A Doll/Doll's House Discussion Question

[gker...@gmail.com]

In some translations, Ibsen's play is called A Doll House and in some
it is called A Doll's House. How does this seemingly small difference
in the two titles drastically change the meaning? How does this
apostrophe "s" change so much?

[salasp...@sbc.edu]

I feel that the title "A Doll's House" is less specific, but in that
way it is more precise... I am not sure what Ibsen's intention was (or
whoever translated and used both titles), but by naming it "A Doll's
House" I get the sense that it refers to more than just Nora's doll-
like role. All the characters at some time or other feel without power
and controlled ( as Jenna said: like puppets.) Torvald feels it when
he thinks his life and reputation are ruined, and Krogstad also when
he loses his job. Nora also tells us that she was her father's doll
before she became her husband's, and that she treats her children like
dolls too.
Also that the subject seems to be the Doll in "A Doll's House" rather
than the house, in the alternative title. Although the house is
important because an issue is clearly family relationships and
marriage, I feel that rather than the doll being an attribute of the
house, it is the house that is connected to the Doll, which becomes
more than a quality, it becomes active.
I can understand my thought in my mind- I hope its at least slightly
comprehensible!

[Liz]

Very comprehensible! :) I'm kind of in love with your idea that
they're all dolls, to some degree - that there's some kind of
helplessness in all of them, and how little they do about it (except
Nora, of course - but then Nora's the only one who understands what's
happening to them). Thinking about it that way, it really does make
Torvald pathetic at the end - he's just another doll, and he isn't
even aware of it.

I'm wondering about the people who LEAVE the house - everyone except
Torvald leaves for good. Does that mean they escape - that they regain
some kind of agency over their own lives, that only Torvald is left to
be a doll alone?

[Laura]

A Doll’s House seems to convey the feeling that there is only one
“doll” throughout the play, which would most likely represent Nora.
With this sense, Nora would be the main focus of the play and the only
character being controlled by other forces. These forces could be her
family, her husband, or society forcing her to conform to their
beliefs. Additionally, the apostrophe “s” indicates that the house is
Nora’s possession, which could further indicate that it is her
responsibility to take care of it. This would make her final action
more significant as she leaves this responsibility of taking care of
her “possession” behind her in the end. A Doll House conveys a sense
that everyone within the house is a “doll.” This would cause the
roles of others to be fairly equal, and it would make it seem as if
there is a force that is controlling all of the characters. The
forces in this case would probably be society or religion, each
forcing the characters to conform to their widely accepted beliefs.
In either case, there is no escape from this controlling force as long
as the “doll” or “dolls” remain in that house without experiencing the
world for themselves and forming their own beliefs through this
experience.

In response to Liz's question, I do get this feeling that everyone who
leaves that house for good does gain or regain control over their
lives. I also feel that the alternate spellings of the title could
affect the view of Torvald in the end as well. If you consider A
Doll's House to convey a sense that Nora is the only "doll," then
Torvald's position in the end is completely irrelevant. However, if
you consider A Doll House to convey the sense that everyone in the
house is a "doll," then Torvald, as he is the only one left in the
house, will remain a "doll."

[Catherine]

I feel that by calling it A Doll House it makes it seem that the
Helmers' whole life is a facade. This is because A Doll House refers
to the whole family. This makes a lot of sense because Nora explains
to Torvald that she had even been treating the children as dolls, so
the whole family is involved in this fake and oppressed life.
When the play is called A Doll's House I feel this refers to
Nora's anguish. By making the "doll" possessive and if Nora is
symbolized by the doll in the title then it feels as though the title
is alluding to how Nora is trapped by her way of life or her "house."

[Jenna]

At first, the apostrophe s was my main concern with the title, but
after reading some of your responses, my new main concern is the
interpretation of the words "doll" and "house". However, the
apostrophe s also changes how those words are defined for this play.
So I'm taking a very literal approach to this question. Nora is the
"doll" in this case, or as I said in class, a marionette. Now,
depending on how you interpret the word "house" will give the title
it's meaning. I like to think of it in the literal sense. The house
that Torvald and Nora live in is the same "house" in the title. Using
these definitions of "doll" and "house", the possessive title, "A
Doll's House", of course would then mean that the house itself was
Nora's. Using this translation, the possessive title no longer holds
makes sense because the house belongs to Torvald, not Nora. Although
the alternative title, "A Doll House", seems to imply something
completely different than the fact that Nora is the "doll" living in a
house that doesn't belong to her. Which this could mean that the word
"house" really is something much more than the house they live in, but
going back to the metaphor I made earlier, if the "house" was the
stage where Torvald the puppeteer manipulated Nora the marionette,
then the apostrophe s is quite legitimate as a title. Nora the
Marionette had a house that was made for her by Torvald the Puppeteer
(and it was indeed the house where she was forced to live, making it
her house, not Torvald's).

