Helmer and Nora have depended on each other in order to survive a maintain the mere façade and false sense of identity they are subjected to.
Ibsen proposes that women are not the only individuals who are subjected to the performativity and oppression, and he does this by constructing an emotionally tormented husband who is ravaged by the pressure to fulfill his masculine and paternal role. Nora's depersonification by Helmer accentuates his masculine role within his marriage, however through challenging her social domains and gendered sphere, Nora seeks for liberation and a life where she can be 'free' of moral obligations. This development of Nora symbolises Ibsen's portrayal and understanding of individualism and a 'righ' to self.
clarke54321:
--- Quote from: Charlie Locke on November 04, 2017, 07:41:02 pm ---Hi :) This is a response to the VCAA 2014 passage on A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!
Helmer's dehumanising attitudes and tones subjugate Nora and are reflective of the way both he and Nora are metaphoric products on their contemporary Bourgeoisie society do you have evidence to substantiate these dehumanising attitudes?. Nora is labelled as 'a sweet little bird' and 'little song bird' by Helmer as this is his attempt to maintain the 'mere facade' that the two characters live behind this would be perfect in the previous sentence. Especially if this is an introduction.. Both Nora and Helmer exist in their own superficial realm that is constructed for them by the relentless Bourgeoisie system in which they reside. Helmer cannot tolerate the thought of being 'petty' or holding a lower social position to Nora as this compromises his superior role both in his home and in society this is great for V+V, but how are you using the evidence for solid analysis?. In order to conform to his role, Helmer metaphorically possesses Nora, although he does so and subjects Nora to commodification, Nora similarly depends on Helmer as they exist symbiotically, co-dependent on each other again, how can you justify this interdependency. Henrik Ibsen reflects upon the commodification of both Nora and Helmer and challenges the stereotypical social mores that underpin the marriage of Helmer and Nora really good ideas in this paragraph. However, I'd recommend that you work closer with the language to inform your overarching interpretation..
The superficiality of Helmer and Nora's marriage is reflective of the 'sweet' exterior of the macaroon that Nora both indulges in and conceals from Helmer. The physical anatomy and construction of the macaroon is symbolic of Nora and Helmer's relationship as it is sweet and attractive from an external view but once 'nibbled' or damaged, has the capability to reveal the 'ugliness' of its real nature. The macaroon is ascetically pleasing, however, once indulged in, can cause decay and unhealthiness I'd try and draw a tighter connection between this sentence and the previous. It wasn't entirely clear what the "ugliness" was. . Nora's 'sweet-tooth' and obsession with confectionary reflects her need to conform and continue her façade in her marriage how does it reflect this?. Helmer and Nora are metaphorically plagued with deceit and superficiality as they conform to the Bourgeoisie ideals, just as the macaroon can cause decay when consumed, the nature of Nora and Helmer's marriage is truly revealed when Nora suggests that Helmer's 'motives are petty'this link seems a bit tenuous.. Ibsen's introduction and use of 'sweet' delicacies are reflective of the aesthetics the marriage and further depicts the deconstruction of character that can occur.
As Nora suggests that Helmer's reasons are 'petty' she unintentionally I'd be careful of these word choices. Especially for Nora's character. She is an extremely cunning woman, who speaks with a sharp conscious.challenges the role of both her and her husband in their co-dependent marriage. Helmer's masculinity and paternal dominance over Nora is compromised as she degrades him and suggests that his '[morals]' are unreasonable. In order for Helmer to atone for his degradation and humiliation by Nora, he 'searches among his papers'. This act reflects Helmer's attempt to return to the security of his domestic probably social? Domestic is generally the woman's sphere.and gendered sphere where he can once again become dominant and superior within his marriage I think you need to devote more analysis to this stage direction.
I'm not entirely convinced that this enables Torvald to reassert authority.. Helmer reverts refers?to Nora as 'little Miss Stubborn', this metaphorically detaches him could do with some further clarity.from Nora again so that he can regain the power over her. Ibsen's explicit use of Helmer's 'papers' as a symbol of patriarchal dominance in a marriage signifies his exploration into the role of a man and woman within a marriage and endorses the notion that both man and woman can become social products of the societal realm in which they reside. Nice ideas coming through again. This is entirely personal preference, but I try and refrain from using one piece of symbolism to reach my argument (per paragraph). It may indicate to examiners that you haven't reached an interpretation based off of all passages.
