Ibsen's Pawn of the Plot (And How He Got Pwned)

Prompt: Eric Bentley, in an essay titled "Ibsen, Pro and Con" (In Search of Theater [New York: Knopf, 1953]), criticizes the character of Krogstad, calling him "a mere pawn of the plot." He then adds, "When convenient to Ibsen, he is a blackmailer. When inconvenient, he is converted." Do you agree or disagree?

Henrik Ibsen's play A Doll's House was a perfect example of 19th-century realism in that it portrayed middle-class, urbanizing citizens. The conflict that encompasses them is similarly new-fashioned for the era, with the issue of women's rights in regard to financing at the core of it. The antagonist for (most of) this story is Nils Krogstad, a man who has clawed his way back up the social and financial ladder after committing forgery, the details of which are never revealed. In the first two acts, he is a dastardly, pitiful, cold-hearted man who is entirely driven by self-interest. Yet, in Act III, once Mrs. Linde agrees to be "castaways" with him, he does a complete about-face, returning the incriminating IOU and writing for forgiveness. This complete change-of-heart does not seem plausible, and thus I agree with the aforementioned Mr. Bentley.

Krogstad is, in my opinion, the least believable character in the play because of his flip-flopping nature. Not only is he a man whose reputation has been completely destroyed, he is also a scorned lover - Mrs. Linde chose to marry someone else, someone whose monetary status was better than his. He should be a bitter old man, cold to the bone and cold in the heart. Would such an individual change his mind so easily, just because a woman who left him nearly a decade ago comes back and asks for his help? As Krogstad argues, his life could have been completely different if Mrs. Linde had stayed with him instead of the deceased Mr. Linde; thus, by deduction, she is the cause of his current problematic life. How could he forgive her so readily, when he has already made the decision to ruin the life of one of her dearest friends? After all, he doesn't even acknowledge Mrs. Linde when he first sees her! He cannot believably be so terribly in love with her in order to grant that gigantic of a boon. It makes little sense to me, except to drive the plot. What do you think? (340)

Panic! at the Palace

The concluding scene in Shakespeare's Hamlet is filled with death and despair as it reaches its gruesome climax. The feelings of revenge, betrayal, and madness finally come together, resulting in the death of what feels like the entire cast at a dizzying speed. First drops Gertrude, then Laertes, followed by Claudius, and lastly Hamlet. All of them die through treachery, save for Claudius, who gets run through by Hamlet - a fittingly ignominious end for the sole person whose death (like his life) is not honorable. When the proverbial smoke clears, a new era is set to begin with Fortinbras and his apparently strong-willed character. The only question that remains is: Can he erase the grief and weakness that surrounds him in the halls of Elsinor Castle? My prediction is yes.

Fortinbras, it seems to me, is the only constant that remains throughout the play. He is always a threat on the horizon, looming to Hamlet and the rest of Denmark. However, when he makes his entrance in the final scene, it appears that he is neither menacing nor evil, and certainly not corrupt like the bodies that surround him. Based on what we the audience see, he is in firm command of his army and his country, unlike his counterpart Hamlet, who cannot even control his emotions. Indeed, the parallels between these two run deeper than just the fact that they are both young royalty. Even their fathers have a history together: old Hamlet killed old Fortinbras, which sparked the Norwegian invasion. In this sense, then, Fortinbras is like Hamlet in that they are both in the process of avenging the death of their fathers. Fortinbras is completely successful due to his strong personality, whereas Hamlet, weak and insecure, is destroyed in his quest.

There is, of course, no way of knowing whether Fortinbras is successful in his new role as King of Denmark and Norway. However, I believe that Hamlet's last request (to make Fortinbras the new king) proves to us that Hamlet himself recognizes the greatness that exists in Fortinbras, and the vast personality difference that exists between the two. Hamlet approves of this invading foreigner, so why shouldn't we? Hamlet was always concerned about the welfare of the country and making sure it had the right ruler, and so his choice to make Fortinbras the new ruler clearly indicates his confidence in Fortinbras to restore royal righteousness to Elsinor Castle. If Fortinbras is good enough for the choosy Hamlet, then he is good enough for me. Hamlet has been analyzed in so many different ways, but I wonder if there was ever a sequel made describing the plight of Fortinbras to restore honor to Denmark - and I'm not counting that movie Hamlet 2. (458)