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.