1

QUESTION: Elaborate on waiting for Godot as a perfect example of absurd theatre.

ANSWER:THEATRE OF ABSURD:Theater in which standard or naturalistic conventions of plot,characterization, and thematic

structure are ignored or distorted in order to convey the irrational or fictive nature of reality and the essential isolation of
humanity in a meaningless world.

INTRODUCTION:The Theatre of the Absurd is a movement made up of many diverse plays, most of which were written
between 1940 and 1960. When first performed, these plays shocked their audiences as they were startlingly different than
anything that had been previously staged. In fact, many of them were labelled as "anti-plays." In an attempt to clarify and
define this radical movement, Martin Esslin coined the term "The Theatre of the Absurd" in his 1960 book of the same name.
Essentially, each play renders man's existence as illogical, and moreover, meaningless. This idea was a reaction to the
"collapse of moral, religious, political, and social structures" following the two World Wars of the Twentieth Century.Absurdist
Theatre was heavily influenced by Existential philosophy. It aligned best with the philosophy in Albert Camus' essay The Myth
of Sisyphus (1942). In this essay, Camus attempts to present a reasonable answer as to why man should not commit suicide
in face of a meaningless, absurd existence. To do so, he uses the Greek mythological figure, Sisyphus, who was condemned
to push a boulder up a mountain, only to have it roll back down. He repeats this futile cycle for all of eternity. At the end of the
essay, Camus concludes that, "One must imagine Sisyphus happy". He means that the struggle of life alone should bring one
happiness. Essentially, we can find meaning in living even without knowing why we exist.The absurd dramatists, however, did
not resolve the problem of man's meaningless existence quite as positively as Camus. In fact, they typically offered no
solution to the problem whatsoever, thus suggesting that the question is ultimately unanswerable.

THEMES:While absurdist plays feature a wide variety of subject matter, there are certain themes, or ideas, which reoccur
frequently within the movement.The theatre of absurd presents anxiety, despire, and a sense of loss at the disappearance of
solutions, illusions, and purposefulness. Facing up to this loss means that we face up to reality itself.Two themes that
reoccur frequently throughout absurdist dramas are a meaningless world and the isolation of the individual.

WAITING FOR GODOT:Waiting for Godot is a tragicomedy in two acts written by an Irish novelist Samuel Beckett. He was a
playwright, theatre director and poet. He wrote a number of short stories. He was a translator of literary works also a
 2
translator of other languages. He wrote number of books in French and as well as in English. Waiting for Godot was 1ª
written in French with the name En attendand Godot and was for the first time published in 1952. It's production year was
1953.

WAITING FOR GODOT, PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ABSURD THEATRE:The word "absurd" means nonsensical, silly, foolish and
any thing which is opposed to truth or reason.When we talk about "absurd drama" it then means a form of drama that
emphasizes the absurdity of human existence by employing repetitious, meaningless dialogues, loose plots, purposeless and
confusing situations. Absurdism is applied to the plays written in 1950s and 1960s by the writers including Samuel Beckett
and Harold Pinter.Among these play writers Samuel Beckett is more important because he wrote many plays. Among those
plays "Waiting for Godot" was his first play which proved to be the most successful plays. Beckett earned his fame for this
play. Samuel Beckett belonged to those writers whose dramas are called "Absurd dramas". the writers of absurd dramas had
their own vision about human life. They were of the opinion that human condition had no colour and beauty. Absurd drama is
the complete denial of old values. It has no plot, no characterization, no logical sequence, no rising and falling action, no
story, no clear theme, no proper beginning, middle and end, no pointed dialogues and it's language is not poetic.The above
mentioned points make it clear that "Waiting for Godot" is and absurd play. It is an absurd play because it has a loose plot,
there is no characterization though characters are there but whatever they are doing is purposeless. Similarly the theme is
not clear. The dialogues are not witty and pointed. When we study the play we come to know that nothing special happens in
the play. We do not see any significant change in setting."Nothing happen, nobody comes, nobody goes. It's awful"This is aa
well know line from the play said by Estragon which summaries the whole play which too gives the feeling of absurdity.The
beginning, middle and end of the play do not rise up to the level of a good play. The waiting of Vladimir and Estragon for
Godot is and endless waiting because time and again the boy informs them that Godot is not coming and they wait for Godot
till the next day. Such endless waiting also seems absurd.Waiting for Godot is an absurd play because there is no female
character. The characters of the play are not sure about their identities. Both the main characters are sick of their lives. They
are waiting for someone they are unaware of. They do not know who Godot is and are
 3
Why is Waiting for Godot important?

