A Doll's House is a play by Henrik Ibsen, which has recieved a great amount of praise, and with the exception of the ending, I honestly do not have much of an idea why that may be, save the ending. Following the character of Nora, a housewife, married to an affluent banker, Helmer Torvald. Nora finds herself constantly reacting to what is going on. Having drawn herself into a great panic over each action she has done. Sounds like a great idea for a comedy loaded with situational humour, right? Well the first you need to know is that this is not a comedy, but a drama. I know some readers of this may be prepared to hear me read off cliches, but that is not the problem. The problem is that the execution of the plot, which, in my opinion, is rather dull for my standards. I know little about Ibsen, so I cannot judge him by all of his works, but if this is typical of him, then I know why he might not be more popular. Aside from the Torvalds, there is Krogstad, a former employee of Helmer, who is who is the antagonist, surrounded by some mysterious circumstances (one of the only cliches in this book, which is good), as well as Mrs. Linde, an old friend of Nora's who is in search of a job.
The story is mainly a series of conflicts, which is standard fare for a play from this time period (late 19th and early 20th centuries). The main driving conflict is the fact that Mrs. Linde has received a job, the same job which Krogstad had formerly held. Without a job, Krogstad creates several of the side conflicts, one of which includes revealing that Nora had forged a signature, something which Helmer, as a banker, would never forgive her for. The result is that Nora constantly reacts to her situation, instead of being in control and acting, while she is eventually able to overcome the hardships of her tight situation, it is later revealed to Helmer that Nora had, indeed, forged a signature, but despite this, he forgives her. Nora, however, cannot forgive herself and she abandons Helmer and their children. (Sorry for the poor plot description, this was the best understanding I could get, as there is very little that I found memorable).
While the ending comes across as melodramatic, the author does communicate an important and revolutionary message for that time, but everything from the beginning forth, was dry. Maybe it was because it had not been acted out for me, but the dialogue is somewhat simplistic and any soliloquies were brief and unmemorable (that said, the language is easy enough to comprehend, so it is a double-edged sword really). Then again, I am comparing this to the likes of Shakespeare and Arthur Miller, who both used action and dynamic conflicts as a means for setting up for things like plot twists or conclusions, which often led me to be at the edge of my seat.
As a side note, a couple of weeks age, I went to a local used book store and wandered over to the classics section and there were 20 copies of A Doll's House, all different editions and almost all apparently student copies for reading courses, so it would seem that I am not alone in my (dis)liking of A Doll's House. I do not recommend this book if you are to read Ibsen (I have heard that some of his other works have aged better, despite the significance of A Doll's House), unless you are accustomed to these type of plays (that is, reading these plays, as opposed to being performed, as intended), but do not let me stop you from reading this work, the ending is definitely worth a read.