“It is rarely good for us to get what we want.” In light of this view, consider ways in which
writers portray appetites and desires, and their consequences.
In Henrik Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House’, and in Christina Rossetti’s poetry such as ‘Goblin
Market’ and “Sœur Louise de la Miséricorde”, we see that although we think we know what
we want, often our desires do not reflect our needs, and could place us in a worse situation
than had we not followed our selfish desires. Through Nora and Torvald’s longing for a
“miracle” where Torvald would sacrifice himself for her, and Laura’s temptation to eat the
“goblin fruit”, we see that the consequences of following our desires and satisfying our
appetites often do not coincide with what we initially thought would happen.
Firstly, we see that throughout the play, Nora desperately awaits the “miracle”, where
Torvald will risk everything to help her out of the debt that she has entered. She has taken out
a loan from Krogstad so that she could help Torvald and take him away on a trip to
recuperate after suffering a serious illness. This mirrors the situation of Laura Kieler, (who
had a close relationship with Ibsen in 1871) who learnt in 1876 that her husband was
suffering from tuberculosis and so took out a loan in secret to pay for a trip to Italy to help
him recover, and then forged a check out of desperation to try to help her payments. Once her
husband discovered this, he reprimanded her as an unfit mother, and she later suffered a
mental breakdown that caused her to be institutionalised. Apparently, Ibsen heard of this and
was furious, and there are clear links between the story of Laura and of Nora, but Ibsen
created a character who was strong enough to respond to her husband’s criticism of her
behaviour in the way that he probably wished that Laura had been able to. Although Nora’s
wish for the miracle does not end how she wants it to, a modern audience may argue that it is
better that she has realised that her marriage and home “has never been anything but a
playroom.” A modern audience can assume that after leaving Torvald, her life will have more
meaning as she no longer will be spending her life as a “songbird” whose opinion is not
valued as it should be. However, when we consider the social context of the time, her
decision to leave her husband would have seemed very scandalous and the society of the time
would have frowned upon her decision to leave. As A.S Byatt states, “there is a Darwinian
imperative that women should not leave their children”, and it seemed that for the society of
the time, the ending would have been shocking and Nora’s behaviour would have been seen
as outrageous, which can be seen in what The People’s Paper wrote, asking “Is there a mother
among thousands of mothers, a wife amongs thousands of wives, who would act as Nora
acts?”
Moreover, Ibsen even had to write an alternative ending for the German premiere of the play,
as his agent felt that the society in Germany would not appreciate the original ending.
Therefore, so that a translator did not change Ibsen’s original script, he had to write a new
ending in which Nora collapses and breaks down upon seeing her children, and we get the
suggestion that she is going to stay. Torvald ends up as the one who remains in control,
saving Nora, and he gives the speech about how the “miracle of miracles” would have to
occur when Nora begs “can I never be more than a stranger to you and to them?” In this
version, we see that Nora’s desire for a miracle actually occurs almost as she wished it to,
because she stays in the marriage with Torvald, and although he treats her like a stranger,
does save her from her debt to Krogstad. However, Ibsen himself called this ending an
“outrage”, and we see that in neither ending are Nora’s original desires for Torvald to be her
saviour and then for their lives to continue on as normal fulfilled, which conveys a sense of
how although she believed that was what she wanted, a change was what she needed. The
original ending also reveals how although the society of the time would have felt that she
writers portray appetites and desires, and their consequences.
In Henrik Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House’, and in Christina Rossetti’s poetry such as ‘Goblin
Market’ and “Sœur Louise de la Miséricorde”, we see that although we think we know what
we want, often our desires do not reflect our needs, and could place us in a worse situation
than had we not followed our selfish desires. Through Nora and Torvald’s longing for a
“miracle” where Torvald would sacrifice himself for her, and Laura’s temptation to eat the
“goblin fruit”, we see that the consequences of following our desires and satisfying our
appetites often do not coincide with what we initially thought would happen.
Firstly, we see that throughout the play, Nora desperately awaits the “miracle”, where
Torvald will risk everything to help her out of the debt that she has entered. She has taken out
a loan from Krogstad so that she could help Torvald and take him away on a trip to
recuperate after suffering a serious illness. This mirrors the situation of Laura Kieler, (who
had a close relationship with Ibsen in 1871) who learnt in 1876 that her husband was
suffering from tuberculosis and so took out a loan in secret to pay for a trip to Italy to help
him recover, and then forged a check out of desperation to try to help her payments. Once her
husband discovered this, he reprimanded her as an unfit mother, and she later suffered a
mental breakdown that caused her to be institutionalised. Apparently, Ibsen heard of this and
was furious, and there are clear links between the story of Laura and of Nora, but Ibsen
created a character who was strong enough to respond to her husband’s criticism of her
behaviour in the way that he probably wished that Laura had been able to. Although Nora’s
wish for the miracle does not end how she wants it to, a modern audience may argue that it is
better that she has realised that her marriage and home “has never been anything but a
playroom.” A modern audience can assume that after leaving Torvald, her life will have more
meaning as she no longer will be spending her life as a “songbird” whose opinion is not
valued as it should be. However, when we consider the social context of the time, her
decision to leave her husband would have seemed very scandalous and the society of the time
would have frowned upon her decision to leave. As A.S Byatt states, “there is a Darwinian
imperative that women should not leave their children”, and it seemed that for the society of
the time, the ending would have been shocking and Nora’s behaviour would have been seen
as outrageous, which can be seen in what The People’s Paper wrote, asking “Is there a mother
among thousands of mothers, a wife amongs thousands of wives, who would act as Nora
acts?”
Moreover, Ibsen even had to write an alternative ending for the German premiere of the play,
as his agent felt that the society in Germany would not appreciate the original ending.
Therefore, so that a translator did not change Ibsen’s original script, he had to write a new
ending in which Nora collapses and breaks down upon seeing her children, and we get the
suggestion that she is going to stay. Torvald ends up as the one who remains in control,
saving Nora, and he gives the speech about how the “miracle of miracles” would have to
occur when Nora begs “can I never be more than a stranger to you and to them?” In this
version, we see that Nora’s desire for a miracle actually occurs almost as she wished it to,
because she stays in the marriage with Torvald, and although he treats her like a stranger,
does save her from her debt to Krogstad. However, Ibsen himself called this ending an
“outrage”, and we see that in neither ending are Nora’s original desires for Torvald to be her
saviour and then for their lives to continue on as normal fulfilled, which conveys a sense of
how although she believed that was what she wanted, a change was what she needed. The
original ending also reveals how although the society of the time would have felt that she
