Talk:A Doll's House

Nora and Christine: Lesbians?
I am very familiar with the story and I do not know of any explicit evidence that supports this. The evidence given in that paragraph is very vague such as: "Henrik Ibsen was considered a genius playwright of that period and was known for developing many unorthodox ideas at the time" and "The sound of the shutting doors symbolizes Nora leaving her past behind her and ready to embrace the her newfound love of women." There are many problems with this somewhat radical claim. First of all, doing a quick google search on "A doll's house lesbians" directed me only to only the Wikipedia entry with relevant material. Second, stating that Henrik Ibsen is known for his "unorthodox" ideas does nothing to prove that Nora and Christine could have sexual attractions for each other or other women. And the third piece of evidence, is just an expansion of the supposed claim that Nora and Christine are lesbians. Either this last paragraph be deleted, or citations added to these sentences.

I agree. I have never heard of this assertion before and this book was covered fairly extensively in my English class. I am moving the section here.--Tahnok (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"It has been highly theorized that Nora and Christine were supposed to be lesbians. Henrik Ibsen was considered a genius playwright of that period and was known for developing many unorthodox ideas at the time. His genius was extended to challenging not only the institute of marriage during this century, but the very foundation of marriage itself. Kristine, who recently widowed, came to Nora, looking for comfort and compassion. It is there that their relationship begins to develop, causing Nora to doubt her own marriage to Torvald Helmer. The sound of the shutting doors symbolizes Nora leaving her past behind her and ready to embrace the her newfound love of women."

"Victorian" or "19th Century"?
Why does the author of this article repeatedly say "Victorian"? Ibsen wasn't even English, he's Norwegian! - Mandel 17:11, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Mandel is right about the use of 'Victorian'. Technically, its wrong. But the Norwegian equivalent of Victorian....?

I don't think we need a Norwegian word; Victorian-era norms affected more than England, and Ibsen did not write about a phenomenon only found in Norway. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞ ]] 14:56, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A very interesting topic. Does the word Victorian describe all places of the world during the time Queen Victoria reigned? Or does it discribe the territories subject to the rule of the crown during Queen Victoria's reign? I do not know and I am sure it is debatable. I would be against using a Norwegian word that is not well known in English.

But maybe the word Victorian is inaccurate in this instance. In any case, I would advocate "19th Century". It would be accurate, since the play was set in the 1800s. And it would not be any less specific because it would be hard to argue that women were any more or less "independent" at a time coinciding with Queen Victoria's reign, in Norway or England. I will change this soon unless someone objects.

--Jon in California 8 October 2007
 * How do secondary sources characterize it? What does the literature about the play characterize it as? WhisperToMe (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Plot Summary
The plot summary section seems a bit messy, especially with the ending being mentioned near the start. I'm new to this, so I'm not sure I could clean it up, but if someone did, I would appreciate it. Unsigned user


 * I took a crack at it. I worry it's too verbose but I think it's better than before. Krogstadt 07:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to drop in, read this:

"Torvald is unable to comprehend Nora's point of view, since it so contradicts his own ideas about her mind. Furthermore, he is so narcissistic that it would be impossible for him to bear to understand how he appears to her, as selfish, hypocritical and more concerned with public reputation than with actual morality. As Nora lets herself out, leaving behind her wedding ring and keys, Torvald remains utterly baffled by what has happened."

This is really bad. None of the comments, that he is narcissistic, hypocritical, or selfish, are wrong, but Torvald needs to be at least somewhat sympathetic to the audience than that in order for the audience to be able to relate to him. Torvald is not a villain. Torvald is the typical man born of a society plagued by sexist preconceptions. Finally, to say that he is "unable to comprehend Nora's point of view" seems extremely fatalistic. Certainly the play does not end on an optimistic note, and it will take "a miracle" so to speak for Torvald and the world around him to change, but the play is not about society being doomed to sexism, and "unable to comprehend" is a lot more loaded than "does not comprehend". The tone needs to be changed. -203.218.209.34 (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bases? True or gossip?
Could anyone actually prove that Ibsen did indeed based on his friend, Laura, to write out A Doll's House? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.10 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