The 'terrible awakening' of both Helmer and Nora symbolises their epiphanic 'realisation' that neither of them will become what each other desire. As the 'letter' is revealed, Nora stands still, 'wild-eyed', 'looking fixedly' as her 'expression hardens' <----retelling in these last 2 lines.. As the truth of Nora's crime is revealed Helmer 'seizes' her in a dominant and aggressive manner. This is metaphoric of Helmer's attempt to prevent Nora from exiting her social sphere <-- good and challenging the ideals that their marriage is built on, Helmer continues to 'hold her back' whilst Nora '[struggles] to free herself'. The physical possession of Nora reflects her one last attempt to escape the constraints of her marriage and to finally become a 'woman'. Helmer remains perplexed at Nora's effort the 'get some experience', as alluded to in Act Three, because he himself has become accustomed to his habitual and impenetrable role that he been forced to appease do you have any evidence to justify this?. Helmer exclaims that for the 'last eight years' Nora has been '[his] joy and pride' and this justifies his commodification of Nora can tease out more evidence? , which makes her decision to leave both her husband and children and to abandon her moral duties as a wife and mother all the more profoundwhy does it make it more profound? Need a stronger link between the pair. . As Helmer remains perplexed at the situation that he is confronted with, he reverts to the traditional, rigid values which underpin his character, proposing that Nora's pursuit for individualism is due to her 'father's shiftless character' as Helmer claims 'these things are hereditary' great V+V statement. But would be even stronger with further analysis of these quotes.. The co-dependencyis this a co-dependency? Or a selfishness on one side? on each other is accentuated by Helmer's bold declarations like 'you've completely wrecked my happiness'. This embodies the way Helmer and Nora have depended on each other I think it's more how Helmer has depended on Nora. in order to survive a maintain the mere façade and false sense of identity they are subjected to.
Ibsen proposes that women are not the only individuals who are subjected to the performativity and oppression, and he does this by constructing an emotionally tormented husband who is ravaged by the pressure to fulfill his masculine and paternal role. Nora's depersonification by Helmer accentuates his masculine role within his marriage, however through challenging her social domains and gendered sphere, Nora seeks for liberation and a life where she can be 'free' of moral obligations. This development of Nora symbolises Ibsen's portrayal and understanding of individualism and a 'righ' to self.
--- End quote ---
Well done on the CPA :) Wonderful ideas throughout this! I'd just recommend that you spend more time working closely with the language.
For many of your sentences, this can be achieved through an easy reverse. Generally you start with the V+V/explanation sentence and then follow it up with the evidence. If you can swap these, the close-analysis link will be made stronger for examiners. All the best.
Charlie Locke:
I'm continually working at making my writing expressive, fluent and coherent as I have the ideas about the text, but its the structure of my writing that's letting me down a bit. I am working on exploring the 'how' as opposed to the 'what' and 'why' because I think my V+V's are quite strong when coupled with how the text is actually creating meaning. I'm also attempting to explore my quotes that I embed and trying not to use them as evidence from the text. Lastly, the analysis of my writing is the core and centre of my focus. I've posted on here before, quite recently actually and I'm looking for a few handy tips that I could implement to take my writing to the next level before the exam. I'm writing on A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen.
The following is a recent practise timed essay that I have done using the CPA from the VCAA 2016 exam
When Helmer likens Nora to a 'skylark' and 'featherbrain' the gender imbalance and inequity of their marriage is ultimately reflected. The nature of a featherbrain implies that Nora is 'frivolous' and child-like, who is expected to perform the designated role that her contemporary Bourgeoisie society has laid out for her. Helmer dictates to Nora 'from his study' with 'a pen in hand' as she is held to ransom by him, Helmer's dominant position in the marriage is reflected by his physical position in the setting in which he resides, he is often placed in a setting on his own terms whilst Nora's behaviours are predetermined by Nora is bold and cunning enough to seek a new order for herself, exclaiming, 'as I am now, I'm not the wife for you' whilst Helmer 'can't even imagine' Helmer as she continues to play out the role of the 'doll'. Ibsen depicts Nora as 'delicate' and 'fragile' which confounds the masculine, brute-like depiction of Helmer, the contrast in characterisation assists the audience in comprehending the marital imbalance that pervades the play. Both Helmer and Nora are repressed and riles by their contemporary societal ideals that are placed upon them, however they contrast each other in the way that living a life without Nora present.
