Given there are only four or five of us active in these book discussions, I can't really see the need for a poll. Let's just talk this out.

I think there's agreement these discussions are richer for Ana Maria's participation, and her access to books is currently very limited. Here are her suggestions for books she currently has with her:


I have read all the Salinger works among the first dozen authors listed, and none of the others. I would be fine discussing any of them, and the Faulkner and Nabokov have been on my list for... well, for decades, to be honest. We should probably stay away from the Spanish works to avoid translation issues during discussion, I know that my Spanish is inadequate for reading them in the original. I would likewise advise staying with the paper books AM has with her so she doesn't have to slog though online texts -- I agree it's a horrible way to read literature of any substantial length.

I've read the Sophocles, Ibsen, Miller and Williams among the plays but have no objections to reading any of them again. If Carrie would like to start with A Doll's House or The Piano Lesson, that's fine by me.

Anyone else who's interested, jump on in!

I've read and own a copy of Doll's House, which I'd be happy to read again and discuss. Jake has a copy of Pale Fire, which I started to read coming right off Lolita, but I think the timing was bad. I was jonesing for more of the same, and it isn't. I would try again. I also have Death of a Salesman and the Glass Menagerie. I could probably locate a copy of the Faulkner.

I guess I'm saying I might participate this time around. It depends on what sort of lit I get for my birthday (Tues) and what y'all pick.

How exciting!

not that I'm voting for one of the spanish texts yet, but I completely disagree with you on this... I think having Ana Maria on board is an ideal time and reason to do one of the spanish texts, given the translation issues. She's probably the only one who's gonna be able to say "that part wasn't translated real well... here's what the author's really getting at" and that sort of thing.

but my top vote is for Pale Fire by Nabakov. it's the one on there that I haven't read, don't even own, and for some reason am excited at the chance and excuse to dig into.

Faulkner & Cummings look yummy too. And Journal of a Solitude does sound good (not familiar at all with it).

I've read the first book in Paul Auster's New York Trilogy. Don't know if the last 2 books enlighten any, but that's one book that could use some discussion. a real headscratcher.

I'm certainly open to anything on the list, although someone's gonna have to whet my appetite for Doll's House (and a few others on there) as I know zilch about it - haven't even heard of it before.

Just to be completist, here were Carrie's thoughts on the matter (from that other thread):
I'll share a few thoughts in a bit.

Regarding the books in Spanish--the Eco was translated from the Italian and the Saramago from the Portuguese, so I'll probably be in the same boat as the rest of you. However, it might be cool to pick a Latin American (or Spanish) writer at some point in the future (and it would encourage me to take out a subscription to the local library!). Since reading Don Quixote last year, I've gained a whole new respect for translators (especially since Cervantes claimed to be writing a translation himself--from the original Arabic--what a joker!). It's quite the art form (and I adore Edith Grossman and Gregory Rabassa). Another litblogger and I are planning to discuss a certain Spanish poet's work online at some point this year (he'd read it in English and I in Spanish). So maybe further down the road we might feel adventurous enough do something like that.

And speaking of feeling adventurous...Pale Fire is one huge headtrip. And I love it. I can understand Anna's reaction in coming off Lolita, though. It's a completely different animal, but a deranged character figures prominently. I began reading it as an elaborate satire on the inanities of academia--but it's more than that. It's moving and funny and twisted and you never know quite where you stand. It's a literal labyrinth. It forces you to give it all your attention because there are so many clues strewn along the way.

Although I have not yet read Journal of a Solitude, it's one of the favorite books of Sabrina Ward Harrison (the artist whose book Spilling Open was on L&K's recommendation list). Here's some info on Sarton:Needless to say, I'm looking forward to reading this too.

I will always want to read and discuss Faulkner, Cummings, Salinger, and Percy.

Brook:No joke! I read this because of the Cervantes references and found that The Locked Room changed my perception of City of Glass. Dizzying stuff, but very interesting (and CoG creeped me out!). I should read more of his work.

A Doll's House would be excellent too. I saw the BBC production when I was younger (before reading it) and can remember how horribly conflicted I felt in considering...well...everything. A true moral dilemma piece--very powerful. (In fact, the translation I have calls it "A Doll House" since the house never really belongs to Nora...)

Matthew Broderick did "MASTER HAROLD"...and the boys when he was very young--I think you can still find copies of the film. I love this play. (Ooh...something else that should've gone on that list!) It exposes the insidious nature of racism in South Africa...but it's such a compassionate work. Amazing.

I have not yet read The Piano Lesson, something I felt keenly when Wilson recently passed away. So I need to get to that one this year too.