Waiting for Godot has been described as a story about nothing. Indeed, very little happens in the play: two men, Estragon and
Vladimir, wait by a tree for someone else to come to them (Godot) over the course of two acts, but he never does. It is never
entirely clear why they are waiting for him. Although they have some interaction with passersby, namely Pozzo and Lucky, the
conversations do not seem to have any real point. At many times throughout the play, it seems like the characters are only
halfheartedly listening to one another and are instead hypnotized by their own inner monologues.Sill, this idea of nothing is
an important one in the middle of the 1900s, when Godot was written. One of the most prominent existential philosophers
and public intellectuals of the time, Jean-Paul Sartre, had just finished writing Being and Nothingness, a book that suggested
that humans have no formal guidance in their lives and must decide what is meaningful for themselves. Where they once
believed in a god, there is now nothing.":Sartre argues that life's purpose comes from the choices people make rather than
what people tell them is meaningful. However, many people waste their lives being told what to do. This is what occurs in
Godot and why it is often considered an existential piece of literature. The play may be considered a warning about what
happens when people wait for something external to give them guidance, and it should be noted that "God" appears in the
name "Godot." If people wait for someone or some entity to give their lives meaning, according to this interpretation of the
play, they will ultimately be wasting their lives, as Estragon and Vladimir do.There is also much despair and doubt in the
characters as they wait for Godot to appear. Before the modernist period began, there was a faith in human reason. However,
over the course of the modernist movement, bureaucracy, technology, and globalization became more and more powerful,
and two world wars shook people's sense of whether humans were, in fact, a source of pure reason. In general, there was
some unease about whether people were advancing in a way that was conducive to living, and many artists/writers began to
question whether reality was as they once believed it was (leading way to postmodernism, of which Godot stands on the
cusp).The characters in the play reflect these ways of thinking, commenting on how people are "bloody ignorant apes,"
speculating on whether or not they should kill themselves, and, at the end, wondering if they are dreaming ("Was I sleeping
while the others suffered? Am I sleeping now?"). The characters in Godot are sensitive and insecure, even toward their own
views of reality, which reflected many people's feelings toward life after the World Wars. Godot distills an attitude, or
zeitgeist, into two acts through its characters and their actions.
 4
Tittle of Godot ::The significance of the title rests on the situational irony that the wait for Godot is entirely trifling. Yet, the
collateral dynamics that result from this abortive task are as illogical as the wait itself.Within an existentialist context, the
wait is symbolic of human reality. It is the amalgamation of our need for hope, purpose and direction versus the reality that
there is no absolute law that explains any hope, purpose, or reason for anything. Realistically, our lives are a product of
perspective and upbringing, not to mention the eternal debate of nature versus nurture. Hence, we all wait in different ways:
praying, hoping, meditating, thinking ahead, or stopping altogether. Essentially, this "wait" is an existential problem for all
individuals. The succession of issues that present themselves in a lifespan may render us dependent on the expectation that
something may come our way, or may change us forever. In the meantime, we meet characters, see things, and witness
situations not unlike those seen by Vladimir and Estragon: things that are odd, cruel, senseless, even morbid. It is all a part of
existing. The wait will always be there. Samuel Beckett's English play Waiting for Godot is actually his own translation of a
play he originally wrote in French, under the title "En attendant Godot." The French phrase has the literal meaning of waiting
for Godot, but far more than the English conveys the sense "while waiting for Godot," with more emphasis on what happens
while waiting than on Godot's eventual arrival (or failure to arrive).While many critics have noted the sonic relationship
between "Godot" and "God" in English, this parallel does not really apply to the original French text, as the French word for
God is "Dieu," which does not bear any obvious relationship to "Godot."What makes the title significant is that drama and
dramatic criticism before the advent of modernism emphasized plot and action. Aristotle, for example, defined tragedy as
follows:We generally think of waiting as a stage prior to action. In other words, we "wait" for something to happen. In using
the word "waiting" in the title of his play, Beckett is suggesting that the play breaks with the tradition of drama-as-action and
instead offers us something different, a pure view into the characters in a state of inactivity.

