One never gets a second chance to make a first impression; whatever character is displayed is the one that will stick. Character itself is a strong factor towards judgement, swaying opinions and views based upon one’s self. Two individuals could be placed into the exact same situation: same time, same place, same action. Even if every detail in the event is identical, there will still be difference in judgement based upon the character of the individuals. This premise can be seen in Henrik Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House. In Ibsen’s work, it is revealed that the protagonist Nora Helmer, and the antagonist Nils Krogstad, are facing the same challenges; however, the two undergo very different experiences from other characters throughout the play.
…show more content…
Ibsen purposely writes one character as the protagonist of the play, and the other as the antagonist. Through input in dialogue from other characters in the play, Ibsen characterizes both Nora and Krogstad into their respective roles as the antagonist and protagonist. Focusing on Krogstad, it is clear that he is the antagonist of the story; nearly every character perceives him as an evil and immoral man. In example, in a conversation with Nora Helmer, Doctor Rank describes Krogstad as a man who “...suffers from a diseased moral character...”(1.15). Doctor Rank is not the only one who describes Krogstad like this; Torvald Helmer also goes into a rant about the immoral nature of Krogstad’s character, speaking on how he is destroying his family, and plays “the hypocrite with everyone...”(1.26). From the beginning of the play, Ibsen sets up Nils as an antagonist. He is created as the villain of the story, causing the reader to view him as such. Furthermore, his characterization can be seen in Nora’s actions and manner towards him, such as when she steps towards him and says “You?”; Ibsen pairs this short piece of dialogue with stage direction that directs Nora to speak in a strained, low voice(1.14). Through the tone created by Ibsen’s stage direction in this section of dialogue, it can be seen that Nora is …show more content…
However, it is through these similarities that a strong contrast can be seen within the societal view of the two individuals. In Ibsen’s play, Nora and Krogstad are both victims of the same crime: forgery of signatures. Additionally, one can see similarities within the motives of their actions. Both characters forged signatures with the desire to save their loved ones, as seen when Nora states, “...you[Helmer] must be saved—and that was how I came to devise a way out of the difficulty”(Ibsen 1.12). Furthermore, Krogstad’s motivation can be inferred from an interaction between Nora and Krogstad in which Krogstad states “But I can assure you that my one false step, which lost me all of my reputation, was nothing more or nothing worse than what you have done”(1.24) to which Nora responds, “You? Do you ask me to believe that you were brave enough to run a risk to save your wife’s life?”(1.24). This similarity within the two characters is not accidental; it is intentionally placed inside the play in order to explore characterization and development. Through nearly identical situations, Ibsen begins to explore and bring light to the effects of one’s character upon outside judgement. Nora and Krogstad both committed the same crime, and are forced to deal with the consequences of their actions; however, the two undergo very different
Ibsen purposely writes one character as the protagonist of the play, and the other as the antagonist. Through input in dialogue from other characters in the play, Ibsen characterizes both Nora and Krogstad into their respective roles as the antagonist and protagonist. Focusing on Krogstad, it is clear that he is the antagonist of the story; nearly every character perceives him as an evil and immoral man. In example, in a conversation with Nora Helmer, Doctor Rank describes Krogstad as a man who “...suffers from a diseased moral character...”(1.15). Doctor Rank is not the only one who describes Krogstad like this; Torvald Helmer also goes into a rant about the immoral nature of Krogstad’s character, speaking on how he is destroying his family, and plays “the hypocrite with everyone...”(1.26). From the beginning of the play, Ibsen sets up Nils as an antagonist. He is created as the villain of the story, causing the reader to view him as such. Furthermore, his characterization can be seen in Nora’s actions and manner towards him, such as when she steps towards him and says “You?”; Ibsen pairs this short piece of dialogue with stage direction that directs Nora to speak in a strained, low voice(1.14). Through the tone created by Ibsen’s stage direction in this section of dialogue, it can be seen that Nora is …show more content…
However, it is through these similarities that a strong contrast can be seen within the societal view of the two individuals. In Ibsen’s play, Nora and Krogstad are both victims of the same crime: forgery of signatures. Additionally, one can see similarities within the motives of their actions. Both characters forged signatures with the desire to save their loved ones, as seen when Nora states, “...you[Helmer] must be saved—and that was how I came to devise a way out of the difficulty”(Ibsen 1.12). Furthermore, Krogstad’s motivation can be inferred from an interaction between Nora and Krogstad in which Krogstad states “But I can assure you that my one false step, which lost me all of my reputation, was nothing more or nothing worse than what you have done”(1.24) to which Nora responds, “You? Do you ask me to believe that you were brave enough to run a risk to save your wife’s life?”(1.24). This similarity within the two characters is not accidental; it is intentionally placed inside the play in order to explore characterization and development. Through nearly identical situations, Ibsen begins to explore and bring light to the effects of one’s character upon outside judgement. Nora and Krogstad both committed the same crime, and are forced to deal with the consequences of their actions; however, the two undergo very different