Ibsen apprehensively wrote an alternate ending for his German audience. Read it and explain what changes were made and how they affect the meaning of the play as a whole.
NORA.
... Where we could make a real marriage out of our lives together. Goodbye. [Begins to go.]
HELMER. Go then! [Seizes her arm.] But first you shall see your children for the last time!
NORA. Let me go! I will not see them! I cannot!
HELMER [draws her over to the door, left]. You shall see them. [Opens the door and says softly.] Look, there they are asleep, peaceful and carefree. Tomorrow, when they wake up and call for their mother, they will be - motherless.
NORA [trembling]. Motherless...!
HELMER. As you once were.
NORA. Motherless! [Struggles with herself, lets her travelling bag fall, and says.] Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them. [Half sinks down by the door.]
HELMER [joyfully, but softly]. Nora!
[The curtain falls.)
I think having Nora stay for her children shows that she is not a human anymore, just a mother (I don't mean that mothers are not human). It is portrayed that her sole existence is for her children. When we first read the ending of "A Dollhouse", I was actually a little upset at Nora for leaving her children behind, they did nothing wrong so why should they have to live without a mother. After reading the alternate ending, I am glad she left. There is no reason for Nora to stay for her children. She may love them, but she does not care for them, the maids do all the work. If it is a parental figure they need, Torvald can do just as good a job as Nora can. The last line is also really bothers me. He, once again, is treating her as something less than him. I might be alright with Nora staying for her children if she and Torvald were partners, but she is still not treated as an equal to her husband. I thought Ibsen wrote this play as a humanist piece. This alternate ending does nothing but show that Torvald is still in control
ReplyDeleteInteresting that reading the alternate makes you think differently of Nora. If you look at the play as a whole, Nora is never a good mother - Ann Marie is.
DeleteI agree with Caitlin. This still shows that Torvald is still in control. However, it does make me wonder why this was written specifically for a German audience. Overall, I don't think this ending even makes any sense because Nora would barely play with her children throughout the play, and even got to the point where she refused to see them. Why would she care so much now? She hates Torvald and even states she couldn't believe she bore him three children.
ReplyDeletePeople hated that she left her children. Interestingly, this is REALISM at its BEST - and the alternate ending is not harsh enough to be real. At least not in my opinion.
DeleteThis ending makes it seem as though Nora never escapes the manipulating. Torvold showing her her children is so controlling and cruel as he appeals to her motherly duty and love for her children as a way to get her to stay. It is clearly difficult for a mother to leave her child. However, her staying completely goes against her thought that she is not capable of being a mother. If she truly felt that way she may empathize with the children's lack of a mother rather than feel guilty for leaving as she knows she cannot help them. I do not like this ending as it clearly shows that Ibsen was trying to offer an alternative that was more appealing to the traditional society that was horrified that Nora would leave her children.
ReplyDeleteAnd - it reminds me of the politicians that believe that a woman has to see the ovum in their uterus through a sonogram so they can feel guilt and hatred towards themselves for having an abortion. Like those politicians, I want to tell Torvold that she will suffer the loss her entire life anyway. No need to rub it in.
DeleteAlthough everyone would love to think that Nora can just walk out with no consequences i believe this ending is much more realistic. She is not staying for Torvald, she is staying for her children! For any mother leaving her children would probably be no easy task, especially if one of your parents walked out on you as a child. Any child who knows the pain of having a parent walk out on them would never want to do that to her children or at least I would never dream of doing so. I think that this makes Nora even more human, the fact that she has emotions strong enough to tie her to something, a love strong enough for her to put her own needs aside.
ReplyDeleteI do, also - but too defeating for Ibsen. It portrays futility. A warning, instead of an option - and I don't like that. I want her to sacrifice EVERYTHING!!!!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteWhat a bag of dirt!
ReplyDeleteThe changes are HUGE in this version; the story is just about abruptly power lifted upside down with this ending. The German conclusion defeats any hope and satisfaction for supporters of humanists, and the whole of the piece transitions from a play calling for attention on human rights-- as well as a strongpoint for those thinking about striking back against human right constrictions-- to a play about bowing down when the going gets tough.
Changes to the play include the loss of persistence or willpower in Nora, and an accentuation on just what Helmer will do to manipulate anything and everything to just the way he likes it.
This alternate ending shows that while Nora may have the will to try and escape her fate, she has too much of a duty to others at this point in her life to carry out her own wishes. Like the lark which she is constantly referred to, she has to remain behind at the nest to take care of the children and build a respectable home, and she cannot leave or else her offspring will suffer. She is ready to leave the nest, and has the means with her willpower as freeing as the power of flight, but despite this she remains shackled and caged to her duties as a mother for fear of their suffering. She will defend her nest, and she will raise the children, but once they have "left the nest", she too may spread her wings and become her own out in the world.
ReplyDeleteMegan mentions something really interesting at the end of her post--that, once her children are old enough and have "left the nest", she would have the power to leave. It makes me wonder if, should this alternate ending have been accepted, would Nora ever be able to leave Torvald in the future? Would she ever have another opportunity? It makes me think of John Green's snark about imagining lives for characters once the story they inhabit is over, but I kind of can't help it. I'd of course like to think that she could find a new way to leave once her children have grown, but then again, what would be the point? If she had chosen to stay at such a critical moment as this ending portrays, then she probably would never find the strength to leave again after spending the rest of her life under Torvald. I mean, I think that this ending is awful anyway, but it's interesting to imagine, "what if?"
ReplyDeleteDude I hate this alternate ending. This ending is the ultimate acceptance of her "womanly helplessness." Torvald believes that it is her duty to be a wife and a mother, and that she cannot be her own person and live as she sees fit. Even when she realizes that "It is your fault that I have made nothing of my life," she accepts the terms and conditions of the doll house for the sake of her children. In the original ending, she makes it clear that she is attempting to gain some kind of sense for herself and become human rather than doll. She was never a good mother anyway, so why accept the role when your heart isn't in it? I don't get it. I do know that it changes the meaning of the play drastically, suggesting that a person's roles are inescapable. She was meant to sacrifice her roles to become her own person. When that's taken away, the whole play seems futile.
ReplyDelete