CBR17 Book 11: "Et dukkehjem (A Doll's House)" by Henrik Ibsen

Page count: 100 pages

Rating: 5 stars

I don't know if a spoiler warning for a nearly 150-year-old play is necessary - but I will be revealing significant plot points when writing about this historical drama, so if you want to remain unspoiled, go read the play (it's only three acts, it's a relatively quick read) or watch a dramatisation, and come back when you're done. 

Nora and Torvald Helmer are a middle-class couple living in Christiania (what Oslo was named for a few centuries in the before times) in the late 1800s. They have three children, and some servants (a nanny and a parlour maid). The play takes place around Christmas and in the days following. This was a time when women didn't have any legal rights and the central conflict of this play comes about because Nora, in the past, took out a loan (forging her father's name on the contract to do so). She did it to save her husband's health but has always had to keep her illegal act a secret. Now her past is coming back to haunt her, with the man she borrowed money from, Krogstad, blackmailing her to keep his job. Nora needs to ensure Krogstad isn't fired, or he will tell her husband the truth, and the ensuing scandal could mean Torvald loses his new advantageous job as a bank manager. 

I honestly don't remember how many times I've read this play by now. I first read it in high school, with a Norwegian teacher who showed absolutely zero enthusiasm about the work, and as a result, I wasn't exactly impressed by it and remembered it as boring and pointless. Et dukkehjem/A Doll's House is now part of the curriculum in Norwegian for our tenth-graders at the school where I work and I myself have taught the play at least four times now. Unlike my high school teacher, who really just assigned us all the play to read with some accompanying work tasks (if I recall correctly), my colleagues and I read through the play act by act with the students, who take turns reading out the various parts, and we watch different dramatisations for the kids to compare and contrast. The last time I taught tenth grade, and again this time, we also showed them the first season of the Norwegian web series Skam as another comparison point, which they seemed to really like. I have no illusions that I'm instilling a great love of 19th Century realist literature in my pupils, but I'm hoping that some of them find their introduction and work with this play less off-putting than I did in school.

Suffice it to say, my opinion on this play has changed massively from my first reading of it (probably because I didn't really pay attention to it when it was one of many assigned texts). Ibsen himself claimed not to have set out to write a feminist rallying cry, but the drama remains relevant and extremely popular to this day (Ibsen remains one of the most dramatized playwrights worldwide, after Shakespeare). Nora's change from a sheltered, rather naive housewife to a woman determined to put herself first, sacrificing everything to discover who she really is, even knowing how difficult it will be is really impressive, especially given the time it was written. Torvald really is an absolutely insufferable misogynist (he's utterly odious and I had forgotten that not only does he speak to Nora appallingly, but he also mansplains why knitting is unfeminine to her friend Mrs Linde, as well), who is given several chances to redeem himself, and consistently fails at it. He sees Nora as a decorative object, a sweet plaything and constantly belittles and rebukes her if she tries to talk about anything non-frivolous. The only one who sees at least some parts of the true Nora is Doctor Rank, her husband's best friend, who would probably have made her a much better husband, had she met him first. Part of the tragedy of this play is that it's quite clear that Nora loves her idiot of a husband until his true character is finally revealed and it becomes impossible for her to lie to herself any longer. 

By the end of the play, having had it proven without a shadow of a doubt that her husband will never see her as anything but an air-headed object, Nora makes the choice to leave her family behind (it's not like she'd ever be granted custody of her children, anyway), because she cannot live the lie that she has discovered her marriage is. This was a hugely shocking finale at the time of the play's release, so much so that in Germany, Ibsen was forced to write an alternate ending, where Nora changes her mind and stays with Torvald, after all. It is rumoured that he originally considered this for the play in the first place until his wife exclaimed "Either Nora leaves, or I do." 

I cannot in good conscience rate this play any lower than 5 stars. It's a classic for a reason. I used to prefer Hedda Gabler, but the protagonist of that play is just so mean. Re-reading it yet again, I was also struck by what a massive undertaking it must be for any actress portraying Nora. In the three-act play, there is literally one short scene in the third act where Nora isn't present on stage and has most of the lines. No wonder it must be a gift of a part for an actress to play. 

Judging a book by its cover: My thin paperback copy of the play is a pleasing shade of purple, with a grumpy-looking cartoon Ibsen glowering from one side.

Crossposted on Cannonball Read. 

#CBR7 Book 135: "Macbeth" by William Shakespeare

Page count: Don't know, read it online
Rating: 4 stars

Just to be clear, I am not going to include any spoiler warnings for this play, since it's somewhere between 406-416 years old (sources seem to disagree exactly when it was written). If, for some reason, you're worried about having major plot points or deaths (there's a whole bunch, guys) ruined for you, then it's probably best that you skip this review entirely.