Helmer can initially be seen in his 'study' or with 'wallet' in hand whilst Nora 'slips the bag of macaroons' so to conceal them from Helmer. Helmer can be observed continually entering and exiting his study and this is contributed his characterisation as a relentless husband, attempting to maintain his superiority in the 'doll-house'. Helmer is a masculine figure in control of his business whilst Nora can be seen often concealing objects form him. When Helmer steps out of his metaphoric social sphere, symbolised by his 'study' he can only treat Nora 'like a child' possessing her and having the paternal authority over her. 'He goes to her and takes her playfully by the ear' to demonstrate he is in control, whilst this reflects Helmer's dominance, it is also symbolic of Nora's inferiority within her marriage. Often, when Helmer and Nora are together as man and wife, Helmer possesses a patronising and condescending tone toward Nora and it is only during the times when Nora acts 'crestfallen' that she gains a sense of control and dictatorship over Helmer as she taps in Helmer's weaknesses. Helmer struggles to contain his disdain and annoyance when Nora is upset because this infers that his role is not being fulfilled as it is his 'moral obligation' to protect Nora and to behave as if she is his commodity. As Helmer notices that his 'little squirrel' is 'sulking' he provides a materialistic solution to Nora's woes and anxieties and declares that he has 'money'. Almost instantaneously, Nora once again adopts the immature behaviour and melodrama that form the basis of her character and it is through the symbolism of wealth and enterprise that Ibsen is able to reflect the materialistic and superficial nature of the Helmer family. Both Helmer and Nora are unable to become truly content and happy within their marriage, '[pretending]' to live a life of happiness by the rigid focus and emphasis on their economy and wealth.
As the play develops Nora and Krogstad's hostile encounters continue as he approaches Nora, regarding her act of forgery. Nora 'looks defiantly' at Krogstad and gives the 'dangerous admission' of forging her father's signature as she claims it was to save Helmer's life. This act is considered dangerous as the 'law that [Nora] is judged on' is one that both underpins and represents the patriarchal Bourgeoisie society that Nora functions in. This endorses the notion that Nora is unfairly positioned in both her marriage and society as a free-thinking, ambiguous woman because her acts and decisions are critiqued and penalised by a gendered law that treat every individual on the merits of an entire society. During Nora's hostile confrontation with Krogstad she exclaims that 'it must be a very stupid law', this critical and emotive explanation embodies the frustration and angst felt by Nora as she becomes conscious that to her detriment, her punishment will be determined by an unfair law that fails to seek for justice and freedom. The questions asked by Nora become a motif and emulate her attempt to find an answer and reason for the confusion and anxiety she is experiencing. She asks 'hasn't a daughter the right to protect her dying father?' Similarly she asks 'hasn't a wife the right to save her husband's life?' 'With a toss of her head' she succumbs to and is forced to accept the societal demands she is placed under, its at this point following her confrontation that Nora experiences the true confines of her marriage. The vivid stage direction of tossing her head reflects the confliction and confusion that Nora undergoes in attempting to atone for her crime, it symbolically represents Nora's mental and emotional fatigue, stemming from her continual performance and façade that she must maintain. Proceeding her confrontation with Krogstad, Nora can be seen 'to busy herself by tidying the children's clothes' which is reflective of her re-entering her social sphere, accepting her contemporary duty in the home. The act of tidying and cleansing the home is also symptomatic of her efforts to maintain the perfect illusion to the exterior so that the external world cannot enter the inner sanctum of the Helmer household where deceit is borne.
