Final Reflection

As this is my last blog for the first semester, it is now time to reflect on what has been learned, achieved, and what is left to strive for this upcoming semester.  When I finished AP Language Arts and signed up for AP Literature, I was honestly not sure what to expect. I loved to read, but I knew that writing was my Achilles’ heal and that there would be plenty of it in AP Literature. For this reason, I had made it a personal goal to work on my writing skills as much as possible so that I could confidently leave high school being not only a more effective reader, but also a more effective writer.

When the year began, my reading skills quickly showed signs of improvement. The novel Frankenstein fascinated me, making it a joy to “close read” every chapter. The online forum that was set up for summer reading assignments also helped me learn what to look for and allowed me to gain new knowledge and perception while also being able to share my findings. Covering such a wide variety of novels (and plays), from The Age of Innocence to the series of short stories in Winesburg, Ohio, truly helped me broaden my previously stagnating literary collection. The area that I gained the most skill in is that of close reading. This semester of AP Literature has helped me realize how much more there is to read in between the lines of novels that I had previously found mundane. Of course, practice has also helped me read faster which I am sure will turn out to be quite useful in college. For college, however, I would also have to be a good writer.

The beginning of the year proved to be a difficult time for me as a writer. For the first few timed writings, I will admit that I was at a complete loss. I was often unsure what the question asked, and how I should go about structuring my answers. The results were often disappointing, with oddly sized paragraphs that poorly reflected my reading of the novel. Organization, however, was the first aspect of my writing that began to improve. I quickly found out that (for me), the trick was to structure and organize each paragraph before writing the essay. While almost all of my timed writings lacked a formal pre-write, most have some sort of web or diagram that shows the basic structure of my essay. The area in which I struggled most (and still do) is that of analysis. I often fail to follow the basic “claim, data, warrant” structure because I lack the warrant. The comments left on my essays most commonly include “lack of analysis,” “go deeper here,” and “why?”

For the reasons mentioned above, my main goal next semester will be to stay focused on my writing. While I will still practice my reading skills with assigned readings, the bulk of my effort will go towards providing better analysis and going deeper in my essays. Remaining a competent reader is crucial because there can be no analysis without having a solid reading of the text.

A Doll's House Foils

Like most literary works, A Doll’s House includes several character foils that help contrast one another. The two most notable foil pairs are Torvald and Krogstad, and Nora and Kristine. In both cases each character should be expected to occupy a similar role in society, but instead sharply contrasts the other morally and physically.

Torvald and Krogstad are both middle-aged males. They were childhood friends that were well acquainted. However, in their present situation, Torvald is the new high-placed manager at the bank while Krogstad works an insignificant position under Torvald’s command. A job is representative of social standing so one can initially see that Torvald is meant to contrast Krogstad in their positions in society. Torvald has a well settled home with Nora and the children she bore him; Krogstad was left by Kristine years prior and is alone. Torvald adheres strictly to gender roles and abhors anything that is not “beautiful,” while on the other hand, Krogstad does what he needs to survive and feed his children. These foil traits help the audience picture the characters as Ibsen would want them to. For instance, Torvald’s high position and stellar home indicated that he is very pre-occupied with appearances and his reputations in society. He works for what he was taught was the ideal life and refuses to accept that it is correct for one to overstep legal boundaries for something as petty as emotion and the greater good. Krogstad, however, is more willing to do what is necessary to survive. He cheats the law not because he wants to, but because he believes that it is necessary to bend the rules if it means being able to feed his children.

Nora and May are similarly foils. They are similar in the fact that they are both middle-aged women in a male-oriented society. They both had to make sacrifices to “save” the ones they love. Nora had to work to repay the loan that saved Torvald and Kristine had to leave her lover to marry to be in better financial standing. After this, however, come significant polar differences that create the foil. Throughout the play, Nora is representative of the “inside.” She symbolizes the home life of the 19^th century woman. She represents protection, safety, youth, and innocence. Kristine, meanwhile, is a symbol of the “outside” world. She is often described as being dressed in a travel or outdoor coat. Unlike Nora, Kristine represents experience and wisdom. The common association of innocence/experience can be felt through the tangible difference in age between Nora and Kristine. Despite being the same age, it feels as though Kristine is much older, almost like Nora’s mother. This relationship is reminiscent of William Blake poetry on innocence vs. experience.

Ibsen’s inclusion of these foils served the important function of emphasizing each character’s traits through contrast. When in the same scene as Kristine, Nora appeared even more child-like and innocent. Similarly, Krogstad’s character helped exemplify the importance Torvald places on public appearance and social values.

The Antagonist in A Doll's House

An interesting point that was raised during the class seminar on A Doll’s House Friday was if the play had an antagonist, and if it does, who would it be. An antagonist is a character who negatively affects another directly or indirectly purposefully. The initial character that I would have chosen as the antagonist would have been Krogstad. On first impression, he appears to possess all of the traits of an antagonist. He blackmails Nora and appears to have no respect for the happiness of others. Doctor Rank even went as far as referring to Krogstad as a “moral invalid.” However, by reading further into the play, it becomes apparent that Krogstad is only acting out of grief and necessity. He had mouths to feed and had been cheated by life when Kristine left him to marry a richer man. At the end of the novel, he even decides to remove his letter from Torvald’s mailbox (and Kristine stops him from doing so). After the scandal surfaces, he even goes as far as to return the only leverage he would have had to regain his position at the bank by giving back Nora’s note. It is for these reasons that Krogstad cannot be considered the antagonist of the play.

As we discussed during the seminar, the main problem or conflict in A Doll’s House is with doubt the “doll house condition” that surrounds Nora’s home life; it is what pushes her to leave at the end of the play. Logically, the antagonist would therefore most likely be the one responsible for that. One would be quick to place the blame on Torvald. After all, he physically perpetrates the condition. He calls Nora nicknames such as his “little lark,” and his “little squirrel.” To him, she is a “helpless little creature.” He constantly acts condescendingly towards Nora by wanting to “save” her whenever possible. However, in the 19^th century, these were the accepted gender roles in society. Torvald is therefore only acting in the matter that would have been correct in the time period. It is not objective to judge his notions of gender roles by today’s standards. Nora can also easily be blamed because she not only lets the condition remain, but she even partakes in Torvald’s games by purposely asking for help and answering him as if a child were speaking. She says she “should not think” of going against Torvald’s “wishes.” She, herself, creates situations that are not above moral reproach. She openly flirts with Dr. Rank by titillating him with her silk stocking and promising to dance for him. However, while she constantly attempts to avoid the consequences rather than addressing the problem, she is still not antagonistic in nature; I would consider her more of an anti-hero (which is a whole other discussion).

My belief, is that Ibsen purposely left the play void of a true antagonist. Rather than having one character pitted against another, he has an individual pitted against the traditional values and expectations that surround her. This structural choice emphasizes the conflict of the individual versus the many that is at the center of this play. In this way, the audience can perceive that it is not one individual that must be punished, but rather the entire society that must be altered.