The Meaning of the Title: "A Doll's House"

At what moment in the play do you understand why it is called A Doll’s House?

Although this question was placed under the Act 1 section of questions, I feel that only hints of the true meaning of the title appear in Act 1. In my opinion, I never fully understand why it is called A Doll’s House until Nora gives her own interpretation and analysis of her role as a “doll” to both her father and her husband Torvald. Leading up to this point, however, the play gradually reveals the meaning through Nora’s short anecdotes of her father and through the reader’s perception of Nora and Torvald’s relationship.

From Torvald’s very first line in the play to his last conversation with Nora, Torvald treats her as an inferior—almost as a child—and essentially treats her like a doll on display in a dollhouse. Not only does he use demeaning nicknames such as “my little sky-lark” or “my little squirrel” but he also interacts with her as if she is a silly girl, playfully chastising her for eating candy that day. Through these daily interactions between Torvald and Nora, one begins to grasp the meaning of the title. Furthermore, the collection of Nora’s comments about her with her father also helps in painting the picture of the title’s significance. The reader can draw from her stories that her father treated her and saw her in the same way Torvald does.

Most significantly, however, is when Nora comes to the realization of how devoid her life was of independence and self-accomplishment. I believe that this is the moment at which the reader is able to have a true understanding of why the play is called A Doll’s House. Nora acknowledges that her father, “used to call [her] his baby doll, and he played with [her] as [she] used to play with [her] dolls” (pg. 1730). Again Nora interprets her life to be like a doll when looking at her life with Torvald: “[O]ur house has never been anything but a play-room. I have been your doll wife, just as at home I was Daddy’s doll child” (pg. 1730). By the end of the play Nora is able to make a mature observation about her life despite her upbringing to be a naïve and ignorant woman. It is through this observation, that the true significance of the title becomes whole. (399)

To Kill or Not to Kill? That is the Question

Hamlet struggles with the inner conflict of the morality of avenging his father’s death as well as his own death. In each of these situations, Hamlet spends a majority of the plot trying to rationalize them. Hamlet eventually comes to a conclusion for both of his inner conflicts.

Upon the ghost’s request for Hamlet to avenge his death by killing Claudius, Hamlet immediately agrees to it, and then later on begins to question it. One of the greatest questions of this story is: Is it morally right to kill another man in order to avenge a family member’s death? In the end, I personally do not believe that hamlet fully answers this question—Shakespeare leaves that to be an eternal mystery for the readers to decide. Instead of giving a direct answer, Hamlet finds other reasons and motives in order to justify committing a murder. In a sense, one could argue that that could be the answer—murder is not fully justified on a basis on avenging one’s father—however, I do not believe that is what Shakespeare meant for us to interpret from this. Hamlet ends up emphasizing his own personal motives for killing Claudius rather than for his father. I find it true that most people do end up acting as Hamlet does and finding personal reasons in order to make the act seem more morally acceptable.

Hamlet struggles to decide whether or not suicide is morally justifiable as well. It is clear from the moment Hamlet speaks in the play that he feels no desire to live; he was not afraid of the chance that the ghost could try to kill him. He continues throughout the play to mention his suicidal thoughts. I believe Shakespeare shows this not only to display his emotional state after the death of his father and the re-marriage of his mother both also to enhance the fact that Hamlet repeatedly questions the morality of both killing someone and oneself. The epitome of Hamlet’s pondering of suicide is in his “to be or not to be” speech. He comes to the conclusion that although he does not have the desire to live, to commit suicide is a sin and he therefore could not and would not do it. In this case, Hamlet does end up with a resolute answer to the question of suicide. In conclusion, Shakespeare makes a point of showing Hamlet’s inner struggles in order to complicate the originally somewhat simple mission to avenge his father through killing Claudius. (418)