Deception in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House Essay Sample

Characters in classical literature often have an unspeakable secret, an irreversible regret, a struggle—a secret burden they must bear with hidden pain. Deception is one of the internal struggles presented in Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, a timeless masterpiece in its unprecedented portrayal of the 19th- century tragedy of bourgeois marriage on the stage. The playwright’s artistic depiction of a woman’s miseries, while chained to her husband’s house, whereby her liberation is curtailed essentially demonstrates the domestic rebellion against theatrical conventions of the Victorian epoch. The classic reveals that oftentimes deception is not driven by a devious desire to harm others, but rather by self-preservation and relationship-centered motives. This is the case for young Nora Helmer, who realizes that deceit is the only way to protect her beloved husband, Torvald, along with her deteriorating marriage. In the realistic prose drama A Doll’s House, Ibsen utilizes dramatic irony, allegory, and figurative symbolism to showcase the overarching theme of deception embodied through Nora’s seemingly frivolous prevarications, her act of forgery, and her establishment of a new persona, ultimately illustrating that sometimes one must lose themself to find themself.

Deception is depicted through Nora’s various instances of mendacity, and her white lies gradually become ushers to black ones. The playwright sets the scene by describing a contented Nora in an ostensibly traditional household setting, however, the unveiled veridical nature of her relationship proves to be everything but impeccable. In Act I, Ibsen describes the quotidian setting of the Helmer’s conventionally furnished living room and the frigid winter weather, which is perhaps a nuanced foreshadowing of the cold story that is about to unfold, reflecting the standoffish mood and the pathetic fallacy awaiting the protagonist. Albeit Torvald has forbidden her from eating macaroons, the play commences with Nora “drawing a bag of macaroons from her pocket” and then eating “a couple” (2) hence, the desert symbolizes her deception and disobedience, and there is a correlation between the scrumptious desert and Nora’s inner passions, both of which she must obliterate to eschew disappointing her husband. Furthermore, an inquisitive Torvald states that “Surely [her] sweet tooth didn't get the better of [her] in town today”, to which Nora replies with a "No, Torvald, really; I promise you” (5). The playwright’s utilization of diction with a strong connotation and the mention of Nora’s “promise” expresses the notion of reassurance, as it conveys that she guarantees she will do whatever she expresses she would. Ibsen could have otherwise stated that she was simply disobeying Torvald, yet the masterful inclusion of a promise accentuates the incongruity between her deceit and the accompanying words and actions comprehended by the audience, yet ironically, not by Helmer, himself. Accordingly, Nora’s lies, deceit, and secrecy arise from Torvald’s assertive influence over her and her trepidation of his ill opinion and abnegation, which are shown to dictate how she behaves and thinks. Nora’s acts of deception in pursuit of protecting her marriage, avoiding relationship constrictions and preserving her self-image truly emblematize the stereotypical gender roles that she desires to break free from. 

Nora’s deceit is also demonstrated by her forgery through the integration of dramatic irony and the juxtaposition of character motivations through literary foils. Her gravest secret is revealed to be the forgery of her father’s signature to borrow Krogstad’s money for Torvald’s illness. Mrs. Linde serves as the character foil for Nora, two characters with two distinct personalities and motives for their deceptions. Nora informs Kristene that her father was unwell at the time of the predicament and that Helmer was likewise dangerously ill, and she was unable to care for her "dying father” (17). One may contend that Nora forsook her father for monetary purposes and not to take care of him, while Mrs. Linde opted to support her mother in her hour of need. Although Nora’s handling of financial issues like the debt she incurred and taking out a loan to preserve Torvald’s health indicates that she is undeniably intelligent and possesses capacities beyond mere wifehood, Torvald repudiates and reproaches her for an action done for his sake only. Throughout their climactic confrontation, he calls her a “miserable creature”, yet she nonetheless lovingly replies with “Let me go. You shall not suffer for my sake. You shall not take it upon yourself” (38). This demonstrates that she values his comfort and places his well-being above her own. Hence, her blatant lies represent her endeavor to avoid marital constrictions, and her motives stem from an act of love, rather than from her decadence. Her duplicity is made evident through the playwright’s implementation of dramatic irony to foreshadow that her relationship proves too weak and fragile to bear the strain of her lies. For instance, Nora expresses her joyous demeanor by declaring that her husband has been promoted and that they need not be concerned about their future. However, it is seen that this was all a manifestation of her underlying fear over not having enough money to pay off her obligations to Krogstad. In truth, she is oblivious to the reality that her struggles and sorrows ironically initiate with her husband's advancement and conclude with the eradication of their marriage. The circumstance where Helmer speaks about Krogstad's moral degeneration is likewise humorous, as he argues that Krogstad had previously committed forgery and was a corrupt soul. He instructs Nora that she should not ask him to look into Krogstad's case since such individuals poison their families and children with their culpability, however, Helmer is incognizant that all of his moral precepts and aphorisms paradoxically apply to his wife, who has also committed a similar malefaction.

Ibsen infuses parallelism, symbolism, and allegory to portray Nora’s deceit through her establishment of a new persona. Initially, her function in the household is commensurable to the Christmas tree, merely decorative and ornamental. She dresses up the tree just as Torvald dresses her up for the Stenborgs' party. A point that is frequently overlooked is that she instructs the maid not to let the children see the tree until it is embellished, parallelism that is reminiscent of when she directs Torvald not to see her costume until the party. She plays along with Torvald’s dehumanizing and demeaning pet names like “Skylark,” “songbird,” “squirrel,” and “pet”, as she tries her best to maintain her role as Torvald’s “doll” whilst concealing her true identity. Ibsen’s utilization of the “doll” allegory is culled with the intent of illuminating the theme of appearance versus reality; Nora’s appearance is like that of a doll’s house, wherein everything appears perfect, when it is not beneath the surface. Therefore, it may be contended that she is a mere “figurehead” for female subservience and subordination, masking all her lies and deception abaft a glistening curtain of what appears to be perfections. As Nora’s deception continues to grow, the Christmas tree at the beginning of Act II appears to look “bedraggled” (15), hence it is symbolic of Nora’s disintegrating web of lies, and the lavish adornments she used to cover up her deceit are falling and withering away, as the bare ugly truth ineluctably emerges. When preparing for the tarantella, Nora “takes out of the box a tambourine and a long variegated shawl”, as “she hastily drapes the shawl round her” (47), whilst pretending to be in desperate need of dancing assistance to obviate Torvald from reading the letter detailing her forgery. Ibsen infuses his play with vivid dramatic contrivances such as artificial lights, the letter hitting the mailbox, and the slamming door, but the variegated shawl is by far the most masterful of them all, as it mirrors her personality, so variegated and hidden with lies, and bombarded with discrete markings of different colors.

To let the curtain fall, Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House shatters the ideally stereotypical gender roles of Victorian society, as it ultimately illustrates that oftentimes, it is the downsides of life that allow one to build themselves stronger. Nora Helmer is exemplary of this, given that she rose from the passive and subservient puppet the title suggested she was, to a powerful woman embarking on a journey of self-discovery and autonomy.