When Nora begins to converse with Helmer in passage three as a woman in her marriage it reflects her attempts to free herself from Helmer's constraints. During her realisation and moment of clarity Nora adopts the appropriate courage to confront Helmer and to challenge both his and the radical Bourgeoisie ideals. Nora confesses her miracle whilst the stark imbalance of their marriage is reflected when Nora asks 'but who would have taken my word against yours?' Nora's struggle for individual autonomy is embodied by this question and she acknowledges the helplessness that she experiences as it is almost second-nature and an innate construct to believe a man over a woman. Her question refers to the reoccurring motif of the 'miracle' that pervades the discussion between Helmer and Nora and the nature of the miracle denotes Nora's presence and consciousness of her inferior role within her marriage, accepting that Helmer will never be an individual who will take the blame and protect her as he is expected to. Nora, during this moment, seeks for individualism but is once again ridiculed and considered inferior when Helmer states 'you stupid child'. Helmer's derogatory statement is reflective of his opinion that Nora does not possess the necessary and appropriate ability to live a life without a male partner, without a masculine figure to teach her and show her how to the play the role that she is expected to fulfill. This confrontation symbolises Nora's gradual transition from 'a little songbird' and Helmer's 'doll-child' into a woman who is legally and emotionally freed from her marital obligations whereby she can separate herself from Helmer's paternal dominance. Nora's bold statements like ' I won't see the children' and 'You're not to feel yourself bound in any way' signifies her attempts to gain control over her fate and destiny, free from the constraints of her marriage. Her decisions can be considered both selfless and selfish in the context of Nora's situation amid a Bourgeoisie classist structure, however it is through acts such as these that Nora can gain experience outside of her home, so that she can become an individual.
clarke54321:
--- Quote from: Charlie Locke on November 05, 2017, 08:53:40 pm ---I'm continually working at making my writing expressive, fluent and coherent as I have the ideas about the text, but its the structure of my writing that's letting me down a bit. I am working on exploring the 'how' as opposed to the 'what' and 'why' because I think my V+V's are quite strong when coupled with how the text is actually creating meaning. I'm also attempting to explore my quotes that I embed and trying not to use them as evidence from the text. Lastly, the analysis of my writing is the core and centre of my focus. I've posted on here before, quite recently actually and I'm looking for a few handy tips that I could implement to take my writing to the next level before the exam. I'm writing on A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen.
The following is a recent practise timed essay that I have done using the CPA from the VCAA 2016 exam
When Helmer likens Nora to a 'skylark' and 'featherbrain' the gender imbalance and inequity of their marriage is ultimately reflected this is a good opening piece of close analysis. The nature of a featherbrain implies that Nora is 'frivolous' and child-like, who is expected to perform the designated role that her contemporary Bourgeoisie society has laid out for her. Helmer dictates to Nora 'from his study' with 'a pen in hand' as she is held to ransom by him, Helmer's dominant position in the marriage is reflected by his physical position in the setting in which he resides, he is often placed in a setting on his own terms whilst Nora's behaviours are predetermined by <----> Is there a sentence missing? Watch the length of your sentences. Nora is bold and cunning enough to seek a new order for herself, exclaiming, 'as I am now, I'm not the wife for you' whilst Helmer 'can't even imagine' Helmer as she continues to play out the role of the 'doll'. Ibsen depicts Nora as 'delicate' and 'fragile' which confoundsI don't think this is the right verb. Perhaps complements (in a contrived sense!) the masculine, brute-like depiction of Helmer, the contrast in characterisation assists the audience in comprehending the marital imbalance that pervades the play. Both Helmer and Nora are repressed and riles bit jolting hereby their contemporary societal ideals that are placed upon them, however they contrast each other in the way that living a life without Nora presentneed some further clarity.