In Waiting for Godot, the two main characters, Vladimir and Estragon, spend days waiting for someone named Godot. A boy
comes with a message that Godot is not coming and they continue to wait. The waiting itself is an exercise in futility. Godot
is never going to show up and the two characters discuss options such as suicide (which they fail in the attempt), keep
waiting, and leaving. They try to leave multiple times, but they can't. So, they keep waiting. The repetition and redundancy
express the characters steadfast desire for resolution despite becoming totally frustrated in the lack of results for their time
spent.Godot, as if he were a savior or someone who can give them answers, represents certainty and meaningfulness. Since
he never arrives, Vladimir and Estragon are faced with living in a world where certainty and meaning never present
 5
themselves. To continue to wait for certainty and meaning, knowing they don't exist, is absurd. Absurdism, in literature and
drama, is usually presented in this way: humans searching for meaning in a world where meaning is either always elusive or
nonexistent.

Waiting for Godot | Symbols

Beckett famously refused to interpret Waiting for Godot, letting his writing speak for itself. "No symbols where none
intended"-the last line of Beckett's novel Watt-is often read as a warning against assigning symbolic meaning to objects in
his writing. This doesn't mean that no symbolism was intended, only that audiences should be careful about assigning
meanings not supported by words and actions in the play.

Leafless Tree : The tree, near which Estragon and Vladimir meet, is completely bare of leaves at the beginning of the play. It
represents the only organic element in the setting, and it is dead or dormant. This tree portrays the world as barren and
lifeless, emphasizing the lack of purpose and meaning the characters must contend with. The apparent growth of leaves on
the tree in Act 2 does nothing to ease the sense of meaninglessness; it only adds to the characters' uncertainty about the
place and the passage of time. The staging is telling in this regard: despite Vladimir's description of the tree as "covered with
leaves," the stage directions specify only "four or five" leaves, leaving it mostly barren.Some point out that the cross on which
Christ was crucified is sometimes called a tree. Vladimir and Estragon do discuss the tree and hanging themselves in Act 1
shortly after talking about the two thieves crucified along with Christ. This could support the interpretation that hanging from
the tree draws a parallel between them and the thieves. Beckett, however, said he was puzzled by people trying to take away
"a broader, loftier meaning" from the play, making it unlikely that he intended any broader religious symbolism.

Lucky's Baggage ::Lucky never puts down the items he carries, except when it is necessary to fulfill one of Pozzo's orders.
Then he immediately picks them up again, even when he has not been told to do so and there is no purpose in it. This action
echoes the human tendency of enslavement to burdens, holding onto them even when doing so is unnecessary. The baggage
Lucky carries seems to consist mostly of items for Pozzo's comfort. In Act 2, however, one of the bags, which is never
opened in Act 1, is revealed to contain only sand. Other than his hat, none of what Lucky carries is for himself and may not
even be useful. Yet he takes it up again and again-another example of a character "deadened" by habit, fulfilling the task
 6
mindlessly and without purpose.

Pozzo's Rope::Pozzo's rope is the only rope that physically appears in the play, and it represents the balance of power in the
relationship between Pozzo and Lucky. In Act 1, Pozzo dominates Lucky with a rope half the length of the stage: "Pozzo
drives Lucky by means of a rope passed around his neck," and Lucky is often the recipient of Pozzo's whip. Yet Lucky
accepts this balance of power without question, as ifhe cannot envision any other state for himself. By Act 2, however, the
rope is shortened, and the balance of power in Pozzo and Lucky's relationship is less clear. Pozzo, now blind, depends on
Lucky for direction, and Lucky, still slavish, depends psychologically on Pozzo.By extension, there are a number of figurative
ropes in the play. Vladimir and Estragon, like Pozzo and Lucky, are similarly tied to each other in a relationship based on
domination and submission.The pair is also tied to Godot and the dominating belief that his arrival will provide a meaning for
their lives. Vladimir and Estragon also entertain the idea of hanging themselves with a rope. While suicide is never a real
option, its discussion provides the pair a diversion from the act of waiting for Godot. The rope here becomes a symbol of
submission to an illogical belief.