I'm leaning toward A Doll House (with or without the possessive) first because I think it would make for an interesting discussion and because I'd hate to see Brook go though life without reading anything by Ibsen. Plus I think I could probably cope with a mindbender like Pale Fire better during the summer when I have a little more free time. But I'm okay with any of these.

ok... so Pale Fire it is then!
(just kidding)

I'm all for A Doll House as our first book too.
Pale Fire can wait till summer.
maybe A Journal of Solitude could be on deck, if not next then soon, since it's one of the 5 books on this earth that Ana hasn't actually read yet .
we can figure out the rest later...

all aboard?

hmm.... I may give this a go. I'll continue to monitor this thread and see what you all pick. I've never been part of a book club in any sense and this may give me the shove I need. Any thoughts on the best way to pick up a copy of A Doll's House?

John, you can read it or download and print it here, or just about any library or bookstore will have an anthology of Ibsen's plays.

I completely agree with waiting on Pale Fire until the summer season of leisure. A play sounds so wonderful. This is quite exciting.

My server went down yesterday, so I'm on my (virtually non-existent) break at school... Don't know if it will be up later today (it was still down this morning), so I wanted to ask this while I had the chance:

Do you guy prefer reading it all at once and then discussing it, or breaking it up into segments to discuss as we go along?

Looking forward to it!! (We can call it A Doll's House in the thread, since that's how it's best known.)

Happiness.

I might just jump in. I should be able to read it in Norwegian. (It's been on my should have read list for years.)

Patrik

I am anticipating a lovely discussion here in the Orchard with my fellow apples.

My plan is to purchase A Doll's House sometime this week and then prepare to begin our dialogue. It sounds like most of you already have a copy of the play. Perhaps discussing it in sections will promote more conversation. How many acts is it?

Three acts.

Do you all think it would be better to go act by act, or to read the whole thing and then discuss it (like you did with The Shipping News)?

We can do act by act if that works for everyone else.

Excellent.

Ok. So should we say an act a week and begin on Sunday or Monday? Does that give everyone enough time to find a copy?

an act a week sounds great to me...
I'll try and get a copy of it soon, but I am a little afraid, as buying one thing at a bookstore usually leads to buying a stack of things ("if I'm going to buy this, I might as well buy this...and I wanted this just as much as that, so I might as well just get them both...and while I'm at it...")

And unless you're able to pick up a copy, you can find the online version here.

Patrik

Ok, I got my copy after work today. It says it's a "new updated version", whatever that means. Such a beautiful little thing.

I finished it again today. I know. I'm terrible.

Let us know what the "updated" stuff is. Is it just a new translation?

Oh, I do adore you! A girl after my own heart. I love that you finished it already. How many books do you read on average in a year? (if I might ask?)

Oh gosh, I have no idea. There's a list of books that I've finished up on my blog, which is about a year old. But I don't know how representative this is, given my circumstances.

Just printed and read Act 1 from Patrik's link. I must say that I haven't done much reading of this nature in years. Most of my reading is informational or research. Spent a bit of time reading some bio info on Ibsen also. Not sure how this whole Book Club thing works, so I'll keep monitoring this thread until others begin to post their thoughts on Act 1.

what a great play -- i've read it -- liked it -- and am interested to read others' thoughts.

I picked up the play at Borders on Columbus Circle before the Hem show last night, probably the same modern translation Carrie has. Read it on the train to and from NYC this morning.

I finished A Doll's House this morning. Gobbled it up in one fell swoop with my morning coffee. Ready to discuss!

just to let y'all know, I have just finished Act I. I have a feeling I'm the last one to do so, so unless there's others still reading that I'm not seeing (Patrick?), I think we can commence the beginnings of a discussion.

You all may already be sensitive to this, but as we get ready to discuss, keep in mind that some of us have only read Act 1. I would imagine it may be difficult to comment without bringing in the context of the rest of the play. With it being a fairly short work, though, we should catch up to you soon. Looking forward to the discussion.

Right. If we collectively decide to move on to the next one before the week's out (which is highly likely), then we can do so.

I finished Act II shortly after telling you I finished Act I, and I'm wondering now if we would be better off just reading the whole thing before discussing. I think Ghosty's write...

Gimme the rest of the day and I'll have it licked. Should be ready to discuss the entire work tomorrow if you all like.

so my friend says that she felt differently about the main character by act 3 than she did in 1 or 2, so maybe writing our impressions at this point might be a good idea (?)

Nora strikes me as a self-centered flighty woman who, though she claims to be doing certain things for others, is in reality simply trying to get her own way using other people as a smokescreen to her own motives. Her husband is a nice enough control freak, which is less or more acceptable depending on where in history's time frame this takes place. by today's standards he seems a bit of an ass, with his head up his own...

