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)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Please, do not end your conclusion with a generic question; there are much better ways to raise your word count.
To be honest, I'm not sure that you directly address the issue of Ibsen's use of Krogstad as a "pawn of the plot" in terms of his convenience. I'm inclined to argue that the character of Krogstad is always convenient for Ibsen because something that drives the plot in the right direction is always convenient.
First, read my blog before you read my comment, it will make more sense.
Second, I hate to say it, but I thoroughly disagree with your entire post. I believe that Krogstad is one of the only realistic characters in the entire play. His character is dirty, gritty, cold hearted, and self interested. This is much more realistic in contrast to the bubbly sky lark Nora who eats macaroons all day and wears costumes and the slightly serious Torvald who acts like he is addressing his children when he speaks to his wife, and ironically rarely speaks to his children.
Also, in terms of Krogstad's use as a plot pawn, I have to agree with Matt above in that, of course he is a pawn. Any character in any story every written is used by the author if they contribute anything substantial to the plot of the narrative.
Read my blog, and let me know what you think of the other perspective on this.
First of all, I agree with some points you make. Who even names their kid "Krogstad" unless they hate him? That seems completely unrealistic to me.
However, I agree with Michael, that Krogstad seems to be the only realistic one in the entire play. In my blog, which dealt with realism of the play as a whole, I argue that the relationship between Nora and Torvald are comparatively way more artificial, as opposed to Krogstad who simply wants what he deserves.
And Matt's right too, that all characters are pawns and/or other pieces on the chessboard of literature. They aren't real, you know.
Unfortunately, I agree with Michael and thus, disagree with you. Krogstad seems to me the most realistic character in the novel. His indecisiveness and uncertainty are flaws found in all human beings. Is it more believable to expect someone to completely change their outlook on life within a span of a few days, as Nora did? Or is the character of Torvald Helmer even worthy of recognition as a real human being? You say that Krogstad's willingness to forgive his past love in life and get back together with Kristine Linde is evidence of Krogstad's surreal character, but I beg to differ. True love has a way of blinding an individual and causing him/her to take ridiculous and unexplainable actions. Although you are now proceeding to make that gesture that we did in response to lovey-dovey subjects when we were 6 years old (seriously, who does that anymore?), I stand by my point.
-Andrew Chang
Harry, I, unlike the rest of your commenters, do agree with you. I think that his actions and changes in opinion do seem a bit more radical than is natural and that the purpose of that is to incite strong reactions in Nora, thus moving the plot forward. So well done, Harry!
Harry,
Reading those comments made me exhausted. :-P So, here is my opinion:
I agree with you!
Krogstad seemed like a mere plot device to me, too.
Harry, I really liked your blog. It was very well-written as always. I liked how you mentioned Krogstad and his flip-flopping nature. I had never really thought of him as a flip flopper, but I enjoyed your point of view. Great job!
Post a Comment