***Theme Analysis: Greed, Capitalism, and Corruption(good women of Szechuan)

In the impoverished village of Setzuan, thievery and bribery abound. The village is ruled by money, much like the wider world
beyond it. Bertolt Brecht, a playwright whose poems, plays, and operas all wrestle with the role of capitalism and greed in
contemporary society, uses The Good Woman of Setzuan to suggest that money, capitalism, and corruption are significant
factors as to why immorality is so pervasive. Capitalist society, Brecht argues, is an environment in which one can only
advance by taking advantage of others. Bad deeds are rewarded and good ones are punished and money and capital, Brecht
suggests, is at the root of humanity's inability to "refuse to be bad."

Many of Brecht's other plays examine the role of greed, capitalism, and corruption but in The Good Woman of Setzuan,
Brecht makes one of his plainest and yet most profoundly frustrated statements about the fundamental impossibility of
reconciling humanity's desire to act morally with the impossibility of being a truly good friend, neighbor, lover, or employer
under the burdensome weight of capitalism. At the start of the play, Shen Te is working as a prostitute in order to survive.
She knows that selling her body is immoral but she is also aware that there is no other way for her to make ends meet. Still,
 7
the gods overlook Shen Te's profession and they declare her an "unusually good woman." They reward her for her decision to
take them in when no one else in town would by paying her a large sum of money-a sum that will allow her to stop working as
a prostitute and open up a shop of her own. Shen Te believes that if she becomes a business owner, she will be earning
money in a more respectable way but she quickly discovers that there is no ethical way of making money under capitalism, a
system which requires the exploitation of the poor in order to feed the greed of the rich. As Shen Te opens up her tobacco
shop, she soon finds that her relative financial privilege makes her a beacon for her needy neighbors who seek food, shelter,
and favors from her. As Shen Te works to keep her neighbors afloat while simultaneously fending off financial demands from
her landlady Mrs. Mi Tzu, a carpenter, and an unemployed man, Shen Te finds herself lamenting that when a lifeboat comes
for one person, others "greedily/Hold onto it [even] as they drown." Brecht uses Shen Te's early struggles with money, greed,
and corruption to show that in spite of her struggle to be good to her neighbors, kindness and generosity are always taken
advantage of. Everyone around Shen Te is struggling and in a world where the wealthy few hoard monetary resources

while the working class suffers, Shen Te must choose whether to protect her own interests and betray her neighbors or be
pulled back into poverty and despair.Brecht deepens Shen Te's struggle as Shen Te creates an alter ego Shui Ta, a "cousin"
from a faraway province to do the ruthless deal-brokering that Shen Te herself feels incapable of doing as a woman who is
supposed to be generous and blandly, blithely "good" above all else.As Shui Ta becomes a necessary presence in Shen Te's
life more and more often, Brecht charts Shen Te's descent into greed and the pursuit of capitalistic, patriarchal power. Shui
Ta himself admits that "one can only help one of [one's] luckless brothers/ By trampling down a dozen others," yet he
continues amassing capital in the forms of wealth, property, and social control over his employees and neighbors as he
expands Shen Te's humble tobacco shop into a large factory conglomerate with dozens of employees. Soon, Shen Te comes
to see that her "bad cousin" represents all the social, economic, and political corruption that makes the world such a
miserable place to live in for people like herself and her neighbors toward the end of the play.there are even rumors that Shui
Ta has bought a seat as a local Justice of the Peace. Shui Ta is a ruthless boss, a swindler, and a manipulator: all of the
things that Shen Te knows are necessary for those who wish to succeed materially under capitalism, but all of the things that
she as a"good" woman cannot herself embody. Shui Ta, then, becomes a tool through which Brecht can indict how society
materially rewards the deeds of crooked bosses and landlords while ignoring the individuals who toil under terrible
conditions.In Shen Te's climactic, soulful lament to the gods, she decries the fact that pity and empathy became a "thorn in
 8
[her] side" when it came time to choose between the good deeds for which she was punished with poverty and the bad deeds
for which she was rewarded with wealth and power. By charting Shen Te's struggle to be "good" and her ultimate failure to do
so-Brecht suggests that even those who work hard to rebel against the impulse to be greedy, materialistic, and self-serving
often end up failing to remain moral in the face of capitalism's intense pressures. Brecht's sympathy (and indeed empathy)
for Shen Te is undeniable-he, too, seeks answers to how humanity can possibly "help the lost [without becoming] lost
ourselves." In the end, Brecht characters aren't given a suitable answer-yet Brecht does not end the play without reminding
his audience that "moral rearmament" in the face of capitalism, greed, corruption, and materialism is perhaps the only way
"to help good men arrive at happy ends."