So Macbeth or the Scottish play. Despite having English lit as my minor at university, and Scottish history as part of my major, I had never actually read the play until now. The new movie version with my future husband, Michael Fassbender, in the title role, comes out here at Christmas, so I wanted to have read the source text before going to see it. I knew most of the major plot beats, because well, I haven't lived in a cave for most of my life. The story is quite frequently referenced in pop culture. One of my favourite references may be the Lancre witches in Terry Pratchett's Discworld.

For those of you who may be fuzzy on the details (but are still here because you don't mind being spoiled about something that's 400+ years old) - Macbeth is a trusted Scottish general, whose forces have just beaten Ireland and Norway at the beginning of the play. On his way from the battlefield, accompanied by fellow general Banquo, the men come across three witches. They hail Macbeth as "thane of Glamis, thane of Cawdor and he who will be King hereafter." They also claim that Banquo's descendants will sit on the Scottish throne. The men disregard the prophecies, until they meet King Duncan, who pleased and grateful, does reward Macbeth with the thaneship of Cawdor. The previous thane was convicted of treason and will be executed.

Since two out of three parts of the witches' prophecy have come true, the ambitious Macbeth can't get their words out of his head. When he confides in his lady wife, she's pretty clear that they're going to have to off the king to ensure Macbeth becomes king of Scotland. As Duncan and his men will be staying at Macbeth's castle in Inverness, they'll have the perfect opportunity. Getting his personal guard dead drunk, Macbeth murders the king and blames Duncan's drunken bodyguards. He then has them put to death before they can deny their guilt.

To secure his place on the throne, Macbeth can't just kill the king, of course. Luckily for him, Duncan's two sons flee and can therefore be framed for the murder. Of course, Banquo heard the witches' prophecy and might suspect the truth, plus there was that pesky foretelling that Banquo's heirs would at some point take the throne. So Macbeth sends assassins after his old friend. Banquo's son escapes and Banquo's ghost shows up in the throne room to freak out his former buddy.

As he gets more unstable, unhinged and murderous, Macbeth doesn't exactly gain loyal followers. He feels slightly safer after new prophecies from the witches, claiming "no one born of woman" can harm him. He warned about Macduff, the thane of Fife, though, who was one of Duncan's loyal men. Sending assassins to murder the man's wife and entire family certainly ensures his enmity for life.

As the previously formidable and ruthless Lady Macbeth is driven completely mad with guilt and ends her life, Macbeth keep making deeply questionable choices. Macduff and Malcolm, Duncan's son and heir, gather an army to fight him. Turns out that Macduff was "from his mother's womb untimely ripped" and hence can totally kill the power mad tyrant Macbeth has become.

While I may have studied English literature, there are a lot of Shakespeare's plays I've just never gotten round to reading. Macbeth is probably the most famous of the tragedies I still had on my TBR list. The plot didn't really hold any surprises for me, but there were a lot of famous lines and quotations throughout that I hadn't realised was from this specific play.

Not just had I never read the play, I've never seen any of the film versions either. Not the Japanese Throne of Blood or Polanski's adaptation from 70s. I haven't actually read any reviews of the new adaptation, starring Fassbender as Macbeth and Marion Cotillard as his lady. I have heard that apparently they've sidelined Lady Macbeth somewhat, which seems like a moronic choice, as Lady Macbeth clearly is the coolest character in the play. Blood-thirsty, murderously ambitious and utterly ruthless, yes, but much more impressive than any of the male characters. Cinema tickets are pricy nowadays and I won't fork out to see the film in the theatres if it's only going to be of middling quality. Having finally read the play, I can at least have an educated opinion about whatever choices they've made in adapting it.

Crossposted on Cannonball Read.

#CBR6 Book 17: "Nokon kjem til å komme" (Someone is going to come) by Jon Fosse

Page count: 80 pages
Rating: 1 star

A couple, he somewhere in middle age, around his fifties (according to the stage directions), she in her thirties arrive at a house by the ocean, in a remote and lonely location. Here they are finally going to be alone, alone together, away from everyone and everything. But she is worried. "Someone is going to come" she laments. Their perfect solitude will be shattered by outsiders, she's convinced of this. He tries to reassure her that no one will come, they will just be alone, together.

Of course, someone does come. Their closest neighbour, the young man in his twenties who sold them the house, is clearly desperate for company, what with living in such a lonely and remote location. The man hides as he approaches, and watches the neighbour's somewhat needy conversation with the woman. He is racked with jealousy. Perhaps she wasn't lamenting earlier? Perhaps she wanted someone to come? Maybe she'd rather talk to the young man than be alone with him in their new home?

As I mentioned in last year's review of The Son, a different Jon Fosse play that I had to read for my course back then, I'm not a fan of Modernist literature. As Fosse is one of the chief Neo-Modernist playwrights writing today, it was never going to be a good fit between us. I like the things I read to have purpose of some kind. I like characters to be complex and develop and my favourite stories are strongly character driven narratives, preferably with a bit of romance, action and adventure thrown in. This play is not very long, and there is little character or plot development to speak of. It's easy to read, because the same damn three lines keep being repeated ad nauseum throughout. "We will be alone", "Alone together, in our love", "Someone is going to come".