Helmer can initially be seen in his 'study' or with 'wallet' in hand whilst Nora 'slips the bag of macaroons' so to conceal them from Helmer try and draw some further evidence from this. Torvald occupies these subjects with comfort/security (not overwhelmed by persistent caution like Nora), what does this intimate?. Helmer can be observed continually entering and exiting his study and this is contributed his characterisation expressionas a relentless husband, attempting to maintain his superiority in the 'doll-house'. Helmer is a masculine figure in control of his business whilst Nora can be seen often concealing objects form him. When Helmer steps out of his metaphoric social sphere, symbolised by his 'study' he can only treat Nora 'like a child' possessing her and having the paternal authority over her. 'He goes to her and takes her playfully by the ear' to demonstrate he is in control, whilst this reflects Helmer's dominance, it is also symbolic of Nora's inferiority within her marriage can you pull it out further? Parts of her body are implicitly constrained by Torvald's force. There is something chilling about the word "playfully" here.. Often, when Helmer and Nora are together as man and wife, Helmer possesses a patronising and condescending tone evidence?toward Nora and it is only during the times when Nora acts 'crestfallen' that she gains a sense of control and dictatorship over Helmer as she taps in Helmer's weaknesses nice observation. Helmer struggles to contain his disdain and annoyance when Nora is upset because this infers that his role is not being fulfilled as it is his 'moral obligation' to protect Nora and to behave as if she is his commodity. As Helmer notices that his 'little squirrel' is 'sulking' he provides a materialistic solution to Nora's woes and anxieties and declares that he has 'money' yes. It is also a paternalistic solution (again allowing him to reassert his dominance). This may or may not conflict with your established interpretation, but Nora's "sulking" and assumption of the "little squirrel" identity (in my opinion) is a conscious decision. She is well aware of the advantages that come with adopting two roles.. Almost instantaneously, Nora once again adopts the immature behaviour and melodrama that form the basis of her character and it is through the symbolism of wealth and enterprise that Ibsen is able to reflect the materialistic and superficial nature of the Helmer family. Both Helmer and Nora are unable to become truly content and happy within their marriage, '[pretending]' to live a life of happiness by the rigid focus and emphasis on their economy and wealth true, the foundations are predicated upon pretence and falsehood..
As the play develops Nora and Krogstad's hostile encounters continue as he approaches Nora, regarding her act of forgery. Nora 'looks defiantly' at Krogstad and gives the 'dangerous admission' of forging her father's signature as she claims it was to save Helmer's life. This act is considered dangerous as the 'law that [Nora] is judged on' is one that both underpins and represents the patriarchal Bourgeoisie society that Nora functions in. This endorses the notion that Nora is unfairly positioned in both her marriage and society as a free-thinking, ambiguous woman because her acts and decisions are critiqued and penalised by a gendered law that treat every individual on the merits of an entire society this is starting to launch back into V+Vs a bit too heavily. Try and tease out Nora looking defiantly. How does it contrast her interactions with Torvald?. During Nora's hostile confrontation with Krogstad she exclaims that 'it must be a very stupid law', this critical and emotive explanation embodies the frustration and angst felt by Nora as she becomes conscious that to her detriment, her punishment will be determined by an unfair law that fails to seek for justice and freedom good. The questions asked by Nora become a motif and emulate her attempt to find an answer and reason for the confusion and anxiety she is experiencing. She asks 'hasn't a daughter the right to protect her dying father?' Similarly she asks 'hasn't a wife the right to save her husband's life?' 'With a toss of her head' she succumbs to and is forced to accept the societal demands she is placed under, its at this point following her confrontation that Nora experiences the true confines of her marriage good. Also consider why she makes reference to "a daughter" and "a wife." By generalising her own situation, she is, in effect, making a broader plea on behalf of the female sex.. The vivid stage direction of tossing her head reflects the confliction and confusion that Nora undergoes in attempting to atone for her crime, it symbolically represents Nora's mental and emotional fatigue, stemming from her continual performance and façade that she must maintain. Proceeding her confrontation with Krogstad, Nora can be seen 'to busy herself by tidying the children's clothes' which is reflective of her re-entering her social sphereis it a social sphere? Or domestic one? Good pick up, though. She metaphorically moves in an out of different roles and identities., accepting her contemporary duty in the home. The act of tidying and cleansing the home is also symptomatic of her efforts to maintain the perfect illusion to the exterior so that the external world cannot enter the inner sanctum of the Helmer household where deceit is borne good.