***Characters Nora Helmer

Nora Helmer is the protagonist of Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House. She begins the play as a coddled housewife and ends it as
an independent woman setting out into the world to educate herself. The catalyst for Nora’s transformation is the loan that
she took out years ago after her husband Torvald fell ill. In order to obtain the loan, Nora forged her dying father’s signature,
a criminal act. The action of the play begins when Krogstad, the man who lent Nora the money, blackmails her into helping
him keep his job at the bank that Torvald manages.

Nora's Loan and Its Consequences :: Despite the dubious legality of her actions, the loan is a point of pride for Nora, who
feels that she did what was necessary to save her husband. She worked for years in secret to pay it off, sacrificing her time
and housekeeping money. However, Nora feels compelled to hide her competence, instead playing the part of the spoiled,
silly wife that Torvald expects her to be. When the truth about the loan is revealed to Torvald, Nora expects him to feel
indebted to her and to accept the blame for her actions. Instead, he harshly berates her, shattering Nora’s illusions about her
allegedly happy marriage.

Nora's Personality:: Nora is a manipulative and deceitful character. Before the secret loan is ever mentioned, Nora is shown
eating macaroons, which Torvald has forbidden her from eating. She then denies having bought any macaroons to Torvald’s
face. She also attempts to use her good looks and “little squirrel” persona to manipulate Torvald into doing things, such as
giving Mrs. Linde a job and refraining from firing Krogstad. However, Nora’s deceitfulness is not intentionally malicious, and
 9
her manipulations are a symptom of her lack of power in her marriage. She feels that she must lie in order to protect her
marriage. She fears that if Torvald were to view her as competent and intelligent, then he would treat her differently. Prior to
Krogstad’s blackmail, Nora tells Mrs. Linde that she plans to tell Torvald about the loan when she has aged and lost some of
her beauty. She believes that he will love and respect her for saving his life. For the time being, she is content to be Torvald’s
“little squirrel” who dresses up and does “tricks” for him.

Nora's Marriage:: For the most of the play, Nora genuinely believes that her marriage is a happy one. Just as she plays the
part of the charming, childish wife, so too does Torvald play the part of the chivalrous and indulgent husband. Nora believes
that Torvald will face the consequences of her forgery rather than succumb to Krogstad’s demands. When her expectations
are not met, Nora realizes that she does not truly know Torvald. In turn, she realizes that she has never allowed him to really
know her.In the final confrontation between Nora and Torvald, Nora claims accountability for her own illusions about Torvald.
Her desire to be the perfect wife and to have the perfect husband prevent her from seeing Torvald as he really is. In turn,
Nora’s father and Torvald have forced her into a subservient role and underestimated her capabilities. As a woman, Nora has
significantly fewer economic opportunities than a man does. Her only prospect for a stable, comfortable life is to marry well.
Nora argues that her attempts to conform to society’s concept of the “perfect wife” have left her ignorant and unhappy. She
hopes to rectify this by leaving Torvald and her children in pursuit of a more worldly education.

Nora's Agency in Victorian Norway:: Nora’s decision to leave her family represents a radical declaration of female agency.
Torvald attempts to persuade her to stay by claiming that “before all else, [she is] a wife and a mother.” This was a common
belief in Victorian Norway, as women were given minimal socioeconomic agency outside of marriage. When the play was
first released, many people found it inconceivable that a woman would prioritize herself over her family. Nora responds by
saying that, before all else, she is a rational and complete human being with a duty to pursue her own happiness. Rather than
continuing to live in ignorance, Nora is committed to learning more about the world, even if that means leaving her children
without a mother. As Nora sees it, she is not fit to raise or educate them anyways, since she is little more than a child herself.

