How Does Nora's Character Change Throughout The Play

Don’t Judge a Book by its Cover Throughout the play “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen there is a constant evolution of characters and their appearances. At first Nora seems like a child but we find out at that she is a smart and independent woman. Helmer seems like a courageous and smart man but we find out he is a coward when his name is on the line. Krogstad seems like a manipulative man but we soon realize he is full of love and compassion. Because of the way these characters change throughout the play it is evident that we cannot be quick to judge them based on their appearances. In the opening act we are introduced to a majority of the characters. The main characters being Nora and her husband Torvald. Nora comes of as a child and extremely
Early on we are told that he has received a new job at the bank being a manager. With this new position he will be bringing in much more money and be able to support a much more elegant life from the outside. On top of being strong and supportive he is also very possessive and dominant. He asserts his dominance over Nora by telling her to spend less and using names like, “my little squirrel” (1599), “spend thrift” (1599), “featherbrain” (1599), “my little skylark” (1600), “little thing” (1601), “odd little sould” (1602), “little Miss Sweet Tooth” (1602), these are numerous examples of him using name calling to remind her how little she is within the first three pages! When Torvald finds out what Nora has done he freaks out and becomes quite the coward, “From this moment on happiness is out of the question. All that matters now is to save the bits and pieces, to keep up the appearance—“ (1644). With this statement the reader can confirm that Torvald is all about his appearance and reputation around others. He is more obsessed with the idea of looking happy instead of actually being happy. He shows the reader how cowardly he is by not trying to fix Nora’s mistake or even taking responsibility, but instead trying to find a way to glue these pieces back together so people won’t
She told him, “ We’d both have to change so much that—Oh Tarvold, I’ve stopped believing in miracles” (1650). With this statement she leads him to believe she will never return and that he will have to raise his kids in a broken home now all on his own. She leaves him thinking she has abandoned the kids and they will now grow up with out a mother. I am not alone on this thought though, “I am thinking about the fact that it is Nora, that is, the woman, who acts as a spokesman both when it comes to the dissolution of the marriage and to entrusting the children she herself has borne to the care of a nanny” (Vullum). Another critic also had a similar view but based it a little more on the religious side of things “As far as marriage is concerned, it is far too easy to get ideas which simultaneously thoroughly annul it, and suppress the woman from the equality with the man which the execution of the principles of Christian marriage finally have granted her” (Peterson). Even though, this guy’s standpoint is a little dated it still has quite a bit of credibility. When you get married it is, “from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part,” not until something bad comes up and then I’ll decide to split. That was one of the few viewpoints I didn’t share with