There are only the three characters in the entire play, and even the sadsack neighbour only appears in two scenes. It becomes painfully obvious as soon as he shows up that whatever relationship the couple are planning on having alone in by the sea is doomed to failure, if the man is going to fall to pieces with jealousy as soon as the woman so much as looks at another man. Perhaps buying a house in the middle of nowhere wasn't such a good idea?

Among the students of my course, there were also a lot of different interpretations of the tone of the play, and how the neighbour was perceived (which is one of the advantages of such a minimalist play with hardly any stage directions). Myself and several others thought he was a threatening presence, and that he acts aggressively pushy towards the poor woman, who also has to contend with an insanely jealous partner, who falls into a massive sulk and forces her to do any further communication with the neighbour, even when she appears very unwilling to do so. Quite a few felt that she'd do well to get the heck away from said lonely location as soon as possible, lest she be either murdered by her jealous partner, or assaulted by the desperate and lonely neighbour. Of course, if such a thing were to happen, there would actually mean something happened, which it doesn't. There's conversations outside the house, and inside the house, and nothing really seems to happen or come to a head or be resolved in any way.

Having now read two Fosse plays, I desperately hope I won't have to read anymore. I find him tedious in the extreme, a waste of time (although because his plays are so short, at least it's a blessedly short amount of my time being wasted) and I certainly don't see why anyone would want to pay money to see this frustratingly sparse play be acted out on a stage. I clearly have much better things to do than to read Neo-Modernist drama. If you like Beckett and Pinter, than you should absolutely check Fosse out, because he keeps being very favourably compared to them. In my case, this play is definitely going to be on my worst of the year list.

Crossposted on Cannonball Read.

#CBR5 Book 27. "Sonen" (The Son) by Jon Fosse

Page count: Not sure, it was part of a collection of plays
Rating: 1 star

Jon Fosse is a contemporary Norwegian novelist, poet and playwright and his works have been translated into more than forty languages (which isn't shabby for a Norwegian). He is highly critically acclaimed both nationally and internationally and apparently considered one of the world's greatest contemporary playwrights.

In the play Sonen, or The Son, an elderly couple (most likely living somewhere in the picturesque but often sparse region in the West of Norway - because that's where Fosse sets a lot of his works) go about their daily life in the same monotonous routine as every other day. They keep repeating the same phrases over and over, lamenting the darkness outside (it's worth pointing out that in the winter time, much of Norway barely gets any daylight at all) and the increasing lack of people in their little village. The young people move away to the cities because there is nothing to do, the old people wither away and die. The only light they see is the window of their neighbour's house. They wonder about their son, who they haven't heard from in months.

It seems their widowed neighbour, who is prone to drunkenness, has heard their son was in prison for some unspecified crime. They're not sure what to believe, but as they haven't heard from their son, they are worried and uncertain. When the long lost son suddenly shows up for a surprise visit, they don't know how to relate to him at all. The drunken neighbour's presence doesn't improve things.

The best thing about this play, which is one of the many texts I have to read for my current course, is that it's short. I read it in less than an hour. Having listened to a very interesting lecture, and several of my fellow students discussing the play earlier today convinced me that I wanted to give it a try, even though my previous attempts at Fosse's literary output in assorted short stories left me decidedly unmoved and unimpressed. I doubt I would've bothered finishing the play if I hadn't already listened to a very engaging analysis about it.

Fosse is classified as a neo-Modernist, and there is a lot of things in the play that reminded me of Becket and Pinter, while the play is a lot less absurd than some of their output. Now, I absolutely loathe Modernist literature, and I didn't like the extremely minimalist style in which Fosse writes. Because he leaves immense amounts of things unsaid in every scene, it's up to the reader to interpret and draw his or her own conclusions. There are very sparse descriptions and stage directions, leaving a lot up to the reader (or viewer, in the case of the play). The characters are incredibly passive, and static. Fosse has stated that he cares very little for obvious themes or messages in his works, and that's painfully obvious here.

Very little actually happens in the play. The mother and father are colourless, inscure and spineless. The drunken neighbour is like a malevolent serpent spreading unsubstantiated rumours. One might have a bit of sympathy with the son, but at the same time, the young man has been gone for over six months without any communication with his parents, so no matter how neglectful and inept his parents may have been in the past (and again, most of this is left up to the reader to interpret for themselves), he seems a bit callous and heartless. Then again, if your parents would rather believe unsubstantiated gossip from an alcoholic rather than your word, maybe you'd want to disown your parents too? Based on this play, and the previous short stories I've read, I'm not really interested in exploring more of Fosse's writing. He may be one of the great Norwegian writers of right now, but it's clear it's not for me.