When Nora begins to converse with Helmer in passage three as a woman in her marriage it reflects her attempts to free herself from Helmer's constraints. During her realisation and moment of clarity Nora adopts the appropriate courage to confront Helmer and to challenge both his and the radical Bourgeoisie ideals good explanation, but a bit alarming with no quotes! Always come back to the important of the task, which is to closely analyse. Language is your foundation. . Nora confesses her miracle whilst the stark imbalance of their marriage is reflected when Nora asks 'but who would have taken my word against yours?' Nora's struggle for individual autonomy is embodied by this question and she acknowledges the helplessness that she experiences as it is almost second-nature and an innate construct to believe a man over a womannice. Her question refers to the reoccurring motif of the 'miracle' that pervades the discussion between Helmer and Nora and the nature of the miracle denotes Nora's presence and consciousness of her inferior role within her marriage, accepting that Helmer will never be an individual who will take the blame and protect her as he is expected to getting a bit too wordy. Come back to more evidence/analysis.. Nora, during this moment, seeks for individualism but is once again ridiculed and considered inferior when Helmer states 'you stupid child'. Helmer's derogatory statement is reflective of his opinion that Nora does not possess the necessary and appropriate ability to live a life without a male partner, without a masculine figure to teach her and show her how to the play the role that she is expected to fulfill. This confrontation symbolises Nora's gradual transitionor even revolution now. The play has been building to this. Although many critics disagree, there are a multitude of latent hints that build towards this transormation. from 'a little songbird' and Helmer's 'doll-child' into a woman who is legally and emotionally freed from her marital obligations whereby she can separate herself from Helmer's paternal dominance. Nora's bold statements like ' I won't see the children' and 'You're not to feel yourself bound in any way' signifies her attempts to gain control over her fate and destiny, free from the constraints of her marriage. Her decisions can be considered both selfless and selfish in the context of Nora's situation amid a Bourgeoisie classist structure, however it is through acts such as these that Nora can gain experience outside of her home, so that she can become an individual.
--- End quote ---
Well done! There was much more analysis throughout this piece, and a greater focus on the task itself. Your V+V statements were stronger because of this. For the parts that I think could do with some more analysis, I've either emboldened or written next to :)
Charlie Locke:
Clarke54321, here is another CPA based on the 2017 VATE passages for A Doll's House- I'm also struggling a little with my conclusion, any advice would be greatly appreciated regarding a conclusion to a CPA!!
When Helmer declares 'you loved me as a wife should love her husband' it is apparent that Nora is and has been placed under both Helmer's strict and unrealistic ideals, which are ultimately constructed by the broader Bourgeoisie society in which they reside. The emphasis of this declaration is on the 'should' as it illustrates the Nora's moral and emotional obligation to her family and the way in which she is expected to bind herself wholly to Helmer. Nora is expected to perform her 'duty' as 'a wife' and 'a mother' and this is accentuated by the Helmer's condescending and paternal instructions toward her. At the denouement of the play when Nora's secret is revealed Helmer informs Nora that he has 'forgiven [her] for everything'. This declaration reflects his patriarchal dominance in their symbiotic relationship as he declares it with pride and authority. Through the possessive pronoun- animalistic metaphor manifesto Ibsen depicts a marital imbalance and furthermore reveals that both Helmer and Nora require each other in order to maintain the illusion to the external world. Helmer's often superficial tone constructs the façade that both he and Nora are living behind in order to maintain the perfect illusion which causes a paradoxical effect where both characters become conscious of their fragmented and fractured relationship. Ibsen characterises both Helmer and Nora in a manner that reflects the marital imbalance within their marriage and the duty forced upon Nora as she represents the inferior, '[helpless] individual in her marriage.
