The ending of “Doll House” was terribly bitter-sweet for me. It is difficult to whole-heartedly say that Nora made a commendable decision to leave her children. I am ambivalent.
Nora’s strength is apparent by her confrontation with Torvald. During Nora’s conversation with Torvald about their relationship, Nora voices many of today’s feminist ideals. She bravely demands equality in a time when gender roles were rigid and limiting. Her convictions, ahead of her time, were not only admirable but daring. However, I am confused why her idea of freedom and equality could not include her children. Ibsen’s choice for Nora reflects a time when being a wife and mother robbed a woman of her selfhood. It seems that the purpose of the story is to promote gender equality, yet Nora has to sacrifice more than respect and position. She pays a much higher price by giving up contact with her children.
Then again, I might be making the cardinal mistake in cultural anthropology by comparing “Doll House” with my own concept of what should be possible. Rather than reaching a conclusion by considering only the standards of the time.
As a feminist I reject the idea that it is impossible to have a life that is fulfilling in many different aspects. Nora leaving her children demonstrates Henrik Ibsen’s dramatic dynamic. The significant impact that the story leaves is the pain and sacrifice in exchange for independence.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
To Kill Or Not To Kill
Are there any acceptable justifications for murder? Religions, philosophies, laws weigh this question. For the last week, we have considered this in relation to Shakespeare’s play, “Hamlet.” At times, the discussion has been heated.
Shakespeare’s story of Hamlet asks the audience to ponder that question along with the protagonist. Is taking revenge for his father’s murder the right thing to do? Hamlet grapples with the matter and so do I. Shakespeare ratchets up the stakes by exaggerating the damage Hamlet’s revenge will make. Hamlet’s decision results in multiple deaths. I am troubled and do not have a conclusive opinion. Part of me understands Hamlet’s feelings of anger, confusion, pain, and mistrust. Hamlet is outraged by his uncle and mother’s crime and betrayal. The audience can empathize with Hamlet as a son being betrayed by his mother. It is the natural order of affairs for parents to act to protect the child. When Hamlet can no longer trust any of his loved ones, even his best friends, he feels like he has lost everything. His approach has been analytical but his emotions take over and Hamlet acts on his desires for vengeance and follows the ghost’s instructions. My initial response was to object to the degree of Hamlet’s revenge. Why did so many lives have to be lost by Hamlet's destiny to avenge his father's death? Killing Claudius was more justifiable than the other murders.
It is possible for me to intellectually understand that killing is wrong in the absolute. That murder isn’t ever right even in relation to great wrong. In my mind, however, I believe that Hamlet’s revenge is justified. I’m just not sure that Hamlet couldn’t have found a nicer way to have his revenge. I would like to think that Shakespeare saw this subject as a human dilemma and wrote Hamlet to help his audiences consider this important, timeless, unanswerable question. Using the fictional story of Hamlet, we can benefit from contemplating the implications of Hamlet's situation. What Hamlet decides about revenge isn’t as important noting the choices Hamlet had and how he weighed them against the other. I believe Hamlet’s actions were rational but I don’t know if they were moral.
Shakespeare’s story of Hamlet asks the audience to ponder that question along with the protagonist. Is taking revenge for his father’s murder the right thing to do? Hamlet grapples with the matter and so do I. Shakespeare ratchets up the stakes by exaggerating the damage Hamlet’s revenge will make. Hamlet’s decision results in multiple deaths. I am troubled and do not have a conclusive opinion. Part of me understands Hamlet’s feelings of anger, confusion, pain, and mistrust. Hamlet is outraged by his uncle and mother’s crime and betrayal. The audience can empathize with Hamlet as a son being betrayed by his mother. It is the natural order of affairs for parents to act to protect the child. When Hamlet can no longer trust any of his loved ones, even his best friends, he feels like he has lost everything. His approach has been analytical but his emotions take over and Hamlet acts on his desires for vengeance and follows the ghost’s instructions. My initial response was to object to the degree of Hamlet’s revenge. Why did so many lives have to be lost by Hamlet's destiny to avenge his father's death? Killing Claudius was more justifiable than the other murders.
It is possible for me to intellectually understand that killing is wrong in the absolute. That murder isn’t ever right even in relation to great wrong. In my mind, however, I believe that Hamlet’s revenge is justified. I’m just not sure that Hamlet couldn’t have found a nicer way to have his revenge. I would like to think that Shakespeare saw this subject as a human dilemma and wrote Hamlet to help his audiences consider this important, timeless, unanswerable question. Using the fictional story of Hamlet, we can benefit from contemplating the implications of Hamlet's situation. What Hamlet decides about revenge isn’t as important noting the choices Hamlet had and how he weighed them against the other. I believe Hamlet’s actions were rational but I don’t know if they were moral.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)