Nora's "Most Wonderful Thing of All" :: For most of the play, Nora anticipates “the wonderful” yet “terrible” thing that Torvald
will do when he finds out about the forgery. In Nora’s mind, this wonderful yet terrible thing is Torvald’s refusing to give into
Krogstad’s demands and accepting the consequences for the forgery on Nora’s behalf. In order to spare Torvald the shame
 10
of accepting the blame for her actions, Nora is prepared to take her own life. However, after seeing that Torvald is unwilling
to sacrifice himself for her, Nora’s concept of the “the wonderful thing” changes. Just as she goes to shut the door behind
herself, she leaves Torvald with a fleeting hope that they might one day become more than strangers again. For Nora, “the
most wonderful thing of all” is no longer a one-sided sacrifice but instead a “real wedlock,” founded on mutual respect and
honesty

Critical Essays Structure and Technique in Ghosts

As in most of Ibsen's problem plays, Ghosts begins at the collective climax in the lives of its characters. The play deals only
with the consequences of these past lives and does not need to take place in more than one twenty-four hour vigil. Although
the relationships among the characters are close and lifelong, only the crowding of emotions and events within these three
acts forces each one to face the truth about himself and about his society.Unlike A Doll's House, where there are servants
and a sub-plot between Krogstad and Mrs. Linde, only five characters appear in Ghosts. No one is included who has not a
place in the main action itself. In this way, an atmosphere of austere grandeur is given to the whole drama providing it with
an intensity suggestive of classical plays. Professor Koht describes the play's further relationship to ancient drama for Greek
tragedy, often called the fate, or family drama, shows a tragic flaw inherited through the generations. Ghosts is also a "family
tragedy," he writes, "but it is also a social drama — the ancient tragedy resurrected on modern soil."Captain Alving's character
bears this out. The source of the hereditary flaw which destroys his children, his presence pervades each scene of Ghosts.
As each living character illuminates the nature of the diseased profligate, he finally stands as clearly and as well-drawn to the
audience as if he were constantly active on stage. Almost as a "secondary" protagonist, Alving undergoes a change of
character until he is presented to the spectator as an individual whom society has wronged. Finally, when Mrs. Alving
recognizes how she destroyed his "joy of life," the dead husband is no longer a ghost, but a humanized victim of the social
conventions.

Critical Essays Symbols in Ghosts:: Ibsen's poetic ability enables him to enrich the prose plays with symbols that have broad
as well as narrow meanings. Especially allusive is Ibsen's concept of light and darkness. Oswald's last plea for the sun, for
instance, sums up his need for the "joy of life" in himself as well as in his work. He needs sunlight in which to paint and he
needs illumination on the nature of his father. A pall hangs over the entire landscape of the play; if there is no rain at the
 11
moment, the scene outside the window is obscured by mist. The weather finally clears when Mrs. Alving faces the truth, but
it is too late. Thrust into darkness, Oswald weakly cries out for the sun. His last monosyllabic plea has a twofold significance:
not only symbolizing the "light of truth," it might stand for the morphia powders which would dispel the lingering darkness
that enshrouds Oswald's diseased mind.The fire that destroys the orphanage is another symbol of truth. Purifying the
institution of deceit, the flames allow Engstrand to receive support for his planned Alving Home. With characteristic irony,
Ibsen implies that there is no deceit in raising a brothel to the memory of the late Captain Alving.The most pervasive symbol,
of course, is that of ghosts. The ghosts are worn ideals and principles of law and order so misapplied that they have no
actual significance. All the untested maxims and abstract dogma that Manders maintains are ghosts; all the sources of
personal cowardice in Mrs. Alving are ghosts. Ghosts are also the lies about the past, perpetrated to the present, which will
haunt the future. Finally, ghosts are the actual and symbolic diseases of heredity which destroy the joy of life in the younger,
freer generations.
 12
A Doll’s House as a Problem Play