- No cite. Moving this to Talk. - Real-life Basis - A Doll's House was based on the life of Laura Kieler (maiden name Laura Smith Petersen). She was a good friend of Ibsen. Much that happened between Nora and Torvald happened to Laura and her husband, Victor, with the most important exception being the forged signature that was the basis of Nora's loan. In real life, when Victor found out about Laura's secret loan, he divorced her and had her committed to an asylum. Two years later, she returned to her husband and children at his urging, and she went on to become a well-known Danish author, living to the age of 83. In the play, Nora left Torvald with head held high, though facing an uncertain future given the limitations women faced in the society of the time. Ibsen wrote A Doll's House at the point when Laura Kieler had been committed to the asylum, and the fate of this friend of the family shook him deeply, perhaps also because Laura had asked him to intervene at a crucial point in the scandal, which he did not feel able or willing to do. Instead, he turned this life situation into an aesthetically shaped, successful drama. Kieler eventually rebound from the shame of the scandal and had her own successful writing career while remaining discontent with sole recognition as "Ibsen's Nora" years afterward. -- If you want to restore this to the article, please provide a good cite. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Theatre Assessment
--Dereksmootz (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Start class - content appears to be "B" class, but needs significant formatting improvement, per WikiProject_Theatre/Article_Structure guidlines. History and Productions should be given their own headings, from content currently integrated with introduction.
 * Low importance - a single play constitutes a "highly specific area of knowledge."


 * I've re-rated as C-class, as it seems to be lacking quite a lot and isn't very well sourced with inline citations. Also re-rated as high importance - article gets more than 30,000 hits a month here. DionysosProteus (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Alternative ending"
- Alternative ending -

Moving this to Talk for now. Is this "alternative ending" from Ibsen? Fan site? Somebody's blog?? If you want to restore this to the article, please provide a sentence or two of context.

NORA ... Where we could make a real marriage outof our lives together. Goodbye. [Begins to go.]HELMER. Go then! [Seizes her arm.] But first you shall seeyour 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 seethem. [Opens the door and says softly.] Look, there theyare asleep, peaceful and carefree. Tomorrow, when theywake up and call for their mother, they will be -motherless.NORA [trembling]. Motherless...!HELMER. As you once were.NORA. Motherless! [Struggles with herself, lets hertravelling bag fall, and says.] Oh, this is a sin againstmyself, but I cannot leave them. [Half sinks down by the door.]HELMER [joyfully, but softly]. Nora!<BR>[The curtain falls.]

from :http://ibsen.net/index.gan?id=472&subid=0

-- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The site listed there makes it pretty clear it was from Ibsen, and even includes a citation to the Oxford Complete Ibsen, or something along those lines. Perhaps it could be cited the same way within the article, with some context around it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.92.242 (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This is alternative ending that Ibsen himself wrote. It was written because it could not be shown in Germany with the original ending. My source is Four Major Plays I think it should be included in the article because it is relevant to how outrageous the play was percieved to be. --Tahnok (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for comments on this. I think that this should be restored to the main article text, with, as I originally said, a sentence or two of context. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Added category
Added Category:Memory of the World Register Kingvald (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

what values are reflected in each type?why do you think so?cite parts or lines from the texts that reflects on these values? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.179.78 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Should this title be re-named?
Shouldn't the title of this be "A Doll House"? I was under the impression that "A Doll's House" was incorrect, though often used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.31.184.70 (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Titles of works are decided by usage, and the usage in English tends towards A Doll's House. If there is sources indicating that a better translation of the Norwegian name would be A Doll House, then that would be useful as a section or sentence in this article.--Prosfilaes 14:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a mention about the newer translation by Fjelde wherein the title of the play is "A Doll House"? Explaination is given in the forward by the translator if I remember correctly.

Yes, the translation by Rolf Fjelde (http://www.amazon.com/Four-Major-Plays-Signet-Classics/dp/0451530225/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1) calls it A Doll House. He notes in the foreword that 1.) the house is in no way Nora's, but rather Torvald's and 2.) the idiomatic name for the toy is a "doll house" not a "doll's house." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.92.84 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Version of the play that we use at my school for study uses the title A Doll's House and this seems to the accepted title in the International Baccalaureate program. --Tahnok (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The differing opinions re the title simply reflect the variance of usage between American English and British English: a toy in the shape of a house is in AmE called a dollhouse, and in BE a doll's house.


 * Nuttyskin (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is in fact A Doll House. It translates from Et dukkehjem which is genderless and not possessive. ~Pelemus McSoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.29.112 (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The first translator, William Archer, used A Doll's House for the 1889 translation. It's stuck.. RV. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The point made by User:Nuttyskin rather belatedly added to article. Two references. Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Rolf Fjelde mentioned above as a recent translator was an American, born in Brooklyn, so of course he wanted to change the name to the Americanized "Doll House", but that's no reason why Wikipedia should do the same.

