Like A Stupid Child

Is it not true that in many instances children are able to think more clearly than the adults surrounding them? Throughout "A Doll's House," the elitist Torvald constantly calls his wife a "child" or other inferior names. I was disgusted by his attitude towards his wife throughout the play, but in the final act I found that the "child" label may be fitting for Nora in a much different way than Torvald intended. Although Torvald behaves in a pompous way towards his wife, Nora almost accepts this "woman role." Nora does not seek anything beyond her role as undedicated mother and airhead wife. Through her actions in Act I and II it became clear to me that the facade Nora put on for Torvald was truly an act and the depth of her character had not been tapped into. Yet, it is clear in Act III that Nora realizes her potential as not only a woman but as a human being. Sometimes having it all, means having nothing at all.

Thus, Nora becomes a child once again. She removes the gates to her true capabilities that Torvald has carefully constructed. Nora returns herself to a childlike state, but in an optimistic sense rather than an inferior one. The mother and wife removes the shackles that have kept her isolated from her true self and sets upon a journey, much like a child does when growing up. Nora exhibits a youthful bravery that is much harder to develop as an adult. To me, Nora in Act III seems like a completely different character that Nora in Acts I and II. Ibsen thoughtfully gives the reader glimpses of a more independent thinking Nora in Acts I and II, but it is within the last few pages of the play that Nora speaks honestly about the timeless quest for self fulfillment. A story that begins with such fake words and facades concludes with searing honesty. Similar to the genuine nature of a child, Nora undergoes some sort of change that allows her to speak without fear or constraint.

“To punish me with this and this with me”

Act V of Hamlet is filled with dramatic irony and delivers a climactic ending to the traumatic and tense play. Shakespeare makes it clear to the reader that Claudius has poisoned the wine and Laertes has poisoned the tip of his sharpened sword, and also that Hamlet and his mother are ignorant to this scheme. Yet, Hamlet remains untouched by Laerte's sword and refuses to drink the tainted wine. During Act V, Hamlet appears to be recovered, composed, and resolute compared to the character Shakespeare creates in earlier scenes. Shakespeare possibly suggests that the what had before seemed inevitable tragedy could now be avoided. Yet, this is not the case because Hamlet has procrastinated for too long. Hamlet may have returned a healed, or more emotionally stable character, yet the exponential decay of Denmark cannot be halted. Due to the deterioration of their country, all the characters must die, each in their own way. Hamlet is slain by the poisoned sword, Laertes is murdered by Hamlet, Gertrude ingests the poisoned wine, and Claudius is killed by Hamlet. Horatio remains to recount the wickedness of Claudius and innocence of his dear friend Hamlet.

Fortinbras plays an important part in the return to order in Denmark. The arrival of Fortinbras signals the end of corruption in the failing state. How did this corruption occur? One pivotal reason is the need for revenge. Whether it is justified or not, revenge reveals a peculiar ugliness in characters. The idea of revenge is intrinsically connected to the notion of family honor, a deep running theme throughout the play. Fortinbras is initially the first taste of vengeance Shakespeare reveals to the reader. The late King defeated Fortinbras' father in battle and Fortinbras pledges to avenge the deed. Fortinbras acts quickly and resolutely; he will stop at nothing to recover his father's lost power, yet finds another avenue of revenge. In contrast, Hamlet fights his inner voices and conscience, delaying his acts of vengeance. Although Hamlet does avenge his father's untimely death, it is at the cost of the deterioration of the very state his father ruled and the destruction of many. Shakespeare illustrates his genius in the irony of Act V. Hamlet destroys the family whose honor he sought to recover and avenge. Laertes, like Hamlet, achieves revenge with a great cost. Unlike Hamlet, Laertes does not allow his thoughts to paralyze his action, although in the end, both characters cause major destruction. Hamlet and Laertes view murder as the only acceptable way to avenge their fathers' deaths, yet this perspective results in the deterioration of them both.