The Problem Play, as a genre, emerged during the 19th century as part of the Realism movement in theatre, notably
influenced by Henrik Ibsen. Unlike the conventional, formulaic “well-made play” of the time, Ibsen’s work focused on real
characters grappling with real-world issues, spurning farcical plots, and exploring controversial social and human questions
that had never been dramatized till then. This form of drama engages with pressing social concerns through the portrayal of
characters in conflict, reflecting the diversity of perspectives within society.In A Doll’s House, the central issue revolves
around Nora’s treatment and societal worth as a woman in the 1800s. During this era, women lacked control over their
finances and were restricted from employment outside the home, leaving them trapped in marriages. Torvald’s demeaning
pet names for Nora reflect his condescending attitude towards her despite her significant contributions, such as secretly
funding his medical care. Ibsen confronts audiences with stark truths: Married women are often relegated to mere
ornaments and submissive servants to their husbands, challenging the unchecked authority of men within the home. The
play emphasizes the imperative of forging an authentic human identity independent of societal expectations. Nora’s
shocking willingness to sacrifice everything, including her children, to assert her autonomy sparks enduring debates about
her motivations and ethical justifications. While some critics question the realism of Nora’s transformation, her plight sheds
light on the pervasive challenges faced by women in a patriarchal society. Through Nora’s struggle for autonomy and
recognition, the play effectively highlights the pressing social issues of its time, fulfilling the role of a problem play.There is
an intimate and often symbiotic relationship between realism and problem play. In “A Doll’s House,” Ibsen primarily presents
the subordination and triviality of a woman in marriage as a problem. For this, he needs a realistic set-up for the plot and
stageplay. On the other hand, because he presents a realistic set-up, the relationships on stage reveal the inherent social
problems in reality in these relationships. At the same time, Ibsen’s play does not become a dry thesis on an exploration of a
specific problem, but a lively, engaging piece of theatre. As Henrik Ibsen’s biographer, Michael Meyer, has observed, “No play
had ever before contributed so momentously to the social debate, or been so widely and furiously discussed among people
who were not normally interested in theatrical or even artistic matter.”Ibsen accomplishes this by effectively using two
significant tools- characterization and symbolism. The central character, Nora, is introduced early in the play, without
creating unrealistic anticipation or glorification. Although problem plays are supposed to reject all conventions of “well-made
plays,” Ibsen builds his initial plotline following many conventions of such idealistic theatre. The stage is set as a picture-
 13
perfect living room; the central character is the conventional cheerful angel in the house, with a perfect family and prospect
of wealth. It is right when the audience begins to feel that they are looking at just another conventional, well-made play,
Nora’s words jar them out of their stupor: “They all think that I am incapable of anything really serious—”Nora said those
words to her friend Christine, but she apparently used the pronoun ‘they’ to include everyone else in her life. However, this
might also mean that “they” refer to not just dramatic personages but also the audience, which had not taken Nora seriously
up to that point.The problem presented in A Doll’s House is not just about the oppression women face in marriage; it is about
how they are not taken seriously by their spouses and by society at large. Nora is not talking just about the way her husband
has treated her but about society at large. To consider Nora’s case as just a domestic situation between two individuals is to
misinterpret Ibsen’s real statement in the play.Nora’s final exit is a confirmation of this. Her home is established as a doll’s
house, and Nora has to leave this space and enter a new one to attain even an ounce of profound regard. Her exit becomes a
rejection of frivolity and courting of seriousness, no matter the consequences. Her slamming of the door claps like thunder
to mark the commencement of her promotion to a world of seriousness. A contemporary play reviewer also declared: “When
Nora slammed the door shut on her marriage, walls shook in a thousand homes.”In a problem play, alternative perspectives
and circumstances are also presented. The situation of Mrs Linde, for instance, is diametrically opposite to that of Nora. She
represents a free woman capable of sustaining herself through economic independence. However, Ibsen does not present
her as content and happy; instead, she reveals her desolation. Her decision to reunite with Krogstad stems from her
realization that independence does not necessarily mean loneliness and despair. In their union, Ibsen validates the possibility
of equality and interdependence in marriage as Linde says: “I want to be a mother to someone, and your children need a
mother. We two need each other.”The problem that Ibsen dramatizes is not a simple one about family hierarchy or marital
dynamics. He presents the problem of an individual, not just a woman, trapped within a prison of societal expectation, unable
to achieve one’s true potential. He does not belittle a woman’s role as a wife or mother, and neither does he belittle a woman
as an independent loner. He points out the incompleteness of any woman who fails to experience life as wholesome and
empowering. It is not just a play about Nora’s problematic circumstance but also about Torvald’s. Despite his illusion of
accomplishment, Torvald has never fully utilized the great potential of companionship and bond that a “real wedlock” (as
Nora puts it) promises. It is, therefore, a liberating experience for both Nora. People who find the ending of the play negative
miss the most important phrase, “a wonderful miracle.” The play does not end with despair but hope, where the problem of
 14
inequality and insincerity in relationships is not left without hope of a solution and faith in miracles. Therefore, the play may
be classified as a Problem play with a rich exploration of not just the problem but also the possibility of resolution.