Villain Blaming and Victim Blaming in Ibsen’s Doll House

Every story needs a good villain, right? The thing I find most interesting about Ibsen’s A Doll House is the fact that there is no villain in the traditional sense of the word. Unfortunately, though, readers ted to pick their own villains, and in the second class for which I have read this play, the “villain” label seemed to settle on the character I least expected.

Let’s look at the cast. Krogstad at first appears as though he may fall into the role of “villain,” entering the scene as the “tall, dark and sinister”-looking man with the black mustache. But before long, we learn that Krogstad is not such a bad guy after all. Sure, he blackmails Nora and basically ruins her life, but he gets redeemed in the end by falling in love with Mrs. Linde all over again and accepting her as a working woman, and saving Nora from the debt she has left to pay (59-40).

Neither is Torvald a villain; he’s simply the ignorant husband who expects too much of his wife. But he’s just a product of his time; he’s not unlike most husbands in that era who treated their wives very similarly to how he treats Nora. No, we can’t blame Torvald for what happens in the play, since he had little control over anything but the way he acted, and as we’ve seen, he only acted according to the morals of the time.

Dr. Rank is seen as a somewhat sinister character as well; but he loves Nora and helps her keep the secret from Torvald (46-47). He is also very ill, and it is hard to put the villain label on someone who acts creepy because he’s sick. So no, Dr. Rank is not the villain either.

Mrs. Linde can’t be the villain. In fact, she’s arguably the most sensible person in the entire play. I think anyone would be hard-pressed to put the villain label on her.

So, unless we count the minor characters, all we have left is Nora. And she can’t possibly be the villain because she’s the hero (or at least the protagonist) of the play…right?

Well, maybe not.

I’ve found through conversations and class discussions about this play that a good amount of people blame Nora for what happens in the play. There is no “real” villain in the play; Krogstad disappoints us by turning out OK in the end and shaking off the blame. Torvald is only the poor, bewildered husband who is left desolated as the curtain closes. It is Nora who walks out on her family, Nora who takes out the loan in the first place, Nora who forges her father’s signature, Nora who lies to her husband and keeps secrets. All this is Nora’s fault, right? She’s the one that started it. By traditional definitions, then, shouldn’t she be the villain?

The answer is no. It doesn’t matter what you think about Krogstad or Torvald, the answer to the question “Is Nora a villain?” is a resounding “No, absolutely not.”

Think about this. Nora is the one who got herself into the situation. But hold on a second, didn’t we just say that Torvald is only a product of his time? So, at the beginning of this play, is Nora. Nora is an 1800’s housewife with no support but that from her father and husband. Torvald earns the money; Torvald spends the money. Nora literally has to beg him for a few dollars here and there (6). Torvald controls Nora’s life. How, then, can we say that she’s responsible for her actions?

Yes, she has some autonomy, and proves it when she gets the lone behind her husband’s back. But to me, these arguments are scarily similar to those made about domestic violence incidents. “She shouldn’t have yelled at him,” “She shouldn’t have provoked him when he was drunk,” “She should have known better,” “She should have slept in a different room,” “She asked for it.” For Nora, it’s “She should have known better. She shouldn’t have taken the loan out behind her husband’s back. Was he really that sick or was she exaggerating?” Now, hold on. Nora genuinely loved Torvald and was doing all this to save his life. Even if she was making a big deal over nothing, she legitimately thought her husband was going to die. So why are we blaming her for loving her husband enough to break the law for his sake?

Then we have “She should have just told him.” Admittedly, Nora is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. But would telling Torvald at this point really have helped anything? I know we all like to think that if we just sit down and talk about things everything will be alright. But take a look at Torvald’s reaction to his discovery at the end of the play. Would it have been any different if she had told him herself months ago?

“She shouldn’t have left.” Nora is the bad one here because she desserts her children and her husband. But Nora is the one who never had a choice before now. Torvald, Krgstad, and Dr. Rank are all men who have control over their lives. Mrs. Linde is a widow, and soon becomes the model of a “new woman” when she gets a job and takes the supportive role in her relationship with Krogstad. Nora is the only one out of these who has had no independence in her life. Yes, she took out the loan without her husband’s permission. But is it really the loan itself that gets her in trouble, or the social and economic circumstances that surround it? If Nora had been financially independent, none of this would have happened. Why isn’t that the point we bring up in conversations about this play? Instead of question the individual choice Nora makes, why don’t we question the patriarchal social structure that forced her to do so?

It’s the same with victims of domestic abuse. We need to stop questioning what they did to make their partners hit them and start questioning why we live in a society where things like this are condoned. Why is it okay to blame the victim and not the perpetrator? Because that’s exactly what it is: victim blaming. If you think Nora should not have left her children and that she is a bad person because she did, I recommend you try living a day in her shoes and see how long you could stand it. Maybe you would be able to pull through better than she did. But does that make you a better person? No, just a different person with different ways of dealing with things. We need to stop blaming people like Nora for the choices they make or are compelled to make. For Nora, the situation she lived in was impossible to deal with. She made the choice that was right for her and set herself on the path to becoming a New Woman. She needs to be able to make these choices for herself. She and only she can know what is right for her as a person. Why does this make her bad? Like Krogstad, she is compelled to make her decisions based on what is advantageous for her. But we don’t blame Krogstad as harshly for blackmailing Nora as we do Nora for leaving her family. We don’t say, “Why did Krogstad blackmail Nora? What an awful thing to do! Didn’t he have any other options? None of this would have happened if it wsn’t for him.”

Nora’s situation wasn’t nearly as bad as those of most domestic abuse victims, but I have a feeling that, were she in today’s world, she would be tweeting her story a few months down the line, with the hashtag #WhyILeft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Pennsylvania: Electronic Classics Series, 2001. PDF.