However, my main point is something else. The Norwegian Et Dukkehjem is A Doll's Home, not A Doll's House. The normal word for doll's house (or doll house) in Norwegian is Et Dukkehus. Et Dukkehjem is only used in Norwegian for Ibsen's play, nothing else. Therefore the English language title for this play should also be, correctly speaking, "A Doll's Home". I'm not an expert in Ibsen translation, I can't give an explanation of why this name isn't normally used, but I want to put in some acknowledgement of the correct translation and maybe expand it when the mistranslation can be explained.--JO 24 (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as surely as dukkehjem carries the flavour of "a doll's home", you might just as readily make the observation that, historically at least, the same word has been used to convey the meaning "world" (as in Snorri Sturluson's Heimskringla). But I don't think that would add anything, do you? The association's too tangential to carry any significance.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

When I was doing my "A" levels, it must have been between 1983 and 1985, I remember reading in the MacMillan Encyclopaedia (in the library at the sixth form college where I did my "A" level in psychology) that the correct translation of this polay is "A Doll-House" and not - as many English translations erroneously have it - "A Doll's House" Can I therefore request that this article is re-named as "A Doll House", and that those whose who type "A Doll's House" in the box on the left get redirected here? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even encyclopedias err ;( . "Et dukkehjem" is understood in Norwegian to mean "A Doll's House", but a translation into English would be to the most obvious equivalent, and I've never seen it rendered as a "dollhouse". Since articles are titled per WP:COMMONNAME, it might be more sensible to create a redirect for the less likely title, even if that would be considered a likely search term - bear in mind, however, that typing "A Doll" into the search box will list articles matching that string.  Rodhull  andemu  22:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ours is the title used by the first translator (a Scot) into English, and it's stuck. A 1965 translation by Rolf G. Fjelde (from Brooklyn) used A Doll House. It may be another case of WP:ENGVAR. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And a doll house appears to redirect here anyway, so I don't see that there's a problem. Rodhull  andemu  22:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hedda Gabler
There are so many connections between this play and Hedda Gabler, thematically. It would be nice if this article would cite some scholar commenting on these connections (same goes for the Hedda Gabler page). 128.138.169.23 (talk) 22:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing a paper on that now, and I'll see if I can throw in some analysis from the peer-reviewed sources I'm studying. 143.44.65.5 (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No Mention of Mabou Mines Production?
Wouldn't a mention of Mabou Mines distinctive interpretation be worthwhile? Here's a link to the NYT's review: http://theater.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?res=950ce4d7103bf937a15752c1a9659c8b63 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.102.249.7 (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising the question here. Have a look at WP:NNEWS for some suggestions. It seems to require "enduring historical significance" for inclusion, but there are many factors. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Roles in Society
Society has forced standardized positions for people throughout history but should not expect people to live their entire lives serving the role without question. Throughout much of civilization, women have been placed on a lower tier on humanity’s steps with their main purpose was to serve men. Even as society matured and women were given more respect for the everyday work and accomplishments they made, they were still looked down upon. In the play, “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, the main character is a woman who is seemingly stuck in the role that society has made for her and all women. The play shows how humanity is stronger than that inevitable degradation and a person’s passion and determination can change her course in life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.68.58 (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

~The difference between love and reality~

The definitive moment in this play is where Nora the wife has realized her husband Helmer has come to put his reputation ahead of his family. After eight years of marriage she has come to realize she is not in love with him. She has gotten herself in a bind and was trying to figure a way to solve the problem on her own, but has realized it is more trouble than she expected. Things were piling up on Nora during those times; the couple’s best friend Doctor Rank is dying from a serious disease, and confessing his love to her. Reference:Ibsen, H. (1879). A Doll’s House. In D.L. Pike and A.M. Acosta (Eds.) Literature: A world of writing stories, poems, plays, and essays [VitalSource digital version] (pp. 555-590). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions. (Mindleswidwisdum (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC))