Nora's conversation with Mrs Linde regarding her own experiences functions on a superficial level as Nora can be seen 'jumping and clapping her hands' exclaiming 'it's wonderful to be alive'. Her highly energised movements and melodrama that interwoven throughout her dialogue between herself and Mrs Linde illustrates the role of Nora within her private, social sphere. Nora's melodrama proceeds her declaration that 'Torvald's never had a day's illness since. And the children are well and strong, and so am I'. This bold statement proves patronising and condescending as Nora lacks the ability to empathise with the plight that Mrs Linde has endured with the absence of a husband to shelter and protect her from life's hostility. Nora appears overexcited and energised however this ultimately masks her inner angst and turmoil as she later '[takes] off the fancy dress' when experiencing her epiphanic realisation. The act of jumping up and down, followed by her '[sitting] on a footstool beside Kristina' reflects Nora's patronising attitudes as she feels it necessary to physically lower herself in order to converse with Mrs Linde. Nora seems completely unaware of the emotional and physical turmoil that Mrs Linde has had to endure when she exclaims 'how relieved you must feel' in response to Mrs Linde's description of her formidable work ethic during the periods of sorrow and angst. Nora's superficial understanding and lack of compassion is reflected by Mrs Linde's sharp and blunt response 'No... Just unspeakably empty- I've no one to live for anymore'. The pause in Mrs Linde's dialogue depicts her strong-willed nature as she attempts to educate Nora as she 'hasn't the experience' to comprehend Mrs Linde's situation. Nora's superficiality is ultimately exemplified through Ibsen's characterisation of her and it is through this that Ibsen himself attempts to portray the passive, unnatural duty that Nora is expected to meet punctually. Nora's obligations are forced upon her, whilst she remains a 'dove' who is conscious of her situation but who is not yet prepared to challenge the oppressing tyranny of both her society and her husband.
It is through the hostile confrontation with Krogstad that Nora begins to notice her role more clearly as an individual and not just as a wife or mother. It is when Krogstad attempts to frighten Nora with his angered and contemptuous remarks to Nora depicting his attempts of redemption that Nora adopts the necessary 'courage' to confront him. Krogstad's efforts to atone for his past crime reflects Nora's current situation of attempting to conceal the lies and deceit that gradually manifest themselves throughout the home and into the character's consciousness. When Nora challenges Krogstad by declaring 'Yes, I have the courage now' he dismisses this instantaneously by replying ' You can't frighten me! A fine pampered lady like you.' It is this moment that Krogstad demonstrates the sexist ideals that categorise women as weak and vulnerable, incapable of experiencing any emotion as an individual and lacking the necessary capabilities to intellectualise their environment and situations. Krogstad's derogatory remarks subjugates Nora, once again to the oppressing ideals of the Bourgeoisie realm, where masculinity dictates to femininity. Nora is victimised by Krogstad and is ridiculed based on her gender. As Krogstad foreshadows Nora's suicide, he uses vivid, often chilling descriptions of her body 'under the ice', 'down into the cold water' and '[floating] to the top, ugly, hairless, unrecognisable'. With this description her crime becomes personified and as Krogstad depicts her body to the top this emulates the nature of the secret she has kept hidden from Helmer, progressively surfacing. His cruelty and disgust towards Nora at this moment initiates a fearless response to Krogstad, she rejects his attempt to frighten her, replying 'You can't frighten me' however this is abruptly met by Krogstad who depicts his true power over her stating boldly 'You forget that then your reputation would be in my hands'. Nora 'stands speechless' which ultimately reflects her acknowledgement of Krogstad's power and his ability to reveal her secret and furthermore damage both her and Helmer's façade. Nora now realises that her marital position has the potential to be compromised, the perfect illusion that she constructs can be torn away and damaged, revealing the truth of her and her marriage.
When Nora is in the process of 'taking off [her] fancy dress' her feminine duty is deconstructed and abandoned. The action of bearing herself and forcing herself from the fancy dress signifies her evolution into a woman who attempts to obtain individual autonomy. Helmer declares that his 'great wings will protect [Nora]' however he is unaware that he no longer holds the dominant position over Nora. The possessive pronoun and animalistic metaphor manifesto reflects Nora's inferior role and vulnerability in her marriage, however as she stands 'in her everyday things' it becomes clear that she is seeking for a sense of individualism and profound change. The change she is seeking challenges everything that her marriage represents and she is simultaneously constructing a path for other women to follow. Through her 'experience' Nora is able to gradually become aware of her needs as an individual by figuratively questioning the oppressing ideals of her contemporary society through her actions and decisions.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version