I like the character of K*, juxtaposed against that of Nora, as we think of him as your basic villian, yet he and Nora both had "good moral reasons" for doing what they did at the time...are really in the same boat, yet we only see the outside circumstances of K, whereas we see the inner workings in Nora, and they seem innocent enough at the time (good, if you take her word for it, self-centered but not that serious if you see her at this point the way I do/did).

that's all I got so far. I hope that's vague enough if you haven't yet read this...

*I'm too lazy to go look in my book for the banker's full name...

She does seem like a flighty child at this point, and seeing how manipulative she can be doesn't help matters. Yet I tend to think this is her husband's own fault (great description of that guy, Brook!). But I guess that brings up the issue of whose fault this superficial relationship really is? By responding to Torvald in this way, is she setting herself up and allowing him to perpetuate his ridiculous behavior towards her? Or is this her only option?

Great observation! I tend to see her motives as pure ones--what else could she do? I may have done the exact same thing in her shoes.

This is the part that particularly strikes me:She goes on to say,I know this is how I saw things when I was a teenager--that true justice would take these things into account. So maybe she is more childlike than childish?

(Random musings on a Sunday night...)

Regarding their relationship, I certainly think it's a two-way street - both of them contribute to the other's behaviour, both have a part to play in why they are the way they are and why the other is the way the other is.

regarding her motives, I still don't buy it. maybe, but I've known manipulative people who will justify anything they do under the guise of caring for the other. and I quote Madeleine L'Engle: "Whenever I love, I give away power. If I try to control or manipulate, then I am not loving, I am using power for my own good, even if I am convinced it's for someone else's good"

I think her character is open to interpretation though, and perhaps what we see on the surface is what there is: a simple minded, or better yet, naive approach to worldy affairs and her own relationships. perhaps she really does mean well for the other, doing what she knows at the time, and out of love at that. or more likely, it's a mixture of both natural self-centeredness and genuine love for others. the two generally don't mix any better than oil and water, but most all of us still try to make those two natures compatible.

I suspect my view of the thing will be turned upside down somewhere into the third act. I'll be headed there in just a few moments...

I don't see see Nora as self-centered myself, at least not any more so than most of us are. She's clearly very devoted to her husband. Like many physically atractive women, she learned growing up that she could barter her desirability for security. She and Torvald have an implicit contract: He is the protector and deals exclusively with the demands of the outside world, she keeps his domestic world in order and submits to him if there is a divergence in their individual goals.

Nora was put into an unusual position when she was told Torvald's health was in serious danger. She loved and depended on him, and also felt it was her duty as his wife (especially since he had become ill as a result of working multiple jobs to support the household) to see to it they were able to relocate to Italy. She also knew that her husband's pride, based on his rigid role as head of the household, would not allow either of them to take on debt. So she secretly borrowed money from Krogstad and willingly took on the hardships that would entail.

It's true she derives a sense of pride from saving her husband's life and taking the initiative for finding a solution for their dilemma. However, she also knows she has violated the implicit marriage contract both by dealing with the outside world without his consent and by putting herself in the role of Torvald's protector, and this causes her a great deal of discomfort.

She's terrified by the idea of him finding out. Her world would be unmade... And equally horrifying is the idea that by forging her father's signature to protect her family, she has broken the law and is subject to whoever wields that authority. It brings up all those great issues of the moral dilemma: What is moral? What is just? What is good?

Nora doesn't really have a clue regarding the seriousness of her forgery of her father's signature. Since she did it with the best of intentions (out of love and a sense of duty to her husband and her father) and felt honor-bound to repay the money on schedule anyway, she is sure she could never be considered a criminal.


Krogstad The law has no interest in motives.

Nora Then the law is very foolish.

Krogstad Foolish or not, if I were to present this paper to the court, you would be judged by that law.

Nora I don't believe that. A daughter can't protect her old, dying father? A wife can't help save her husband's life? I don't know the law very well, but I'm sure it must say somewhere that this is allowed.


Even after Krogstad makes the implications for her personal reputation clear if the forgery comes to light, she doesn't really believe there could be any serious legal or social repercussions when the nobility of her motives are taken into account. The seriousness of her transgression is only brought home to her later when Torvald speaks of Krogstad's unacknowledged forgeries:

Helmer Just think how guilty man like that has to lie and cheat and deceive everyone. Imagine it: his nearest and dearest, his own wife and children, they've never seen the real man behind the mask. And the children, well that's what makes it so terrible, Nora.

Nora Why?

Helmer Because an atmosphere of lies like that infects and poisons the whole life of a home. In a house like that every breath children take is filled with germs of evil.