This is certainly a very interesting question, and I'm having a hard
time figuring out if the apostrophe s is more important than the
definition of the rest of the title. But then again, I guess the
apostrophe s would dictate how people would go about interpreting the
rest of the title.

When I was little, I had a doll house. I had several dolls that lived
in the house, so I called it "the doll house" I guess I could have
called it "the dolls' house" implying that it belonged to all of my
dolls, but I didn't. I guess because it was mine, not theirs. I don't
know if this has anything to do with the question, but I just started
thinking about it.

[Ingrid]

A Doll's House gives a focus on Nora - She is the doll played with by
her father (during her childhood) as well as her husband and even her
children. She lives in a materialistic world within a house that
projects an image of perfection. Her husband controls her, but in the
Toy Story type of way, Nora sneaks about when her puppeteer isn't
watching. She works during the night, and she saves as much allowance
as she can without Torvald noticing. She becomes independent of the
controls, and finds a life and choices of her own.

A Doll House encompasses all the players - Daddy goes to work. Mummy
goes shopping. Visitors drop in. Entertainment occurs. The house is a
chessboard where all the characters are pawns of society.

I do like the point that Liz and Laura discussed. Everyone moves on -
leaves - except for Torvald. He is left as the only doll in the house,
as everyone else has developed control over their own destiny and
broken from society. But maybe there is hope in Torvald's last words.
Could his eyes be widening to the life outside the dollhouse, the
bank, the parties, the image?

On Jan 26, 10:21 am, gkersh...@gmail.com wrote:

[Liz]

Jenna, you've really got me thinking now! I had a dollhouse too, and
the fact that I just automatically spelled it as one word, no
possession implied, is a pretty clear indication of who I thought was
in charge of it. :) So what about possession? Who DOES own that house,
and by extension, that kind of life? I'm not sure if any of them can
really "own" a life, even their own life - but I feel like there has
to be some control they have, some kind of free will, so that they
aren't just marionettes being pulled around by some invisible,
ineffable force.

Is that where we need the apostrophe s - to show us that yes, agency
CAN be reclaimed, that it is possible for these people to rule their
own lives? Because we know what happens to dolls who leave the
dollhouse - we lose them, we forget about them, and we turn them up
years later with their faces faded and their clothes wrinkled. It's
kind of depressing. That's where I like the apostrophe s. At least for
me, it's hopeful, that mark of possession. Not the kind of hope
Torvald might have at the end, but a sort of promise on Ibsen's part
that things CAN work out.

[Kristin]

Liz, I thought it was quite interesting that you mentioned where we
need the apostrophe "s" might be to show us that agency can be
reclaimed. You are also very right about what happens to dolls who
leave the doll house, by the time we see them again they are simply
old news. Personally, I think a Doll House makes more sense
considering that this "house" is more of a fantasy world. Once the
dolls seek reality they want to escape the confinement, cut all the
ties and be released to regain their independence, education, and
happiness, just as Nora did. I saw this differently after reading
Jenna's response, and feel that this house didn't belong to the Doll
(Nora) but instead to Torvald. A Doll House, to me, means a house of
dolls controlled by someone else, where as, a Doll's House is no
longer the property of someone else, but the property of the doll.
With this said, in my opinion, Nora is controlled by Torvald living in
a Doll House.

On Jan 26, 10:21 am, gkersh...@gmail.com wrote:

[Sandi]

Like Cathrine I believe that the title A Doll House reflects the
entire house hold. Normally a doll house is considered a child's play
toy where there is a family living a perfect life. Therefore this
title could be a play on what society would expect a family to be
like, and the irony of how the Helmer family is nothing like that.
Adding the "s" makes the house seem more as if it is owned by Nora.
To me this translation makes me feel more sympathetic with Nora's
situation.

[Corey]

I also really love the point about where the apostrophe "S" should go.
By putting the apostrophe before the "S", it implies that the house
has one specific owner, not all of them. Since Nora is the most
notably "doll-like" character, it seems safe to assume that she is the
"doll" in ownership of the house. Though, I agree that you could
arguably call Torvald the main doll, since he is the only one who
remains within the house. I am more inclined to see the house as more
of a metaphoric house than just the physical house. It implies that
Nora, the doll, is trapped within the house (metaphorically, not
physically, since she can and does come and go from it). I am going to
stray a little from the "doll" argument, and just think for a minute
about the significance of the "house" Choosing a house, to me, seems
like a pretty important point as well. A house is normally thought of
as a place of comfort where one can escape and be sheltered and safe.
Also, a house can be entered and left at will. This gives us further
insight into Nora's character because while she does enter and leave
the house, she is still very much sheltered. It implies that it is a
physical choice for her to stay within the house. She has chosen to
remain sheltered, up until the events towards the end of the play. At
that point, she does end up making the decision to leave the "house"
and make her way in the world unaided. I strayed a little bit from the
topic of Doll vs. Doll's, but I think both parts of the title are
significant.

On Jan 26, 10:21 am, gkersh...@gmail.com wrote: