Study Guide to

Henrik Ibsen's A Doll House:

Ibsen's characterization of Torvald

What does Torvald inadvertently expose about himself, through his behavior in the two scenes in which he reponds to the successive letters from Krogstad?  (What, specifically, reveals him to be irrational, selfish, cowardly, or unfair?)

We might start by specifying what exactly it is that Torvald comes down on Nora for about her character. 

• He rails at her for being an unfit mother on account of her intrinsically lying nature.  Earlier in the action (just before the end of Act I) he has complained, in connction with the odious (to him) Krogstad, that such "moral disease," once brought into a household, corrupts the children, and breeds social delinquents. 

From this we have a number of interesting paths we could take.  What ironies surface when we consider the answers to questions like the following?  (In terms of Torval's character this is equivalent to asking:  what embarrassing contradictions does Torvald involve himself in without taking proper notice of?)

(1) In castigating Nora for having committed a lie (by forging her father's signature on the promissory notice required as collateral on the loan she took out to enable Torvald's medically necessary R&R, in Italy), what do we understand that he is really upset about? 

What details in the first letter already point to this?

How is this confirmed in his response to Krogstad's second letter?

(2) In his tirade on receiving the first letter, what does he inadvertaently reveal that he has done, before he and Nora were married?

[Note that whether you are able to pick up on this can depend on which translation of the play you are relying on.  See the comparisons provided in the Study Guide on "Torvald's tirade."  For the purposes of this question, obviously, you will want to rely on the translations most damaging to Torvald.]

Did he have any comparable excuse in personal naïveté about the seriousness of what he was doing when he did it?  (Explain.)

What does he represent as his motive in doing this?  Are we to take this at face value?  And even if we did, what strikes us as ironic about his complaining that "this is how I am repayed for [doing what I did for you]?

(3) What kind of life does he insist on imposing on Nora and himself, after taking stock of the first letter?

Similarly (see how?), how does his righteous indignation about the character weakness of liars square with his declaration that he has no alternative but to give in to any blackmailing demands that Krogstad might make?

  Suggestions, comments and questions are welcome.  Please send them to lyman@ksu.edu .

      Contents copyright © 2000 by Lyman A. Baker. 

Permission is granted for non-commercial educational use; all other rights reserved.

      This page last updated 27 April 2000.