I believe the plays’ definitive moment started in the beginning of the play. The conversation between Mrs. Linde and Nora, when the two reunite at Nora’s house. Nora told her how her husband was really sick and how they got the money to go to Italy. She trusted Mrs. Linde to keep a secret so she began to tell her that she raised the money all by herself, and she was very proud of that. I never said I’d borrowed the money. “Maybe I got it some other way. Maybe I got it from an admirer. When a woman’s as pretty as I am.” (Acosta 561) She never said this directly but she is implying that she did a favor that would cause her to be unfaithful to her husband. This conversation is important because at this point you know that the truth is soon to come out, her husband will soon find out about what she had done. This play kept you on your toes, making you read more to find out what was going to happen. What matters in this part of the story leads back to the fact that a woman would do whatever it takes to save her family, no matter what the circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.21.36.24 (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A Doll's House
I really enjoyed reading “A Doll’s House”. I have been with my husband for sixteen years now. I feel like to be able to grasp the full meaning you have to have endured a long relationship similar to this one. Once I started reading it, I did not want to stop. I love mysteries and this had a hint of mystery to it. --Tracynabby (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Truimps and Surrender of a Woman
Henrik Ibsen the author of “A Doll’s House” was “born in a small Norwegian town of Skien to a prominent family, he published this play in 1879 and it was first performed in Denmark,” (D.L. Pike, A.M. Acosta, 2011, p. 555), the play was an enormous hit. This was a time in Norway when women had very little freedom over their lives, “women were ruled by men by their father, husband or (if widowed) son”, and “marriage was arranged for girls at age 15 and their husbands was much older than them.” Later in the 1800’s there was “changes in the rights for women and only rich girls was permitted to attend school learning only needlework and music,” and prohibited from learning any academic subjects, (T. Lambert, 2012). When Ibsen published his play, “A Doll’s House” during a time when the country was going through a transformation of women frightening for equality, Ibsen witnesses this travesty, because he too was born into a family of wealth, and he had very good insight of the affect it had on families, there accomplishments to their surrenders. Pbeardjohn (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Doll House Jessica Moore SUO
One definitive moment in the play, The Doll House, is when the reader finds that Nora has lied to her husband about borrowing the money from Krogstad. This is an important moment because Nora’s husband and his disposition of Krogstad are revealed. This moment reveals a sense of panic and desperation for Nora. “Isn’t a daughter allowed to spare her dying father anxiety and concern? Isn’t a wife allowed to save her husbands life?” (Ibsen, 2011. pg 590) The reader can anticipate such feeling because of the way Nora speaks. Nora has such passion and determination while hiding this fraudulent act. The readers can connect with Nora as far as her wanting to keep peace with her husband. Any wife would want there husband to be happy. All readers should be able to connect to the image of a perfect marriage.

Ibsen, H. (2011). A Doll’s House. In D.L. Pike and A.M. Acosta (Eds.) Literature: A World of Writing Stories, Poems, Plays, and Essays [Vital Source Digital Version] (pg.555-589). Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.126.44 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A Dolls House/ I found it very interesting
I found A Doll’s House quit intriguing. In the beginning I thought it was going to be a simple little story but when I read it really kept me interested. It had everything a reader is looking for in a story. Nora the wife seemed simple but the more you got to know her you saw differently. She did things behind her husband’s back. Take for instance the macaroons he didn’t allow her to have them but she did it anyway. She hid the whole money situation that she borrowed from the bank herself. She has her husband thinking it was from her father. The man from the bank who did the transaction was he going to blow the whole secret over a job position. Was Nora’s nice deed of borrowing the money going to bite her in the butt? Just to save her husband’s life. I thought it almost did. Was a job position worth blackmailing Nora?

Tracie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75tracie (talk • contribs) 17:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No mention of Ingmar Bergman's Rewrite "Nora"??
Ingmar Bergman's stage play Nora is a reworking of this play, and has no mention here.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've just added the material myself.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Rank's Illness
In the cast list: "his "tuberculosis of the spine" originates from a venereal disease contracted by his father." I never heard of "tuberculosis of the spine", much less of it being related to somebody else's venereal disease. Is this an obsolete 19th-century notion of how venereal disease works? Or did I miss something?2001:558:6011:1:B1EC:E5CB:CEB4:18A4 (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Answers to questions
To my questions 105.160.59.33 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

How does nora and Torvald change at the end of the play 105.160.59.33 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Language of A Doll House
The original language was Danish as Norway was than part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and there was no Norwegian standard language. When the original Danish is read, Nora comes over as a much tougher character and frequently uses language that would be typically from a male. The change in her character as in current translations does not appear. This idea is developed in a Masters Thesis from Lake Forest College, Illinois, and a new English translation. I can share these. Karin Gordon, the author of this thesis, is currently terminally ill from Creutzfeld Jakob disease. 75.30.105.35 (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)