There is considerable irony in Torvald's little speech that becomes painfully apparent in the final act.

All the same, I detect a certain undercurrent of panic in the way she talks to herself and refuses to play with the children right after Krogstad leaves:Her activity is nearly manic at this point--sheer busyness to take her mind off her fear.

Of course, by the end of Act I, she's "pale with terror," but still gives herself those pep-talks:

I read the whole thing through yesterday. Here are my thoughts briefly on Nora's character. (and this is what I see as the point of the whole play). If you haven't read the third act yet you might wanna skip this post.

In the beginning of the play she is completely consumed by her role as mother and wife, she is a doll in a dollhouse. Her entire personlaity is on the surface, it is about fulfilling other people's expectations on her. This is especially obvious since her husbands expectations on her are so trivial: she is supposed to be this pretty songbird, and nothing else.

Now the crisis at the core of the play makes her realize the falseness in her life, she discovers that she lacks a center in her personality. This triggers her metanoia, a conversion, a complete revaluation of herself. She finds in herself something that she finds is the center of her personality and decides to rebuild her life on this center, which involves leaving her family behind her.

Basically I read ther whole thing as a kind of secular conversion-story. In stead of finding God she finds herself (which is much the same thing anyway).

Now, what do you people think about this choice. I especially think about her abandoning the children. Is thi supposed to be scandalous or not? In our society it certainly is, I'm not 100% sure that's the way Ibsen thought about it. remember the scene when she says that the childmaid was a good mother to her. It's like she is leaving them in good hands, or something. I think the scandalous part then was probably that she acted on her own, abandoning her husband, whearas today we find that perfectly natural, and find her heartless relationship to the children disturbing.

Patrik

Excellent points, which we'll discuss as soon as everyone gets there.

I was kinda hoping we could work our way through the play for a couple of weeks before commenting on what happens to Nora at the end.

I'm sorry, but it is a quite short text. Also, considering it's a play, if it were acted out the characters would probably retain some chacteristics thoroughout the play which actors would pic up upon although they might appear only in the last act...

Patrik

Well so is Ecclesiastes, but I'll bet you don't breeze right through it like that!

Nothing to apologize for Patrik, I would just like to hear others' thoughts on Acts I & II before we get into the crux of the play.

ftr, I've read the whole thing.
I can't believe he KILLS her at the end!
I was not expecting that...

Yeah, the aliens was also a complete surprise to me. The appearence of the Goo Goo Dolls I expected though, given the title.

Ok, I'm back. This may sound ridiculous, but the thing just hits me like "I Love Lucy" on steroids. I've read the entire work, but I like Keith's suggestion about taking it in smaller chunks.

"Lucy and Desi" references aside, I would have to say that the thing that strikes me in the first two acts is the "desperation" being acted out by N and K. Btw, Brook, I thought your observation on the juxtaposition of these two characters was right on. Each of these characters comes face to face with desperation. I could really relate to this. Specifically, near the end of act 1 and beginning of act 2, Ibsen seems to try to develop this anxiety.

To me, it is this desperation that sets up the rest of the play (eventually, it seems that this will give way to a strangely purchased peace). Ibsen sets up Nora (especially) as a slave to routine. What better to obliterate routine than desperation. What better way to force an epiphany? I remember wondering during acts 1 & 2 "what nutty thing will she do?... How far will she go?"

I'll stop here for now. I'd like to read others' thoughts before commenting further.

Btw, I'm really glad I tagged along in this... thanks for having me.
John

EDIT to add a few "post teeth-brushing" thoughts...

1. Regarding Ibsen's description of the setting... the only things I actually visualized based on his descriptions were the door to Torvald's room, the letterbox (outside) and a general idea of a modest home. He gives quite a bit of information on the "setting", but I seemed to use very little.

2. I would think (and I'm getting ahead of the thread here a bit) that this play was considered shocking, if not worse, when it was written. I'll have more to say about that when we get to act 3.

3. I now know more about the Tarantella than I did previously thanks to this play and Wikipedia. Now I'm wondering about the title of the OtR song on DP.

So much to learn.... so little time.
J

And now, for the all-important question:

IKEA Product or Ibsen Character?


If John can invoke Lucy and Desi, I can surely invoke IKEA...

(Sorry, it's been a long week--I'll post something real soon!)

I got 22 out 30 which I guess is ok for somone who have read no Ibsen apart from this text and tries to avoid IKEA as much as possible. But Ibsen wrote in Norwegian and Ikea is swedish, and most names are just regular words, so it wasn't that difficult. (The lack of diacritics probably explains many of my errors though. It's Karriär not Karriar.)

Patrik

Do these book club threads usually move this slow? [serious question. I've never taken part in one... thx]